ih /^ ^:^ ^ o^ ISL ^^i. liia.^^' CIF TUE -IT PRINCETON, N. J. x> o iv -?v T X c> :v 4 ) Arlans, I believe, interpret them to lignlfy in the leginning of time : but St. John doth not fay this nor any thing elfe which could lead them to put fuch an interpretation upon his words ; he faith abfohitely, Ev ocpx^ n^ Xoyog, and what sv apx,n fignilies let Cice- ro explain for me. ^od femper moveturfetenm/n efi, &c. quineiiarn cateris qua 7noventur hie fans hoc friw cipium ejl movendi principii ; autem nulla e/i origo, nam e principio oriuntur cinnia, Tufc. Quaefl. lib. i. 23. Such objedlors quarrel with the wifdom of all the world, and of all ages ; for, this Was not the dodlrine merely of Cicero, but adopted by him from ages long prior to himfelf. In principio^ or iv oc^xv-, mult figm^y from all eternity, if ancient authority, or, in- deed, if common fenfe, has any influence over us ; becaufe e principio oriuntur omnia : and as St. John fays, exprefHy and abfolutely, that the Word exifted in principio, therefore neither the Socinian nor the Arian interpretations are at all admiffible ; for, the lEvangelill teacheth us, that the Word exifted from all eternity with God, sv cc^x^ ^^> — ^^' — ^^ ^f"^ '^^^ 0£ov : He was, or exifted, in the beginning ; and he exifted with God, zs-po; lov Gsov, in unity with God, and therefore was God ; for, ©sog r^v Koyoc. Here ingenuity, in endeavouring to fuggeft fomcthing which may militate againft the aifertion of the Evan- gelift, that the Word was God, hath made a dilco- very that the word Qco; is without the article, and, of courfe, whatever of divinity is implied in it, it is a divinity inferior to the Godhead of the Father. This, ( 15 ) This, it muft be owned, is a moft curious dKcovery, and has fet many a man hunting for fome pafTage in the New Teftament wherein the article is added to Osog, when the word is applied to Jesus Christ: a moft unneceffary employment, as the Arians' difcovery, if we may fo fpeak without offence, pro- ceeds from a miftake in not underftanding the Evangel ift's words. The article feems to be omitted defignedly by St. John ; for, had he inferted it, it might haA^e been interpreted as if the Xoyog alone was the Godhead, which was the fartheft imaginable from his intention. It is not omitted in diminu- tion of the Divinity of the Aoyo^, or to imprefs us with a notion as if he was an inferior God ; but to prevent us from imagining that the Supreme God ivas the Aoyog exclulively. The Supreme God is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, ^tc; Bgiv Q^o;, and therefore the article feems very pro- perly to be omitted when St. John fays '^cn Q^o; r^v J Ao/oj. However, the ufe or the omiffion of the article does not feem to be of any confequence fufH- cient to found an argument upon either the one way or the other. The objection of the latter Platonifts, and of the Socinians from them, that St. John's Aoyog is ftoJen from Plato, hardly deferves any notice. What Plato fays on this fubjedl is confufed and unfatisfa6lory. He borrowed the idea when he was in Egvpt, and, moft probably, obtained it by converfing with the I Jews ( i6 ) Jews there ; for, Egypt in his time was the mart of fcience; and, returning thence, fraught with a very imperfe6l comprehenfion of this fubjedl, he mixed it up with his own notions ; fo that his Koyog is a principle, or a prolation, or I know not what. Amehus, the Platonic philofopher, on reading St, John's Gofpel, we are told, exclaimed, " This bar- " barian hath transferred to himfelf the myfleries of " Plato with regard to the Word :" and very pro- bably he did exclaim thus ; for, being unacquainted with the Jewifh dodlrines and the writings of Mo- fes, and Plato having very carefully concealed from his countrymen the fource whence he derived his conceit of the 7^oyog, it was natural for him to exclaim by his Jupiter, that St. John had llolen his mafter's myfteries : but with what propriety the dif- ciples of Socinus can concur with Amelius, in object- ing to St. John, will not be eafy to determine, unlefs we fuppofe them to be as ignorant of the Scriptures as Amelius was. And, in like manner as they fay the doctrine of the Aoyoj is derived from Plato, fo alfo they pretend, that the do61:rine of the Trinity is derived from him likewife. But where does Plato ufe the term rpiagJ Clemens Alexandrinus, who was pretty well acquainted with the writings of Plato and with the Platonifts, tells us quite a different ilory, and that Plato only gives intimations as if he had fome notion of the doftrine of the Trinity ; for, after having referred to what he fays, sv ta zu-pog Epxgov kch Ko^ia-r.cv sTTigoKny and moreover to what he fays in his Timaeus, ( 17 ) Timosus, OvK ocKKoog syooys s^ax>ioo )j rov uyiov TCitocSa ljirivvso-&ui ; but, at the fame time, lie informs us, that Plato had his notion from the Hebrew Scrip- tures, OVK 0/S' OTTug SK Toov E'SpaiXMV ypocfpoov c-iJi/paiv-xv : fo that, in his opinion, the doctrine of the Trinity Was much more antient than Plato ; and, confe- quently, Plato could not have been the origin of it to the Chriftians, who were acquainted with, and underftood, thefe Hebrew writings infinitely better than ever Plato did. (Vid. Clem. Alexandrin. Strom, lib. V. p. 436. Sylburg.) Clemens Alexandrinus is reprefented by hiftorians as having flourifhed about the year 194, and as having written, if I miftake not, his Stromata, the following year. He was acquainted with, and had received inftru6tions from, thofe vv^ho had feen and heard the Apoftles themfelves; and therefore his mentioning the tov uyiov t^idc^ch, in the manner al- ready recited, affords a very ftrong prefumption, that the doctrine of the Trinity was the do6lrine of the Apoftolic age. Novel it could not have been at the time when he wrote ; for, he mentions it as a dodlrine generally known and received: and, from, Plato, or the Platonifts, it could not have been de- rived ; for, their knowledge did not extend fo far. That the Platonifts wifhed to reprefent their matter's opinions, concerning the Deity, as coin- ciding, as nearly as poffible, with the dijdrine of Q the ( i8 ) the Chriftians, is, I believe, unqueftionable ; and, on this account it is, that Clemens wifhes his reader to interpret what he refers to, from Plato, as giving fome intimation of the do61rIne of the Trinity; a doctrine which he himfel-f fuppofes to have been more antient than Chriftianity ; for, Plato he fug- gefts to have obtained his knowledge of it from He- brew writings, prior to the promulgation of the Gofpel. And, as this is the cafe, what fhall we fay to thofe modern writers, who would perfuade us, that the do6trine of the Trinity was unknown to the primitive Chriftians ? If it was not adopted by them, - they, neverthelefs, muft have known the doctrine, becaufe it was a current do6lrine in their own times, and prior to them ; and, if they knew the dodlrine, and did not approve of it, doubtlefs they would have oppofed it with their utmoft ftrength, and would have been moll guardedly cautious in all their ex- prefficns, left any thing fhould have fallen from them, which might feem to give countenance to a dodlrine which they difcovered : but, where, either in the New Teftament, or in the writings of the pri- mitive Chriftians, is there a fyllable to be found in condemnation of the do6lrine of the Trinity ? If any fuch there is, let it be produced ; but, if there be none fuch, as aflliredly there is none, let us not be afraid to adopt a doctrine, which, although current in their days, has not been condemned by our Lord, or by his Apoftles. I have mentioned this only by the way, but, as well worthy the attention of thofe who. ( 19 ) who, with fo much illlberality, abufe the Chrlllian do6trine of the Trinity, and the Chriftians who maintain it. Let us now return. If Plato was not the origin of the do6lrme of the Trinity to the Chriftians, Plato and his philofophi- cal interpreters were the origin of Arianifm. Arius was himfelf a prefbyter of Alexandria ; and at Alex- andria was the fchool whence all the moft celebrated Platonifts proceeded. With their writings he was perfe6lly well acquainted; and, probably, not ap- proving of their and Plato's principle, which had a diredl tendency to the introdu6lion again of a mul- tiplicity of Gods into the world, he thought he would fteer a middle courfe between their opinions and the principle of the Chriftians. The principle of the Chriftians was, that there were three equal perfons in the Divine unity : that of the Platonifts was, that there were three divine principles, differing in nature from each other, which they called, the Father; the Word, or l>iovg; and 'fvx^ rov Kocr^ov, the Soul of the World. Some of them even ftopped Ihort of this, and conceived the Xoyo-; not to have a diftin6t exiftence, but, to be the wifdom, the in- telligence, of the Father, as if he exifted only in idea ; whence proceeded the error of thofe heretics who maintained, that Christ the Word was 1J//A05 ccv9pi'07rog. Differing in opinion from thefe, and not willing either to concur in the introduction of poly- theifm into the world, or to afnrm that Christ wa5 c a a mere ( 20 ) 3L mere man, Arius taught that Christ was Go-i> as well as man ; that in fubftance he was 'O/xo/oicr/oc, like unto the Fatiier, and that he was begotten of him, but inferior, and fubje(5l to his will. Here, then, how, in fa6l, does Arius differ from the Pla- tonifts ? Nay ; how does he differ from the general principle of the Heathens, with their Dii Majores & Minores? If Christ was God, as Arius acknow- ledges, and, if he was inferior, and fubjeft to the ivill of God, as he maintains likewife, then muft Christ have been fubjedl, and inferior to himfelf ; for, there is no medium between what is, and what is not, God. By the word God. we underftand the firft fupreme, eternal, unfubjecfted, caufe of all exiftence : and this Chrift is, if he is God ; but, if he is, in his fubftance, inferior to God, and is God in fubftance himfelf, then is he inferior to himfelf; which is nonfenfe, on a fuppolition that there is but one God : but, if the iVrians fuppofe that Christ is an inferior God, then how, in this refpe6l, does Arianifm differ from the Polytheifm of the Heathens ? If Christ is God, as the Arians acknowledge; and if he is inferior to God, as they maintain likewife; then are there more Gods than one : there is a Major and a Minor God ; and, con- fequently, the Arian differs nothing from the Hea- then. The do6lrine of Arianifm is the Monjirwny and not the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is an uniform, conliftent, do6trine ; and, when it afcribes Divinity to the Son and the 4 Holy ( 21 ) Holy Ghost, afcrlbes it in fuch a manner as by no means to impeach the unity of the Godhead. It is grounded on Divine revelation ; it defends Itfelf by no other arguments and proofs, but fuch as reve- lation affords ; nor ever owed its origin to philofo- phy, falfely fo called, or the bewildered difputations of an Alexandrian fchool. Its bahs is the Scripture, and the Scripture alone ; and, unfupported by that, it has no other refource. But, what is the refource of the Arians ? Not the Scripture ; but vain reafon- ings of their own, the idle fophiftry of perverfe minds, puifed up with the imaginary knowledge of things which lie infinitely beyond their reach. The Mahometan, and the Socinian, are much more con- ififtent in their faife theories than the Arian. The former acknowledges one only God, and that he has no fon, nor partner. He acknowledges that Christ Vv^as born of a Virgin, and that he had a pre-exiftence, but holds the Chrifiian in abhorrence. The Socinian profeiTes, that there is one God only; he faith that Christ was a mere man ; he rejedleth what St. Matthew and St. Luke have faid concern- ing him; and denies that Christ had any pre- exillence ; but, withal, profeiTes himfelf to be a Chriftian. Arius profefles to believe, that there is one God only, who is the Father ; that he has a Son, who is Jesus Christ; that Jesus is of a fubftance like unto the Father; and that he is God. The incon- c 3 liftency ( 2^ ) liftency of this needs not be pointed out ; it is evi- dent; for, if he is God, and not of the fame fub- ftance v.'ith the Father, then is he God, diftindl from the Father; confequently, there are two diftin(5l Gods : and yet the Arians profefs to believe, that there is one God only, in direct oppoHtion to their own profeiFion, that there are two Gods, of fubftances diftinct from each other. It is not at all improbable, that tliefe abfurd and contradictory te- nets of the Arians gave birth to the errors of Soci- nus ; errors with which at prefent the minds of too many are bewildered; and, therefore, perhaps, it may not be amifs to fubjoin a word or two concern- ing them. From whatever fource the errors of Socinus were derived, the modern Socinians have opened for themiclves a fountain of very great antiquity. No longer characterizing themfelves by the title of their founder and KayyjyyjTyic, they have renounced the name of Socinus^ and chufe to be diftinguifhed as Unitarians, being equally adverfe to the Arians as to the Catholic Chriftians. Their origin, as they chufe to inform us, is from one Ebion, in the Apoltolic ao-e, who, with his followers, maintained, that Je- sus Christ had no exiltence prior to his birth of Mary the wife of Jofe'ph; and, in order to fupport tlielr affcrtion the better, as they received the Gof- pel of St. Matthew, v/hich was point-blank againil them, they rejedted the three firft chapters of it. Her 6;, ( ^3 ) Here, then, we are to enquire who this Ehion was. Moft probably no fuch perfon ever exifted, unlefs' It was Cerinthus himfelf ; for, Ebion is not a proper name, but a name of difgrace, which the firll Chriftians affixed to the original perverters and cor- rupters of the Gofpel. The name Is very well ex- plained in the interpolated Epiftle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. \Lciv Tig Afyjj fj.sv ivcc &iov, o^oKoyvi §f Tioci y^f>i<;o)> IvjcovVy \l/iKov ^£ av9^oo7TOV sivcci vo^in] tcv Ku- piov, ov^i ©sov ixovoyEvr], &C. sgtv o roiovTog 'uxiv^g r/^v 5/- •cvcifv, oog sTTiKuKsiTai EQmv. Such an one labours under a poverty of underftanding, as the furname Ebion lignifies. In a note on this paffage is given an extract from Et/febius, confirming the truth of what is tliere faid, with regard to the fignification of the word Ebion ; and, as the epiftle is faid to have been interpolated long after the time of Eufebius, the interpretation, very probably, was borrowed from Eufebius. The words are, tcv EQmv ovo^uTog mv r^g ciuvoiocg W/W^f/av ccvrooy V'7:o.paivovToc, jccvt^ yucz ttix-Kviv 7if}(A}x°S 'Sirap' ''E^^aiOig ovo^a(^iTaL» Ebionis jiomine paupertatern meniis eorutn ^'denotante^ fic efiim pauper apud Hebrceos nominari folet» (Eufeb. 1. 3. Hift. Ecc. Kz^» x^.) Hence, then, it appears, that Ei?ion was a name applicable to any of the infatuated corrupters of Chriftianity; and, therefore, we may conclude, (however fome of the Fathers fpeak, as if there really had exifted fuch a perfon as Ebion,) yet, tiiat the name never was the perfonal name of any particular man, but was only chara6leriftic and applicable to c 4 any ( 44 ) any who was TinvYii oiavoiav. Hence, Epiphanius Calls Cerinihus Ebion. We are told by Irenaeus, (1. iii. c. 3.) that there were perfons living in his time, v/ho had heard Polycarp relate the following circumftance of St. John, at a bath at Ephefus : his words are thefe : Iccccvv/i^ rev Kv^iov ^u^riTYti sv tj) 'E^co-ca is-opsv' S:-:g Ksva-aa-Qui, kul i^oov S(roo Kyj^ivSov i^TjKciTO zov (SaKoc- ysiov [JL?} Kova-ajMSVog, aAA' STTSiTVCAjVy (LvyooiJiSVf fM'/j xcei to (3ccXai'iiov crvy.7rs(rv}y svlov ovTog KrjoivSov tov tj;s aXy}9iiag sx^ov, Epiphanius, relating this very fame cir- cumftance, calls Cerinthus EbioHy (Contra Haeref. 30.) that is, whereas Irenaeus fays, it was Cerinthus who was the enemy of truth, and on whofe account St. John quitted the bath, left he fhould perifh in the ruin of it with the Haerefiarch, Epiphanius fays, it was Ebion. Here, then, Epiphanius muft either, by miftake, have written Ebion inftead of Cerinthus, or he muft delignedly have ufed Ebion as charadle- riftic of Cerinthus ; or, at thp time when the affair happened," Ebion muft have been in the batli toge- ther with Cerinthus. This laft, although the fug- geftion of a very learned man, feems to be wholly inadmiflible ; as, doubtlefs, Irenaeus would have mentioned it, had it been the truth : but, what Ire- nceus fays, is wholly confined to Cerinthus, without even a hint at any other perfon ; and, therefore, vv c may certainly conclude, that the tov tjjs KKr,9sic] X^i^i ccmov. But, it is be obferved, that this is not faid of the "Koyog, but of the Son, /. e. of the man who, by the union of the Koyog with him, became the wo;, the Son of God. Until then the final pe- riod of the difpenfation, all things are delivered into the hands of the Son ; but, when that period fhall be fully come, and the vi6lory over death and hell be completely accomplifhed ; when all things fhall be fubdued unto him ; then, faith St. Paul, Hiall the Son, viog, alfo himfelf be fubjedl unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. The > Unity, and are totally inapplicable to that whole Unity which fubfifts between the Father and the Son : For, the Father and the Son iv sin ; but the unity of Chriftians is sig Iv, in accord, in the agreement of their minds ; which were to be as clofely, as per- fectly united, and in their mutual concurrence as Void of all diftin6lion as the fubftance of the Father is void of all diftindlion from the fubftance of the Son. In the verfe immediately preceding the paf- fage under conlideration, it is faid, " That they all '* may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in /' thee, that they alfo may be one in us;" hu yml amoL sv YiiMV sv ootlv -, which words fhew clearly, that llie unity of the Father and the Son is more than the Unity which was to prevail among Chriftians, and confequently, that it could not be determined by it, and the words, without any force put upon them, may be thus paraphrafed : " That they may partici- " pate in that portion of our unity {iv y'jxiv) of *' which they are capable, in the continued concur- '' rence of their hearts and minds;" which was ve- tified, as we read, among the firft Chriftians, Ads iv. 32. " And the multitude of them that believed, *' were of one heart and of one foul ;" jj :iuphcc %ui But, if the words "I and the Father are one," ftgnify in confent only, the Jews who heard them muft have been guilty of a ftrange mifappreheniion ; lor, is not, ought not, every good man to be united R in. ( 50 ) in Ills confent to the Divine wili3- How, then, could the Jews pollibly think that there was any thing cri- minal in the words ? or, that they were a blafphemy to be punifhed with death ? and yet the EvangeHft tells us, thus they did conceive of them ; for, he fays, *' Then took they up ftones again to Hone ** him." Nay, they themfelves, in aniwer to our^ Lord's queftion, for which of his good works they ftoned him ? plainly Ihew, that they did not inter- pret them of unity of confent only ; for, their words are, " For a good work we flone thee not, but for *' blafphemy, and becaufe, that thou, being a man, *' makeft thyfelf God." After fo plain a manifefta- tion of the interpretation they put upon his words, why does not our Lord, if he meant unity of con- fent only, explain his meaning to them ? Why does he not tell them that he did not mean thereby to call liimfelf God ? Why does he not reduce them from tlie error in which they were, and whereby his own ]ife was threatened ? But he does nothing of this kind : on the contrary, by his anfwer, he fully ac- knowledges the truth of their interpretation, and more ftrongly affirms the truth of his own Divine nature. In their law, he tells them, it is written, I have faid ye are Gods; and, " if he called them Gods, to *' whom the Word of God came," and properly called them fo, ** for the Scripture cannot be broken, *' fay ye of him whom the Father hath fanftified and " fent into the world;" that is, by the union of the divine and human nature, */ Thou blafphemeft, *' be- ( 51 ) ^' becalife I faid, I am the Son of God';" In other words ; If, in your law, the men are without blaf- phemy, called Gods, to whom the Word of God only came ; and j if you allow that there was nothing of blafphemy in their being fo called, why ihould you think it blafphemy for the man to whom the Word of God is united to fay, I am the Son of God ? But you fay, that I am only a man, that the Word of God is not united to me, and that I am not the Son of God. " If (faith our Lord) I do ** not the works of my Father, believe me not;" for then it will be plain, that I am not the Son of God, ' and that the Word of God is not united to me; ** but, if I do, though ye believe not me, yet be- ** lieve the works, that ye may know, with affu- *' ranee, and believe that the Father is in me and I " in him. Therefore, faith the Evangelift, they " fought again to take him," not only becaufe he had not retra6ted what he had faid before to them, but had affirmed it the more ftrongly. — One word more before we quit this chapter ; and it is to recom- mend it to the very particular notice and attention of the reader, that the words, ''Tiog lov Qiov siyj, are in this chapter plainly fynonymous with Eyco nai o Hocjvi^ Iv £o-fi,sv; for the Jews had charged our Lord with blafphemy, becaufe he had faid, " I and the *' Father are one; but, in his anfwer to them, the fiippofed blafphemy is afcribed to his having faid that he was the Son of God. Hence are we mofl alTuredly taught, by our Lord himfelf, that the E a term. (52) term, '^ Son of God," always implies in it, that li^ is a partaker in the Divine nature* Lazarus, whom Jesus loved, was lick: when he heard of it he laid, (John xi. 4.) " This licknefs is *' not unto death, but for the glory of God, that ** the Son of God might be glorified thereby." IF the Son of God was not in unity with God, how was the Son*s glory the glory of God ? But here it is expreflly faid, that the glory of the Son, was the glory of God-, t^Trip iv^g lo^r,s zov O-ov Iva ^c^aa-Syj & 'Tio; Tcv ©fo'j y ccimjg. Had the conjunftion >cai in- tervened, and the text had bee>n xai iva lo^aaSri, &c. the cafe might have been otherwife ; but, as it is, we are moft plainly taught hereby, that the glory of the Son of GaD is the glory of God ; and there- fore, that the Son of God is God. This paffage, compared with John xiii. 31, marks the difference betv/een the terms, '' Son of God," and " Son of " Man ;" for, there it is written, '' Now is the Son " of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If *' God be glorified in him, God iliall alfo glorify «* him in himfelf, and fhall ftraightway glorify " him." Here we are taught, that the glory of the Son of Man is a communicated glory, the glory of God in him ; but the glory of the Son of God is the proper glory of God, the proper glory of himfelf as being God ; whereas the glory of the Son of Man is not a glory proper^ eflential to himfelf, but is the glory of God in himj and, therefore, God was glo- fj rified ( 53 ) rifled by the Son of Man's being glorified ; Ni;v 5J0- ^oco'^vi ° ^^^i '^^^ ay9poo7rov koci 6 &sog e^o^aa^'/i sv avTOc* It is hence almoft impoilible not to obferve, how the errors of thofe minds, which are not per- fuaded of the truth of our Lord's Divinity, pro- ceed, in all probability, from inattention to the two chara6lers which he fuftained, as the Son of God, and the Son of Man. In the prefent inftance, where the words are fpoken in confequence of Judas having withdrawn for the purpofe of betraying him, it all belonged to him as the Son of Man. In the former inftance they all belonged to his Divine chara61:er ; in this, he exerted his Divine power, in recalling a man to life, who had been dead, and four days bu- jied ; and therefore that exertion of power is faid to be for the glory of God, without any regard had, or notice taken, of his being the Son of Man. In that, where fufferings were to be the confequence of the treachery of Judas, it is therefore faid, Now is the Son of Man glorified, who alone was to endure thofe fufferings, without any regard had, or notice taken, of his being the Son of God only, as GoU ivas in him ; therefore, through his fortitude and patient perfeve ranee under them, God would alfo confequentially be glorified. • Let us now proceed to the next chapter, John xiv. a chapter much to be obferved, and which, if we do not admit, our Lord's Divinity is abfolutely unintelligible. Our Lord, comforting his difci- E 3 pies. ( M ) pies, bids them, that they Hiould not be troubled^ "Ye believe in God, believe alfo in me." The Greek is, n/$5tiT.: sig jov (dzov, xui sig s^s ■zjr/$-iu:-T5. Upon this it is obvious to remark, that the fame faith which is required of them towards Goj]!, he re- quires of them towards himfelf ; it is a faith ng ©gov and sig iixc. Now, where the faith is equal, they who require that faith mull be equal likewife. Ne- ver yet was it heard, that the fame faith was due to ^ created being, or to what is not God, as to God the Creator himfelf; but here the Son ex;a(5ls of his (lifciples the very fame faith, which furely he woulcj not do, if his being were different from the being of God; and his exa6ling it of us, if he is not Godi himfelf, is leading us into an error ; which it is im- pollible for him to do. After fome intervening difcourfe, he faith to his difciples, " If ye had known me, ye fhould have *' known my Father alfo; and, from henceforth, ye f know hiiri, and have feen him.''' Thefe words the difciples not at all comprehending, Philip faith to him, *' Lord fhew us the Father, and it fufficeth f* us." He is anfwered in thefe very remarkable words, " Have I been fp long time with you, and *{ yet haft thou not known me, Philip ? He that f ' hath feen me hath fcen the Father ; and how fay- *' eli thou. Shew us the Father ? Believeft thou not <' that I am in the Father, and the Father ui me} *' The words that I fpeak unto you, I fpeak not of *' my-» ( 55 ) *' rayfelf, but my Father that dwelleth in me, he *' doeth the works. Believe me, {wigsvers ^jioi,) that *' I am in the Father and the Father in me, or elfe " beheve me for the very work's fake." I have given this paffage at its full length, and now requeft the reader to try what fenfe he can make of it, If the Son is not God, in unity with the Father; I do not mean that he Ihould try by what juggling and leger- demain tricks he may get rid of its force, but how, by any fair and honeft mode of interpretation, he can interpret ibe/e words into any fenfe if Jesus Christ is not God in unity with the Father. The word sMpanars may indeed be interpreted of the mind's eye of contemplation ; but I do not know that it can be fo interpreted, except the a6lion of the bodily organ hath firft intervened, where a per- fon is not in a trance, nor hath his vifual powders fufpended by fleep. But let us fuppofe it to be otherwife : let us fuppofe, that the difciples, who were neither in a trance, nor afleep, are told, " that *' he, who in his mind hath contemplated me, hath in " his mind alfo contemplated the Father," and that the contemplation of the Son neceflarily involves in it the contemplation of the Father, what will be gotten hereby ? Nothing : for, if the Father and the Son have not the fame nature, the contemplation of the one will not involve in it the contemplation of the Other, any more than the contemplation of a circle will involve in it the inftrument by which it is de- E 4 fcribed; ( 56 ) fcrjbed; for, afluredly, a man may contemplate a, circle without having given the moll diftant notion of that by which it is defcribed. Who would not be laughed at who fhould fay, he that hath feen a circle hath feen a pair of compaffes ? And it would be equally as abfurd, if the Son hath not the fame nature as the Father, to- fay, he that hath feen the Son hath feen the Father alfo ; for, if the Son hath not the fame nature as the Father, it is impollible that in the Son the Father fhould be feen, whether by the eye of the body, or of the mind ; for, moil certain we may be, if vve give credit to the whole tenor of the Gofpel, that the perfon of the Son is. not the perfon of the Father; and, therefore, it ftiould feem, that the words we have been coniider- ing do not relate to a perfonal view of the Son, and by confequence, if they do not relate to a perfonal view of him, they muft relate to him in fome other view, common equally to the Father as to the Son, that is, in the view of that Divine nature which is common to both. Hence, he that hath feen the Son hath feen the Father alfo. The contemplation of the Son's Divine nature is the contemplation of the Father's, becaufe, the Divine nature is one only; juft as by an imperfedl illuftration we may fay, the. contemplation of the human nature in one man is, the contemplation of the hurhan nature in the whole fpecies, becaufe the human nature is one only, and not diverfiiied. That ( 57 ) That we do not mllinterpret our I/Orb's words when we thus afcribe them to his participation in the unity of the Divine Nature, there is the greateft reaion to beheve, becaufe he fays, *' Beheve me ^' that I am in the Father, and the Father in me/' Now what poffible meaning can be affixed to thefe words if they do not require us to believe the unity of the Son, in the divine nature with the Father, Perfonal identity, we are well affured, they cannot relate to ; and, if they do not, there is no other iden - tity to which they can relate, but identity of nature If, indeed, the words are fuppofed to have no litera\ meaning, then conjedture may boldly traverle its own regions without interruption, and the v^ords may lignify any thing or nothing, according to the track in which the imagination wanders. But, if they have a literal meaning, no conjeAure or rea- foning upon the fubjecft is admiffible, which is not founded upon the balls of that literal meaning : and a literal meaning they moft aflliredly have, or they have no meaning at all. For Philip, not conceiving Jiow he could be faid to have feen the Father, fays, *' Lord, iTiew us the Father, and it fufficeth us.'' This requilition is a plain and literal one, and there- fore required an aniwer that fhould be plain and li- teral likewife ; for, if it did not literally apply to the queftion, it would be fo far from being fatif- fa(Story to the enquirer, that it would rather be deemed an evalion than an anfwer. What then is the anfwer ? It is an anfwer that truly and literally applies ( 58 ) applies itfclf to the queftion : " Have I been fo lon^ " time with you, and yet haft thou not known me, *' Philip ? He that hath {een me, hath feen the Fa- *' ther, and how fayeft thou. Shew us the Father ? *' Beheveft thou not that I am in the Father, and ♦' the Father in me ?" Words that more direftly ?ipply in anfwer to the queftion, I know not where we fhall iind; and, therefore, as applying fo di- redlly to the queftion, they are to be interpreted according to their plain and obvious acceptation. Shew us the Father, fays Philip ; and the anfwer is. In me you have feen the Father, for I am in the Fatiier, and the Fatlier is in me. It is obfervable, that when our Lord afterts -feis- tls divine unity with the Father, he doth not pro- pofe it to the difciples for the inveftigation of their leafoning powers. He knew that, at prefent, it lay far beyond the reach of thofe powers, and therefore to Philip he fays, Ov zs-igcvsig, &c. and again, ot/- ^ivsT£ ^01 ; and again, E/ §i /x>?, 5/a 7 a. spycc 'oingcVSTs f.01 ; but, in the progrefs of his difcourfe, he tells them, that when the Spirit of Truth was come to them, " At that day ye fhall knoiv that I am in my *' Father, and you in me, and I in you." Thus it ftands in our tranflation ; but I queftion whether the word on is righdy rendered or not ; I fhould rather exprefs it by quatenm, and fo make it lignificant of the refpe6t^the degree^in which he was in his Fa- ther, and they in him, and he in them j for it can- not ( 59 ) not de doubted, but that the words Eyw ?v tw TjraTfli ^ov are different in manner and degree from J/^?/^ sv ilJLOc. Be this, however, as it will, the purport of the paffage is, " that when the Spirit of Truth was " come, he fhould communicate to them that cer- *' tainty of knowledge which their reafoning powers " alone could not attain unto. For the prefent ^' you muft give credit to me, or if not to me, at *' leaft to the works which I do ; but when the Spirit ^^ of Truth is come, he iliall lead you into all truth, " and then fhall you know the certainty of thofe M things which I now require you to believe." Before we quit this chapter, it will be neceffary to take notice of a paifage towards the conclufion of it, which has by many been mifunderftood, ver. 28. *' Ye have heard how I faid unto you, I go away ^' and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye ^' would rejoice, becaufe I faid, I go unto the Fa- '' ther, For my Father is greater than I." Thefe latter words are contrived to be indifputable evi- dence of the Son's inferiority. As he is inferior to God, faith the Socinian, he is no God at all. As he is inferior to the Father, faith the Arian, he therefore is not confubftantial, and equal to him ; but they both feera to be wrong. The Greek is, pT» 'oTaTVjp jxov jj^si^ocv JJ.OV sgt. To have favoured their conceits the v/ord Ihould have been /xj/C'ov, which it is not : jocf/^wvexprefTeth onlya circumftantial preatnefs, which may be among equals. But, it wiU ( 6o ) will be fald, what circumftantlal greatnefs can therd be in the divinityi It is anfwered thus : Our Lord hath told us, that he came out from God, and came into the world, and that he came out from the Fa- ther E^i^A^o)/ rsotm rov ©fou, wot^a. rov 'uirurpog, that he came out not to do his own will, but the will of him that fent him in an union with our human nature. In this ftate he was in a voluntaiy ftate of humiliation, and as the Scripture fpeaketh, he humbled himjelf \ and, in this ftate of humiliation he faith, o ijsajr^^ fxau fjLHC^MV [xov cgi. In his divine prayer, John xvii. he prayeth : " And now, O Father, glorify me with " tliine ownielf, with the glory -which, I had wit b *' thee before the zvorld was" Now, it is evident, when he thus prayed, that he was not at that tim6 in that glory, and therefore was he in a circumftan- tial degree of inferiority ; and, confequently, when he faid the Father was greater, it was no impeach- ment of his elTential equality with the Father, the inferiority was all circumftantial ; it was becaufe he was in a ftate of humiliation, which the Father was not ; it was becaufe he had divefted himfelf of his divine glory when he took our nature upon him, and became man, which the Father had not. What fenfe or meaning is there in the paftage under con- lideration, if the Socinian or Arian interpretation is juft ? " If ye loved me ye would rejoice, becaufe I *' Ikid I go unto the Father:" and the reafon why they would rejoice, becaufe he went unto the Fa- ther, is aftjgned, ' ' For my Father is greater than I.'* But ( 6I ) But wliat ground of rejoicing could thete be in this, that he was to go unto the Father, and there to be in a ftate of inferiority ? This could not ferve to elevate the hearts of his difciples ; whereas, confider him in a ftate of humiliation, as quiefcent in his own will, and as having divefted himfelf of his own di- vine glory, which he had with the Father before the world was, and the whole becomes plain and intelli- gible. He left them to go unto the Father, to be in his original greater glory with the Father, and who was greater in glory than he at that time was. He left them to reaffume that efientlal participation of the Father's glory, which he had, for a while, laid afide, that he might become man, and to be in that Hate of divine exaltation, which was greater than any thing they had beheld in him here on earth. Here, then, was ample ground of triumph and exul- tation for the difciples : their Mafter did not leave them to be ftill farther degraded and defpifed ; he did not leave them in order to continue in his pre- fent ftate of humiliation, but to quit it, and to be OTapa Tw 'zs-cxT^i, who being [MH^CAiv, he being with him would be greater alfo ; and here it mull be owned, that the difciples, notwithftanding all their Mafter had faid to them, did not, as yet, feem perfeftly to comprehend him. It feems as if they did not rightly underftand what he meant by coming out from the Father, At length, however, their minds are open- ed ; and our Lord having told them, John xvi. that the time was coming, wherein he fnould, with- out ( 64 ) * out a parable, llicw tliem openly of the Father ; that the Father loved them, becaiife they had loved him, and had believed that he came out from God, 's^txpoc TOO Qsco', he adds, " 1 came out fro/n the Father, *' and am come into the World : again, I leave the *' world, and go unto the Father." Thefe words efFedlually removed all their doubts and difficiilties, and, in a tranfport of faith, they reply to him, *' Now We know that thou knoweft all things, and " needell not that any man fhould alk thee. By *' this we believe that thou cameft out from God." words moft llrongly attefting to the divinity of their bleired Mafter, but which feem to have operated tipon them only for the prefent moment, for, foon after, they were all fcattered, forfook him, and left him alone ; and yet, fays our Lord, when he fore- xvarned them of the event, ** I am not alone, for *' the Father is with me ;" to whom the Son of God was infeparably united in the Divine Nature, as he had repeatedly told them before, when he faid to them, I am in the Father, and the Father in me^ which is an unity; if language ha^ any meaning. that is in- feparable. Should the reader, however, think fit to adopt the fuggeftion which has already been made concerning; the filiation, the words we have been conlidering will have no manner of difficulty in them. The flate of a Father is evidently fuperior to that of a Son ; and, therefore, when the Son went to the Father, he, with truth and propriety, would fay, " My Father is greater than Ij" becaufe, as the ( 63 ) the Aoybg had humbled himfelf to become a Son by jbis birth of the Virgin, in union with man s nature, therefore, by neceffity, the Father, in that refpedt, muft be greater, otherwife the humiliation would not be real. And, moreover, on account of this humiliation therefore, the Son is declared not to know the hour of the day of judgement, the Father having referved the times and the feafons in his own power ; which refervation was not becaufe the Fa- ther is more God than the Aoyoc, but in evidence of, and becaufe, the Aoyog had humbled himfelf. If the Son of God is God, as hath been afTumed from-the-the terms Son of God, and as by this time appears to be no groundlefs afTumption, then all the privileges, prerogatives, properties, and w^hat- ever effentially pertaineth unto God, are the Son of God's. This, I apprehend, is undeniable. Hear then what he himfelf faith to his difciples, John xvi. *' When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he Ihall '' guide you into all truth. He fliall glorify me, *' for he fhall receive of mine, and fhall fliew it *' unto you. All things that the Father hath, way- *' 7^ oG-a s%H OTa7'/^> omnia qualiaciinque pater- habety *' are mine; therefore I faid unto you that he pall '* take cf mine, and fhew it unto you." Is it poffi- ble, if language has meaning, that words can be more expreflive than thefe, " All things whatfiever " the Father hath are mine ?" Therefore, he is God in unity with the Father, otherwife the words could not ( 64 ) iidt be truei Again, chap. xvii. where he is pray- ing for his difciplesj he fays, " I pray for them, I *' pray not for the world, but for them which thou *' haft given me ; for they are thine, and all mine *' ans thine, and thine are mine, arid I am glorified *' in them." The Greek is, Ka/ ra e/xa ziyui^u )V -^vyjiV avrov f9-/i)i:-, be interpreted according to the words, as you y would ( 8' ) would interpret any other Greek writer, and thus plainly fignify, that God purchafed the Church with his own blood, and that he laid down his life for us. Here, fuppoling the words to come from any com- mon unauthoriied perfon, after examination, you moll probably would rejedl them; but, in the prefent cafe, fomething elfe is, and firft, to be considered : From whom do they come ? and by what authority are they fpoken ? Are they, or are they not, the words of an infpired writer ? Have they, or have they not, their authority from the infpiration of the God of Truth? If they have, nothing upon earth can be more Irrational, more diametrically contrary to reafon, than to reje6l them as untrue. But it will be faid, by the words we are to judge of the infpiration ; and, if they are impoffible, or unworthy of God, they are not the words of infpiration. True, where the infpiration of the fpeaker is not iirft fufiiciently eftabliihed ; but, in the prefent cafe, the infpiration of the facred writers is fufficiently eftabliflied by the miraculous povv-ers which they had, and by the gift of tongues ; therefore their infpiration is not to be judged by what they fay, but v;hat they fay is de- termined to be true by their infpiration ; becaufe, what is fpoken by perfons infpired by the God of Truth can neither be impoffible nor unworthy of God, and is, and muft be, rrue. However, I fhail not enter farther into this matter here, as the fubjeil lliall be refumed : at prefent, we are to examine what proofs can be produced, from St. Paul's Epif- G ties. ( S2 ) tics, that the Son of God is God. Of the forego- ing paflages, from the A6ls and St. John's Epiflle, I acknowledge there are various readings ; but I know not that their truth ever has been eftablifhed, nor do I well fee how various readings at this time of day tend to ellablifh any thing, unlefs there is fome pal- pable blunder in the copy received; for, admit the various reading in oppolition to the copy received, what is the confequence ? The reading of the copy received then becomes a various reading to that which you admit, and fo on ad infinitum, fo that you will never be able to fix with any certainty. How- ever, of the paflage which I am about to produce from the Epiftle to the Romans, I know not that there is any various reading ; if there is, let it be ef- tabliflied ( if poffible ) in oppolition to the received text, but do not let the nothing-proving objedlion be urged againft it, " that there is a various reading of the pafTage". Romans ix. 5. St. Paul having moft pathetically lamented the fall of the Jews from the very great privileges which had belonged to them, fays, " Whofe are the fathers, and of whom *' Christ came according to the flefh, who is over " all, God blefled for ever. Amen." 'O ocv iTri 'VnocVTCfjv Qsog evXoyyjTog EigTOvg aiocvocg^ A/^j;v. The great Mr. Locke interprets thefe words thus, in his para- phrafe, " Who is over all, God be blefled for *' ever, Amen ;" and for what reafon he thus inter- prets them was beft known to himfelf, for I do not remember that he afligns any reafons at all for it. If he ( 83 ) he thought hlmfelf juftified in the interpretation by the various reading of any copy diiferent from ours, he Ihould have faid fo, for moft affuredly ©ioj euAo- yyjrcg does not lignify "God i^e bleffed ;" and therefore his interpretation is altogether unwarranta- ble and falfe. To a mind that is unwarped by prejudice, there appears to be internal evidence in the text (as we. now have it) of its being the genuine and true reading ; for, the Apoftle fays, s^ wv o Xpigog ro xuxa, (Tci^Ku, *' Of whom Christ came according to the flefh." In other words, the affertion is, that the derivation of Chkist from the Jews was only accor- ding to the flefh, and confequently it implies, that he had a derivation that was not according to the flelh. Now, ,as the Apoftle carries on the fentence ftill fpeaking of Christ, it naturally required that he fhould tell us what that derivation was, that is, what Christ was not according to the flefc. But, o (xiv ziri zixuvTocv, Without the remaining part of the fentence, tells us nothing at all of the Icind ; nothing that can be let in oppolition to the to xutcc a-a^^ia, inafmuch as Christ as man js exalted to the right hand of God, and all power given to him; fo that ftill the queflion occurs, What was he ? but not /:«-« (rapKult If we follow our text, the ApofJe 'rells us clearly and explicitly, " he was God blelTed for ever;" whereas, alter the text, and read svXoy}jrc.; p Gsog, and, while the Apoftle f^ems to tell us foiriething, he in fail tells nothing at all, as he leaves us iliil luiinformed G a what ( H ) what Christ was, but not according to the flefh, which the paffage obvloufly required that he fhould have informed us. What occaiion, what call, had the Apoftle for ufing the words to -kocto, a-apKoc, if Christ was not what was not according to thefielh ? for, if he was only man, his defcent from the Jews could be only by human derivation, and therefore the ad- dition ' ' according to the fiefn" was altogether fuper- fiuous, as no one would have a doubt, but that, if he was-defcended from the Jews, it muft have been in that way. Moreover, let it be conlidercd, that the words 0505 5t'Aoy>]To$ are the finifhing period of the Apoftle's climax. They had not only the very An- gular honour of having Christ defcended from them according to the fielli, but that honour was ftill more highly enhanced, becaufe the Christ, defcen- ded from them, was over all, God bleffed for ever;. in fhort, every examination of the words affords us internal proofs, that they are the genuine words of the Apoftle, and that the Qiog ivKoyYjjog is by him applied to Christ, and therefore thcxApoftle's teftt- mony is, thatCHRiST, the Son of God, is God. My next teftimony from St. PauFs Epiftles fhall be from his epifhle to the Philippians ii. 6. '* Who, being *' in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be «' equal with God." The Greek is, 'Oj sv }j.o^(p}^ ©fou ^ VTrocpyjiOVf ov% ccpTrayjjLOV vjyrfruro to sivxi itra. 0r"M." The. queftionhere is. What is thefignification ofthev/ord u.op'pri} Has it the fame fignification as in the words which follow ? Am' euvjov sjuv^jijo-e ^x.o^(p'ijv hv?^ov Ka^ujy, ( 85 ) Mop'Pvi undoubtedly iignifies, as in our tranflation, fonn, or char a£Ier; but it fignifiesalfo/)fr/o;2, as may- be feen in X^nophon's defcription of Cyrus, (pvcriv /xsi» vsviTczi. Such is recorded to have been his natural dif- poiition and /^r/^/2 ; therefore, Ev pp(p>i 05ou uVoipxwv may be tranflated being psrfonallj God^ that is, fubftantially. To this probably it will be obje^led, that the p^fjjy ^ovXov muft iignify the per/on^ that is, the fub- ftance of a fervant ; which is abfurd. In reply it may be anfwered, that there is no ne- celTity for giving [^opip'/jv, in this latter inftance, the fame fenfe as in the former ; for, as it is certain that the word iJiop(pr] bears the two fenfes of per/on and forfUf or charader, whether of the fenfes it is to have will be determinable by the word with which it is combined ; thus, when it is combined with uVa^%wi', it will Iignify /)fv exprefles an alTumption of the character Vv'hich the perfon fuftains. Hence i^o^pi^v ^:/v7\cv Xa^oov is the af- fumption of fomething which did not appertain to ouj. Lord : fomething (if I may fo exprefs myfelf) adventi- tious to him. Whereas, Ev /^-op?^ @sov vTra^x^^ expref- fes his perfonal and neceflary exiflence. It was no af- fumption, nothing adventitious, nothing fuperadded 03 to ( 86 ) to what he really was ; he exilled cv ijLo;^l^YtQcoVj perfo- nally God; but E A ABE ^j-o^Iyi^jIovKov, and that he might take that/crw, tlvix: charccler, tohimfelf, savrov iKSvcAjcrs. As then ev jj-opl n &iov vvru^y^ocv appears to have been neceffary to the Son of God, and jj-o^^'n oov/ov to have been only an aiTumption adventitious to him, therefore it may be prefuraed, that /acp^j? hath not the iamie force in both inftanccs, and that in the former it is to be interpreted of perfun, in the latter of /iJ/v.'S or chi:ra6]ey. Should it however be faid, as by fome perhaps it may, that fu-opp/iy ligniiies per- fm in both inflances, becaufe it was a fadl that our Lo R D , in taking human nature upon him, iv oij.ciooy.(xti oiV%M7rocv ysvoixsioj, did thereby take upon him iJ.o^:pr,v hvXcv, then it would efFecluallyfetde what has been a difputed point, namely, that he was Qicg in the fame degree, and to the full extent of the Divinity, as he was Av^pTTCi' to the full extent and meafure of humanity. Epifcopius upon this fubjedl (Queft. xxii.) argues, that aop^jjy oov?^ov cannot fignify formam cjj'entiakm^ and of courfe therefore it cannot have the fame lig- niiication as \i.ooT^'A ©icj : his words are, Forma fe) -vi r.onpciefi figmficare formam ejfcntialenu qtiiafervum ejjc nunquam figmflcat al'iud qiiidquam fetvili condii'ione ejjc, JdeOf ut Arijioteks fitbfianl'iam auldenio.rium quid fac'tat fervo? But his reafoning does not feem to be by any m.eans conclufive, as tlie reverfe of Ariftotlc's pofition is the fat^, znd fdt-vili conditione ejje is acci- dcntarium to perfon or fubflancc. Mop,ui;v, it will be faid, ( 87 ) ' laid, does not in the prefent inftance refer to the abftradl idea oYa fervile character, but to the form, or fubilance, in which* that chara6ler was fuftained. Our Lord, iv oij.oiijoiM'>iTi ay9pM7rocv y^vcy.-voi, took upon. himfelf the perfon of a human jlave, sKcc^s ^op(pvjv hvXov ; he did not take upon himfelf the ah fir a 51 idea of a fervik cha''a3er^ but the fubllance, the [^optyjv, to which that character was annexed; and, thejuftnefs of this interpretation being allowed, it will be faid, as the fame word [j.oypyj is applied to our Lord's di- vine exiflence as to his human, therefore, in whatever degree or extent of humanity he was ai'^poo- TTog, in the fame degree and extent of 'Divinity lie muft be Qioc ; but he was man to tlie full extent of our human nature, therefore muft he be God to the fullell extent of the divine nature. But if the fcnfe of the Apoftle, when he ufes the words Of sv jxoplT} 9iov vTTjcpyjAjy , be, as hath been fuppo- fed, *' who being perfonally God," what foil owsmuft be frrangely interpreted, if rendered " he thought it not robbery to be /uV unto^GoD." For, what has likenefs to do where there is reality ? The perfon of man is never faid to be the refemblance of man, neither is, the perfon of God the refemblance of God, but muft be, and really is, God, as truly and certainly as the perfon of man is man. But, befides this, the word loro^ does not fignlfy like; and, if we may fpeakwith certainty concerning G 4 th« ( 8S ) the ilgnification of any word in fo various a Ian- gua^e as the Greek, it never has that lignification limply, nor indeed in any other refpeA ; for, al- though likenefs may in fome cafes happen to be the fefult of equality, that is all accidental, and does by no means follow from the lignification of the word /cre^ ; for, if it did, \X\tvs.ti\\^\. d'llfimilar figures^ which are equal to each other, be fim'ilar figures ; which is abfurd and impoflible. They, wlio urge the word i7cq is to be interpreted like, deceive them.felves by the indeterminatenefs of the Englifh word, which is applicable to equality as well as to refemblance. Thus we call equal weights like weights ; but, in this cafe, evidently the lignifi- cation of the word is equality, and not refemblance. Moreover, like is a word of comparifon, which icc; is not; la-o; is a poiitivewcrd, admitting of no degrees of comparifon; and therefore its lignification cannot be like. The words of St. Paul, then, after every examina tion of them, appear to be a ftrong unequivocal proof of the Divinity of the Son of God, who, being God, and therefore having equality with God, £auTcvf>c£>a;crf, had humbled himfelf, and, be- coming man, took upon himfelf the form of a fer- vant, the perfon of a human fiave, and as fuch un- derwent the death of the crofs. The ( 8q ) The next paffage that I fhall produce, iliall be from the Epiftle to the Coloffians i. 15, 8cc. " Who " is the image of the invifible God, the firft-born *' of every creature ; for by him were all things cre- *' ated that are in heaven and that are in earth, vili- " bleandinvilible, whether they be thrones, ordo- *' minions, of pri^icipalities, or powers ; all things were •^^ created by him, and for him: and he is before all *' things, and by him ail things confift." 'O^ sgiv eiKMV Tov Qsov rov- aopaTCV TrpooTOrOKog -z^xxv]; KTicrcOog, ** born fuperior to every creature." The Apoftle is here giving a defcriptive cliaradlef of the Son of God, and he defcribes him in terms which are com- patible only with a perfon who is God, as the Crea- tor of all things, and the Upholder of ail things muft be ; which he here affirms that the Son of God is. But it will be proper to take fome notice of the words fiKujv Tov Qsovrov oiopccTov. Mr Locke, the a- vowed enemy of what he calls the orthodoxy of the Church, in his note on 2 Cor. iv. 4. in efFe6t gives us to underlland that the ligniiication of the word uxoov is '^'a mirror," and that Christ was no otherwife the image of God than the Apoftles were the images of himfelf by their large and clear communications of the Gofpel, and by their reprefcnting as mirrors the glory of the Lord ; and that in this fenfe " they were the images of Christ as Christ is the image of God." But, I apprehend f/>,ajv can in no fenfe whatever be interpreted a mirror, or an inftru- ment of refledlion ; it is, we ail know, an image, a figure, ( 90 ) figure, a llatue, an impreffion upon a coin, a gra- phical delineation, a figure reprefented from a mir- ror ; but that it fhould lignify a mirror is what ( I conceive) cannot be warranted by any inftance whatever in the Greek language. Mr. Locke's idea is, thatMofes, by approaching to God in the mount, had a communication of glory from him which irradiated his face. In like manner, he fuppofes that the face of Jesus Christ was irradia- ted with a greater and permanent degree of glory from God, and that hence he is called by the Apoftle the image of God. But was it ever heard in any language that the illuminated fubjecfl was the image of that which illuminated it ? that a fpeculum was the image of the fun ; or a looking-glafs, reflefting the figure of a man, was the image of a man ? We therefore may with the fuUeft afTurance pronounce, that Christ is not called the image of God on any fuch account as^ is affigned by Mr. Locke. However, let us fuppofe it to be otherwife, and that he is therefore, and therefore only, called the image of God, becaufehe was irradiated with a permanent and greater degree of glory from God than Mofes, which is the purport of Mr. Locke's argu- ment. LIow will this conliil with what St. Paul faith ot him, as already cited, luwov SKSvuja-s, sToc7r-:v:criv cuvrov ? For, when did this degradation of himfelf take place ? was it before or after the irradiation ? if before, then for what end was the degradation ? if after, then it fhould feem the irradiation would have been done away by it. However, not to dwell any farther ( 91 ) tartlier on the miftaken theory of this great man, mofl: unworthy of fo acute a reafoner, nor to take any particular notice of his perverted mifniterpretation of the word TcaTorrr^.'^o^-fvo/, to which he gives the fenfe of xaTOTJTpi^o.'Tsg ; let US give decidedly from St. Paul himfelf the fignification of t"<>ccjs ^^i s^ovo-iag : but the reading is prima facie to be rejedled; firll, becaufe it would be tautological, the Apoftle having but a little before, c. i. 18. faid the fame; and, fecondly, becaufe it would have no diredl: reference to what Vs^ent before. The epiftle to the Coloffians appears plainly to have been written under an impreffion that they either had been, or were in imminent danger of being, corrupt- ed by the falfe do6lrine which was now beginning to contaminate the Chriftian Faith. The doctrine was concerning the perfon of Christ ; with regard to whom various wild and unintelligible conceits had been adopted, and, among the reft, that Christ was an inferior being fent from the pleroma to inhabit the appearance of a human being. This wretched and phantaftical conceit the Apoftle meets dire<5lly in thefe words, Ev av-xooyLuiomi zs-av to zirXffiCASixoc 7'yjg 6cC- TjjTcg ; therefore he was not fent from the plcroma; and dwelt in him (rcAi^Ti-HMg ; and therefore he was I not ( 93 ) not a human being only in appearance; and he was n 7ts Com- prehend, if joucim, 3, fpiriiual body ; and yet St. Paul tells us there is a fpiritual body as well as a natural. But, { 94 ) But, if fpirit is fo oppofite to matter, and according to our comprehenfion tliey are as contrary to each other as light to darknefs, will not a fpiritual body be a myftery ? and will it not found like a contradic- tion In terms ? and yet it was exemplified to be a truth in the perfon of our Lord after his refurrec- tion. But, notwithftanding the exemplification, the myftery ftill remains ; for, how can we conceive of matter that is not impeded, or of fpirit that is tangi- ble as matter ? In like manner, concerning the per- fon of our Lord, what will a philofophical enquiry into the fubjedl open to us, but a fcene of confulion and darknefs ? Enquiries will prefent us with difficul- ties, and difficulties will fucceed difficulties, till, at length, bewildered and loff , we are driven into defpe- ration of folly, and deny the fa6f:, which comes au- thenticated to us as a truth by perfons divinely in- fpired by the God of Truth. The credit due to their afTertions refls entirely on the authority by which they have made them ; and , if that authority is this divine infpiration, what is there in Philofophy that will juflify us in refufing credit to their afTertions ? But, if we deny their infpiration, to what are we re- duced ? Then, where is infpiration to be found ? and whither are we to refort in the fearch of truth ? Without the light of Heaven the mind is involved only in endlefs perplexities ; fuch was the ftate of all the ancient Philofophers, infomuch that Socrates, who is fuppofed to have been the wifefl of them, af- ter a life of more than feventy years fpent in the pur- fuit ( 95 ) fuit of Truth, found it not. By wifdom he knew not God ; and when he died, although with fuch incre- dible fortitude, nothing prefented itfelf even at that , time to his mind but doubt and uncertainty. Philo- fophy therefore, from what we know of the ages that are paft, is a fad fubftitute for Revelation, a fublli- tute of unfupported imaginations for truth, of dark- nefs and defpair for light, certainty, and life ; and hence it can be no meafure of the truth of what an infpired writer faith, when he afferts the Divinity of the Son of God, *' in whom the whole fulnefs of the '* Godhead dwelt bodily." But let us proceed with fome farther teftimonies of St. Paul to this great truth. 2, Their, i. 12. OTrcAjg S'yoo^uaSri to ovoy.cc lov "Kvpiov yi^cajv Ivia-QV l^pigov iv vytv^ kcul vi^sig sv ocvrui Kurcc t^^v %oi^iv TOV ©eov YjiJMVj y^ai Kupiou Ij^trou 'K.^igov ; which words in our tranflation are thus, " That the name " of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in "you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our "GoD, «W(i//6f Lord Jesus Christ." But furely the tranflation of thefe latter words does not feem to be jufl:. There is no article in the Greek to juftify tranflating Kipiou '' the Lord." In Latin it would be as it is in Greek, Dei nojlri et Domini Jefu Chrijli ; and why fhould it be otherwife in the Englifh ? why fhould it not be " according to the grace of our God ' *' and Lord Jesus ChristV' By all the generally- obferved rules of conftrudlion, Qiov in the Greek is applied to Jesus Christ as well as Kup/ou ; for, fet- ting afide their being concealed by the copulative ( 96 ) uoit, they are both governed by the fame word xccp-v,. and have the fame perfonal pronoun belonging to both. Had the words been tov (StzciXscog or 7ov ctoot,]- ^og-^fxcov KUi Kv^iov, would any one then have helitated about the conftruftion ? would not (^occ-iTkscajs or ctc^jttj^os have been referred to Jesus Christ as well aS Kv^iov ? What then is the rule of confl:ru(5lion by which Gsov is required not to be referred to him ! If the rule cannot be produced, as I apprehend it cannot, then doth St. Paul manifeftly in this place ftyle Jesus Christ our God and Lord. What I have here faid may be exemplified and confirmed from 2 Peter iii. 18. Av^oiviTs h ivyjy.- PiTi YMi yvooa-ii TOV K'j^/O'j vjixM'j xo'i (Tcoryj^o; I'/jrov 'X.pigov ; •which is thus rendered in our Englilh. verfion, " But ** grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord ^' and SavioNr ]es\js Christ.''^ Here, by the known rules of confi:ru6lion, Kv^iov^ is referred to Jesus Christ as well as a-ooTriftog, being governed by the fame words, connedf ed by the fame copulative, and having the fame perfonal pronoun. But, do not all thefe things concur in the inftance above recited from St. Paul ? why then fhould there be any difl^erence in the mode of conftrudlion ? the pofition and order of the words Qsov Viixoov kocl Kip/cu is precifely the fame as in K v^iov -^fxcijv vmi aco-r.ipc:. It is very ftrange that they are to be referred to Jesus Christ in the latter inftance, and not in the former, when the or- der and pofition of the words and the rule of con- ftru6lion ( $7 ) flra6Hon are the fame in both inilances : it is in- cumbent therefore on the adverfaries of our Lord's Divinity to fhew by what grammatical rule of con- ftru6lion rev Kvpiov -^ij.ccy '/mi crcoTyi^g lyjo-ov'Kpigcv is to be Conflrued *' of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," and tov Ssov i^jx^jvxat Kv^iov Jrjo-ov Xp/g-ou is not to be conftrued, " of our Gk)D and Lord *' Jesus Christ." But a word or two more. Qtov r^iit^v v.ui Kw/ou, I think, fhould be interpreted, Dei nojiri aque ac Dg- mini; for, in the former part of the \erfe, the Apof- tle having ftyled Jesus Christ our Lord, in this latter part he ftyles him our God as well as Lord, and thus takes off from what otherwife might feem to be an unneceflary tautology, " That the name of '' ^z/r Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you *' and you in him, according to the grace of cur *' God as well as Lord Jesus Christ." When men come to the New Teftament with pre- conceived prejudices, and under a perfualion, that Jesus Christ is not to be called God, they are but too apt to make every thing bend to that per- fuafion, and thus even to violate the commoncft rules -of conftruAion ; but it fhould be remembered, that we are to derive our conceptions from the New Tef- tament, and not to carry them with m to it. n If ( 98 ) If 0JOU is not here applied by the Apoftle to Jesus Christ, and he is not God, what are we to make of the words x-otra xapiv ? It appears to be a kind of battology, difeendendo, to talk of the grace of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is merely a human creature, the difference between God and him is infinitely greater than between the greateft earthly potentate and the porter of his pa- lace. But what language would it be ? Where was fuch language ever heard as *' I have free accefs to '' tlie palace, Honix i%)> %oc.piv tov apxovTsg, by the fa- *' vour of the prince a7jd of the porter f" If the Scripture muft be miiinterpreted, men fhould en- deavour to preferve, at leaft, the appearance of con- Hftency: for, if Jesus Christ is not God, the Apoftle could not liave faid, with any degree of propriety, taking the words even as they ftand in our tranllation, '^ According to the grace of our " God and the Lord Jesus Christ." I Timothy i. i. UavXog cctto^oKos Ji^crov X^tg^v, KoiT iTTiruyyiV 0fou (xooT)^pog -^ixocv, xai Kvpiov Ijjtroy "Kpig^. In the Englifli ; " Paul an apoftle of Jesus Christ, " by the commandment of God our Saviour, and *' Lord Jesus Christ." Here the tranflation ma- nifeftly does not deviate from the Greek, only there feems to be an error in thepundluatlon, which fhould be, '' By the commandment of God, our Saviour *^ and Lord, Jesus Christ." Ver. ( 99 ) Ver. II. Kara TO ^vayTiXiov lov ^omu^iov Qiov, o eTTigsvS-^v syoo. I have not a doubt, but that the (jm- xa^iov ©sQv is applied to Christ : the words follow- ing plainly prove it. In our tranflation they are, *' And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath *' enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, put- *' ting me into the miniftry." But the Greek is, Kat %acjiv s^co TOO sv^vvaix-MTUvci. jxs Xpigoo Jvicrov tw Ki'^/ij ijjj^ocv, cTi zingcv ixs YiyviTcuro, Bs^XscVO^ si<; hxKOviaV where 'z^igcv jjis '^yvjcruTo anfwers to stt/jsu^jjv syoo. However, I fhall not dwell upon this pafTage, as it may be a proof of our Lord's Divinity, more by inference than dire6l. But, furely, if the gofpel of Jesus Christ is the gofpel of the blefled God, and if Jesus Christ made St. Paul a minifter of this gof- pel, I think there can be but one opinion upon the fubjedl. Chap. ii. 3. Tovro yoc^ y.aKov xai ci%o^sxrcv sv'jCtticv 7CV (rc^n]f.o; vi^w ©jov. On this pafTage many words are unnecefTary : for, if Jesus Christ is our Sa- viour, if '' there is no falvation in any other," (Ac^s iv. 12.) then, either we have two Saviours, or Jesus Christ is God. Chap. iii. 16. Ka; 01^0X0 yovy^svx'g [j.r/ix :-gi t5 r;?^ svTs^c-ias [>.v;Y;pior Qiog sipavsfoo^yi tv auoxi. '^ And *' without controverfy great is the myftery oi godli- " nefs, God was manifefled in the flefh." h a Chap. ( i<^o ) Chap. Ir. 9. " This is a faithful faying, and *' worthy of all acceptation;" for, therefore, we l)oth labour and fufFer reproach^ 'On ^riXTrixM^iv stti 05(W CocVTiy og sgi (toottjo zirciVTcav ocv9pu7iUv, ^ocXigcc 'nrigoov. It mult be by fome ftrange mode of conftru^Lron, and fuch as I am altogether unacquainted with, if the terms G-c*) (^oovri are not, in this place, directly applied to our Saviour,*" who is the faviour of all men, and efpecially of them that believe; terms moft properly applied to him, becaufe, as St. John tells us, " he was God ;" and that " in him was " life :" and, therefore, if St. John fpeaks truth, he is what St. Paul here truly calls him, " the Living "' Cod." To perfons of a weak and timid faith in tlie Divinity of the Son of God, (and why Ihould vvc be timid, when we are fupported by the Nev/- Tellamentr) the application of thefe terms to Jesus CiiRjST will appear bold and hardly warrantable. But the quefticn is not, whether they will appear to be bold and unwarrantable ? but, whether they re- ally are fo or not ? What is the Greek ? and what rhe conftruction of the words ? Is not 0.-jo d>ivri the .antecedent to 0;? and, is not Jesus Christ the tra/T-,"^ ? 1 know of none other ; for there is none other t\ame under heaven, given amongft men, whereby they mull be faved. He is not a Chrlftian who does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the rrwr^i rra:'Ta'v av^citjorr'xv, the faviour of mankind. But St. Paul faith, '^ The living God is the faviour of man- kind ; therefore, it is the doctrine of St. Paul, that 6 Jesus ( 101 ) Jesus Christ is the living God. I am aware of the quibble by which it will be attempted to elude the force of this argument. That Jesus Christ ,is the faviour, as the inftrument ; but that the living itoTsg too Qicc, Thefe words the Apoftle ufes as chara6leriftic of the Chrijiian converts. But how, or in v/hat manner, H 4 are ( 104 ) are they particularly charafteriftic of them ? Did not the Jews believe in God ? They moft certainly did. But the Jews not being any part of Titus's charge, and the words being inapplicable to them, therefore they muft be referred to perfons whofe fgith was difierent from the faith of the Jews, that is, to the Chriftian converts, whofe faith in God- was different from the faith of the Jews, and was the faith, (ra;Tj;pog y^jloov Qeov, which the Jews rejedled. St. Paul, therefore, having chara6lerifed the Chrif- tians as zr^rifsuxoTeg tm 0e«, and their faith in God, differing from the Jewifh by believing in Christ ; therefore, he affixes the title of Qc-og emphatically to Christ, who is the Xoovip ©so;. ,:Wje ought now to proceed to the evidence which theEpiflle to the Hebrews will afford us; but, as by fome it has been thought, that St. Paul was not the author of that epiflle, the examination of it fhall be deferred, and we will go on to the General Epiftle of St. James, from which much evidence indeed is not to be expelled, as it is chiefly employed in direct-, ing the moral condu61; of Chriftians. However, one teflim-ony we have very full and diredl, when he calls himfelf Qsov koh Kup/ou l-^jcw Xp/g-of dovKog, i. e. The fervant of Jesus Christ, God and Lord. Bat althougli this, perhaps, is the only dire6l teflimony which the Epiftle of St. James will afford us,, yet the Apofile plainly intim.ates to us, that the title ®fog is applicable to fomc perfon who was not the Father ; for, ( 105 ) for, he fays, i. 2.7. " Pure religion before God and '' the Father is this," &c. And again, iii, 9. Ev ccvrv\ evKoyov^iv rov @sov xoci •u^ccrs^a ; " Herewith blefs *« we God and the Father," not " even the Father," as it is in our tranflation, a mode of expreffion not pecuhar to St. James, but often ufed alfo by St, Paul, who, by ufing the terms God the Father as well as God and the Father, feems to intimate to us, that the two expreffions have different extents. A diverlity there evidently is in the expreffions ©fov warpos and Qiov kcci z Christ ( io6 ) ''■ Christ himfelf, and God even our Father, *' which hath loved us;" where, at all events, koh feeras to be improperly rendered eveti ; for, the tran- ilation, as it Ihould feem, ought to have been either ** and our God and Father," or the whole fhould have been thus: " Now our Lord Jesus Christ •^ himfelf, and God, and our Father, who hath ** loved us." And here, as we are upon the fubje6l, the reader will permit me to take notice of a pafiage wherein St. Paul ufes a limilar mode of expreffion, a Cor. i. 3. EvKoy/jTogo Gsog %ai 'UjOi.v^f lov Kvpiov t^jxoov Itjo-ov Xp/g-ou; " Bleffed be God even the Father of ** our Lord Jesus Christ." But the tranflators undoubtedly were miftaken in rendering 7call appear very probable at leaft, if not cer- tain, that by ©iog the Holy Ghost is intended in both inflances. St. John, in his Gofpel, tells us, xiv. 26. that the Holy Ghost is the Comforter, C3 ly^ucKzyJKYiiog to zs'vsvixoi zo ayiov. Attend then to the Apoftle's words, " Bleffed be God, and the Father *' of our Lord" Jesus Christ ; the Father of Mer- '* cies ( 107 ) *^ cies, and God of all confolation,** 'o3-ci(rr,g 'Strapoi- TiKyjo-soog, where evidently what he rfcribes to the 'ZirciTrip is different from what he afcribes to the o ©tof ; and, therefore, they are diitindt perfons. Moreover, what he afcribes to each is charadferiftic of each ; for, it is chara6leriftic of the Father, that he is mer- ciful; of theHoLY Gkost, that he is the Comforter. The Father is the Facher of Mercies, the Holy Ghost the God of all Confolation. Once more ; i Cor. xv. 24. Eira to Tc7\.-oiy.KY}a-ixv. But where in the New Teftament is the Church fpoken of and diftinguifli- ed other than as the Church of Go a } I do not know that it is even once mentioned under the terms Church of Christ ; where then are we to look for the Church of Christ ? Mov 7^v sKKXTiTiav is a, limiting and exclufive expreflion ; therefore theChurch of Christ and the Church of God are one and the fame, or there are two diflindl Churches, Vv'hich no one will fay ; but, if they are one and the fame, then mufl Christ and God be one and the fame. Hence the facred writers, by chara6le riling the Church un- der the terms Church of God, affix the chara6ler of God ( 111 ) God to Jesus Christ, whofe the Church is from its very origin. The fecond Epiftle of St. Peter with fome perhaps will be thought to be of little authority, as its au- thenticity has been doubted ; the ftyle, I own, dif- fers from that of the firft Epiftle, but I do not fee that this is a fufficient ground of objection, as there are a thoufand circumftances which may occalion a variation of ftyle ; and this Epiftle, as we under- hand, Vv^as written under the difconfolate circum- ftances of a prifon. However, I believe there is fufficient evidence tiiat it was written in the Apoftolic age ; and, as the writer expreffly fpeaks of himfelf under the name and charadler of " Simon Peter, a Servant and Apoftle of Jesus Christ," and as there is no other poiitive proof, that he was any other than Simon Peter, and, moreover, as it is not con- ceivable that any one in that age would have af- fumed to himfelf a name which was not his own, and wherein his forgery and falfehood would have been fo certain of being detedled, I think we need not helitate a moment about acknowledging the Epiftle to be his, whofe name it bears. The Apoftle then thus exprelies hunfelf, ch. i. i, -voig la-oji^ovri^iV T^joi^ovj i Zui^i'y sv 'hr/^o:ioo'Vv',]iov &sov vj[jMV aai crocT/jpog Ivicrov X^igov ; '' To them that have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteoufnefs of our Gop, and Saviour Ji'-sus Christ." There is a various reading (I own) of K;, :>/(?-' inftead of Qcov; but, what ( 113 ) what is the proof that Kip/ou is the true reading ? Are the Apoftle's words unintelligible except it is .fubftituted in the room of 0iou ? Is the do6lrine of the prefent reading inconliftent with the general do6trine of the other parts of the Scripture ? No : nothing of the kind. Therefore, as there is no manner of call for a various reading, in order to make us underftand the Apoftle's meaning, or to render him confiftent with the other Apoftolical and Sacred Writers, I make no fcruple in pronouncing, that the various reading is of no confequence ; and that, as it is wholly unnecefTary, fo would it be very abfurd to adopt it. Ch. lii. 10. **H^£/ §j '^ -^jxspoi K.v(^iov wf ?cA57:7j??, &c. *' But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in '' the night, &c. Seeing then that all thefe things " fhall be difTolved, what manner of perfons ought ye " to be in all holy converfation and godlinefs, looking *' for and hafting tinlQ the comhig of the day 0/ God!" TTpotrdoxto'VTaj V.UI (X'TVi\jhov':a.g iv\)) 'ujupOvcriav trig lov Siov ^^jis^ag. Here the day of the fecond coming of our Lord is decidedly and unequivocally called, the day of God ; it was before called the day of our Lord, and fo it is frequently called ; and, as there cannot be a doubt but that the day of Christ is thereby meant, therefore the day of Christ is equivalent to the day of Gob ; and, therefore, Christ is God. I From { 114 ) From the Eplftles of St. John, I need felecH: only one paflage, which is diredl in its affertion, and decidedly conchilive. i John, v. 20. " And we ^' know that the Son of God is come, and hath " given us an underflanding, that we may know him " that is true. And w^e are in him that is true, eveii *' in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true Gou, '' and eternal life." ''Ourog sgiv u'kvi'^ivcg Qeog, rat- ^u)yj ociooviog. Now, whether you refer ovTog to ijog-iov ©foo, to- o(.7\yfiivov, or to \7iT0v Xpi'-^M, it makes no manner of diiFerence : if to the firft of thefe, then- the Apoftle fays, that ''■ the Son of God is God *' indeed:" if to the fecond, then he that is true is God indeed; but he that is true (he fays) is Jesus Christ the Son of God ; therefore, Jesus Christ the Son of God, is Mh^^mg 0co?, God indeed. After fo very plain and fo very explicit a declaration of the beloved Difciple and iVpoftle, will any one fay^ that the Divinity of the Son of God is no dodlrine of the New Teflament? By what argimients, by what perverf: contortion of words, is this teftament of St. Jolm to be evaded } 'Ovjog is bic demonjlrathe^ and it refers ta Jesus Christ, and therefore he is aKrfiivc- Qicg ; and he muft be totally ignorant of the Greek language, who attempts to refer it other- wife. The word ihls^ in our Englifli tranflation, does not feem to be quite right ; it would have been better, if it had been rendered, " the fame is truly " God ;" for, the article is prefixed to uKyjOtvos merely in confequence of the word ovio;, and there- fore ( "5 ) ^ fore a'h.^^ivog ought not to be conftriied the true, but, adverbially, truly or indeed. The Epiftle of St. Jude affords a very ftrong teftimdny likewife in the words which have been already cited on a different account, ver.4. " For, '^ there are certain men crept in unawares, who " were before of old ordained to this condemnation, '* ungodly men, turning t\it grace of our Got) into " lafcivioufhefs, and denying the only Lord God, *' and bur Lord Jesus Christ." From thefe words, I cannot help taking notice^ firfl:, of the pe- culiarity of the expreffion n:viv tov ©sov rji/.oovyjx^iv ^sia- Ti9svTsg c-tg cuasXysiav : why doth the Sacred Writer fay Ssov ^i/.oov } The expreflion is not very frequent or Common ; fometirhes, indeed, it is ufed by the other Writers of the New Teflament, but then, as it Hiould feem, always with a marked ligniiicance. t Cor. vi. 2. AXkoi a7riKova-(xcr9cj aKKa, YiyicurQ^TS^ aXKcx. s^KatM^ijTt sv ■ruovb^oiti tov Kvpiov Ivicov, kui svroo '^vsvfi.aiii TOV Osov vi^Mv. So alfo, i ThefT. ii. 2. Ettc^^- ^■ifia-iccu-ci^zQa. sv tuQSu) yi^mv KocKvicai Turpog viiag 10 sv(xy- ysXio/Tov Osov, And^ 2 ThefT. i. 12. St. Paul ufes the very fame, expreflion with St. Jude, kocto, iviv ypioiv TOV ©soil ■^[j.uv Kdi Yi.v^iov IvjiTov "Koigov. In all which inflances, the expreffion is ufed v/ith an evident de- fign of diflinguifhing the God of Chriflians from the God acknowledged by the refl of the world. The firfl inflance refers to the God of Chriflians, into whofe name they were baptized ; and therefore, I a the ( ii6 ) the Apoftle very properly ufes the expreffion Qsov >;/xwv; inalmuch as no others acknowledged the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, to be the one God. In the fecond inftance, wherein he fpeaks of the boldnefs and courage wherewith he preached the Gofpel, encountering all difficulties, he was endued with it by our God, sv tu 0i6o -^ixuv, by the GoD in whom we Cliriilians believe. The third inftance fpeaks plainly enough for itfelf ; and, there- fore, it is unneceflary to point out its propriety. Let us then attend to what St. Jude fays, and. the pro- priety of his uling the fame expreffion will appear evident. By the way, however, I cannot help firft remarking, that Ignatius, who was tiie Difciple of St. John, ufes the fame expreffion, and in a very remarkable manner. In his Epiftle to the Ephefians, xviii. he fays, 'O yc/^ Ozog t^mmv Ijjjovj o ^^igog £y.vo(po' m^r, VTTO Map/«j, Kczroi oiKO^c^ipcv 0;ou, sx crTrspjxcxTos Aoc- loi^, zs-vsv^aiog h ayiov ; which mode of expreffion occurs m.ore than once in his Epiftles. St. Jude's words are, " For, there are certain men crept in un- *' awares, who were before of old ordained to this ** condemnation, ungodly men, ^crsSe/?, tjjv tou Qiov *' v^jM)) yjoiciv [jLsr(XTi9c).Jig cig cwsT^ysiocv, impioufly ma- *' king a jell of the grace cf our god , i. ^. of the god of <* us Chriftians, and (as impioully) denying him ** who hath tlie fole dominion, 7ov ^cvov h(r7ro77]v, our " God and Loud Jesus Christ, Gsov k^i Kipv *' )j/xwv I'/jcrouv X^ic;ov." I muft here be. forgiven, if I once more objeA to our Fnglifh tranflation in this inftance. ( "7 ) inftance. The words certainly do not appear to be rendered properly by " the only Lord God and '^ our Lord." AscrTTOTyjv is not an adjedlive, but a fubftantive in concord with its adjedlive fxo'w ; and therefore in conftruclion is limited to that ; but, in the translation, its power is transferred, as if it was in agreement with G.-ov, and as if it had an adje6tivc iignification, which it certainly has not. Caftalio tranllates it Solu?n Herum Deum ; what kind ef lan- guage this is I undertake not to determine ; but it is ftrange that the manifefi: impropriety of it did not ftrike him ; fuch language feems rather to be burlefque than any thing elfe ; others, perhaps, may have tranflated the words as erroneoufly, but in what manner I ftay not to enquire. The error of the tranflation feems moft probably to have arifen from its having been fuppofed that MONON lur- TToiYiv could not with truth be applied to Jesus Christ. But, it lliould have been remembered, what is really the truth of the Gofpel is truth, '' that ^// power was given to Jesus Christ, both in Heaven and Earth." It fhould have been remem- bered, what our Lord himfelf afllires us, that *^ the Father judgeth no man,, but hath committed " ^//judgement to the Son ;" and, if thefe things had been remembered, tlie tranflators would have had no difficulty in rendering the words " denying him, *' who hath the fole dominion, our God, and ** Lord, Jesus Christ;" for, fuch, accordingto all the rules of conftrudlion, feems to be the only true interpretation of the Greek words. I 3 St. ( I'S ) St. Jude concludes his Epiftle in terms no Icis itrongly attefting the Divinity of the Son of God, wien he afcribes to him Glory and Majefty, Domi- nion and Power, both now, and ever. Mo^w a-olcc ztoti wv KOii Hi 'UjGi.vTo.c, Tovg aioovag, A^ajji/. He that cart £nd out a confiftent and true mode of applying thefe words otherwife than to our acknowledged Saviour^ let fiun dp it. .Xlere then I fhall conclude my enquiry into the e'vidence that may be brought, from the New Tefla- rrient, in proof of the Divinity of the Son of God ; not becaufe' more could not have been produced ; for, the whole is full of evidence ; but becaufe fuf- ficient has been already produced to fatisfy any rea- fonable enquiries, and becaufe, if what has been al- ready produced is ineffe6tual for that purpofe, nei- ther would a farther accumulation of fimilar evidence prove efFedlual. That which I undertook to prove was, that, if we are not miSaken in our conclufion, that Jesus is God, becaufe he is declared to be the Son of God ; then would the Sacred Writings of the N^w Tefta- ment afford us as clear evidence to the truth of this conclufion as they do to the truth of our conclu- fion that he is man, becaufe he is called the Son of man. The evidence is now before the reader, from the EvangeliHis^ from St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James < 119 ) James, St. John, and St. Jade. If the evidence produced is not fuch as their writings will jiiftify to be the truth; the writer of thefe pages will moft readily acknowledge himfelf to be in an error, and retradl the whole of what he has faid ; the truth, let it be on which fide it will, is all that he aims at, both for himfelf and for others ; and, if the truth really is, that the Son of God is not God, neither will he prefume to affirm the contrary. But, what is truth ? and what is its ftandard ? Is imagination, or the effort of an uninformed mind, the meafure of it ? or does it depend upon the Revelation of the God of truth? If the former, then will it be as changeable and fluctuating as the human mind, which to-day adopts v/hat to-morrow it rejedls. For a length of time, ideas were fuppofed to be in- nate to the human mind. Mr. Locke has now de- monllrated, that ideas are not innate, and the mind acquiefces with that demonftration. But fome fu- ture Demonfcrator may perhaps arife, who will bring us back to the old flandard. Capricious as the mind then evidently has been in this inftance (and a thoufand inftance s of a iimilar nature might be men- tioned), how is it poffible, that the mind can be the meafure ■ of truth ? The reafoning of the human mind may be all juft, regular, and conclulive, and yet be deftitute of truth ; for, truth does not depend merely upon the comparifon of ideas, but upon the primary idea ; which if falfc itfelf, the regularity of our reafoning, and the conclulions which we I 4 draw ( 120 ) draw from it, will not render it true*. It is a pri- mary idea, that the moon is a habitable world like our own ; thence we reafon that it hath rivers, and feas, and mountains in it, as our own; and, becaufe our earth hath volcanos in it, we conclude the fame of the mioon ; and by the help of our glaf- fes the conclufion feems to be confirmed to us. But, is it therefore true that the moon hath all thefe thines in it, becaufe there is no defe6t in our rea- foning from the primary idea ? Suppofe any per- fon, by feme llrange capricious turn of mind, fhould adopt it as a primary idea, that the moon was nothing elfe but a large mirror ; might he not reafon as plauiibly and regularly from his idea as we do from ours ? and might not fancy help him to difcover in it a. reprefentation of the Atlantic Ocean ? and of the earthly volcanos which our glaf- fes feem to tell us really have an exigence in the moon ? But it will be fain, our primary idea, that the moon is a habitable world like our own, hath nothins: unreafonable in it. I will own, that it hath nothing that is im.poffible in it, as far as I am acquainted with the bounds of poflibility: but, if It is truth, it will not be poflible that it fhould be any thing elfe; but, as this will not be faid, our r^afoning upon this fubjedl:, and our conclulions, * Upon this Aibjec't, the reader canror, but with great fatifr faction to himfclf, confult the very excellent publication of Dr. Beatiie, on the Immutability of Ti uth. will ( 121 ) will be all arbitrary ; and fo will they be upon every other fubjedl, where the primary idea is not a(5lual truth. Now, if the primary idea mult be adtual truth, in order to give the fan6lion of truth to our reafon- ing and conclulions ; upon what muft this idea reft, that it may be eftablifhed to be a61ual truth ? As for inltance : it is our primary idea concerning God, that he is only one God ; upon what does this idea reft ? Innate it certainly is not ; for, if it was, every mind would have it, which we all know is not the cafe; for, the far greater majority of mankind, for a long continued feries of ages, were impreiTed with the idea of hjoly Theifm. Is it the pure genuine production of the mind itfelf, and the refult of thought and contemplafion ? How know you that it is true ? Your thinking it to be true doth not ef- tablifh it to be the truth v/itliout fome other au- thority. Polytheifm may avail itfelf of a plea of this kind as well as -of- the unity ofGoD; but all your reafon in every inftance perfeftly coincides with the idea, and therefore you know it to be true ; this is not a right conclufion. All your reafon coincides with it, becaufe it is true ; but it is not therefore true, becaufe your reafon coincides with it. Some ages fmce, all the world agreed, that there was no void in nature, that nature abhorred a vacuum ; all the reafon of the wifeft men coincided with the idea ; but, if that coincidence eftabliHied it to be a truth, what ( 12^ ) what are we to think of what we now receive for truth, that the operations of nature cannot be carried on without a vacuum ? Here then manifeftly is a coincidence of reafon, with two diredily contrary ideas; the one, that there is, the other, that there is not, a vaciuuT!. Nbw, as both connot be true, therefore reafon in one inftance or the other coin- cided with what is falfe ; confequently an idea is not therefore true, becaufe your reafon coincides with it.- It will be ufelefs to urge, that new lights broke in upon the mind, new difcoveries were made, which determined the mind in tb-e reje(9:ion of a plenum; for, this only ferves to fhew the impotence of reafon in eftablilliing actual truth. If, as in the prefent inftance, what was eftabliflied for truth an hundred and fifty years back has been rejected, on account of new lights and difcoveries ; who knows, but an hundred and fifty years hence ftill newer lights may break in upon us ? J^nd then we may liave neither a vacuum nor a plenum, but fomething elfe ; for, if new lights will juftify reafon in varying from an eftablifhed truth in one inftance, it will in another; confequently the coincidence of reafon with an idea is no proof of its being a(5lual truth. Now, if fuch be the fluctuation and defedl of reafon in the eftablifhment of truth, as hath been exemplified in the foregoing inftance, and in a cafe wherein our fenfes alfo were concerned ; what, and ( 1^3 ) and how great, muft be its defe6l, where Godj his being, and our own future being, are concerned! Is it the voice of reafon, that there is no other God but one only ? When was this voice ever heard ? Look into the hillory of mankind from its earheft ages; is there any thing of.tiie kmd to be found there ? does not the fadl proclaim the contrary in all ages, and among all nations, except the Jews ? and even in the little glimmering of the idea which is to be met with among fonie of the Philofophers, was it not all derived from.thfiir intercourfe with the Jews ? for, prior to fucli intercourfe, no fuch idea occurs in the whole hiftory of mankind from the one end of the world to the other Upon vvhat then does the idea refl, that there is only one God ? If only upon its conformity with our reafon, how know we that fome new light may not hereafter break in upon our reafon, and caufc us to rejedl this idea in order to introduce a different one ? Such has been the cafe in other inftances ; and fuch may be the cafe in this, if the truth of God's unity refts only on its idea being conformable with our reafon, Reafon does undoubtedly moft ftrongly and fully approve of the idea, and fo it did of a plenum ; but this latter it has rejedled, as what it can no longer, adopt. And what alfurance is there that it will never reje6l the unity of God ? Time, and new lights (whether true or falfe I enquire not), may in fiiture fet reafon at variarice with the idea, and moft probably ( 1^4 ) probably will, if it has no other ground for its truth than what the approbation of reafon gives it. But, jf the unity of God is a truth, it muft reft upon jfome other and certain balis, upon a baiis which will not admit of being difturbed by new lights and new difcoveries ; a bafis, which will fupport it tinfhaken through all the flu6luations of time and circumfkances. Upon fuch it certainly does reft ; for, heaven has revealed it to us to be a truth ; no new lights therefore can operate upon the mind in this cafe : it is a truth, a revealed truth, and un- alterable as its great Author. As then our primary idea of the Divinity is actual truth, becaufe iixed on the firm baiis of revelation ; fo, if we reafon juftly, will our deductions from it be true likewife. But, in our reafoning from this great fubje^V, the -utmoft caution is to be applied, that we do not derive confequences from it which it will not juftify, that v>'e do not reje6l a farther reiye- laiion of the nature of God from a prefumption of its being inconfiftent with his divine unity ; for, it is impofiible that a revelation from God, with regard to the Divine Nature, can be inconfiftent with the Divine Unity; and therefore, if there appears to be any inconfiftency in it, t]\e inconfiftency muft be in our apprehenfion, which we muft endeavour to rec- tify, but not in the revelation. Let ( 1^5 ) Let it be remembered, that the revelation of God's unity is not a revelation of the whole of the divine nature ; it is a revelation of only one point, and therefore a fubfequent revelation may communi- cate to us what is not comprehended under this one point, and more than we pollibly can derive from it by our reafoning powers. The nature of God, until made known to us by the light of revelation, is like an unexplored region, of whofe quality and producSlions we knovv' nothing ; afiured w€ may be of its exiftence, but of what belongs to it we can know nothing, until the traveller, who has explored it, fhall have given us the neceflary in- formation. AlTured we are, becaufe it is a revealed truthjOf the exiftence of God, and that there is but one God only; but of his nature, and being, what can we fay, unlefs guided by a divine light ? Rea- fon can infer nothing from the unity of God, with regard to his effential nature. Let an argument be framed: God is only one, therefore his eflential nature is — What ? Therefore, his effential nature is unity ; but what is this ? this is only making the inference the fame as the premifes ; God is one, therefore he is one. But the queftion is, what is the ejfential nature of God ? and this cannot be in- ferred from his unity; that is, no inference from his unity will inform us. Our intelligence, therefore, muft come to us from revelation ; and, if it comes to us from revelation, v/e knov/, and are affured, that it is acf ual truth, however it may not, in feme in- mces. A^, ( i26 ) l!:ance§, meet with the dirc6l approbation of our rea- son. Under the various fliuSluations of the himiari mindj reafon will often vary from the truth ; expe- dience afTures us of it ; experience afTures us, that it may fo vary from it, as to efteem what is actual truth to be an abfurdity, and impoffible. And, therefore, a revelation, even if it fhould not m.eet with the di- te6l approbation of our reafon^ is not to be fejedled merely on that account; for, it iiiay be a6lual truth notwithftanding. The truth of a revelation jefts not af all On the ftccdrd of our natural reafon with tlie matter reveal- ed ; but on the authority with which the revelatioi^ is conimunicated to us ; and, if that authority is fuf- liciently eflablifhed , it will be ufelefs to oppofe the inatter revealed with an outcry of abfurdity and con- tradiction ; we may d.s vvell dppofe matters of fa6l with the faitie outcry^ How abfurd, how contrary to our reafon, doe's it appear to be, that any human beings fiiould nicike a beverage of their own faliva, and be happy in intoxicating thcmfelves with it ! and yet fuch is the evidence of fa(^ attefted by eye-wit- neffes of it. We do not canvas this on the ground of probability or abfurdity ; v/c do not make either the ftandard of the truth of the fadf. The evidence of the eye-witnefs who attefts it fuperfedes all dif- cuffion ; and it is his evidence alone which makes us receive as a truth what otherwife we fhould think incredible. As then fuch is the condu(5l of the human ( 127 ) human mirxd in general, that it admits and receives the fa6t on the authenticity of the evidence by which it is fupported ; as its general mode of proceedino- is to judge of the truth of the fa6t by the authenticity of the evidence, and not to argue the incompetency of the evidence from the nature of the fa<5l ; why are we to proceed in a different manner, when a fubje^l of fo high a nature as the being of God is concerned ? If the authority with w^hich the revelation is com- municated to us is once fufficiently ellablifhed, it fuperfedes all difciiffion ; the matter revealed is juf- tified to be the truth, becaufe the authority with which it is communicated to us is fufhciently efta- bliflied ; therefore it is true, becaufe We know it to be a revelation. But the argument would be prepofte- rous, to fay, therefore, the fufficiendy-authoriied re- velation is no revelation, nor true, becaufe our rea- fon doth not approve the matter revealed. Prior ta the communication of the revelation, reafon hath determined that the revelation from the God of truth mull be true, therefore ther matter revealed muft be true alfo. The certainty of the revelation is the teft of the truth of the matter revealed, not the matter revealed the teft of the revelation. But it has been faid, and ftrangely faid too, that reafon is unqueftionably the fir jl r .velation of God to man; and hence it has been inferred, tliat rea- fon ( '^8 ) fon is to be the judge of the revelation, whether it comes from God, or ctherwife. The premifes are abfurd ; for, reafon is no more a revelation than any other power of the mind, or than light and hearing, whereby we diftinguifh founds and colours ; they are all gifts, endowments from God to his creatures; but, to call either of them a revelation is infinitely ridiculous. The inference y^let the premifes be what they will) is partly true and partly falfe ; for, rea- fon certainly is to be exercifed in enquiring and de- termining whether a revelation comes from God, or not ; wherein its firft operation is to afcertain whe- ther the perfon who communicates it hath a divine miffion : if the refult is, that he certainly doth not appear to have any fuch divine miffion, then un- queftionably whatever his pretended revelation may be, reafon will reje6f it as a revelation : but, if the refult is, that he certainly hath a divine miffion, and that God hath fent him to communicate a revelation to us, then reafon is neceifarily called upon to admit and to receive that revelation, becaufe it comes from God. After then it is eftablifhed, that the perfon communicating hath a divine miffion, and that the end of his miffion is to communicate to us a revela- tion from God ; what hath reafon farther to do ? is it to canvas and lift the matter revealed in order to find flaws in it ? But the exercife of reafon, in or- der to find flaws in what reafon hath acknowledged to be a revelation from God, is the exercife of folly ; it is to undo with one hand what you have done with the ( 129 ) the other; for, from a divine miffion can come no- thing but what is tru€, and therefore, in canvaffin^- and endeavouring to find flaws in the matter re- vealed, reafon is endeavouring to overthrow the truth of what it had cftablifhed and acknowledged to be true. Reafon acknowledges the truth of this propoiition, that the whole is more than a part. Would it not be wifely employed after this acknow- ledgement, in endeavouring to lind a flaw Iierein, in endeavouring to And a flaw in what it cannot avoid giving its aflent to ? With equal wifdom is it employed in endeavouring to And flaws in the mat- ter revealed, when it acknowledges that the revela- tion comes from God. The matter revealed is the revelation : the perfon comimunicating it is acknow- ledged to have a divine million ; therefore, the m.at- ter revealed is true ; therefore, likewife, it is true, however it may not happen to fall in immediately with our apprehenfion- For, in a revelation which regards the inviflble world, which re2;ards the efien- tial nature of the Divine Being, it cannot be but that difiiculties mull occur, and fuch as will not in every refpeft be folvable by the human mind. But, let the difficulties be what they will, fliill if the au- thority of the divine mifl^icn is efl:ablilhed, theie will not operate to the difcredit of the revelation, nor in reafon can they, till the authority of the divine mli- flon is defl:royed. V/hile that authority remains un- fliaken, the difficuities in the matter revealed can be of no account. " Believe me, faith our Lord, K^ *' that ( 130 > '* that I am in the Father and the Father in me." Will you refufe to belieye this becaufe of the diffi- eulty there is in the faying ? You cannot do it without firft dilbelieving his divine miflion. But this is fo fully cftablifhed by his mighty works and miracles, that you cannot deny it;, therefore, the difficulty which there may be in the faying can be no reafonable ground for dilbelieving it. These is fomething unaccountabTy weak in the progrefs of fome men's minds who receive the mef- fenger as having a divine miflion, as certainly com- ing from God, and then reje6^ what he communi- cates to- themy becaufe their reafon cannot make it out with the fame clearnefs and perfpicuity as it makes out the things which- belong purely to this world. But is it even imaginable that reafon fhould' always be able to do this, that in a revelation of the ellential nature of the incQmprehenlible God, ife fhould be able to make out every thing appertaining. to it with that determinate clearnefs which it hath upon fubje6ls of an inferior nature ? If a defedl of this kind is a fufhcient ground for reje^ing a reve- lation, it is a fufficient ground for rejedling God himfelf, who is incomprehcnfible. What clearnefs, what perfpicuity of ideas liave you when you tell ua that God is a fpirit ? For, what politively is a fpi- rit ? When you tell us of his omniprefence, and that time is no meafure of his exifberre, do not :.hefe things fecm to contradict the plain di-dlates of reafon ( 131 ) reafon and common fenfe ? Have you any concep- tion of the meafure of exiftence without time ? YoU certainly have none. The conception, notvv'ith- llanding every effort of the mind, is an impoffible conception. It contradidls the plain dictates of reafon and common fenfe to affirm, that any body can be m more places than one at the fame inllant. When, therefore, you affert the omnipre fence of God, you contradict: thofe plain dictates. It is in vain to urge, that God is a fpirit ; for, this will not do away the contradi6lion, until you have proved from reafon what a fpirit is po/ilively ; a proof which does not lie within the power of human reafon i and until you have fhewn that it is not fubjedt to the fame laws as body is : but this cannot be fhewn without being able to fhew what a fpirit is pojitively. The plain dictates of reafon and common fenfe alfo, are, that exiftence implies duration, and that duration implies time, and, therefore, that time is neceffarily the meafure of exiftence. But, in God we acknowledge that it is not fo; and, therefore, in God we acknowledge what contradidls the plain didlates of reafon and common {qh^q. With what wifdom then,, or folly fliall I rather fay, can we de- ny, that any revelation can be true, which contra- di6ls the plain dictates of reafon and common itii(z ? In this inftance we evidently acknovv'ledge to be true K 2 v/hat ( '3^ ) what plainly contradi(5ls them, and in the nature df God there may be many other inftances of a limi- lar kind, unlefs the nature of God differs not from the nature of man ; and, indeed, I may venture to fay, there muft be many limilarinftances, becaufe, in different natures there mull be different properties; for, if there were not, the natures would not differ ; but the nature of God differs infinitely from the nature of man. To quarrel, therefore, with a revelation concerning the nature of God, becaufe our realbn cannot make out its properties with the fame eafe and perfpicuity as it makes out what appertains to the nature of man muft be unwife in the higheft de- gree. I do not wifh by any means to depreciate human reafon ; and whoever fhall fay that it is my objedf , will fay what is not true. Reafon is undoubtedly a noble, and the diftinguifhing gift of God to human creatures ; but then we muft not advance its throne above the throne of the Moft High, we muft not make it more confequential than it really is. Reafon is the power of the 7nind, (Mr. Locke calls it a faculty in man,) and is exerted in receiving or rejedling premifes, and in making dedu6tions from them. But then it cannot make a thing to be other- wife than it reallv is. It hath neither a creative nor .a diffolving power ; and that which really is a reve- lation from God will be fuch in defiance of every effort i ^33 ) ^ effort of reafon to the contrary. Reafon may com- plain of difficulties and hard fayings, and who can hear them ? but all its oppofition will be fruitlefs. It muft fall before ;"fo it is revealed/ And fo it is revealed, if the communication comes to us from a proved mefTenger of God, let the contents of it be what they will. But it will be faid, that God never did, nor ever will, require it of any m.an, to believe what contra- dicts the plain diftates of his Jiatural reafon. This, as far as it is true, is faid too foon, and, I think, is not urged with much wifdom : for, in a revelation, real or pretended, the firft object that prefents itfelf to the mind's confideration is, the perfon by v/hom it is communicated ; Vv'hat is his authority } what are his credentials ? If he is unable to produce creden- tials fufficient to juftify him to be a meffenger from God, he is, of couife, rejected as an impoftor; but, if his credentials are fufficient, (of which reafon undoubtedly muft be the judge) If the judgement of reafon is, that the melfenger doth certainly come from God, then, affuredly, it muft be the judge- ment of reafon, that therefore he ought to be re- ceived. Now, then, what doth God require of us upon this occafion ? He requires of us, that we ffiould act up to the judgement of our reafon, and give credit to the meffenger whom we acknowledge to have come from himfelf : but if we p-'ivc credit to O him, it muft be by giving credit to the meffage s 3 which ( 134 ) which he brings to us ; for, othenvife, we treat hiril as an impoftor, as a melfenger that does not come from God, when the judgement of our reafon is, that he does come from him ; which is abfurd. After the ambaflador is received, and his credentials ad- mitted, it would be madnefs to objedl to the em- bafiy, as not coming from him from whom it is fent, becaufe the matter of it is unplealing to you. In the cafe of a revelation, if the credentials of the mef- fenger are fufficiently eftablifhed, the revelation which he communicates muft come from God ; and, if it comes from him, cannot be rejedf ed. But you lay, God does not require it of you to believe what contradi<5ls your reafon : you ought rather to fay, God does not require it of you to receive a meffen- ger as from him who does not bring with him a fuf- ficient teftimony of his divine miffion ; but, if he does bring with him that teftimony, he requires it of you, that you ihoukl believe him ; and, if you are to believe hirn, what the purport of the mefiage may be, whether fuch as your reafon approves or difapproves, is altogether foreign to the queftion. It comes from God, and therefore is true, and therefore rnuft be implicitly received. It muft be remembered, that God, when he makes a revelation to us, fubmits all that is neceffary to the judgement of our reafon. The perfon by whom he com.municates it to us is to be fcrutinizcd to the utmoft : we arc to examine, with all the powers { 135 ) powers we hare, whether he really does come from God, or not; and, if the examnratlon terminates in un aflurance, that he really is a man of God, that the miracles which he does are fuch as no man could do except God were witii him; and, in the words of St. Peter, if he be a man approved among us by ?the ligns and wonders and miracles which God worketh in our prefence by him, then reafon has all tlie fa'tisfa61:ion given it that it can require. It is con- touted tlie judge. Its judgement is appealed to, and it is fuffered to determine according t© the evidence before it- What more after this hath reafon to re- quire ? Shall we dare to fit in judgement over the meflage which God fends to us ? Shall we have the arrogance to pronounce it unworthy of God, incon- iiilent with our reafon, and inadmiffible, ©n account of its abfurdity .'' What impiety ! and what folly alio ! Such language as this which we hear but too too often, is not only a moft flagitious attack on the truth of God himfelf, {for, by admitting the mef- fenger, we admit the m^effage t^© come from God ;) but it is as foolilh as it is flagitious. It is playing tiie fool with the judgement of reafoa. It is felting tip the judgement of reafon againft the judgement of reafon. It is eflablifliing truth, and fighting with it as if it was a falfehood. It is th^ ultimate tell of the truth of a meifage as coming from God, by the conformity of the particular terms of the meflTage with our judgement. Of what ufe are miiracles ? Why is the meffenger endowed with fupernatural K 4 powers ? ( 136 ) powers ? Thefe in liini are all a ufelefs parade ; for, whether he exerts, or does not exert them, we fhall pay no regard to tliem. Our judgement will be formed from the mciilige which he brings to us, and from nothing elfe ; for, were he to eftablifh the cer- tainty of his divine million in the moil irrefragable manner, it would be of no avail ; the matter which he fhould communicate to us, if it met not with ou'- approbation, would condemn him for an im- poftor. This was the principle which governed the Jews in the crucifixion of our Lord. His miracles and m.ighty works they paid no regard to, although he had done fo many before them, yet would they not believe on him, but, judging from his do6lrine, which v/as fo oppolite to their prejudices and expec- tations, they condemned him to death as an impof- tor, who had given fuch mighty evidence of his be- ing true, and of his having " come out from "God." Moreover, let it be confidered, that if the judge- ment of our reafon on the matter communicated to us is the only criterion of a revelation from God, we may call any thing a revelation from him if it hap- pens to meet with our approbation ; and then Socra- tes and Plato, and an hundred others who knew not God, may be laid to have had divine millions from him. 1 o fuch extroTie abfurdities fhall we be driven if we make the matter revealed, and its conformity with ( '^?>1 ) with our judgement the ultimate teft of the reve- lation ! Moll certain is what we fo often hear urged, that God requires of no man to believe what in every re~ fpe6t contradicts the reafon which he has given him, and therefore he does not require it of us to believe the revelation merely on the ground of its own in- ternal evidence. What he requires of us is to be- lieve the teftimony of the perfon whom he divinely commiffions and lends to us ; and this we cannot re- fufe to do without a manifeft contradiction to our reafon, if he brings with him fucii credentials as ellablilh him to have a divine million. But, if we believe him ive believe the revelation alfo which he brings with him, and we believe it on his authority, fo that the internal congruity of our minds, with the matter revealed, is not the ground of our faith, but the authority of the perfon by whom it is com- municated to us. His authority alTures us, that truth only can come from him, and therefore we acquielce with what he communicates to us as truth, without bringing it to any farther tell or examina- tion, being perfuaded that, as it comes from God, it muft be true, although we may not be able to demonllrate its truth in all its parts with that clear- nefs and perfpicuity which attend us in our demon- ilration of things purely terrellrral. 1 I have ( 138 ) I have been the more particuhir, and dwelt the longer upon this fubjedl, becaufe the prhicipal ob- jedlions to cur Lord's Divinity are derived from the doclrine's not being entirely conformable with our common way of tliinkiog and reafoning ; and the obje6lions certainly would be valid if the doc- trine had been communicated to us by an unautho- rized perfon. But, as that is not the cafe, as the do6lrine is not propofed to us as a problem which we are to folve, but Is propofed to us for our ac- quiefcence with it as a communication from the God of Truth, by perfons divinely authorized for that purpofe, therefore all objeftions from the na- ture of the doclrine are futile and frivolous. Our primary idea, and that which muit take the lead in all our enquiries upon fubjedls of this nature is, that all communications from the God of Truth mull be true. Hence the whole of the matter will turn upon this iingle quefhion. Is the do6lrine, or is II not, a communication from God ? If the New Teflament is a divine revelation, and the do{?trIne is there, then undoubtedly it comes from God, and Is true ? If it is not a divine revelation, then have we no other authority to appeal to for the truth of the dcftrine; therefore, the oppofers of the Divinity of the Son of God, if they would a6i: conlillently, and juftify themfeives in this oppolition, fhould either totally deitroy the whole credit of the New Tefta- ment r.s a divine revelation; or they fhculd prove fa^ ( 139 ) fatisfadlorlly that the divinity of the Son of God is a clo6lrine which throughout, and in every part of it, it difowns. The former it is imagined they will hardly venture upon. The New Teftament as a di- vine revelation, hath withftood the perfecutions of philofophers of various denominations, for more than feventeen hundred years, and ftill remains un- hurt, and fuperior to all their united efforts ; and therefore any attempts to overthrow It now could hardly be expedfed to meet v/nh fuccefs. The lat- ter, if they will be bold enough to venture upon, by all means let them do it. Let them produce one lingle paflage which explicitly declares, that the Son of God is not God. Let them prove, that the word Son in the terms Son of God j varies in its im- plied lignification, from that which it hath when employed with regard to every other being. Let them prove that every pafTage which is produced in affirmation of our Lord's Divinity is milinterpreted, or let them do it with regard only to thofe few paf- fages which have been cited in the foregoing pages, and we will hear them, and even join with them ; but if they are reafonable men, let us hear no more of the doctrine's being contrary to their reafon, that they cannot conceive how it can be, and that Gon does not require of them to believe what they can-^ not conceive poffible. We who do believe the doc- trine, have no clearer conceptions of the dodlrine than they themfelves have, but then we have one conception which furmounts all difficulties, and it ( HO ) it is, that God never will require it of us to believe any thing that is not true. God, we know, is true ; and if he communicates any thing to us, that com- munication mull be true likewife. If then the Divi- nity of the Son of God is fuch a communication, and liich it certainly is, if it is the do6lrine of the New Tcliament, If it is Heaven's revelation to us, that Jesus Christ is God as well as man, reafon, if it would a<5l confiftently, hath nothing to do but to acquiefce ; for, while the New Teflament continues to maintain its authority as a divine revelation, the do6lrine mnfl: be true, becaufe it is the do6lrine of the New Teftament. The communication of our Lord's Divinity to us, is the communication of a matter of fadl, and, therefore, is not to be canvafTed as we would canvas a theory or a fentiment. Matters of fa6t will often appear to us, even in common life, to be extremely furprizing, and even incredible ; but, if properly evidenced and attefted, there will be no arguing againft them. Arguments brought againft them would be like arguments againft a geometrical de- monftration, which, however plaufible, never could be fupported to any purpofe. The fa61: is politively alTerted in the New Teftament, that Jesus Christ is God ; and I fay fo, becaufe I think it is very fuf- ficiently proved in the preceding pages. Here then is no room for enquiries upon the fubjecl ; for, en- quiring whether the afferted fac^l is probable or pof- liblc ( 141 ) fible,for doubting its truth or rejedllng it. It is the aflertion of perfons divinely authorized by the Goo of Truth to aflert it, and therefore it is true. Hence then it appears how very much miftaken the advo- cates for what is called rational religion are. They admit the revelation, at leaft many of them feem to do fo, and yet doubt or rejeft the matter revealed : but furely there is fome inconfiftency in this ; for, while we admit the evidence of the fa6l, we are ne- ceiTarily precluded from denying its truth ; there- fore, either the evidence fhould be rejefted as in- fufficient, or the truth of the fa 61 fliould be admit- ted, and I fee no other alternative. « The friends of what is called rational religion, ap- pear to me to a6l from a principle which furely can- not be a juft one, that there is no religion in tlie world which is llamped with a divine authority, and that mankind are left to fabricate a religion for themfelves out of I know not what elements, out of fome iine-fpun theory, wherein truth mufi:, even at the beftj be only hypothetical, and, perhaps, have no other for its balls than a fallac3\ But, furely the authority of the New Teftament ought lirft to be done away, before they venture to proceed fuch lengths as thefe, for, if that authority is not done away, we have a religion v«/hich is fiamped with di- vine authority, and are bound to a compliance with it without having^ recourfe to conjecture or bafelefs theories. Perfons ( 142 ) Perfons of the above complexion are mighty fond of giving the title of aniient wriiings to the writings of the New Teftament, juft as if they were antiqua- ted and of no vulue, with an intimation to us, that from their antiquity they are hable to be, and often are neceffarily mifunderftood, and that we have no re- medy for this but by an appeal to our reafon. The writings of the New Teftament certainly may be termed in one refpecSl antient writings, becaufe It is fo long lince they were originally written ; but to call them antient, in the fenfe of being antiquated, cannot be admitted on any account ; for they have been attended to, and been the conftant itudy of Chrlftlans for more than feventeen hundred years ; and, therefore, as Chriftians have not cafually, but conftantly, been acquainted with them, and without intermifiion for fo great a length of time, to call them antiquated, or to deem them fuch, muft pro- ceed from a very fad mifapplicatlon of judgement. The uninterrupted application of Chrlilians likewife to thefe Sacred Writings, forms a very ftrong pre- fumptlonthat they are not either fo liable to be, or fa neceffarily mifunderftood as the fuggeftlon is, and forms a prefumption alfo the very rcverfe of the, fuggeftlon, namely, that as they have been fo con'> ftantly attended to, they muft be much more per- fe6lly underftood than any other antient writings whatever. Now, for all this length of time, by far the greater majority of Chrlftlans have always un- derftood, that thefe Sacred Writings have afterted the ( U3 ) the divinity of the Son of God. If, therefore, they are mifunderftood now, they have been miftinder- Itood from the very beginning, and long enough before they could be denominated antient writing?, and therefore the objedtion of their being liable to be mifunderftood from their antiquity, is ill founded, confequently there lies no appeal from them to our reafon in oppoiition to the do6lrine which they in- culcate, that the Son of God is God, unlefs it fhould be faid, that they have been mifunderftood frorn the beginning, which, I think, no one will be bold enough to affirm, inafmuch as that would be to deftroy entirely their value and authority ; for, if they are neither truly underftood now, nor ever were from the beginning truly underftood, they can be no better than fo much wafte paper, and there will be an end of tiie Gofpel and of the Chnftian re-. liglon. But let me be permitted to affirm, that they both were from the beginning, and ftill continue to be well underftood by Chriftians, that their lanp-uao-e and ftyle are fuch as to render them eafy of inter- pretation, and that if they do not always abound in claflic elegance, they have none of that difficulty or obfcurlty in them, v/hich we often meet with ia the beft Greek writers. Tliat the propolition con- cerning our Lord's Divinity is a plain and ftmpie one, either that he is, or that he ii not, God ; that tlie language of fuch a propofttiori may eallly be ex- 3 prefiedj ( 144 ) prefTed, and that in the New Teftament it is ex- prefTed with great plainnefs and perfpicuity, that he is God, and that, if the contrary of this were true, it might have been expreffed with great plainnefs and perfpicuity, that he is not God, fo that, on a fubje6l of this kind, there could be no room for dif- ficulty or mifunderftanding. Whatever may have been faid upon the fubjedl either on the one fide or -the other, muft be plain and intelligible ; and it is impoffible, if the Sacred Writings fay that Jesus Christ is not God, that we fhould mifunderiland their exprefhon, as if they had faid he is God, or, if we fhould have been fo infatuated as to mifinter- pret their expreffion, we ftill muft neceffarily have failed in our proofs. But, fo far are the Sacred Writings from denying our Lord's Divinity, that they pofttively affirm it, and the proofs of it we produce in plain unambiguous language, and call upon the adverfaries of this great truth to produce^ I do not fav an equal number, but any one fingle paflage, which, in plain unambiguous language, declares, that Jesus Christ is not God ; but no fuch paflage ever yet has been produced, and I am well perfuaded none fuch ever can; for the New Teftament contains none fuch. The requilition I apprehend, hath nothing of hardfhip or dimculty in it, when we call for a paflage in plain denial of the Divinity of Jesus Chp.ist. When they call for pafTages in proof of his Divinity, we find no diffi- culty in producing them.. Would it not then be as eafy ( H5 ) feify to produce paiTages which contradi(9: it, if arty fuch exifted ? However, let us once more, and fi- nally, take things their own way. The doctrine of Christ's Divinity it is impofli- ble to reconcile with ohr reafon, fo that it fhall not contradi6t it ; and, as God has given us our reafon to be the ftandard of fuch truths as we receive, ivhat contradicts our reafon we cannot receive as truth; and, as the doctrine of Christ's Divinity certainly does contradift it, we, therefore, cannot admit it to be a truth. Now all this feems to be very fair and plaufible,, It certainly hath fome truth in it, but much of fal- lacy. For, undeniable it is, that we cannot receive as true what our reafon affures us is not true ; and if the doftrine of Christ's Divinity depended merely on an appeal to our reafon and its judgement, I think there would be few or none found who could be prevailed upon to receive it as a true dodlrine. It is undeniable alfo, that God has gi\'cn us our reafon, to affift and to determine us in our judge- ment of what is, and of what is not truth. But, let it be remembered withal, that God hath not given it to us for the purpofe cf judging, v/hen he liim.felf fpeaks to us, whether he fpeaks truth or not. I^br, it is one of the iirft and moil unerring principles of our reafon, that nothing but truth can come from L the ( H^ ) the God of "fruth, fo that this primary judgement ol* our reafon renders all farther enquiry or judgement unnecelTary and abfurd. But it will be faid, if we ate precluded from exa- fftining and judging of the dodtrine by our reafon, of vvhat ufe is it that reafon was given us in order to affift and determine us in the judgement of what is ©r is not truth ^ The communication of a dodlrine to us is an appeal to our reafon, with which, if it does not correfpondy^ it may, and ought to be, re-" jelled. Here, then, in anfwer it is to be faid, that God in all his dealings with us, adieth with the utmoft eonfiftency; that, in conformity with our primary cftablifhed principle, that nothing but truth can come from him, when he communicates a dodlrine to us he ordains that we fhould have all the fatisfac- tion reafon can require, that the perfon who com- municates it has full authority, and really comes from himfelf. Hence he endows him with great and- fupernatural gifts and powers, which he is to exhibit before us. From them our reafon is appealed to, tO' judge whether he indeed comes from God or not, and the decifion of true genuine reafon will be ac- cording to the evidence. If the evidence is full and copious, if it is fuch as to juftify him to be a divine mellenger, reafon muft and will acquiefce, and ac- knowledge him to be a perfon fent from God for tlie ( H7 ) the purpofe of making a communication to us. If the evidence is otherwife, it will rejedt him, and, of courfe, pay no regard to any thing that he would communicate. It pays no regard to what he would communicate, becaufe he has failed in his primary evidence of being a divine melTenger ; which fhews plainly enough, that the primary evidence is the teft of the communication, and that the appeal to our reafon is in that, and not in the doctrine com- municated ; for, the dodlrine communicated, if the primary evidence is efiiablifhed, reafon hath already determined muft be true, becaufe, by that evidence, it comes from the God of Truth. Now if reafon after this occupies itfelf in enquiring whether the doctrine thus communicated be true or falfe, it can- not but adl not only with the utmoil inconfifirency, but with the confummation of infolence and arro- gance ; for it then becomes neither more nor lefs than an enquiry whether the God of Truth may not be a deceiver, and communicate to us that which in itfelf is an a6lual falfehood ; for, if it is otherwife, for what end is the enquiry made ? It cannot be for the purpofe of afcertaining the divine miffion of the perfon by whom the do6lrine is communicated ; for, that is already afcertained, and his divine miffion acknowledged; and, therefore, it can be for no other purpofe but that which is here affigned. Should it be faid, that the enquiry into the do6lrine communicated is made for the purpofe of ftrengthen- ing and confirming the primary evidence, and left L 2 reafon ( '48 ) rearon fhould have erred, or been deceived in its judgement concerning it, this muft be confidered merely as an evalion ; for, if reafon could err or be deceived in its judgement of the primary evidence, fo likewife may it in its judgement of the do(9:rine communicated, and then what becomes of reafon as the ftandard of truth ? If it can judge with certainty of the doctrine communicated, it can judge with certainty of the divine miilion; and if it cannot judge with certainty of the divine miffion, neither can it of the dodlrine communicated. If reafon, therefore, can judge with certainty in any cafe, it can judge with certainty of the divine miffion ; and if it judges and determines the divine miffion to be true, and what it affiimes to be, it, by that deter- mination, judges its communications to be true like- v/ife. Now then, to apply this to our prefent purpofe. If it is the determination of reafon that the writers of the New Teftament had the authority of a divine miffion for what they have written : it by that de- termination judges the do6lrines which they have communicated to us to be true. Here, then, the queftion will turn upon this fmgle point : What is it that they have written? Have they written, that Jesus Christ is God ? If they have, then reafon pofitively has determined that he is God, becaufo it has determined that what is written in the New Tcftam.ent is true; and therefore, after this, to urge that ( H9 ) that the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity is contrary to our reafon, untrue, and incredible, is abfurd; for, we have determined already, that it is true, be- caufe communicated to us by perfons comm.iffioned to communicate it by the God of Truth. But it, probably, will be faid, However well we may be agreed with regard to the words in which the Sacred Writers have exprefled themfelves, how- ever ready we may be to allow, that they certainly are the words of truth ; yet that reafon muft never- thelefs be ultimately appealed to, in order to deter- mine their lignification, for, that no fignification of the words which does not fully accord with our na- tural reafon can be admitted. The plain anfwer to this feems to be, that if the words to be interpreted are capable of two interpre- tations, ivithout doin^ any violence to the zuords them- felves, and the one is apparently contrary to our rea- fon, and the other certainly in full agreement with it ; then, I think, there can be no doubt but that the latter interpretation is to be preferred. But, on the other hand, where the words plainly admit of but one only interpretation, there that interpreta- tion rauft be abided by as certain truth ; and reafon hath no power to reje6l it. L 3 Ey4»j ( 1^0 ) Kyu Kdi zs-arv,^ sv sa-fxiv. Can there be more than one interpretation of thefe words ? If there can, what is it ? To talk of unity of confent is no inter- pretation of the words, but a defcant upon them. Aoain : o ATrixp^dyj Qcc[xci; kui sittsv ATTH, o Kvpiog fxcVf ymi Qsoc iJLov. Thefe words alfo admit only of one in- terpretation, namely, that Thomas applied the words *' My Lord and my God" perfonally to his Mafter. All that can be faid farther upon them goes beyond the interpretation, and is matter merely of furmife and conie(5lure ; and, moreover, if it tends to deftroy the efFe6l of the interpretation, we need not helitate to pronounce it to be moft certainly falfe. Ephefians iii. 9. Kcci (pccTinxi zo- the writer has particularly pointed out by name as concerned in the examination of the apoftles and others : he hath no lefs accurately defcribed who were concerned with them, namely, as m.any as were of the kindred of the high prieft. Was there none of thefe to be found who v/ould rife up to vindicate themfelves from fuch an afperfion as was thrown upon their characters by this narrative of the Sacred Writer ? Suppofe them, againft every degree of probability, to have been all dead when the narra- tive was publifhed ; what became of all the rulers, and elders, and fcribes, v/ho are faid to have been alTembled with them ? Were thefe all dead like- wife ? There mull have been then a very fad mor- tality at Jerufalem, that could have fwept away fuch numbers in the fliort fpace of about eight and tweti- ty or thirty years ! But neither is this all. The Sa- cred Writer tells us, that the miracle was notorious, and generally known to all the inhabitants of Jerufa- lem. Were thefe alfo all deceafed ? Was there not one furviving perfon to be found who could give his teftimony, and put a flop to the progrefs of a reli- gion which they were all fo zealous to extirpate ? M a This, ( «64 ) "this, furely, muft be too much for the faith evtti of a modern fage, who can believe any extravagance that is urged againft the Chriftian religion, and nd truth that is urged in its behalf. If the fa6is re- corded in the Gofpels and the Adls of the Apoftles are true, there cannot be a doiibt but that the doc- trines of the New Teftament are communications to us from the Go-D of Truth, by perfons authorized and infprred by himfelf. As fu'ch they were received -by the firft converts to Chriftianity, who had every cfpportunity of examining with certainty into the truth of the fadts recorded. As fuch they have de- fcended unimpeached, to any purpofe, through a long fucceffion of ages to our own times, never de- nied or oppofed by thofe, who, if they had been falfe, could have denied or oppofed them with ef- fedt, but fuifered to remain as they are recorded, uncontrouled by any evidence to the contrary. Had the miracles and v;onders recorded in the Sacred Writings defcended to us only by oral tradition, we probably fhould have paid very little attention to them ; we ihould have rejedled or received them in proportion as they might have appeared to us, ei- ther probable or poffible. But here, in the prefent inftance, oral tradition hath no manner of concern. Our information comes from written records, writ- ten and publilhed early, and at a time when they might have been contradidled, bidding defiance to all gainfaying or contradi6lion. St, Matthew's Gof- |)el was written within about eight years after our Lord's ( i65 ) lyO'RD^s afcenlion, and in the Jewifh language, and, therefore in a language which the Jews in general could not but underftand ; and having been written fo early, it is impollible but the Jews muH have known whether the fadls recorded in it were true or otherwife ; and, if any of them had not been true, is it conceivable that they would not moft trium- phantly have taken the advantage of it ? But no- thing of the kind has ever yet appeared, nor been heard' of, even by report. On the contrary, the Ebionites, who were as much Jews as they were Chriftians, admitted the truth of St. Matthew's Gof- pel, and adopted it all except the fir ft two or three chapters ; which it is not to be imagined they would have done if the fa6ls recorded in it were notorioufly falfe, and fuch as no one at Jerufalem knew any thing of. St. Mark's Gofpel was written within about ten years after the afcenfion, and the A6ls of the Apof- tles about twenty-eight or thirty years after the fame event. Now then, if we consider thefe early pub-^ ii cations as appeals for the truth of what is recorded in them, which in fa6l they are ; and, if we farther confider, that nothing has ever appeared in confe- quence of thefe appeals, either denying or difproving the fa6ls recorded; the refult is, and neceflarily muft be. Therefore the fa6ls recorded in the pub- lications are real truths ; and therefore the writers of the New Teftament were what all Chriftians acknow- ledge them to have been, perfons under the infpira- tion pf the God of Truth; and if they were, then M 3 the ( i66 ) tht doctrines which they have communicated to us, muft be true likewife : whence it follows, that we, in thefe laft ages of the world, liave the fame evi- dence as the primitive Chrlftians themfelves had of the New Tellament's being a revelation from God, the fa6ls being as afliiredly afcertained to us as if we had been eye-wltneffes of them ; in which latter clr- cumftance conlifts the only difference between us and them. Hence may it, without hefitation, be affirmed, that we have other evidence befide the do6lrine communicated, to dire6f us in forming our judgement, whether the New Teflament is really a revelation from God or not, even the very firfi: and original evidence, the uncontrouled evidence of wonders and miracles, ftrengthened by the teflim.ony of all antiquity. But, if we had not this evidence, the doctrine communicated would not help us, or be any proof of the reality of the revelation. For, conlider, the doftrines of the New Teftament are either fuch as relate to what we call morality, or elfe they relate to matters of a much higher nature, and that lie far beyond the fphere of our determinate knowledge. Now then, what affurance do the moral do(5lrines of the New Teftament afford us that it is a revelation from God } Was morality unknown to the world before the promulgation of the Gofpel ? Were there no writers upon moral fubjec^s prior to it ? and, was there no truth in what they wrote upon thefe < 16; ) tliefe fubjecSls ? Who will fay there was not ? But, if there was truth in what they wrote, then the very fame rule by which, you would prove the New Tef- tament to be a revelation will prove alfo, that Tul- ly's Offices, or any other moral writings, were re- velations, v.diich, I fuppofe, no one will contend fon For, if the truth of the moral doctrines fhould be proof in the one cafe, it will be alfo in the other. As, then, the truth of its moral do6trines will not alone affure us, that the New Tefirament is a revela- tion from God; much lefs will thofe higher do6frines which lie fo much beyond our reach, and which our reafon tells us, if they are received at all, muft be received by a faith grounded on the authority of thofe by whom they are communicated to us. To this, however, it is oppofed, that thefe doftrines, if they are received, can be received upon no other foundation but that of our reafon, approving and adjudging them to be worthy of God, HovvT long will not men ceafe to fpeak with pre- fumption and arrogance concerning God ! Shall a moth, an infedl that flutters its few moments in the fun, and then drops, dare to fay, what is, or what is not, worthy of the Almighty God and Creator of the univerfe, a Being who is at fuch an infinite dif- tance from us, that the utmoft powers of the human mind are quite unable to fearch him out ! Where are the balances which human reafon is pofTeffed of, M 4 in ( i68 ) in which to weigh the things that are worthy of God ? What is the ftandard which is to determine that a doctrine, of the atonement for inftance, and fatisfacSlion made for the fins of men by the fufFer- ings of the innocent Jesus, is unworthy of him ? If you can prove this, you muft have fome medium of comparifon whereby to prove it ; but, confefled- ly, you have none ; for. Go d is fo infinitely be- yond us, that no medium can pofiibly bring him into comparifon. " To whom then will ye liken *' God ? or what likenefs will ye compare unto "him?" And again, as from God himfelf, the prophet aficeth, " To whom will ye liken me, and ^* make me equal, and compare me, that we may *' be like ?" So that, when we talk of receiving or rejedling the do6lrines of the New Tef-ament, as our reafon adjudges them to be either worthy or un- worthy of God, we talk entirely at random, fince our reafon is deftitute of any mean whereby fuch an adjudication can be made. It is true, and I fcruple not to acknowledge it, that fome of the do6trines of the New Tefi:ament are extremely difficult to the human mind, and, I may add, irreconcilable by any of thofe modes of reafoning to which, as human beings, we are ne- cefiarily confined ; but they are not therefore falfe or unwortliy of God : for, in order to pronounce them fo, we rnufc have comparative ideas whereby to determine us in our judgement ; wc mull have where- ( >69 ) wherewithal to treat thefe fubjedls in the fame man- ner as we do others which the mind is competent to difcufs ; which we moft certainly have not. From the want of a medium we are unable to pronounce that a fquare is equal to a given circle ; but who ever argued thence, that therefore no fquare can be equal to a given circle? And yet he that fhould argue thus would argue to the full with as much wifdom as he that ar- gues that the dodlrines of the New Teftament are to be rejected, becaufe, we are unable to inveftigate them with thofe powers which are unequal to the in- veftigation. Where the powers of the mind are equal and fufficient for the fubje^l, there, doubtlefs, we mull be determined by the mind's decilion ; but where thefe fail us, as they certainly do with regard to fome dodlrinal fubjedls of the New Teftament, there any politive decilion of the mind is ridiculous, becaufe, it is deciding without a judgement, which is abfurd. Upon the whole, then, if we have no other mode of determining whether the New Teftament is a re- velation from God, but what is derived from its communicated dodlrines, it may afluredly be pro- nounced, that we have no m.ode of determining it at all. Neither the moral nor the other do6lrines v^ill prove it ; the proof refts entirely on the credl- bilit}^ of the perfons by whom they are communi- cated to us ; and, if they are credible, if they have fufficiently evidenced, that they were under the in- fpiration ( 170 ) fpiratloii of the God of Truth, and that what they .communicate to us hath the fan6lion of his high au- tliority, human reafon muft bow down and ac- knowledge their communications to be a divine rc- yelation ; and, notwithftanding any difficulties or intricacies that may be in them, that therefore they cannot be otherwife than certaii\ and infallible truths. I fhall add only a few words more with regard tq ^le interpretation of the New Teftament. It is certainly to be interpreted ftridlly according to the words ; and the conftru6lion of the words is to be by the fame rules as govern us in the conftruc- tion of any other Greek writings. As for Hcbraifms in thefe Sacred Writings, they are not by any means fo numerous as is often imagined ; and, moreover, they have no right to talk of Hebraifms in them who do not underftand Hebrew them.felves, which, I apprehend, is underftood by very few. Any de- viations, therefore, from the general rules of con- ftrudlion on account of Hebraifms will be very rarely admiffible. Very rarely alfo, I think nev£r^ are they to be in- terpreted as if they were written in conformity with the vulgar errors of the Jews ; for, that mult be a llrange kind of revelation which hath for its bafis the errors of ignorance. This wild conceit, this nau- feous ( 17' ) feous crudity of the imagination, I find has met with its fautors among the friends of rational Chrif- tianity, who, if they go on as they have begun, will foon leave us nothing of truth in the Chriftian reli- gion. St. John fays expreffly, AyysXog ya^ nuice. This, it feems, has no truth in it; and St. John only fays it, becaufe it was a vulgar error among the Jews. Surely this is taking a liberty with St. John which you would not take with even any common v/riter. This is ftamping the charadler of falfehood upon him v/ith a high hand indeed. But, I am to obferve, that the evangeliil " doth not relate the " circumftance according to the hvpothefis received " among his countrymen, iviibcut 7nentioning any ** thing conctrning the truth or falfehood of their opi- " ftion ;" for, if there is any faith in language, he politively aflerts it as a truth. The whole paflage in our tranflation, which is fufficiently accurate, is thus : " Now there is at Jerufalem, by the Iheep *' market, 2l pool, which is called in the Hebrew " tongue Bethefda,' having five porches. In thefe " lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, " halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the '' watery /j(r<*i}«, 'ujoc9o\](x.y x^ ( i82 ) 1 Credimiis in umnn Deum omnipotentem omnium vifibilium & inviftbilium faclorem. Et in ummi Dominu?n Jefum Cbrijlwn, jilium Dei, natum ex Patre unigemtu?n, hoc ejiy ex fubjiantid Patris, Deum de Deo, lujuen de lu~ tnine^ Deum "vermn de Deo liero, genitum non fa^fum, confuhjlantialem Patri ; per quern omriia fatJa funt & qua: i:i cc:lo i^ qua in tend, ^li propter nos homines, Isj propter nojlram falutem, defcendit, incarnatus, & homo faoius ejl, pafjus e/i, & tertid die refurrexit, af^ (cndit in ccelos, venturus judicare vivos & mortuos. Et in Spiritum Sandum, The aboA'e, then, being the genuine Creed of the Nicene Council, freed from the ra-po zfTuvJMv twv aioo- vx% SK 7 0V Uajf^og yiy£wvi^£\ov, which was in the Creed propofed to the council by Eufebius, it fhoukl feem to be no departure from the Nicene faith, if we alfo rejected that article as the council itfelf had rejected it. The creed propofed to the council by Eufebius was in thefe follQwirig terms : Tlig-cvo^'iv Sig ha 0soi', TLck]:-^k 'zu-avjcxptzjo^tx, tov tuv dTToivjcjo'j opcijcov x^ ao(^a]oov ziTon^yiV. ' Kai sig zva, Y^v^m\y\a-\i'v IL'jigov, zo^ TH Q-iiKoycv, Qsov sx. Qiii, (poog iK(pcS]og, ^mvjv Sit C^jng, v.cv ^ovofzyiu "zs-^yjojojo'A.ov 'vircna-rjg TcliosMg, vrpo 'zu-av- Toov rcay aioovoov 3K JH Uajpog yslsyy/Ji/SKV, li « ^ sfivijo ra ■ zs-avjcx. Tcv hcc r/iv ^fjisjspeiv cruJYi^:cy.v crc>i^Kw9cvjoi, K^ sv ocV' ( i83 ) ayiov. How far this creed differs from that which was eftablifhed by the council, the reader will fee by comparing them together. When it was firft prc- fented, it feemed to m.eet with a pretty general ap- probation. But, as Eufebius was thought (whether juftly or otherwife I enquire not) to be in fome meafure attached to the caufe of Arius, it was thought neceffary to revife it; and, on the revilal, it appearing to the Fathers not to be fufficiently guarded againft the errors of Arius, they made what tkey judged to be the necelTary alterations in it ; the moft material of which v/ere, the expunging what related to the Eternal generation, and inferting the article oy^oova-iov 7m Uajpi, which was not in the creed of Eufebius. This article at firft was ftrenuoufly oppofed by Eufebius ; but at length not being able to refill the wifdom with which it was fupported, he acquiefced, and, as he tells the people of Ca3farea, in his letter to them, he fubfcribed the creed as the council had eflablifhed it without any farther hefi- tation. Hence then, I think it appears very plainly, that the Z€-po 'uJocv]oov TCfOV dioovoov, £}C 70 V Hocl^^og yiyey>Y,^=vov, was no dodlrine of the Nicene council ; it was ex- punged ( ^^4 ) /f tinged, becaufe they difowned if, and how it crept into the creed afterwards it is almoft impoffible to fay, with any degree of certainty. It appears, by the arguments of learned men, plainly to have been in the creed prior to the Second General Council ; and it appears as plainly not to have been in the creed at the time when the former council was dif- iblved. Eufebiiis appears alfo to have been very ftrongly attached to the article, notwithftanding his having fubfcribed the Nicene Creed, whence it was ex- punged ; ahdj therefore, it is not at all improbable, but that he himfelf might have been inftruniental in getting it ihferted in the Creed, after the council was dilfolved. Certain it is, that he ufes language concerning Our Lord, which neither the Creed nor the Scriptures will juftify ; and which, I fuppofe, was never ufed by any one, prior to himfelf, as may be feen in the firft and fecond chapters of his Ec- cleliaftical Iliftory, where he ftyles otir Lord, •37^/w- tcyovoq A0r02: now the words, ixovoysvrjg and zo-^oo' lOTOKog are never any where in Scripture applied to the >.oyoc, but folely to the vioc; and, if they had been applied to the Aoyog, the dodlrine of Arius, I apprehend, ought not to have been ob- je6led to. The ( i83 ) The do6lrlne of the Eternal Generation, if I may be permitted to fpeak my own opinion of it, fbrongly favours the caufe of Arianifm ; for, if it is true, then Christ was always, as being a Son, fubordi- nate and inferior to the Father, then vv^as he always alfo, as having the Divine Nature by neceiiity, an inferior fubordinate God, which, I apprehend, was «the doctrine of Arius. But the New Teflament holds forth no fuch language to us. The inferiority of Christ to the Father, if I may fo fpeak, was a fuperinduced inferiority, ariling from the voli-ntary liumiliation of himfelf, when he united himfelf to man's nature, and becam.e incarnate. But no where in Sacred Scripture am I acquainted with any thing which gives countenance to the dodtrine of tlie Eternal Generation ; and Eufebius, when he in- ferted the article in his creed, feems to have been aware, that it would be objedted to, on account of its not being the do6lrine of Scripture, by his intro- ducing it with the words '^lu-^ujjojj^cov 'nraa-.ig kIktecvc, words which, as I have already fuggefted, feem to lignify the pre-eminence, but not the priority, of his birth. For, if z^poojo^iOx.ov here fignifies prior jiv, in point of time or of exiilence, will it not be to blend Jesus Christ with the mafs of creation, to make him thereby the iiril created of the works of God } which cannot be true of him, either as he was the Aoyog who exifted from all eternity witli God, and was God ; or as he was man, and born poflerior in o time. ( i86 ) time, by numerous ages, to the reft of the creation j sml therefore in no refpe61 doth it feem applicable 10 liim, except the word be taken in the fenfe of pre-eminence, a fenfe which St. Paul himfelf feems to annex to the word, even when he ufes it in the fenfe of firft-born, ColoiL i. 17. 'O^ fg-zv cc^xl^ ' If the dodlrine of the Eternal Generation fhould really be the do6lrine of the Scripture, I fee not how the opinion of Arius and his followers can be accounted hcrefy, for, the inferiority of fubordina- tion as certainly attaches itfelf to the charadler of a Son as identity of nature; and, if what Baronius afhrms is true, v/hen he fays, Ada Nicccna injur'ui temporlsj cfj* Ap^jamohum conatibus p^Jfa ejfe nau- fragta^ certu;n ejl, it will not be eitlier an unfair, or an improbable fuppolition, that w^e are indebted to the indefatigable induftry of the Arians for the in- fertlon of this article in the Creed, as well as for the total fuppreffion of the adls of the Nicene Council. But the whole of this bulinefs is involved in fuch a cloud of impenetrable obfcurity, that it leaves room for nothing but conjec9:ure. Certain, however, we are, that the article was not in the Creed of the Ni- cene Council, and that, although it was in tlie Creed prefcnted by Eufebius, yet that the Council rejeded it: and certain alfo we are, unlefs I am in an ( i87 ) an error myfelf, that the article hath no foundation in Scripture, on which it may be fupported. Here, then, the matter miifi: reft, and the reader will de- cide for himfelf. F I N I :>. THE ETERNAL GENE RAT ION OF THE S O N OF G O D. A SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF 0X:F0RD, AT ST. M A R Y 's, On SUNDAY the 8th of November, 1795. BY WILLIAM LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER, PRINCIPAL OF BRAZENOSE COLLEGE. OXFORD: PRINTED FOR FLETCHER AND HANWELL; AND SOiD BY MESSRS. RIVINGTONS, IN LONDON < AND BROSTER, IN CHESTER. MDCCXCV* IMPRIMATUR, JOHAN. WILLS, Wad. Coll. 'rv r> ^s, Dec I, I7P5. Vice-Can. Oxoif. tC !■ Wi H il !■ If1ll| ■ ■ ll[ 1 Pi Hebrews 1. i8. But unto the Son he faith, 'Thy throne , O God, endureth for ever. WHATEVER reputation the adverfaries of our faith may have of late years gained amongft the unlearned and unthink- ing, amongft thofe, who, from their habits of life, muft necelTarily take their religious prin- ciples upon authority, as well as thofe, who, from want of due pains, do voluntarily lend themfelves in matters of fuch high importance to opinions unexamined, the great do6lrines of our Religion have certainly within the fame period reaped much advantage in point of argument from the talents and erudition of thofe, whofe exertions have been called forth in its defence. The Divinity of our Lord, that great prin- ciple, upon which the primary benefits of Chriftianity depend, feem.s particularly to juf- tify this remark. For though our Lord hath never left himfelf without that tefl:imony of B his [ 3 ] his Godhead, which drew from St. Peter lb earlv and decided a declaration of it, and from St. Thomas fo fuddcn and exphcit an a6t of adoration ; though this do6lrine of the Apoftles has been received and avowed by the uninterrupted voice of the Cathohc Church ; yet within the fpace of a century have its proofs been multiphed, and its evi- dences illuftrated from Scripture, in propor- tion to the pains taken by fome, to refute, to confound, or to obfcure this truth. It is obfervable hkewife, that ReHgion hath received another material advantage, though indire(5lly, from the fame quarter. The prevaihng eagernefs to decry all myf- tcry, and the popular practice of releafmg the unlearned and unwary from an obhgatlon to give credit to any proportion upon teftimony, where the matter of the proportion is beyond their comprehenfion, have rendered it a duty in thofe, who would preferve their own faith invi- olate, or maintain the influence of any kind of religion in the minds of mankind at large, to fubmit the nature, the extent and province, or what would now be called by fome the Rights, of human reafon to a conftant and re- peated examination. And the refult of this examination hath been univerfally and uni- formly with every wife and fober inquirer, that [ 3 ] that fo far as regards Revelation, or any fyf- tem affuming that title, if it contradict not thofe firft principles, which are themfclves the very means and meafures, by which we are to judge of any religious propofition, the bufinefs of Reafon is fimply to decide upon the evi- dences offered in proof of its divine original, to judge of the authenticity of the w^ritings claiming divine authority, and to apply to them the obvious and ordinary means of in- terpretation. But that when its congruity with thofe firft principles, the proofs of its divine original, the authenticity of the vo- lume, and the fenfe and meaning of its pages are once thus carefully afcertained, and fatif- fad:orily determined, by the due ufe of our reafon; the Truth and Confiftency of the dod:rines contained therein follow ex hypo- thefi : becaufe they are contained in a revela- tion from God. To fit in judgment, therefore, upon thefe fo circumftanced, is evidently to fit in judg- ment upon the truth and confiftency of what God has been pleafed to declare exprefsly by a revelation. To doubt of proportions fo offered, is to doubt upon the matter of the revelation acknowledared to be divine. But as this is that kind of abfurdity which per- haps carmot be fuppofed to take place ad;u- B 2, ally [ 4 1 ally in the mind of any man ; the doubt "will be found really to revert upon forne one or all of the llieps in the argument, by which the proportions were proved to be divine. And indeed the plain faift is, that w^hen rcafon has deliberated on a propofition, and determined it, whether juftly or unjuftly, to be impoffible, no proof, however binding and irrefragable, can produce convidion. The general quef- tion, therefore, with infidels of every defcrip- tion, is exactly concerning what fhall be deemed fo far impoffible as to be incapable of proof by any evidence whatever. We fay, and I truft we fay wifely and truly, that it is no vindication of unbelief, that propofitions being above human conception, or compre- henfion, have a feeming incompatibility, when compared one w^th another : that, if they are proved, by the ordinary and legitimate rules of found reafon, to come from God, they mufi; be received implicitly as fuch in the form in which they are offered to us : and that, if we are imperfectly informed, what relation they bear to each other, we are no- W'here required to reconcile the difiiculties attending them when fo compared. Indeed the attempt to reconcile difficulties in matters above our comprehenfion, is more than we think neceifary in fome truths, which. [ 5 ] which, whether derived from Reafon or Re- velation, are yet generally admitted. Who, for inflance, endeavours to reconcile the apparent contrariety between the necef- fity of a £rft caufe and the impoffibility; as it regards our conceptions, of a felf-exiftent Being ? Or who fees not the neceffity of ac- knowledging an Almighty Creator ? Yet the power of creating every thing out of nothing is to us perfectly incomprehenfible. From whence we may fee how little we have the means of judging what is really impoffible in matters v/hich lie above our conception, and how little, as fober Philofophers, we can in matters of Revelation juftify doubts founded in the difficulties arifmg from the fubjed; mat- ter of the propofition offered to our belief. For as every thing poffible is credible upon good teftimony, fo is every thing poffible even in our conceptions, of which we do not fee the clear and dired; impoffibility, which we can do only in fubjecfts of which we have a competent knowledge. To refufe therefore our affent upon this ground to any propor- tion claiming the authority of Revelation, may be to refift a clear and direcft tefliimony of what is no way impoffible ; or rather, to refift the evidence of Teftimony relating to matters in themfelves incomprehenfible, is to B .s refift [ 6 ] refiil proof of what can be no way impro- bable. For example, an Unity of fubftance, and a Trinity of Perfons in the Divine Na- ture, are both objeds of Faith ; both the dif- coveries not of reafon, but of Revelation. Suppofe them propofed to us without the authority of Revelation, the one could only be proved to be probable, the other could in no way be proved to be improbable. If there- fore they are communicated with equal clear- nefs in Scripture, they are equally intitled to our belief upon the ground of Teftimony: and to deny one upon the fame evidence upon which we admit the other, is not {imply inconfiflent, and to be vindicated upon no principle of reafon whatever ; but it is to fet afide one great purpofe of Revelation, which has been to communicate to us truths, which othervvife we could never have known, as having no difcernible connedion with the or- dinary courfe of nature. It may feem Grange that the friends of Re- ligion have not been more upon their guard againfl: this kind of inconfiflency in prin- ciple : yet it is to be regretted, that they have too often overlooked the obvious acceptation of Scripture, in order to modify the relations, which the Perfons in the Divine Nature bear to [ 7 ] to each other, in hopes of gaining a readier aflent to the r@al truths of Revelation. With this view exactly it is, that a learned and refpe6table Writer, who contends ftrenvi- oufly for the conclufion, that *' Jefus *' is God, *' becaufe he is declared to be the Son of God,'* hath adopted the hypothefis, that the term *' Sonf was firft aflumed when the Word was " made flefh, and therefore that the Word *' was not necelTarily the Son ;" an hypothefis, by which he conceives,'' if it may be admitted, " many difficulties will be removed J ;" but one, in fa<5l, which is in other words to deny the doftrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son, a doctrine, which, he fays §, favours the caufeof Arianifm ; "for if it is true," h6 adds, *' then Chrift was always, as being a Son, fub- " ordinate and inferior to the Father; then wa? *' he always alfo, as having the Divine Nature *' by Neceffity, an inferior, fubordinate God, " w^hich, he apprehends, was the do6lrine of *' Arius ||." It were eafy to oppofe a variety of anfwers to this mode of reafoning, which, tar * 0£av6p&)7ro? T?? x.ccUn(; Aia^ijxrf, or, An Appeal to the New Teftament in Proof of the Divinity of the Son of God. By- Charles Hawtrey, M. A. London, 1794. P. 118. t P. 39- : P-58. § P. 185. II Mr. Hawtrey does not, I apprehend, mean that the doc- trine of Arius allowed Chrift to have had the Divine Nature by Nec«ffity, but only that he was an inferior and fubordinate Gi)d. B 4 from [ 8 ] from " removing many difficulties," would increafe the number. I will only remark, that whofoever of neceffity partakes of the Unity of the Divine Nature, cannot (I fpeak as it re- gards human apprehenfion) be otherwife in- ferior than in the idea of order. A fubordinate God, if by that term be meant one in any other fenfe inferior, cannot of neceffity parti- cipate the Divine Nature. But I forbear all difquifition on the foot of reafon upon a prin- ciple already laid down, and in which I have the explicit concurrence of this learned Au- thor, who fays juftly, " the whole of the " matter upon fubjects of this nature v/ill turn " upon this fmgle queftion, " Is the do^rine, *' or is it not, a communication from God * ?'* To give this queftion a folution founded on the fulleft inquiry, it would be requifite to enter upon an examination of the whole of divine Revelation. For although it will not be expecflcd that the notices of this fubje6l fliould either be fo obvious, or fo frequent, in the books of the Old Teftament as in thofe of the New; yet the learned have always found in them, what have been confidered as no ob- fcure arguments for the truth of this doc- trine. •* P. 138. The [ 9 1 The Gofpels would next claim our confi- deration, with a view particularly to the lan- guage and converfation of our Lord, in thofc paffages where he is induced to affert the proper Divinity of his nature. Then would follow an attention to the writings of the Apoftles ; from whom it may be expedied, that the doctrine, if true, will be more explicitly delivered. Our Author's remarks upon the Nicene Creed have further made it in fome fort ex- pedient to examine the waitings of the earlier Fathers ; who at the loweft muft be confi- dered as good witneffes of the doctrine of the Primitive Church, in proportion as they lived more or lefs near to the time of the Apoftles. It will have occurred, that the ground of inquiry thus traced out is too extenfive for the prefent occafion : indeed I hope to Ihew, that the argument lies in a much lefs ccm- pafs, and may be fatisfa6lorily difcufted in the examination of a very few paftages of the New Teftament, from fome of thofe even which this writer hath produced as moft favourable to his hypothefis ; and that if we ihould allow thejuftice of his remarks upon the Nicene Creed, this Creed would ftill indifputably con- tain the fame doctrine. In [ >° ] In the mean time let it be prcmifed, that the very expreffion, or term, Son, obvioufly implies, in its proper fenfe, a natural, not an occafional relation, or an acceffory title, which can only be underflood when the term is ex- prefsly fo qualified by other terms of the con- text, or the known circumftances of the fub- jecl fo defcribed. I believe, moreover, I Ihall aflume no more than what will be found ftricftly and accu- rately juft, . if I affert, that the firfh and obvi- ous fenfe in all the pafl'ages of the New Tef- tament, wherein our Lord is mentioned as Son of God, either diredlly by a voice from Heaven, or by himfelf, or by his Apoftles, if I afTcrt, that the firft and obvious fenfe of all thefe paiTages, except perhaps one only, im- plies his filial relation to the Father, anteced- ently to his incarnation, when the Word be- came flefh ; paflages thefe fo numerous, that, uncontradicted and unoppofed as they are by any other parts of Scripture, it may well feem w^onderful, that the fubjecfl, confidered upon the evidence of Scripture, could ever afford a queftion. Indeed this antecedent relation feems fo to pervade the whole of Revelation, that it ap- pears to be prefigured, even Typically, an early as in the hiftory of Abraham. For in the bleffms: [ " ] blefliiig promifed to this Patriarch as a reward of his fingular faith and obedience in the pro- pofed Sacrifice of his Son, it is ftated as the motive on God's part, *' That Abraham had *^ not withheld his Son, his only Son," in order as it were to fix the attention of future ages upon the two leading features in the refem- blance which Ifaac bore to their promifed Meffias, who was to be an only Son, and to be offered for a Sacrifice. Yet the relation fignified by the Type of an only Son of an human Father did not exifl in the Antitype, if that relation be not cfTential to the Son of God, and inherent in his nature. And the chearful and ready furrender of this only Son made on the part of Abraham, the very ground and motive of his blefTmg, no longer typifies that ftupendous ad; of mercy, wherein God is faid by our Lord himfelf to have given his only-begotten Son *, if this only-be- gotten Son then firft afTumed the occafional relation, when he was fent into the World as Man. The fame truth feems to be conveyed, in a, fimiiar manner, in the Parable of the Vine- yard, where the charad:er of the beloved Son fo evidently reprefented that of our Lord, that the * John iii, 16. Jews [ X2 ] Jews prelent deprecated the punllliment due to the Murderers, who are there faid to have killed the Son of this Lord of the Vineyard. Yet if our Lord's claim to the relation of Son be accelTory only, the comparifon will neither appear obvious nor natural. St. Paul, in a ftile of animation peculiarly eloquent, argues upon the fame principle, from the analogy between the filial relation of our Lord to the Father, and that of an hu- man Son to an human Father. *' He that ipared not his own Son, how '^ 111 all he not with him alfo freely give us all " things'?" Yet the aptnefs and the force of this comparifon depend wholly upon a nearer affinity in the relation of the Divine Per- fons than will really exifl, if on the part of the Logos, or Word, this relation be fuper- induced and taken up only contemporaneoufly, or nearly fo, with the Prophetic, the Prieftly, or the Regal chara<5ler of our Lord. And the Apoftle will hardly ftand exempted from the charge which elfewhere he fo explicitly, and perhaps ironically, difclaims, of having employed " the excellency of Speech and of ** Wifdom" in thus ftating this topic with more advantage, than in ftrid: propriety could be juftified. That [ 13 ] That the terms Father and Son, as applied by our Lord, conveyed to the Jews a natural and elTential relation, is evidently clear from their condud: ; for we are told, " they fought *' the more to kill him, not only becaufe he " had broken the Sabbath-day, but faid alfo, " that God was his Father *, making himfelf " equal with Godf." But I haften to what may be confidered as more dired: evidences of the point in queilion, which lie fo thickly interfperfed in the writ- ings of the New Teilament, that I am con- cerned principally to examine what fhall pre- fent themfelves moft obvioully, rather than to fele6l with a difcrimination founded in their refpe6live weight and importance. The expreffions, " My beloved Son," " my " beloved Son, in v/hom I am well pleafed," " no man knoweth the Son but the Fa- " ther," " the only begotten Son, which is *' in the bofom of the Father," *' the Fa- *^ ther loveth his Son," '' God fent his " Son," " God gave his only-begotten Son," *' the Father fent his Son," with others too numerous to be now recited, do all, in their firft and obvious import, convey the idea of a na- tural and efl'ential relation. To thefe may be added more whofe Hgnification^ when com- * licnifo, lAION %\tyi roe Geo?. f John v, i8. pared [ H ] pared with the context, cannot be otherwifc interpreted, without a manifeft mifreprefen- tation of the fcope and intention of Scrip- ture. Before I draw any argument from the phrafc " only-begottenSon," I fliould remark iipon an obfervation of this learned writer, that the term only-begotten * is never applied in Scripture to the Word, or Logos ; that is, I underftand, he is never called the only-be- gotten Logos, or Word. To obviate any conclufion which this ob- fervation can be fuppofed to ferve, let it be coniidered, that the terms Word, or Logos, and Son, applied to the fecond perfon of the Holy Trinity, are both relative ; that they in- dicate different relations, to God, and the Father ; that thefe relations have no apparent affinity to each other, though inherent in the fame fubjed: ; fo that it may well bear a doubt, how far the phrafe, " only-begotten " Word," however familiar to later writers, be ftridly juft and proper : that of thefe rela- tions, that of Son is that under which our Re- deemer is reprefented to us ; that this relation affords an argument, which could not be drawn exadly with the fame force from the * Movoysmj (184), relation [ '5 ] illation which the Word, or Logos, has to God ; an argument of God's love to us, who '^ fpared not his own Son, who gave his be- *' gotten Son for us ;" and that in the very chapter in which the Word, or Logos, is in- troduced as a Divine Perfon with God and very God, the Glory of this Word, or Logos, and the Glory of the only-begotten are repre- fented as one ; where alfo the only-begotteh Son is reprefented as being in the bofom of the Father ; an expreffion apparently affigning to him an equal rank and dignity with the Word itfelf, who was with God, and was God. For if we could fuppofe the phrafe, " who is in the bofom of the Father," not to imply his eternal exiftence with God, but fimply an intimacy of council, yet that inti- macy of council with the Father is more ob- vioufly derivable from the eflential relation of an only-begotten Son, as he is here called, than from the Incarnation of the Logos, or Word. The language of our Lord's final prayer before his fufferings, in the 1 7th of St. John's Gofpel, conveys throughout evidences of the Eternal Generation of the Son. The words here are, *' Father, glorify thy Son, ** glorify thou me with thine own felf, with " the glory which I had with thee before the *' world [ I^ 1 *' world was.'* '' Father, I will that they ^\{o " whom thou haft given me, be with mc " where I am, that they may behold my glory *' which thou haft given (or gaveft) me ; for " thou lovedft me before the foundation of " the world." Now the terms, " Father," repeatedly here ufcd, " glorify me with thine ow^n felf," " for *' thou lovedft me, before the world was,'* " before the foundation of the world,"compared with the terms elfewhere ufed, '' only Son, be- " loved Son, only-begotten Son," muft lofe all obvious fignification and import, fnigly and in conftrud:ion, with thofe, who do not colled; from them the relation of Son antecedent to our Lord's incarnation ; a do6lrine which need not, and in truth cannot be avoided, or concealed, or given up, left Arians make an undue advantage of it : for if they do this> they muft do it in negled:, or by the mani- feft perverfion, of the whole tenor of Scrip* ture. Again, in the firft chapter of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, the eternal Sonfliip of our Lord is fo obvioufly implied throughout, and fo clearly aflerted in fome places, that nothing but too eager an anxiety to reconcile fup- pofed difficulties, and a defire to fimplify the fubje6l matter of Revelation, in order to ren- der [ i; ] der it a more ready obje<5l of belief, the im- propriety of which condu(5l no one difclaims more decidedly, or more ably, than our Au- thor, could induce any one fo well difpofed to the general doctrines of Revelation thus to overlook the plain and obvious fenfe of ib connected an argument. The Son of God is there faid to have made the worlds, and, in reference to this effential relation to the Fa- ther, to be " the brightnefs of God's glory, and " the image of his fub{lance."He is there called the firft-born : the dignity of his filial rela- tion is ftated as the ground of his preference to Angels, of whom it is faid, " Let the An- " gels of God worfiiip him." But " unto the '^ Son," the Holy Spirit is cited as faying,^' Thy *' throne, O God, endureth for ever." Again, " Thou, Lord, haft laid the foundation of the " earth ;" agreeably to what our Lord himfelf hath faid in his final addrefs to the Father, w^here he fpcaks of the Glory, which the Fa- ther gave him '* before the foundation of the *' world." But to invalidate the force of one term in this chapter, it is fliid, that the word firft- born * fignifies fometimes eminence and dif- tindion, not fimply priority of birth. If this G be t 18 ] be granted, it cannot at leafl be afTerted in this place, nor indeed in any, where the me- taphor is not explained by the context or the fubje(fl:- matter. Nay, if it could be proved to be figurative in that remarkable paiTagc of the Epiftle to the Colollians, " firft- '"^ born of every creature *," it could only then. 6e Gonflirued, eminent befo7'e every thing cre- ated : for it there follows, for all things are created by him and for him, and he is before all things ; fo that this eminence, or diftinc- tion, muft here include not only priority of rank, but of time, or birth alfo. And when, in the fubfequent verfes, he is called " the firfl- *^ born from the dead ;" the phrafe, though figurative, conveys a real priority of time; for he was truly the firft, or firft-born of thofe who were to die no more. The two latter, there- fore, of the three places quoted, admit of a real and true priority of time ; and the firft, that in the firfi; chapter of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, is that wherein it is faid, " When " he bringcth in the firft-begotten into the " worldf ," that is, when he who before had the relation of firfl-begotten, was made incarnate in the world. Once more : If St. Paul, in this Epiftle to the Coloffians, fays, all things were created by [ 19 ] by him, the firft-born, St. John fays, all things were made by him, the Word, or Logos. The firft-born, therefore, and the Word, were the fame one exiftence before the foundation of the world. But the Word was God, and with God : the firft-born, therefore, was God, and with God : the firft- born was therefore contemporary, if I may fo Ipeak, with the Word and with God. Again : The Word was God ; the firfl-born, or Son, therefore, here mentioned by St. Paul, was God ; and therefore " in the beginning," or from all eternity, God, and Son of God. I will now fubmit to your confideration a fhort remark upon the only paflage of Scrip- ture, which, fo far as I know, could give any colour of pofitive or direct fupport to our Author's bypothefis. It is that containing the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary by the Angel. ** The Holy *' Ghoft fliall come upon thee, and the power *^ of the Higheft fhall overfhadow thee ; " therefore alfo that Holy thing which fhall " be born of thee, fhall be called the Son of '^ God." I have, I truft, already fhewn, that our Lord had a prior claim to the title of the Son o£ God ; a claim to it in an higher and more proper fenfe of that relation, than can be de- C :? duced [ 5° I duccd from the incarnation of the Word, of Logos, by the conception of the Virgin Mary. Now the reafon afligned for this denomi- nation by the Angel to the Virgin, cannot be fiippofcd to exclude another, more effentially proper, though it did not feem good to Di- vine Wifdom to declare it on this occafion. It is fufficient that the reafon given was cal- culated to fatisfy the inquiries of the Virgin, and delivered in terms familiar to the appre- henfion. St. Luke, in the very genealogy of ChrifV, calls Adam likewife the Son of God, in a fenfe obvious enough, yet figurative. In a fenfe very fimilar, does the Angel here fay of Chrift, that he fliall be called the Son of God ; becaufe he was to derive his human nature in a peculiar manner from God, and be made man by means which were fuperna- tural. He who would give a ftronger, or an higher fenfe to the denomination here ufed, jTiuft allow the point which our Author means to deny, that one eiTentially related to God, as Son, was born of the Virgin ; which is the true do<5lrine, though not, I apprehend, deducible from this place. There [ 31 ] There is likewife a paflage in the * firll: Epiftle to the Corinthians, the fuppofed dif- ficulty of which would, it is apprehended, be much relieved by the hypothefis here oppofed ; a pafTage which feems to have had its influence m confirming, or perhaps in forming, the opi- nion of this learned Writer. It is, *' then fliail the Son alfo be fubje<5l '• unto him that put all things under him, " that God may be all in all f :" fliall be fubjedl, or fhall fubjecft himfelf, that is, fliall furrender his Mediatorial ofhce, and king- dom, with all its power ; in allufion pro- bably to the very words ufedby our Lord, of his mediatorial power. ** The Father lovetli " the Son, and hath given all things into his " handr But were the difficulty of this pafTage greater than it appears to be, the interpreta- tion propofed, however fatisfaftory it might feem in this place, would be ill purchafed by a fcheme which would involve the whole fubflance of the New Teftament in diffi- culties the moffc embarraffing ; and that, againfl the decided judgment of the Catholic Church, from the earlicfl ages to the prefent time. * XV. 1%-. "^ ti'KvxotffQt.yav. For [ zz ] For the Nicene Creed, how little foever may be the degree of credit which the learned Author gives to Eufebius's copy of it, con- taining the claufe " begotten of his Father *' before all worlds," will, nptwithftanding, carry upon the face of it the univerfal con- fent of the Churches in which it has been thus received. And the claufe itfelf, whe- ther inferted or not by the Council of Nice, as it is evidently borrowed from Creeds more antient, will be a ftrong ground of prefump- tion that it contains the faith of the more primitive Churches. Nay this Creed, as it is alledged to have been prefented and fan6:ioned by that Coun- cil without this claufe, will indifputably ftill convey the fame do6lrine ; for it is clearly the Divine nature of our Lord, before his incarnation, which is there thus defcribed. *^ And in one Lord Jefus Chrift, the Son of *^ God, born of the Father, only begotten, ^^ that is, of tlie fubftance of the Father, God *' of God, light of light, very God of very *' God, begotten, not made, confubftantial " with the Father, by whom all things were " made ;" then follows, " who for us men " and for our falvation defcended, was in- " carnate, and made man,'* &c. So that from this Creed alone, without the claufe in queftion. t 23 ] qiieftion, without an appeal to former Creeds, or to the teftimony of the earher Fathers, wc may fafely prefume that the dodrine of Chrlft's eternal generation was an article in the faith of the earlieft Churches. If I have fatisfac^lorily proved that it Is clearly and neceflarily the do<5lrine of Scrip- ture, I ihall now be allowed to make the con- cluiiori, that as the relation of Son in the Godhead implies of neceffity derivation an4 fubordination, that derivation and fubordina- tion muft be confiflent with what the Scrip- tures elfe where affert of the real and true Divinity of the Son, and of his Unity of Na- ture with the Father. Nor is there any difficulty in admitting the eternal generation of the Son, which does not attach as clofely to the idea of an eternal Word, or Logos ; for no poffible idea can be affixed to the ule; of the term Logos, which " was in the *' beginning, and which was with God, and ** which was God," which does not, and has not refted in the expreffions Verbum, or Ratio, or Sapientia, the Word, or the Reafon, or the Wifdom of God. But the idea contained in any of thefe terms, if admitted, according to human conception implies a derived exift- ence or relation. And herein exactly is the force of the myftery. If the terms Father, Son, [ 24 ] Son, the divine Logos, Word, Wifdom, and fuch like, when applied to the firft and fecond Perfons in the Holy Trinity, convey nothing analogous to the ordinary fenfe of thofe words, they convey.no revelation at all; if carried to the full extent of what the terms fignify when applied to human nature, they will con-j vey, what the firft principles of Reafon and Revelation tell us cannot be true of the God- head, as well as what exprefsly contradids thofe other paiTages of Scripture, wherein we learn, that the Logos, or Word, is coexiftent and confubftantial with God ; and that the Son is that Logos, and therefore coexiftent and confubflantial with the Father. Confe- quently the analogy pointed out by thefe terms can apply, and on the authority of Scripture does apply, in common to the hu- man and divine nature in a limited degree, and fo far only as will admit the derived rela- tion of a Son, and the Word, to be confident with an equality and co-exiilence of nature with God and the Father. To carry an analogy, declared by Revela- tion, beyond the clear and exprefs terms of Scripture, is prefiimptuous, and can only, upon a fubjed: above our comprehenfion, lead to error, embarralTmcnt, and contradiction ; whilft to exclude, or limit any relations m th^ [ =5 ] the Perfons of the Godhead expreffcd, or con^ veyed to us in the clear fignification of Scrip- ture language, becaufe we do not, or cannot fully comprehend them, with a view to render them eafier to our conception, is to contradl the iubjed:-matter of Revelation, and therefore cannot be lefs improper ; confequences thefe, on either fide, which can only be avoided by a ftrid: regard and patient adherence to what 1$ W^RITTEIf. "r HE END, THE ETERNAL FILIATION OF THE SON OF GOD ASSERTED ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS OF THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE NICENE COUNCIL. BY THE REV. FRODSHAM HODSON, M. A. FELLOW OF BRASEN-NOSE COLLEGE, OXFORD. "Eriv «j:« 'O AOrOS 'YIOS, a'jt APT! ysyoywj, v ow/Aair^fjj 'YIOI;, aAX' AEI 'YIOS. Athanas. torn. i. p. 539. Ed. Par. 1698. OXFORD: SOLD BY FLETCHER AND HANWELL; BY F. AND C. RIVINGTON, LONDON J W. LUNN, CAMBRIDGE 3 AND T. CRANE, LIVERPOOL. MDCCXCVI. T O THE RIGHT REVEREND, A¥ I L L I A M LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER, PRINCIPAL OF BRASEN-NOSE COLLEGE. MY LORD, SHOULD not have prefumed to infcribe the following Tradt to your Lord- {hip, if you had not, by requefting the pub- lication of it, conferred upon it a value, v^hich can alone entitle it to fo diilinguifhed an honour. Should it in the remoteft degree contribute to the vindication of a doctrine, maintained by the Catholic Church, it would afford me fuch fatisfadlion, as I dare hardly anticipate. If it fail of that important end, it will ilill be a confolation to me to have executed a plan, delineated by your Lord- fhip, in fuch a manner as to have been ho- noured by your approbation ; and even under the vexation of difappointed hope, I flial). yet rejoice in having had an opportunity, thus gratifying to my feelings, of acknowledging a 2 that [ iv ] that I am indebted to your Lordfhip's advice for whatever progrefs I have been able to make in the ftudy of Divinity ; — an acknov7- ledgment, in which I am perfuaded I ihall be joined by all, who are fortunate enough to be placed within the fphere of your aca- demical authority. I am, my Lord, With fentiments of the moll profound refpedt. Your Lordfhip's obliged and humble fervant. FRODSHAM HODSON. Liverpool, Jan. i6, 1796. PREFACE. X HE following {heets are the refult of an examination into the queftion, ** Whether " the Filiation of the Son of God was ab " ^terno ?" — an examination which the Author was dired:ed to undertake, as Proba- tionary Fellow of Brafen-Nofe College. For the proofs in favour of the negative lide of the queftion, the Author was referred to the B&dvB-paTTo^ of Mr. Hawtrey ; and whilft he was directed to examine the validity of the arguments there urged by an appeal to the Scriptures, the Fathers, and theNicene Coun- cil ; he at the fame time was told, with a li- berality of mind which difdained to drop any expreffion that could fhackle the freedom of inquiry, to compare, to deliberate, and to de- termine. Nearly in the fame ftate in which the refult of his inquiries was originally fub- mitted to The Right Reverend the Principal of Bralen-Nofe, it is nov/ fubmitted to the public [ vi ] public. Some few alterations however have been made ; fome ambitiofa ornamenta, which encumbered the introdudtion, have been re- moved, in fubmiflion to one, whofe judg- ment always carries with it authority to the Author's mind ; and, at the fuggeftion of the fame able critic, one or two corred:ions have been adopted, which the Author regrets are not more in number, becaufe they are con- fiderable in value. Should the Author's fcriptural view of the queftion be thought too confined, he is ready to allow, that it might have been expanded with advantage. But, as Mr. Hawtrey's ap- peal to the Nicene Creed had in fome mea- fure made an appeal to the earlier Fathers ne- cefiary, he was particularly diredled to colledl their opinions, as conftituting a fpecies of evidence, lefs acceffible to the generality of readers. He who wiflies for more proofs from Scripture may find them in a Sermon " on ** the Eternal Generation of the Son of God," by the Bifhop of Chefter, who, from a com- prehenfive confideration of the language of the New Teftament, has fliewn that the idea of an antecedent Filiation is interwoven with the very contexture of Revelation. " As [ vii ] As the GidvS-^caTTOf of Mr. Hawtrey is per- petually quoted in the courfe of the follow- ing examination, it may be proper to apprize the reader, that it is not the general dodtrine of that valuable work which is here com- bated ; but only that particular one, which relates to the Filiation, and which forms, as it were, an epifode in the book. For the reft, if the voice of an unknown individual could be heard amidft the loud applaufes of the learned, it ihould be raifed with the moft cordial fincerity in commendation of one, who has fo ably vindicated the Divinity of our Lord. Whether the Filiation of the Son of God was ab JEterno ? xN O reflediing man can enter into the thorny field of controverfy without feeHngs of reluctance and regret. But, however dif- heartening may be the profped:, and however arduous the tafk, a minifter of the Gofpel is actuated by principles paramount to perfonal feeling. Even if that fatisfadlion, with which the mind glows on the difcovery of truth in any department of fcience, were not confi- dered by him as at once an encouragement and a reward to his moft adive exertions ; yet when the objed; of refearch is an article of Religion, to the allurements of pleafure are fuperadded the ties of duty : and, as the fenfe of fo facred an obligation will operate as an incentive to the undertaking, fo, what- ever difficulties may occur. He will be ani- mated to perfevere by the hopes of that B tranquillity [ 2 1 tranquillity of mind, which is the conflant companion of convidlion. M£|M.vilTai* Tap^ew? Si -arxoirpa-Trs Suipoc QioTo, Much extraneous matter may be exclud- ed, and the labour of inveftigation greatly abridged, by reducing the real obje6l of our refearch to a precife and definite point. With the complicated controverfy then relating to a Trinity in Unity, with which the Chriftian world has been fo long and fo dreadfully con- \aiKed, however intimately our queftion may fcem to be connected with it, we have no im- mediate concern. For the very fubjecl of our inquiry manifeftly prefuppofes the acknow- ledged exiftence of fuch Trinity, or at leaft of a fecond Perfon in the Godhead : as it would be prepofterous to inveftigate the rela- tive nature of one, whofc very Being at all was matter of doubtful fpeculatlon. It is there- fore with the avowed Trinitarian that we are at iflue; with him, who allowing the fecond Perfon in the Trinity to have exifted from all eternity in the capacity of the word of God, maintains that " He then only began to be his * Heliod. Theog. V. I02. ^ &id.t$fi)Troi TZi x.ecttr,c A»aSrxr)?, Of, All Appeal to the NeW Teftament in proof of the Divinity of the Son of God. By Charles Hawtrey, M. A. and Vicar of Hampton, Uxfordftiire, Loudon, 17^4, p. 3i^— 43. Son, [ 3 ] Son, when he became incarnate ; that the Fihation in fhort confilted, and confifted only, in the Incarnation. Thus, it has lately been aflerted "^ " that '* the Eternal Generation of the Son of God is '' not to be fupported by any thing in the *' New Teftament." It may with more truth be replied that the dodlrine, which teaches that the Filiation commenced at the Incarna- tion, can not boaft of any fcriptural proof, but w^hat arifes from a conjectural Interpre- tation, which may perhaps be iliewn to be untbunded ; and from an attempt to eftablifh a diftinClion, which was probably never in- tended. Still, whatever be our fuccefs in combating this new hypothefis, if the Eter- nal Filiation cannot be proved by the holy Scriptures, he, who fubfcribes to the Articles of Religion, mufl, in conformity with the fixth of them, abandon it as a necelTary ar- ticle of Faith. And yet after having been habituated to the Liturgy of our National Church, he will certainly feel fome ftrong prepoffeffions in its favour, and fome com- punc^lion at parting with it. Accuftomed in the Te Deum, which he believes to have been compofed at lead as early ^ as in the . - Id. p. 43. 185. 1S7. ^ Bingham's Origines Ecclefiaftlcjs, 1. xlv. c. 3. p. 400. vol.6, B 2, beginning [ 4 ] beginning of the fixth century, to addrefs Chrift as *' the everlafting Son of the ever- ** lafting Father ;" in the Litany to fuppU- cate God, the Father, and God, the Son ; •in the Confeffion of our Chriftian Faith, commonly called, the Creed of St. Athana- fius, to profefs a belief that the Son is un- create and eternal ; and in the Nicene Creed to acknowledge the Son, as ** begotten by " his Father before all ages," and the Holy Ghoft as " proceeding from the Father and ** the Son;"-— accuftomed to thefe profeffions of faith, and familiarized to the lefl'er Doxo- logy, all fanAioned by the authority of the Church, he mull be excufed if he ftill fuf- peCls that the Doctrine maintained in them rells on a broader and a firmer foundation than the precarious bafis of human Invention. Recolle(5tinii too that there is ^ another of our Articles of Religion, which holds that our " three Creeds may be proved by moft cer- ** tain warrants of holy Scripture ;" he wull doubtlefs paufe awhile, before he withdraws his belief from a Dodrine, thus declared, by the pious compilers of our Liturgy and Arti- cles, to be the do(^lrine of Infpiration. In the commencement therefore of the invcili- ' The 8th. gation. [ 5 ] gation, he cannot perhaps wholly diveft him- felf of prejudice ; but yet he will not think that the ** quicquid in religione vetus reti- " nendum eft," is to be fo pertinaciouily ad- hered to, as to preclude the extirpation of Herefy, however venerable for its Antiquity, and however endeared to us by early Preju- dice. To produce, even under the aufpices of ancient Commentators, proofs which are lia- ble to general objed:ions, might be thought to argue a diftruft in the fufficiency of our Evidence without them. I lliall therefore pafs over the affiftance to be derived from the Old Teftament; as the ftrongeft paiTages, thofe I mean which occur in the Pfalms, may, as well as thofe which occur in the Prophets, be thought defcriptive of what the MefTiah was to be at his advent, rather than declaratory of what he was before. Betwixt, however, a general indifpofition to admit evidence of a certain ftamp, and a dif- ference of opinion with regard to the mean- ing of a particular word, a diftindion muft be allowed; fo that though we decline intro- ducing the one, we fhall not be inconfiilent, if we combat the other. Thus, we would appeal to the words, *^7rp&- f Coloff. i. 15. B 3 TOToycog [ 6 ] rcToico^ TtTcca-vi? ZTioscog, by which St. Paul de- fcribes the Son of God, as hkely to decide the queftion, though Commentators have doubted, whether they imply priority or pre- eminence of birth. For reafons which we will affign, their translation feems to be the beft, who render the words, " born before " every creature;" thus decompounding tt^^c;- %TOKog, and in the conftrucflion transferring tt/jo to "sraG-yig y^rlasui;. Nor is this a fingular in- ftance of a facred Writer, giving the force of the comparative degree to w^urog. ^ Schmi- dius adduces feveral examples from profane authors as well as from the New Tefta- ment, of ny^uTog, and words compounded of Ts-^uTog, having this comparative fignification. Other, and very appofite inftances may be found in ^ Mr. Stephens's fermon, on " The " Divine Perfons one God by an unity of '^ nature :" or, '* that our Saviour is one " God with his Father, by an Eternal Gene- *•' ration from his fubftance." Mr. Hawtrey of courfe, in order to be confiftent, and pre- ferve his hypothecs from immediate refuta- tion, reje<5ts this interpretation, but is rather fparing of argument to corroborate his own. When a new tranllation is to fuperfede a re- 8 Schmidius in Luc. c. ii. ver. 2, *^ Preached before the Univeriity of Oxford, 1722, ceived I 7 ] ceived one in order to determine a do(5tnnal controverfy, it ought to come recommended to us by the fupport of bibhcal criticifm : but no argument, either founded on its pe- cuUar agreement with the context, or the fi- milar ufe of it in other paflages is brought forward ; unlefs indeed we ought to except the ' afking of a queftion, which the ancient Commentators will fufficiently anfwer ; and the quotation of a "^ verfe in which -Tro^roTOH.og occurs, where however the Author himfelf confeffes that it is ufed in the {gi\{q of firft- born. Perhaps the confirmation to be derived from bibhcal criticifm was withheld, becaufe it might be found detailed in thole Annota- tors, with whom Mr. Hawtrey coincides. It is true; his interpretation of preeminent is defended both by orthodox and heterodox, by thofe who affirm and thofe who deny the Eternity of the Son ; ^ by Grotius and Ham- mond, by Wetftein and Locke. But might not the two firfl incline to it from an appre- henfion, that if they rendered it '' firft-born " of every creature," it might be perverted * " If 'vrpmoTOKcv fignifies priority in point of time or exift- " ence, will it not be to blend Jefus Chrift with the niafii of " the creation, to make him thereby the firfl created of the " works of God ?" p. 185. ^ Coloir. i. 17. ' The three firft in their notes on Coloff. i. i^. and the lafl: traiiflates wfinotowV} chief, Rom. viii. 29. B 4 into [ 8 ] into a confeffion of the Son*s being a crea- ture ? and might not the latter adopt it, be- caufe to have tranflated it firft-born would have been an unequivocal acknowledgment of the Son's Eternity ? To the authority of the names, however, juft recited, we can oppofe others equally great and authori- tative ; Cafaubon and Bengelius, Beza and Erafmus. Of thofe other critics who agree in the interpretation, " genitus ante omnem " creaturam," Schmidius ought not to be omitted, as being every way qualified, from his accurate knowledge of the other pafTages, in which the word is ufed, to decide upon its meaning ; nor ^ Luther, as giving us the fentiments of one who w^ith fuch extraordi- nary ability promoted the Reformation. The Vulgate too, and the Latin tranflations of the Ethiopic and Arabic verfions render 'rr^cororo- '^og, primogenitus ; as again the Syriac ufes the fynonymous word, primigenius, which Gefner explains by primitivus. ° Tertullian too explains primogenitus, *' ante omnia geni- " tus ;" whilft of the more ancient Commen- tators, it ought to be obferved that ° Theo- *" " Der erftgeborne von alien creaturen." Luther. " Tertullian adverfus Prax. p. ^©3. Ed. Par, " Theodoret's comment on the paffage is, i? orpo muarn ktI' ciui ■yivn.bi'n;. Tom, iii, p. 346. Ed. Sirmond. dorct [ 9 1 doret and ^ Theophyla<5l fupport our tranfla- tion. — I forbear to quote others, as the con- fenfus veterum may be feen by confulting Suicer on the word. I cannot but be aware, that the difference of opinion with regard to 7r^coTOTox,og, which, it may be faid, prevails amongft men, aUke diftinguiihed for their critical attainments, will, in the prefent ftage of our Inquiry, hardly juflify me in arguing from it. Added to this, the coincidence on this point, which we have acknowledged, between men of di- re(3;ly oppofite habits of thinking on other the moft effential topics, may poffibly create a prepofTeflion in favour of the fenfe we wilh to exclude. But a little reflection will greatly weaken the force of the objection built upon that difference in one cafe, and that coincidence of fentiment in the other. The Advocates of the Socinian fcheme, it muft be remembered, are not competent Judges. They come to the examination with a ftrong and ftubborn prejudice ingrafted on their minds, from which we may a priori in- fer their decifion. For if they were to allow the tranflation, *' born before every creature,'* P Theopbyla£l'3 words are, ^uXiTOf ^u^a^, ot» ippo wizcr*?? xt»- cTEi,'? U'lv Yioi- -jroK; ojv ; 9Xh "^^^ VTTocp^^eug OCVTCOV KTig-TlV OVTOC \ Should this attempt to afcertain the real jneaning of St. Paul be thought to have en- groffed too much attention, it furely will not be deemed in tenui labor, when it is re- membered that the admiffion of the truth of our Interpretation involves in it the down- fall of Mr. Hawtrey's hypothecs. And yet, after all, to have endeavoured with fuch mi- nutenefs to eftablilli the propriety of trani- lating *' born before every creature," may be thought an unnecellary though not an ufelefs employment ; for in whatever fenfe thefc words be underftood, the palTage ftill fur- nilhes us with an irrefragable proof of the So?is exillence before the creation of the world. For to what antecedent does the pro- noun aJrw, in the i6th verfe, refer? Clearly to Ui^ in the 13th; and a? the Apollle's afier- tion [ '5 ] tion is that " all things were created by the *' Son,'' it can require no reafoning to fhewr that the Son muft have exifted before. To whichever tranllation therefore of wourorojcog •sroccrrig xTttTicog the preference be given, this magnificent parage ftill fupplies a direct and fubilantial proof of the So?is previous exift- ence. A fimilar argument might be drawn from the "" Epiftle to the Hebrews, where the Son is again reprefented as the author of the creation. But we fhall not be content with merely deducing from the creative power afcribed to the Son, the neceffity of his prior exiflence ; as the comparifon of this paiTage and the one quoted from the Epiftle to the Coioffians with ^ St. John's Gofpel will go at once to the total fubveriion of the imagi- nary diftindion between the Word and the Son. St. John fays, " all things were made " by the Word\' St. Paul as before cited, and the author of the Epiftle to the He- brews fay, "■ by the Son, God made the " worlds." Either, then, one of them is wrong,— a fuppofition not compatible with the plenary infpiration attributed to the facred writers ; or, if they, are both right, the Word " c. i, V. 2. y c. i. V. 3. and [ lb ] and the Son mean one and the fame preexiit- ing power. If the Epiftle to the Hebrews be adjudged to St. Paul, we find the fame impUed aflertion of the Son's prior exiftence repeated by one, -who, from the different vifions which were vouchfafed to him, was likelY;i as far as it was poffible, to have pene- trated into the mofl myflerious nature of the Godhead : if it be not, our argument is equally conclufive ; as wx lliall then have the doctrine of one infpired writer confirmed by the teflimony of another. So that at all events, we are reduced to the dilemma either of branding the Evangelift or the Apoftle with the guilt of falfehood, or of acknow- ledging the eternal identity of the Word and the Son. As they who believe that both the Gofpel and the Epiflle were compofed under the fuperintending influence of the Holy Ghofl cannot admit the very poflibility of the former, they will of courfe acquiefce in the latter alternative. But further ; he, who is at all converfant with the writin«;s of the Fathers cannot but have obferved the indifcriminate ufe which they make of the terms Acyog and Tlog ; af- cribing indifferently to the Pcrfon, charac- terized by each of thofe titles, the work of creation. That they thought themfelves juf- tified [ 17 3 tified in this promifcuous ufe of the words is clear, becaufe they maintained the perfonal Identity of the Word and the Son. For the prefent, one or two inftances of this mode of writing may be fufficient; as I fliall have oc- cafion to be more copious in fuch examples, both when animadverting on the very paflage on which Mr. Hawtrey's diftinc^ion refts, and when adducing the opinion of the pri- mitive Chriftians. The following extract from Juftin MartyY will fhew that He at leaft thought the Word and the Son fynonymous "". " But I will give " you another proof alfo," fays he, '^ from ** the Scriptures, that God in the beginning " before all creatures generated from himfelf *' a certain rational power, which is called " by the Holy Ghoft the Lord's Glory, and " fometimes Son — and fometimes Wordy Tatian * calls the Word, " the firji-begotten " work of the Father ;" and Irenaeus ^ grounds his refutation of the Valentinian Herefy on' * MafTt'pov ^E xai aXXo v^/iv una tSv yf»(pu!v S:jau, ot» «p%'Ji' Tpo TtuvTuv Toiv y.r\crfji.a.ruv o &ioi FEFENNHKE ^ly(x.yi.\y tivoc i^ Iccvla Xa- y\y.r]v, ijTj; y.oci Siia, Kvp'm Ltto t3 rmeviAccToi; t2 ayis xa?vEiTa», CtfCTf ^\ 'YI02,— xai AOroS. Dial, cum Tiyph. Jud, " 'O o't hoyoi 'i^yo)i nPnTOTOKON (t« 'ayil^jt.itToq, var. le<^,) T» roa^Tpoj. p. 21. Ed. Worth. ^ 'ENOr )^ TOY ATfTOT hixWiAiiit AOrOY — >^ 'YIOT 0£a, J^ TOYTOY AYTOY creifyMBmo? i^7r£§ "V^"' '^«?^'-^«f ^ t^^ 'Oy^o'aJo;