Abbildungen der Seite

ver. 46-50. and Acts ii. 22. "Ye men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and signs, and wonders, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know." See also ver. 36. ch. iv. 27. “For of a truth, against thy holy child [rather son, or servant] Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together." Ch. x. 38. "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power. Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil. For God was with him." Nor does our dear Redeemer disdain this title in his state of exaltation. For when he called to Saul out of heaven, and "Saul answered,-Who art thou, Lord? he said, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest," Acts xxii. 6-8. Comp. ch. ix. 5. See also ch. iii. 6. and xxvi. 9.

From all that has been said, it appears that Jesus is a man, appointed, anointed, beloved, honoured and exalted by God above all other beings.*

Obj. 1. It may be said: Admitting this notion of our Saviour's person, we shall lose that great instance of humiliation, and condescension, which the Arian scheme sets before us. For according to that, the most exalted spirit, next to God the Father, submits to all the laws of infancy and childhood, and is greatly incommoded by the body during its dwelling on this earth.

To which I answer: I would by no means rob you, or any one else, of any argument that is really suited to engage to humility in particular, or to all virtue in general. But, Papinian, if 1 am not mistaken, it appears from what was before said, that this instance of humiliation is an imaginary thing. It is impossible that so exalted a spirit should be the soul of a human body. If it is not an absolute contradiction, it is incongruous to the nature of things, and in the highest degree improbable.

a Some now by the Son of God" understand an intelligent being, or emanation, begotten by the Father, or proceeding from him, in an ineffable manner, from all eternity, and of the same essence or substance with the Father. Others thereby understand a mighty spirit, or angel, begotten or formed by the will of the Father, in time, before the creation of the world, and of a different substance from the Father; which Son of God, according to them, became incarnate; that is, united himself, either to the human nature, consisting of soul and body, or to a human body, so as to supply the place of a human soul.

But those senses of this phrase, or title, are not to be found in any of the books of the New Testament. · The Jews had no notion that their Messiah should be any thing more than · mere man. See Whitby upon Rom. ix. 5.' Dr. Jortin's Discourses concerning the Christian Religion, p. 17. which indeed is well shown in the passages of ancient authors, alleged by Whitby in the place referred to.

This will lead us to the true meaning of the title, "the Son of God," in the gospels; for there many give our Lord that -title, who took him to be a man especially favoured by God. This title is given to our Lord, not only by Peter in his confession, Matt. xvi. 16. and the parallel places, and John vi. 69. but also by John the Baptist, John i. 34. iii. 35, 36. by Nathanaël, John i. 49. by Martha, xi. 27. and by others, Matt. xiv. 33. Luke iv. 41. Our blessed Lord likewise often takes it to himself either directly or indirectly. John iii. 17-18. v 25. ix. 35-37. x. 36. xi. 4.

The case seems to be this. In the Jewish style, and the language of scripture, all good men, and all people, who are in a covenant relation to God, are his sons, and are entitled to many blessings and privileges: but Jesus, as the Messiah, is "the Son of God," by way of eminence and distinction.

Exod. iv. 22, 23. "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first-born. And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me." Is. xliii. 6. " Bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth." See likewise Is. xlv. 11, 12. and Jer, xxxi. 9. "For I am a father unto Israel; and Ephraim

is my first-born." Ver. 20. "Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child?" Hos. xi. 1. "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." To which I must add Jer. xxxi. 1. "At the same time, saith the Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel. And they shall be my people." Comp. ver. 9 and 33. All which is expressed by St. Paul after this manner. 2 Cor. vi. 18. "And I will be a father unto them; and hey shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." See there also ver. 16 and 17.

Accordingly, in the New Testament, the Gentiles, who received Jesus as the Christ, being brought into God's family, and into the number of his people, are called “the sons of God." John i. 12. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." Comp. 1 John iii. 1. and see Rom. viii. 14—17. Gal. iv. 4–7. and Heb. ii. 10. and else


Matt. xxvii. 54. "Now when the Centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly, this was the Son of God." Comp. Mark xv. 39. And, says St. Luke, ch. xxiii. 47. "Now when the Centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man."

All good men and women, then, are God's sons and daughters. But Jesus, the Messiah, is "the Son of God," by way of eminence and distinction, and has in all things the preeminence.

This, as it seems to me, is the way of thinking, to which we are led, by comparing many texts of the Old and New Testament, where the title or denomination of " Son of God," is used.

There is therefore no foundation for the interpretations mentioned at the beginning of this note: which, nevertheless, have been received by many, and have produced intricate schemes and systems, by which the minds of Christians have been greatly perplexed, and the world itself sometimes thrown into confusion and disturbance.

And if so great a being were to inhabit a human body, it would entirely swallow it up. That spirit would still retain its own knowledge, and power, and would raise the body above all pains, weaknesses, and wants.

Whatever advantages may be fancied in the Arian scheme, there are much greater inconve niences attending it. For, as before hinted, it deprives us of the force of our Saviour's example. We are common men. But he is supposed to be the most perfect spirit, next to God. How should any temptation, from the things of this world, affect such a being? How should he be tempted, in all respects, as we are? It could not be. It is altogether irrational.

But there are many and great advantages in supposing Jesus Christ to be a man, consisting of soul and body. His example is then justly set before us in all the strength and beauty, with which it now appears in the gospels and epistles of the New Testament.

It is also upon the ground of this scheme alone, that the expectation of attaining to a glory, like that of Jesus Christ, can be supported. For which, however, there is plain encouragement in the doctrine of the gospel. John xvii. 21-26. Rom. viii. 17. 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12. Rev. iii. 21. and elsewhere.

These are the most glorious, the most animating hopes that can be conceived. They excite to faithfulness and zeal beyond expression. We may be made like unto Jesus Christ hereafter, if we will but follow his example, and resemble him now. But how can we admit the thought of being near to him, in the future state, who beside the merit of his obedience and sufferings here, has, in the Arian hypothesis, the glory of being employed by God in things of a quite different nature, such as creating this visible world, and all the angels, and invisible hosts of heaven?

And is not this one reason of our slothfulness, and other faults?" The truth is not in us: the words of Christ do not abide in us." We suffer ourselves to be deluded, and perverted from the truth and simplicity of the gospel, by the philosophical schemes of speculative men. And so, almost any man "may take our crown," Rev. iii.. 11.

I believe, Papinian, that you, as well as other serious Christians, desire, with the apostle Paul, "to know Christ, and the power of his resurrection," Philip. iii. 10. But what is there extraordinary in the resurrection of Christ, according to the Arian hypothesis? Is it any thing extraordinary, that the Logos (in the Arian sense of that word) should raise the body, in which he has acted, and suffered for a while? He might be supposed to have an especial regard for that body, and be willing to make it glorious. But I do not see, that such a resurrection can so fully assure us of our own, as if we suppose Christ to be a man like unto us. For then his resurrection is a pattern of ours. Which is the doctrine of the New Testament. 1 Cor. xv. 20-23, and the glorious argument of St. Paul. Eph. i. 17-23. Hereby we are indeed assured of our resurrection. God the Father, who gave his own Son for us, and raised him up from the dead, will, most certainly, raise up us also, as it is expressed, 1 Cor. iv. 14. " Knowing that he, who raised up the Lord Jesus, should raise up us also by Jesus, and should present us with you." And see Philip. iii. 20, 21. In a word, here is the best foundation of unmoveable confidence in God. And the apostle expressly says in the place just referred to in 1 Cor. xv. 21. "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

Obj. 2. Again, it may be objected, that this idea of the person of Jesus does not fully suit the strong expressions in the New Testament, concerning the love of God, in giving his Son

for us.

But I think it does. For can there be any greater love, than for that person, who is immediately sent by God, who is his ambassador, invested with all his power and authority, who is the object of the Father's especial love, and therefore his own Son, who was "holy, harmless, and undefiled," Heb. vii. 16, to live a mean, despised, reproached life in this world, and then to die a painful and ignominious death for our good, and for the good of mankind in general?

Besides, this is that love of God, which is so much, and so justly magnified, and extolled in the New Testament: that God gave his Son to die for us. "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things?" And see before ch. v. 6-8. and 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God, even our Father." Gal. i. 4. See likewise 1 Tim. ii. 6. 1 Pet. i. 18-21. 1 John iii. 16. iv. 9, 10. and many other places.

If Christ had dwelt in pre-existent glory, and had come from heaven, to animate a human body; this also would have been plainly, and frequently represented to us.


3 D

In the way, now mentioned, we go to God directly through Jesus Christ. And the love of the Father is most conspicuous in the supposition, that God sent, and appointed the man Jesus Christ, for our salvation. Herein, I say, the love of God is most conspicuous, much more than in supposing the pre-existence of the Son, the covenant of redemption, and the offer of the Son to come into the world, and many other such like things, derogatory to the honour of the Father; because they diminish our idea of his free, transcendent, and unmerited love and goodness. The gospel account is summed up in these words: "And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. And has given unto us the ministry of reconciliation: to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them: and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. See likewise what follows in ver. 20, 21. and Eph. i. 1—10.

Upon the whole, as before said, the true evangelical description of our blessed Saviour's person and character, is that, which we have in St. Peter's words, recorded Acts ii. 22. and 36. and ch. x. 38. and St. Paul's, Acts xvii. 31. and 1 Tim. ii. 5. Col. ii. 3-9. and many other places.

Nor is this a diminishing character. It is the greatest, and the most honourable to him, on whom it is bestowed, and the most satisfying to us, who are called upon to believe in him, to rely upon him, and follow him in the way of obedience prescribed to us.

Says God to the people of Israel of old, "Behold, I send an angel before thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not. For he will not pardon your transgressions. For my name is in him," Ex. xxiii. 20, 21. Upon which place Patrick speaks to this purpose."For my name is in him." He acts by my authority and power, and sustains my person, who am present where he is. For the name of God is said to be there, where he is present after a singular and extraordinary manner. 1 Kings viii. 16. 1 Chron. vi. 5, 6. Maimonides expounds it, Maimonides expounds it, "My word is in him," that is,




says he, God's will and pleasure was declared by the angel-In which he seems to follow the Chaldee, who translates it, "for his word is in my name," that is, what he speaks is by my


Afterwards, when the people had trangressed in making a golden calf, and God was greatly displeased; Moses offered an earnest prayer, that he would himself go with them, and conduct them, Ex. xxxiii. 12, 13. And he received this gracious answer, by which he was encouraged. Ver. 14, 15. "And he said: My presence shall go with thee; and I will give thee rest. And he said: If thy presence go not with us, carry us not hence.""


My presence, that is, I myself, as in the Greek version: autog goTogeucoμal 001. In the Hebrew it is, literally, "my face." Which is the same as myself. So 2 Sam. xvii. 11. " and that thou go to the battle in thy own person." In the Hebrew it is: "that thy face go to the


That the presence of God was with Jesus, the Messiah, our Lord and Saviour, in the most signal and extraordinary manner, we are assured by every book and chapter of the New Testa ment, and particularly by St. John's gospel, in the introduction, and throughout.

The dignity of Jesus, as Messiah, is very great, far superior to that of angels. We know it from our Lord himself, and from things said by him, whilst dwelling on this earth. Matt. xxiv. 36. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels in heaven, but my Father only." Which is thus expressed in Mark xiii. 32. "But of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man, no not the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." To which let me add John xiv. 28. "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father. For my Father is greater than I." Which I suppose to be said of our Lord, as man. Nor am I singular therein. The same is said by Augustine, whom I shall write out for your

The question upon this occasion was, Whether God would himself go up with the people, who had highly offended him; or whether he should send an angel before them, to conduct them. God said to Moses: "I will send an angel before thee." And added: "For I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiff-necked people; lest I consume thee in the way," Ex. xxxiii. 1-3. Upon the prayer and intercession of Moses, God is pleased to promise, that his

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Non recte cogitas, quem locum in rebus habeat humana natura, quæ condita est ad imaginem Dei. Majores angeli dici possunt homine, quia majores sunt hominis corpore: majores sunt et animo, sed in forma, quam peccati originalis merito corruptibile aggravat corpus. Naturâ vero humanâ, qualem naturam Christus humanæ mentis assumpsit, quæ nullo peccato potuit depravari, Deus solus est major-Naturâ vero hominis, quæ mente rationali et intellectuali creaturas cæteras antecedit, Deus solus est major: cui utique injuria facta non est, ubi scriptum est, Major est Deus corde nostro,' 1 Joh. iii. 20. Filius ergo Dei susceptum hominem levaturus ad Patrem, quando dicebat, Si diligeretis me, gauderetis utique, quia vado ad Patrem, quia Pater major me est,' Joh. xiv. 28. non carni suæ solum, sed etiam menti, quam gerebat, humanæ, Deum Patrem utique præferebat. Aug. Contr. Maximin. Arian, 1. 2, cap. xxv.


Tom. VIII.

Dr. Whitby's paraphrase of Mark xiii. 32, is thus: "Neither the Son," who has the Spirit ⚫ without measure, but "the Father only.""

What I have been arguing for, was the sentiment of the Nazarene Christians. Nor do I think it can be made appear that any Jews, who were believers, had any other idea of our Saviour: excepting those called Ebionites, or some of them, who were extremely mistaken in supposing that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary.*

The notion of an inferior Deity, pre-existing, and then incarnate, seems to have been brought into the church by some of the learned converts from heathenism, who had not thoroughly abandoned the principles in which they had been educated. Perhaps, likewise, they hoped by this means to render the doctrine of Christ more palatable to heathen people, especially their philosophers. Moreover the Christians of the second century, and afterwards, were too averse to all Jews in general, and even to the believers from among that people. The apostle Paul had seen a temper of pride and insolence springing up in the Gentile Christians, in his own time: or he would not have delivered that caution, which we find in Rom. xi. 17-24.5

[ocr errors]

mere man, of the seed of David-for that reason the blessed apostles in great wisdom first instructed the Jews in the things concerning our Saviour's humanity. De Sentent. Dionysii. n. 8. p. 248. C. D.

Chrysostom, at the beginning of his fourth hemily upon St. John's gospel, says: The other evangelists having chiefly insisted upon our Saviour's humanity, there was danger, lest his eternal generation should have been neglected by some: and men might have been of the same opinion with Paul of Samosata, if John had not written.' In Joh. hom. 4. tom. VIII. p. 27. A. B. Bened.

In his first homily upon the Acts, he expresseth himself again to this purpose: In the discourses of the apostles recorded in this book, little is said about Christ's divinity. But they discourse chiefly of his humanity, and passion, and resurrection, and ascension; because his resurrection and 'ascension to heaven were the points necessary to be proved and believed at that time.' In Act. ap. hom. i. t. IX. P. 3. A.

* Athanasius says, 'That the Jews at that time being in an error, and thinking that the expected Messiah would be a

[ocr errors]

Augustine in one of his sermons says, Peter and the other apostles have written of our Lord, but it is chiefly ⚫ concerning his humanity. Again, Peter says little of our Lord's divinity in his epistles, but John enlarges upon that subject in his gospel: quoniam Petrus scripsit de Domino, scripserunt et alii: sed scriptura eorum magis circa humanitatem Domini est occupata- -Sed de divinitate Christi in literis Petri aliquid [al. non aliquid]: in Evangelio autem Joannis multum eminet. Serm. 253. cap. iv. t. V. And in his Confessions he informs us, that for a great while he was of opinion that Jesus was a most wise and excellent man, miraculously born of a virgin, and sent by God, with a high commission, to give us an example of steadfast virtue, amidst the temptations of this world, and to instruct us in the way how we might obtain everlasting salvation. Ego vero aliud putabam, tantumque sentiebam de Domino Christo meo, quantum de excellentis sapientiæ viro, cui nullus posset æquari: præsertim quia mirabiliter natus ex virgine, ad exemplum

[ocr errors]

contemnendorum temporalium pro adipiscendâ immortalitate, divinâ pro nobis curâ tantam auctoritatem magisterii meruisse videbatur. Conf. 1. 7. c. xix. n. 25. Ego autem aliquanto posterius didicisse me fateor- -quomodo catholica veritas a Photini falsitate dirimatur. Ibid. But upon reading the works of some Platonic philosophers, which were put into his hands, he altered his opinion. Et primo volens ostendere mihiquod verbum tuum caro factum est, et habitavit inter homines, procurâsti mihi, per quemdam hominem immanissimo typho turgidum, quosdam Platonicorum libros ex Græcâ linguâ in Latinam versos: et ibi legi, non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino multis et multiplicibus suaderi rationibus, quod in principio erat Verbum, &c. Ibid. cap. ix. n. 13. vid. et cap. xx. n. 26.

I take this breach of communion, correspondence and communication between the Jewish Christians that fled from Jerusalem into the East, and the Gentile Christians, (which breach continued till the former were totally destroyed, or dissipated) to have been a great mismanagement, and the greatest misfortune that ever befel the Christian churchSt. Paul laboured with all his might, aim, and study, to keep up union, communion, and friendship, between these two bodies of Christians. And he did with great difficulty preserve it in some good measure, as long as he lived-Epiphanius had some knowledge of those of the Jewish Christians, which remained to his time, that is 370, whom the Gentile Christians then called Nazarenes. And he styles them heretics; for no other reason that I can perceive, but that they, together with their Christian faith, continued the use of circumcision, and of the Jewish law. Which is a thing, that St. Paul never blamed in a Jewish Christian, though in the Gentile Christians he did. Dr. William Wall, in the Preface to Lis Notes upon the O. T. P. xi. xii.

That is a melancholy observation. Let us endeavour to repair the damage here bewailed, by diligently studying, and resolutely adhering to the doctrine of Christ's apostles, as contained in the books of the New Testament; wherein, I verily believe, are delivered all the truths of religion, and in sufficient perspicuity, if we will but attend.

Thus far I have pursued my own thoughts, without consulting any other writer at all, or very slightly, except in those places where I have expressly said so. But I all along intended, before I finished, to observe a part of what is said by Dr. Clarke in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity; which I have now done. And I cannot forbear saying, that his intepretations of texts are generally false, arising, as from some other causes, so particularly, from an aversion to Sabellian, or Socinian senses: some of which may be absurd, and unnatural. But I much prefer Grotius's interpretations upon the comparison, above Dr. Clarke's, So far as I am able to judge, Grotius explains texts better than the professed Socinians. The reason may be, that he had more learning, and particularly was better acquainted with the Jewish style. But I am apt to think, that their later writers have borrowed from him, and improved by him."

However, this is said very much in the way of conjecture. For I must acknowledge that I have not been greatly conversant with the writers of that denomination. I have never read Crellius de uno Deo Patre: though I believe it to be a very good book. There is also, in our own language, a collection of Unitarian Tracts in two or three quartos. But I am not acquainted with it. Nor can I remember, that I ever looked into it. I have formed my sentiments upon the scriptures, and by reading such Commentators, chiefly, as are in the best repute. I may add, that the reading of the ancient writers of the church has been of use to confirm me, and to assist me in clearing up difficulties.

I observe then, that many of the texts in Dr. Clarke's P. I. ch. ii. sect 3, concerning the highest titles given to Christ, instead of proving his opinion, are inconsistent with it, and confirm that for which I argue. Yea they prove it, and agree with no other: such as "the Father is in me, and I in him: he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me: if ye had known me, ye would have known the Father also: I in the Father, and you in me, and I in you: he that hateth me, hateth my Father also: all things that the Father hath, are mine," &c. &c,.


Script. Doct. ch. ii. sect. 3. numb. 616. p. 114, 115. is a quotation from Justin Martyr. The Jews, saith he, are justly reproved for imagining that the Father of all things spake to Moses, when indeed it was the Son of God, who is called the angel and the messenger of the Father. Again, afterwards, from the same Justin. Yet it was not God the creator of the • universe, which then said to Moses, that he was "the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."

This appears to me very strange, that the Jews should not know who was their God, and delivered the law by Moses. And I cannot help wondering, that any learned men of our times should pay any regard to such observations as these. Is it not better to say, that Justin was mistaken, than that the Jewish people were mistaken in such a thing as this? For Justin was a convert from heathenism, and had been a philosopher, and brought along with him many prejudices, which might hinder his rightly understanding the Old Testament.

That God, who spake to Moses, and brought the people of Israel out of Egypt, is the Creator of the universe, is manifest. Exod. xx. 1, 2, 3. "And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Ver. 19, 11. "But the seventh day is the sabbath of Jehovah thy GodFor in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." Is. xl. 27, 28. Why sayest thou, O Jacob-My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God? Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, nor is weary ?" See also ch. xlv. 11, 12, and elsewhere.


Neither our Saviour, nor his apostles, had any debate with the Jews upon this head: but plainly suppose, that they were right, as to the object of worship. Therefore our Lord says to the woman of Samaria, John iv. 22, "Ye worship ye know not what. We know what we worship. For salvation is of the Jews." John viii. 54. "It is my Father that honoureth me: of whom ye say, that he is your God." Acts iii. 13. "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his Son Jesus" Ver. 30. "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree." Are not these texts clear? However, see likewise Matt. xi. 25. John xvii. throughout, and xx. 17, 21. Eph. iii. 14. Heb. i. 1, 2. 1 John iv. 14.

Mark xii. 28, 29, "One of the scribes came, and asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? Jesus answered him: The first of all the commandments is: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord," Deut. vi. 4. To which the scribe assented. And Mark xii. 34. "When.

« ZurückWeiter »