^'^ a? ^01 3 L/iecuatv odfcarv L/~erL(i ^^f^Jf^ iJpTH^h^ S \ym nx entail h{ c^^ xfyuea-'U/yi^ ^^iTK^ // . X Cu^lavtj Co'nfro^eryj(^/^J^^^^ucJ^'^'^<^^^ Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2011 witii funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/anotherdefenceofOOflem ANOTHER DEFENCE O F T H E UNITY, WHEREIN St. John's Introdudion to his Gofpel, and his Account of the Word's being made Flejl.\ are confidered. WITH A few Remarks on fome very late notable Publications, particularly thofe of Dr. Ben- jamin Dawson, and Dr. Kennicot. A>vX* n.ur; «? ©sc? o "Tramp >'-«! «? Kvpiog LONDON: Printed for T. Longman, in Pater-nofler-Row. ^ M DCC LXVI. ] PREFATORY ADDRESS T O T H E READER. A Very elegant ivrlter has obferv- ** / \ ed, that " though the articles of religious belief, which fall " within the comprehenfion of mankind, " and feem eflential to their happinefs, are " few and fimple -, yet ingenious men have " contrived to eredt them into a moil tre- " mendous fyftem of metaphyseal fubtilty, ** which will long remain a monument of *' the extent and weaknefs of human un- " derftanding. — By attempting to eftablilli " too much, they have hurt the foundation " of the moft interefling principles of re- " ligion." And agaijiy he fays, — " that religion con- " fidered as a fcience, in the manner it has ** been ufually condud;ed, is but little be- A 2 *' neficial :np(irative % even as God. In giving, what I underftand to be, the meaning of St. John in his introduction, the phrafe, in our tranflation runs, and the Word was God, xcti Qeoi Ljj Xcy^' a writer above- mentioned reads, ** and God was the Word, " obferving, that Arians and Socinians read, " the Word was a God.^" ■ ■ ■■ But inafmuch as the fame writer, had before faid, " By the Word (John i. i.) 1 apprehend the Evan- " gelift means, the Go/pel -f- ;" it does not fo much illuftrate this text, as it darkens the phrafe j fince it is not fo intelligible how God is the GofpeL The reading feems much more eafy and natural as it ds-ndSj the Word was God, * Illuftrations, p, 59. f Ibid, p. 58. E or 26 Considerations on the Logc^v or God himfelf J confidered and underftood to= be, the manifeftative will of God, Which in-» terpretation, perfe(5lly accords with all an- cient ufages of the term, Logos, or Word-r and enables us to harmonize the laft with all ibrmer manifeftations of God j and at the fame time renders us capable of difcerning th€ divinity of the Gofpel di^enfation clearly demonftrated. It is certainly of the lafl importance,- that we preferve an idea of the Logos or Word, as diftindt from the perfon of Jefus Chrift j, otherwife, we cannot underfland him when he is abfolutely difclaiming all divine per- fections ; and when he is afcribing- all that wiidom and power, v^hich did atceft his miflion, to communications of divine ability from: the Father. Here, it will be proper for us to notice fomc very extraordinary re- prefentations of our Lord's formation and birth, given us in a. Senfion ^nd ?wtes lately published, by a very karned and diftinguiilied fon of the church of England ; who, in' treating on Chrift's l?ehig born of a^'drgin^ ha* thus unwarily exprefled himfelf, — *' This '^ God vifible amongft men, inti'oduced into- " the CoNsjDERATJOKS DN -T^E Logos. 27 '^ the world thus, fhall yet be truly man, ** lie (liall be born as an infant, and as an " infant fhall he be brought up." Again, *' 4^is divinity (i. e. that of the Meffiah) is marked by his being God ; his ■*' refidence upon earth, by his being God " with iis; and his humanity, by his being ^' born of ..a woman, and fed with • the ^^cufii^l ^food of infants during his-iiifant itate More extraordinary yet, if poffible,--^"'It ■"..feems to have been a juft mark of'dig- f*, .nity, that the author of nature jfhould *** be drfting^iflied by not being born after ** the ordinary courfe of nature : ^nd- hav- " ing evea* been as no other being was, -the *' Son of Gody he became what no other *' -ever was, the Son of n 'virgm -j-." '^ With great fubmiffion, I would afk, whe- the Dr. Kennicot has not here, in the moft exprefiive language, very unwarily countenanced the popifh dodrine, of the * Dr. Kennicott's Sermon at Oxford, May J9» U^S» P- 26, 27. t Ibid. Notei^ p. 62. E 2 Virgin 28 Considerations ON THE Logos. Virgin Mary's being the mother of God? for if the author of nature could be born of a woman, afTu redly, there will be fome pre- tence for the homage paid her, by the papal world. And, me thinks, the difpute about the immaculate conception, as maintained by tlie FrancifcanSy would be in their favour, and not on the fide of the Tiominicans. The Dr. will allow me, however, to put thefe queftions, — " If the author of nature *' was bora of a virgin, what poffible oc- ^' cafion could there be, for his having the *' Spirit poured out upon him at his bap- .** tifm? and what that fpirit was, which U was then poured out upon him T for if the God of nature, did becorae die Son of a virgin, then that Sqn of a virgin, could not be any other than the God of nature. *' Thus ingenious men are found fup- porting that treniendous fyfterr^ of metaphyr fical fubtlety which remains a monument of the extent and weaknefs of the human ur^r derftanding, and by eftablifliing too much, dp hurt the foundation of the mod interefl- ing principles of religion.*' But, Considerations on the Logos. 29 But, thanks be to God, fo far from the leaft countenance being given in facred fcrip- ture to Tuch reprefentation of the MefTiah, as that of the God of nature's being born of a' Virgin, he is always fpoken of, in prophecy, as a man ; and moft commonly ipeaks of himfelf i&the Son of man j unlefs he has occafion to mention the divine mif- fion which he had to reveal the Father to mankind ; and then, he fometimes calls him- felf the Son of God. Yet, whenever he ufes that exalted flile, it is not to be imagined, he would be underftood to mean, he ivas that God ivhofe Son he was. — If therefore we would preferve any rational or intelligible ideas of Jefus Chrift, we muft contemplate the Logos, or Word, which dwelt with him, as abfolutely diftindt from his perlbn. — In a wordy the fupreme univerfal power, autho- rity and dignity, by which the Logos did exprefs itfelf, whihl dwelling with the man Chrift Jefus, was, what determined the cha- rader of the true MeJJiah, Or, in the words of a learned divine, " he was thus the true *' Shechinah j the true glory of God as really Y dwelt in him, as \vhen the fVord of the Shechinah i< 30 Co;^ SI DERATIONS ON THE LoGOS» '5 S^echimh gave forth the command for tho creation of the world, or when it pub^ ^f jifhed the la\y at mount Sinai, or when it *' enter d the tabernacle: and temple, and the ^V whole worfhip of the Hebrew church, ^* and all proper divine honours were given -'V unto it,*" Yet, afluredly, no reafqn^hle man can.faj, that either the tf«^^/, thei^- hernofky ;th9 \temple, of tho.-: prophet ^ rVf.%% Other," rDJCJWMiie than the SJoechimb^.-ox^'v^i'' ilrument of conveyance, V by which a mani- feftationwas made of the Word, or will pf God. — For will any lay, that becaufe the Word of the Shechinah faid to Moles, / wiJI . make thee a God to Pharaoh j or, thujimk he to him inft.iad of God. (Exod. iv. 16. vii. i.} that therefore ^^i became the fame with the divine Wordi which wrought fuch won- ders by him ? This would be very unao •countable. The Jewilh multitudes were ex- tremely ignorant and deprived ; but yet, when they faw the miracks which our Lord wrought among them, . they garje glory to God- They did not afcribe the power to J^fus of Nazareth, but to the God of nature^ .jAh ^5 * J^VVJf^Art's Three;itra(pts, p. 5^47. .^,.-,'. .4v who COxV $ I DER AT rOiC S ON TH^ Lb&65. 3' £ who thus bore leftimony t6 his being th^ Meffidb, They diflingulflied between the pcrfon of Jefus Chrift, and th^t Word of God which dwelt with hini j between the Being who fent, and his meffenger. Obf. II. The ienfe in which we have underftood the Logos, or Word of God, will quite annihilate the idea of his pre-ex- iftence, whom we call Christ. It fhould feem, that it has been owing to menV not keeping their conceptions of the WorJy and of the perfbn of Chrift diftind:, that they have fo unnaturally fancied a pre- exiftence of the man Chrift Jefus. At the fame time, no one may call in queftion a pre-exiflence of the divine Pp^ordy which dwelt with him. And it has been fliewn,- with great evidence and mafterly addrefs, ' that the Logos did not fupply the place of any human foul in the perfon of Jefus Chrift; which may be feen, in the Letter writ in the year ijT^o. — Allow me to add, that, the i.:icVT •ff i %r