^^ 
 
 f 
 
-Divisioa 
 Section 
 
 Sec 
 
y 
 
 CALM    INQUIRY         V^  '         '  ^ 
 
 THE  SCRIPTURE  DOCTRINE 
 
 CONCERNING 
 
 THE  PERSON  OF   CHRIST; 
 
 INCr.LDINTr 
 
 A    BRIEF    REVIEW    OF   TIIK    CONTROVERSY 
 
 R  E  T  WEEN    D  R.  HO  R  S  L  E  Y    A  N  I) 
 
 DR.  PRIESTLEY, 
 
 AND 
 
 A   SUMMARY    OFTHE    VARIOUS   OPINIONS 
 
 ENTERTAINED  BY  CHRISTIANS 
 
 UPON    Ti[IS    SUBJECT. 
 
 BY  THOMAS  BELSHAM, 
 
 MINISTER  OF  THE  CHAPEL  IN   F.SSKX  STREET. 
 
 "  Qui(l  ergo  Athenis  et  Hierosolyniis  ?  quid  Academiac  et  Ecclesise  r — Vide- 
 rint  qui  stoicum  Platonicum  et  dialecticiim  cbristiauLsmuin  protulRrunt.  Nobis, 
 curiositate  opus  non  est  post  Christum  Jesum,  nee  inquisitione  post  evangelium." 
 
 T<:rtuUU)u 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED  FOR  J.  JOHNSON  AND  CO., 
 
 ST.   PAUl/s  CHURCHYARD. 
 
PrinUd  by  Ruiiard  Tai/lur  and  Co.,  Sho,:-Lanc,  LorMun. 
 
TO   THE    REVEREND   MINISTERS, 
 
 FORMERLY  PUPILS  OF  THE  AUTHOR, 
 
 MANY  OF  ^VHOiM  NOW  OCCUPY  STATIONS  OF  EMINENCE 
 
 IN  THE  NONCONFORMIST    CHURCHES, 
 
 FOR  THE   DIRECTION  OF  WHOSE  STUDIES 
 
 THIS  INQUIRY  WAS  ORIGINALLY  INSTITUTED, 
 
 AND 
 
 TO  THE  YOUTH  OF  THE  CONGREGATIONS 
 FIRST  OF  HACKNEY,  AND  AFTERWARDS  OF  ESSEX  STREET, 
 
 FOR  WHOSE  INSTRUCTION 
 
 THE  SUBJECT  WAS  DISCUSSED  IN  A  MORE  FAMILIAR  FORM, 
 
 THIS  TREATISE 
 
 IS  RESPECTFULLY  INSCRIBED 
 
 BY  THEIR  FAITHFUL 
 AND  AFFECTIONATE  SERVANT, 
 
 THE  AUTHOR. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 1  o  those  who  interest  themselves  in  the  sub- 
 ject of  this  Inquiry,  the  order  pursued  in  the 
 following  investigation  may  appear  hot  alto- 
 gether natural;  and  the  Analytic  method  might 
 perhaps  be  thought  preferable  to  the  Synthetic. 
 And  that  method  would  unquestionably  have 
 been  adopted,  had  the  original  design  with 
 which  this  Inquiry  was  instituted  been  to  dis- 
 prove the  commonly-received  doctrine  concern- 
 ing the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 But  the  truth  is,  that  at  the  time  when  this 
 Iiiquny  was  begun  the  author  was  himself  a 
 firm  believer  in  the  pre-existence  of  Christ; 
 an  1  was  fully  persuaded  that  the  sph'it  which 
 animated  the  body  of  Christ  was  the  eternal 
 Logos  asserted  by  Dr.  Clarke  ;  nor  had  he  then 
 altogether  renounced  the  plausible  hypothesis 
 of  Dr.  T.  Burnet  and  Dr.  Doddridge,  that  the 
 Son  is  God  by  the  indwelling  deity  of  the 
 Fathjr.  He  had  been  at  that  time,  A.  D. 
 1781,  recently  appointed  to  the  Theological 
 chair  in  ]\Ir.  Coward's  Academy  at  Daventry, 
 and  Unitarianism  bfing  then  "  the  great  con- 
 troversy  of  the  age,"  he  was  dissatisfied  with 
 
Yl  PREIACE. 
 
 the  slio'ht  notice  taken  of  this  controversy  in 
 Dr.  Doddridge's  Lectures,  which  was  the  text- 
 book of  the  Institution,  and  regarded  it  as  an 
 imperative  professional  duty  to  enter  more  fully 
 into  this  important  discussion,  which  had  of 
 late  risen  into  increased  celebrity,  partly,  by 
 the  controversial  writings  of  Dr.  Priestley,  but 
 chiefly,  by  the  meritorious  sacrifice  which  the 
 venerable  Theophilus  Lindsey  had  made  not 
 many  years  before  to  the  dictates  of  an  en- 
 lightened conscience,  and  by  the  new  and  sin- 
 gular phaenomenon  of  a  flourishing  congregation 
 of  christians,  avov/edly  Unitarian,  having  been 
 formed  under  his  auspices  in  Essex  Street. 
 
 Now  the  plan,  which  to  the  author  appeared 
 most  eligible  for  conducting  the  minds  of  his 
 pupils  in  this  Inquiry,  was  to  form  a  collection 
 of  all  the  texts  in  the  New  Testament  which  in 
 any  way  related  to  the  person  of  Christ,  and 
 to  arrange  them  under  different  heads,  begin- 
 ning with  simple  pre-existence,  and  advancing 
 through  the  various  intermediate  steps  to  the 
 doctrine  of  the  proper  deity  of  Christ.  Under 
 each  text  was  introduced  the  comment  of  one 
 or  more  learned  and  approved  Trinitarian, 
 Arian,  or  Unitarian  expositors,  in  the  commen- 
 tator's own  words,  and  in  general  without  any 
 additional,  or  at  least  doctrinal,  comment  of  the 
 
PREFACE.  Vii 
 
 compiler's  own,  as  it  was  his  msh  to  leave  the 
 texts  thus  expounded  to  make  their  proper  im- 
 pression upon  the  minds  of  his  pupils.  Nor 
 did  he  at  that  time  entertain  a  doubt,  that  in 
 the  judgement  of  every  serious  and  impartial 
 inqmrer,  the  result  would  be  a  clear  discern- 
 ment of  what  he  then  thought  the  superficial 
 texture  of  the  Unitarian  arguments,  and  a  con- 
 firmed conviction  of  the  pre-existence,  and  su- 
 perior nature  and  dignity,  if  not  of  the  proper 
 deity,  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 The  first  consequence  of  this  mode  of  con- 
 ducting the  lectures  was  to  himself  very  unex- 
 pected, and  not  a  little  painful  and  mortifying. 
 Many  of  his  pupils,  and  of  those  some  of  the 
 best  talents,  the  closest  application,  and  the 
 most  serious  dispositions,  who  had  also  been 
 educated  in  all  the  habits  and  prepossessions 
 of  Trinitarian  doctrine,  to  his  great  surprise 
 biicame  Unitarians.  This,  however,  he  was  dis- 
 posed to  attribute  to  the  fickleness  of  youth, 
 and  to  the  c:ipricc  of  fashion.  As  to  himself, 
 though  he  was  at  first  struck  with  the  small 
 number  of  passages  which  he  could  discover, 
 v/hich  explicitly  taught  the  doctrine  of  our 
 Lord^s  pre-existence,  yet,  being  satisfied  in  his 
 own  mind  that  they  were  decisive  upon  the 
 question,  it  was  some   time  before   the  argu- 
 
Vill  PREFACE. 
 
 merits  of  the  Unitarians  made  any  considerable 
 impiTssion  upon  his  mind :  and   his  early  opi- 
 nions were   too   deeply  rooted,   and  too  inti- 
 mately associated  with  the  whole  system  of  his 
 rehgious  feelings,  to  be  easily  abandoned.    But 
 being  under  the  necessity  of  reviewing  the  sub- 
 ject from   year  to  year,  and  at  every  review 
 finllino'  himself  obliged  to  give  up  some  posts 
 as  untenable,  which  were  once  deemed  impreg- 
 nable, he  was  at  last  compelled,  though  with 
 great  reluctance,  to  an  entire  surrender  of  the 
 faith  in  which  he  had   been  educated  concern- 
 in  o- the  person  of  Christ,  and  of  adopting  those 
 opinions  to  which  he  certainly  had  no  previous 
 attachment,  and  the  erroneousness  of  which  he 
 had  once  flattered  himself  he  should  easily  have 
 detected.     Then,  at  length,  he  regarded  it  as 
 his  duty  to  speak  'out:  and   being  no   longer 
 able  to  tuliill  the  design  of  his  appointment,  he 
 resigned   his  office   in  January  1789  into  the 
 iiands  of  Mr.  Coward's  Trustees,  took  leave  of 
 an  aifectionate  congregation,  and  of  a  flourish- 
 ing seminary  of  estimable  pupils,  and  retired 
 with  no  other  expectation  or   prospect  at  the 
 time,  but  that  of  passing  the  remainder  of  life 
 m  obscurity  and  silence. 
 
 Divine  providence  however  ordained  other- 
 ^\ise:   and   having,  after  a  previous  connexion 
 
PREFACE.  IX 
 
 U'itli  the  New  College,  been  chosen  to  succeed 
 Dr.  Priestley  in  the  congregation  at  Hackney, 
 in  the  year  ITQ^,  he  drew  up  the  Lectures  in  a 
 more  popular  form,  still,  however,  retaining 
 the  original  arrangement,  and  delivered  them 
 to  the  young  people  of  that  congregation,  and 
 afterwards  to  those  who  attended  the  chapel  in 
 Essex  Street,  to  which  he  was  appointed  in  the 
 spring  of  180o.  Many  in  both  these  respect- 
 able societies  expressed  a  desire  of  seeing  them 
 in  print ;  with  which  request  the  author  was  the 
 rather  induced  to  comply,  hoping  that  a  review 
 of  the  principal  arguments  upon  the  question 
 might  revive  and  confirm  the  impression  made 
 at  the  time.  When,  however,  he  came  to  revise 
 the  Lectures  for  the  press,  it  occurred  to  him 
 that  the  mere  popular  form  into  which  the  Lec- 
 tures had  been  cast,  in  order  to  be  delivered 
 to  a  mixed  audience,  would  hardly  do  justice 
 to  the  subject ;  while  that  form  in  which  they 
 held  been  originally  compiled  for  the  use  of  pro- 
 fessed theological  students,  would-be  too  volu- 
 n/mous,  and  not  adapted  for  common  readers. 
 He  has  therefore  been  at  the  trouble  of  recom- 
 ■;  .'inj;  the  work,  and  of  reducing  it  to  such  a 
 as  he  t'-usts  will  be  generally  intelligible 
 "  unlearned  reader,  and  not  wholly  unac- 
 j'e  to  the  learned.     Such  as  it  is  he  com- 
 
X  PREF.iCE. 
 
 mends  it  to  the  candour  of  his  readers  and  to 
 the  divine  blessino;.  In  the  testiaionv  of  his 
 conscience  to  the  sincerity  and  iiupartialiiy 
 with  which  he  has  himself  sought  after  truth, 
 and  in  the  fidshty  with  which  he  has  endea- 
 voured to  communicate  information  to  others, 
 the  author  rests  perfectly  satisfied.  In  what 
 degree,  and  to  what  extent,  his  humble  efforts 
 may  be  honoured,  as  the  means  of  contributing 
 to  the  improvement  of  his  fellow-creatures  in 
 knowledge  and  virtue,  he  wiihngly  leaves  to  the 
 Supreme  Arbiter  of  events. 
 
 P.  S.  At  the  close  of  the  First  Part  of  this 
 Inquiry  it  has  been  thought  advisable  to  add  a 
 brief  abstract  of  the  controversy  between  Dr. 
 Horsley  and  Dr.  Priestley,  concerning  the  doc- 
 trine of  the  primitive  church,  which  it  is  hoped 
 will  at  any  rate  mod'ij'n  the  triumphant  language 
 which  some  zealots  have  lately  used  upon  this 
 subject ;  at  least,  if  they  have  any  regard  to 
 their  literary  or  theological  reputation,  and  do 
 not  altogether  presume  upon  the  ignorance 
 and  prejudices  of  their  readers. 
 
 Hackney,  March  22,  1 81  ] . 
 
TABLE  or  CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 C^i  ESTio.v  stated,  p.  1.  Cuiden  of  proof  lies  upon  those  M' ho 
 maintain  the  pre-existcncc  or  divinity  of  Christ,  p.  2.  Unita- 
 rian doctrino  needs  no  positive  proof,  p.  3.  Preliminary  obser- 
 vations, ibid.  Profound  learning  not  necessary  in  a  mere  ques- 
 tion of  fa^t,  p.  5. 
 
 PART  THE  FIRST. 
 
 Cxcncral  distribution  of  the  subject,  p.  7. 
 
 SECTION    I. 
 
 ■Whether  the  Jews  expected  a  pre-existent  Messiah,  p.  10, 
 
 SECTION    II. 
 
 Argument  from  tlic  supposed  miraculous  Conception  of 
 Jesus. 
 The  narratives  in  Matthew  and  Luke  of  doubtful  authority, 
 p,  \2.     The  fact,  if  proved,  would  not  infer  the  pre-cxistence  of 
 Jesus,  p.  14. 
 
 SECTION    III. 
 
 Texts  ^vliich  arc  conceived  to  express  in  tlie  most  direct  and 
 unequivocal  Terms  the  Pre-existence  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 Six  out  of  the  eight  writers  of  the  New  Testament  say  little 
 or  nothing  of  the  prc-exi.itenc«  of  Christ,  p.  15 — not  even  the 
 historians  of  his  life  and  ministry,  p.  16 — not  even  Luke  him- 
 self, who  writes  the  history  of  the  apostles'  preaching  and  doc- 
 trine for  upwards  of  thirty  years,  ibid.  How  this  silence  is  ac- 
 counted for  by  the  ancients,  p,  17.  John,  a  tigurativc  and  mys- 
 tical writer,  p.  !8.     The  pre-existence  of  Christ  seldom  alluded 
 
xii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 
 
 to  in  the  larger  epistles  of  Paul,  p.  19.  Texts  in  favour  of  thij» 
 doctrine  very  {cw  in  proportion ;  but  their  frequent  citation 
 makes  them  appear  to  be  numerous  and  prominent,  p.  20. 
 
 1.  John  i.  1 — 14,  examined,  p.  ^1.  Diifercnt  hypotheses 
 concerning  the  Logos,  ibid.  The  interpretation  of  Grotiu* 
 adopted  by  many  modern  Unitarians  proposed  and  examined, 
 p.  2  '.  That  of  the  Polish  Socinians  stated  and  defended,  p.  27. 
 — IL  John  i.  15,  examined,  p.  39.  Mr.  Cappe's  explanation 
 approicd,  ibid. — III.  John  iii,  13,  examined,  p.  40.  The  local 
 ascent  of  Clirist  into  htaven  after  his  baptism  maintained  by  the 
 Polish  Socinians,  p.  41.  This  hypothesis  modiiied  by  Mr.  John 
 Palmer,  p.  42.  Explanation  of  Bishop  Pearce  and  Archbisliop 
 Neucomc,  p.  43.  'To  ascend  into  heaven  '  is  to  be  acquainted 
 vith  the  purpose  and  mUI  of  God,  p.  44.  Proved  by  Grotius, 
 lii^za,  Whitby,  Doddridge,  and,  above  all,  by  Kaphclius,  p.  45, 
 note.  '  To  come  down  from  heaven,'  as  the  correlate  phrase, 
 ])roperly  signifies  a  comn-.ission  to  reveal  the  divine  will,  p.  47. 
 Reflections  upon  this  explanation  of  the  text,  p.  54. — IV.  John 
 iii,  31,  explained,  p.  55. — V.  John  vi.  25.  62,  expounded,  p.  56. 
 The  design  of  .Jesus  was  to  drive  from  his  society  those  who  fol- 
 lowed him  with  selfish  and  secular  views,  p.  57.  They  first  de- 
 mand a  sign  from  heaven  like  the  manna,  p.  58.  Jesus  promises 
 true  bread  from  heaven,  meaning  his  doctrine,  p.  59.  The  Jews, 
 \uidcrstanding  him  literally,  eagerly  desire  this  heavenly  bread, 
 ibid.  Jesus  declares  that  he  is  himself  the  bread  from  heaven, 
 ibid.  The  Jews,  knowing  liis  extraction,  are  offended  at  his  pre- 
 tensions to  a  heavenly  descent,  p.  60,  Jesus  persists  in  declaring 
 that  he  is  the  bread  which  they  must  actually  eat  to  obtain  im- 
 mortality, p.  61.  The  Jews  being  still  more  confounded  and 
 otlended,  ibid. — Jesus  insists  in  still  stronger  language  upon  the 
 absolute  necessity  of  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood, 
 p.  62.  The  Jews  seem  to  suspect  him  of  insanity,  p.  64  : — and 
 Jesus  having  further  intimated,  as  (hey  conceived,  that  after  his 
 body  had  been  thus  consumed  tlioy  should  see  him  again  return 
 to  heaven,  his  selfish  followers,  shocked  at  the  apparent  absur- 
 dity of  his  doctrine,  abandon  his  society,  p.  65.  Jesus,  in  con. 
 elusion,  declares  that  his  whole  discourse  is  to  be  taken  figura- 
 tively and  not  literally,  p.  68. — VL  John  viii.  42,  explained, 
 p.  09. — yir,    John  viii.  58,  explained,  p.  70.     Explanations  of 
 
TABLE  OF  COXTENTS.  xili 
 
 Giiyse,  Sherlock,  and  Doddridgo,  p,  71.  Origin  of  the  popular 
 mistake  of  (he  Mords  I  AM,  p.  72.  Arian  interpretation,  p.  7-1. 
 Remarks  of  Dr.  Clarke,  Bishop  Pcarce,  Dr.  Harwood,  and  Dr. 
 Price,  p.  76.  Singular  interpretation  proposed  by  the  Polish  So- 
 cinians,  and  revived  in  the  Theological  Repository,  p.  81.  In- 
 terpretation commonly  receired  by  the  Unitarians,  p.  85 ; — 
 which  best  suits  the  connexion,  p.  86; — and  is  justifie<l  by  the 
 language  both  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  8S, — and  of  the  New, 
 p.  92.  Supjjorted  by  Grotius,  Beza,  Hammond,  Lardner,  Car- 
 dale,  I,indsey,  Wakefield,  Simpson,  &c.,  p.  97.  Reasons  for 
 insisting  so  much  at  large  upon  this  celebrated  te\t^  p.  102. — 
 VIII.  John  xiii.  3,  explained,  p.  103. — IX.  John  xvi.  28,  ex- 
 plained, ibid. — X,  John  xvii.  5,  explained,  p.  105.  Trinitarian 
 interpretation,  ihid.  Arian  interpretation,  p.  106.  Triumphant 
 language  of  the  Arians,  p.  107.  Unitarian  interpretation, 
 p.  109.  Error  of  expositors  concerning  the  nature  of  that  glory 
 for  which  Jesus  prayed,  ibid.  This  prayer  explained,  p.  1!0. 
 The  prolepsis  justified,  p.  113.  Mr.  Lindsey  the  only  expositor 
 who  has  given  the  true  meaning  of  our  Saviour's  petition,  p.  Il-J. 
 The  proleptical  interpretation  supported  by  Grotius,  by  Wolzo- 
 genius  from  Augustin,  by  LeClerc,  Lardner,  and  others,  p.  115. 
 — XL  John  xvii.  24,  explained,  y.  117.  Strange  intorpretatioii 
 of  Dr.  Guyse  and  Dr.  Doddridge,  ihid.  note.  Rational  comment 
 of  Cahin  and  Campbell,  ibid. — XI L  1  Cor.  xv.  47,  explained, 
 p.  119.  Singular  interpretation  of  Crellius  and  the  old  Socini- 
 ans,  J).  120,  note.  Vulgate  reading  probably  true,  p.  121.-- 
 XIII.  2  Cor,  viii.  9,  explained,  \).  121.  No  allusion  to  our 
 Ijord's  pre-cxistence,  p.  122.  J  udiciously  omitted  by  Dr.  Clarke, 
 ibid.  Triumphant  language  of  Arians  and  Trinitarians,  ibid. 
 Riches  and  poverty  of  Christ  simultaneous  events,  p.  124.  la 
 what  sense  Christ  was  both  rich  and  poor,  p.  125. — XIV.  Eph. 
 iv,  9,  explained,  p.  127. — XV.  •  Philip,  ii.  5 — 9,  explained,  p.  128. 
 Form  of  God  interpreted  by  Trinitarians,  p.  130r — by  Arians, 
 ibid. ; — high  language  of  the  Arian.s,  p.  131.  lu'erpretation  of 
 Grotius  and  the  Unitarians,  p.  132j — equal  with  God  explained, 
 p.  133.  Robbery  understood  in  an  active  sense  by  Calvin,  Iieza, 
 Doddridge,  and  others,  p.  134; — in  a  passive  sense  by  Vatablus, 
 Clarke,  Wakefield,  and  the  ancients,  p.  135.  Being  in  the  like- 
 ness of  men  no  proof  that  he  was  not  a  human  being,  p.  140. 
 Recapitulation,  p.  142. — XVI.    Col.  i.   15,  explained,  p.  145. 
 
sir  TABLE  of  CONTENT?. 
 
 First-torn  how  understood  by  Trinitarians,  ibid.; — by  A  nans, 
 p.  146; — by  Grofins  and  the  Unitarians,  p.  147. — XVII.  Col. 
 i.  17,  explained,  p.  118.— XVIII.  Rev.  iii,  1  4,  explained,  p.  149. 
 General  rofiecfions,  p.  150.  " 
 
 SECTION    IV. 
 
 Texts  which,  if  tlicj  do  not  directly  assert  the  Pre-existence 
 of  Christ,  arc  thought  to  be  most  easily  explained  by  that 
 Hypothesis. 
 
 Recapitulation  of  j)hrases  already  explained,  p.  152.  Expla- 
 nation  of  John  vi.  46,  p.  1  "jS.  John  viii.  14,  ibid  ; — ver,  22, 
 ibid.} — rer,  38,  p.  154.  John  \\v.  2S,  ibid.  Trinitarian  solu- 
 tions of  the  Father's  superiority^  ibid.  This  text  the  strong  hold 
 of  Arianism,  p.  155.  Unitarian  interpretation,  p.  156.  Expla- 
 nation of  John  xviii.  37,  ibid.  Rom,  x.  6,  p.  157.  1  Cor.  x.  9, 
 ibid.  1  Cor.  x.  4,  p.  128.  Gal.  i.  1,  ibid.  Heb.  ii.  14,  ibid. 
 This  text  docs  not  prove  the  assumption  of  human  nature  to  be 
 a  voluntary  act,  p.  159.  Heb.  ^ni.  3,  ibid.  Imaginary  analogy 
 bet^vcea  Christ  and  Melchisedec,  p.  160.  Heb.  xi.  26,  p.  I6l. 
 The  reproach  of  Christ  explained,  ibid.  Ileb.  xii.25,  26,  p.  162. 
 Heb.  xiii.  8.  ibid.  1  Pet.  i.  11,  p.  163.  1  Pet.  iii.  19,  20, 
 p.  164.  '  Spirits  in  prison'  arc  tiie  heathen  world,  ibid.  I  Joha 
 i.  1,  2,  p.  166  ;— parallel  to  John  i.  1 — 14,  ibid.  I  John  iv.  2, 
 p.  167  ; — '  to  conic  in  the  flesh'  is  to  be  a  real  man,  p.  168.  Rev. 
 xxii.  15,  p.  169. 
 
 SECTION     V. 
 
 Attributes  supposed  to  be  ascribed  to  Christ  which  infer 
 Pre-existencc  and  Divinity. 
 
 Eternity,  p.  171.  Immutability,  p.  172.  Power  to  lay  down 
 and  resume  his  life,  p.  173.  Irresistible  power,  p.  176.  Omni- 
 presence, p.  177.  Omniscience,  p.  179.  Remarks,  p.  184. 
 Christ  alone  knowSj  and  h  known  by,  the  Father,  p.  186. 
 Free  from  sin,  p.  188.  Remarks,  p.  190.  The  perfect  charac- 
 ter of  Christ  proves  the  truth  of  the  evangelical  history,  p.  191. 
 
 SECTION    VI. 
 
 Alleged  Superiority  of  Christ  to  Angels. 
 Preliminary  remarks,  p.  192.     Various  senses  in   wliich  the 
 
TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  xt 
 
 word  angel  is  used  in  the  Son;.tiires,  p.  192.  Existence  of  an- 
 gels as  a  superior  order  of  I)eiugs  not  a  doctrine  of  revelation, 
 nor  to  be  traced  in  any  book  previously  to  the  Bab}  Ionian  cap- 
 tivity, p.  193,  The  senses  in  which  Christ  is  represented  as  su- 
 perior to  angels,  p.  196  : — as  a  messenger  of  Cod,  ibid  ; — as  a 
 judge,  iiid.  ; — and  as  the  head  of  a  new  and -.uperior  dispensa- 
 tion. Hid.  Texts  cited,  199.  Mark  xiii.  Si,  triumphantly  ap- 
 pealed to  by  the  Arians,  p.  200,  How  explained  by  Trinita- 
 rians, p,  201,  Texts  from  the  Epistles,  p.  203,  Heb.  chap.  i. 
 exjilained,  p.  2v  5.  Angels  in  (his  chapten  uniformly  signifies 
 former  prophets  and  messengers  of  (jod,  Hid. 
 
 SECTION     VII. 
 
 Titles  and  Charactois  attributed,  or  thought  to  be  attributed, 
 to  Christ,  Avhicli  are  supposed  to  implj^  Siiperiorit}'  ol" 
 Nature. 
 
 I.  Jehovah,  p.  212.  This  title  not  given  to  Christ  in  the  New- 
 Testament,  p  213.  —  II.  God,  p.  21-4.  Mr.  Lindsey  and  others 
 deny  that  this  tith'  is  ever  givt-n  to  Christ,  p.  215.  "  Partakers 
 of  a  diviiu-  nature,"  a  title  applied  to  chii-tians,  but  nut  to 
 Chn.st.  ibid.  Matt.  i.  23,  Immanuel,  does  not  prove  that  Christ 
 is  Go(i,  p.  rilG.  l.iike  i.  IG.  17,  if  genuine,  not  a[)plied  to  Christ, 
 p.  217.  John  i.  1,  p.  218.  John  x,  33,  Christ  denies  that  he 
 calls"  hi.-'iscif  Cod,  though,  as  a  prophet,  he  might  assume  the 
 titlf,  ibid.  John  xx.  28,  various  interpretations  of  the  cxclams- 
 tion  of  Ihon-.as,  p.  219,  Acts  xx.  28,  '  Blood  of  God,'  Dr. 
 Doddridge  tliinlvs  the  jihrase  ins|)ired,  p.  220.  Athanasiiis  im- 
 putes it  to  the  Arians,  p.  221  ; — certaitily  .>5j)urioiis,  ibid.  Rom. 
 ix.  b,  'God  over  air  not  necessarily  applicable  toChristj  p.  222. 
 Slichtingius's  very  plausible  conjecture,  p.  223.  1  Tim.  iii,  16, 
 '  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,'  p.  225  ; — d/iferent  readings  of  the 
 original,  ibid. ; — the  taxt  never  appealed  to  in  the  early  stage  of 
 the  Arian  controversy,  p.  22G.  'J'it.  ii.  13,  p.  227.  Contrary 
 to  the  tenor  of  Scripture  to  si)e:ik  of  Chiist  as  "  the  great  God," 
 ibid.  Heb.  i.  8,  '  God  is  thy  throne'  the  true  sense  of  the  text, 
 p.  230.  2  Pet.  i.  1,  '  God'  means  '  the  Father,'  p.  23l .  1  John 
 iii.  16,  the  word  '  God'  an  interpolation,  ibid.  ]  John  v,  20, 
 the  pronoun  this  clearly  refers  to  a  remote  antecedent,  p.  232  ; 
 othcrv/ise  Jesus  Christ  might  be  proved  to  be  antichrist,  p.  "ij-S, 
 
xvi-  TACI.E  Of  CONTENTS. 
 
 Remarlis,  p.  234. — III.  Christ  One  with  God,  p.  234  ;  as  his 
 disciples  are  one  with  him,  p,  233.  I  John  v,  7,  proved  an  in- 
 terpolation, p.  236, — omitted  ill  the  best  modern  editions,  p.  210; 
 — and  omitted  or  marked  as  doubtful  in  the  earlier  English 
 versions,  p.  241.  Arguments  in  favour  of  the  text  stated  and 
 answered,  i^ic?.  Gibbon's  account  correct,  p.  2il,  «o/e.  First, 
 cited,  and  probably  forged,  by  V'igilius  I'apsensi.s,  p.  I'M. — ■"*' 
 IV.  Equal  with  God,  p.  251. —  V.  Fulness  of  Godhead,  p.  2.')2. 
 — VL  The  Son  of  God,  p.  255.  The  Sou,  Hid.  God  his  otva 
 Father,  p.  266.  The  first-born,  i.  e.  ihe  first  who  rose  to  ini- 
 morfal  life,  p.  257.  The  beloved  Son,  ibid.  ; — i.  e.  chosen  to  pe- 
 culiar priviteges^  p.  258.  Only-begotten  Sou,  ibid.: — a  phrase 
 peculiar  to  John,  p.  ibQ.  Used  by  him  where  the  other  evange- 
 lists use  beloved,  ibid.  The  Son  of  God  equivalent  to  the  Mes- 
 siah, p.  2G0.— VII.  Christ  the  Image  of  God,  p.  263.  The 
 effulgent  ray  of  his  glory,  p.  264.  No  mysferions  emanation  of 
 the  Son  intended  by  this  metaphor,  ibid. — Vlil.  Lord  of  glory, 
 p.  267.— IX.  Alpha  and  Omega,  ibid.  Rev.  i.  10,  11,  Dr.  Dod- 
 dridge lays  great  stress  upon  a  clause  now  known  to  bo  spurious, 
 p.  268.— X.  Lord  of  all,  p.  270.  The  Son  and  the  Lord  of  Da- 
 vid, p.  271.— XI.  Prince  or  Leader  of  life,  p.  272.— XII.  Fills 
 all  in  all,  p.  273.  Eph.  i,  22,  Christ  the  head  su|)plies  his  body, 
 the  church,  with  all  things  needful,  ibid. — XIII.  A  Saviour  or 
 Deliverer,  p.  274. — XIV,  King  of  kings,  and  Jjord  of  lords, 
 p.  27.^. 
 
 SECTION  VIII. 
 Collection  of  Passages  which  are  supposed  lo  teach  that 
 Christ  is  the  Maker  and  Preserver  of  all  Things. 
 John  i.  3,  p.  276.  Ver.  10,  p,  277.  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  the  new 
 dispensation  intended,  ibid.  Eph.  iii.  9,  the  words  "  by  Jesus 
 Christ"  an  interpolation,  p.  278.  Col.  i.  15 — 18,  explained, 
 p.  279.  L^nitarian  interpretation  censured  by  Arians  and  Trini- 
 .tarians,  p.  280.  Christ  never  represented  as  creator  of  natural 
 objects,  p.  281,  The  apostle  details  not  things,  but  states  of 
 things,  ibid.', — creation  sometimes  signifies  only  a  change  of  state, 
 p.  282 ; — things  often  used  for  persons,  p.  284  ; — heaven  and 
 earth  sometimes  express  political  and  moral  distinctions,  p.  285. 
 When  heaven  is  used  to  express  a  moral  dispensation,  the  snp- 
 jiosed  orders  of  the  celestial  hierarchy  express  the  ministers  arid 
 
TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  xtU 
 
 officers  of  that  dispensation,  p.  2S6'.  The  passage  explained 
 upon  these  prliicij)Ies,  j).  2S7.  Hob.  i.  2,  3,  explained,  ]>,  290. 
 The  word  ai:<,y  never  signifies  'worlds'  but '  ages,'  ibid.  Dr.Sykcs's 
 interpretalion,  p.  yt;i.  That  of  Slichtingius  and  the  old.  Soci- 
 uians,  il-id.  (irotius's  interpretation  proposed  and  defended, 
 p.  29J.  Hcb.  i.  10,  addressed  to  the  Father,  p.  294.  iltb.  ili.4, 
 irrelevant  to  the  subject,  p.  293.  Rev.  iii,  11,  Christ  tlie  head 
 and  chief  of  the  new  creation,  ibid.  Remarks,  p.  29G.  If  it 
 had  been  the  design  of  the  sacred  writers  to  teach  that  Christ  was 
 the  Creator  of  a!I  things,  it  would  hare  been  easy  to  ha>e  ex- 
 pressed the  doctrine  clearly  and  nnambiguously,  p.  267.  Had 
 the  doctrine  been  true,  it  could  not  have  been  omitted  by  the 
 historians  of  his  life  and  ministry,  p.  2SS. 
 
 SECTION    IX. 
 
 Whether  Jesus  Christ  avju  the  ^Tedium  of  the  Divine  Dis- 
 pensations to  the  Patriarclis,  and  to  the  Heijrew  Nation, 
 and  whether  heVvcr  appeared  under  the  Name  and  Cha- 
 racter of  Jehovah. 
 
 This  doctrine  probably  the  invention  of  Justin  Martyr,  p.  301, 
 note.  The  doctrine  of  two  Jehovahs  plninly  inconsistent  with  the 
 Jewish  Scriptures,  p.  302.  Arj^iiments  examined  and  confuted, 
 ibid.  Hebrew  idiom  mistaken,  p.  303.  Jehovah,  and  the  Angel 
 of  Jehovah,  the  same  person,  p.  3(6.  Chaldee  paraphrasts  give 
 no  countenance  to  the  doctrine  of  twajehovnhs,  p.  308.  No 
 proof  that  the  Jehovah-angel  aiiimatcd  the  body  of  Christ, 
 J).  310. 
 
 SECTION    X. 
 
 The  present  Exaltation  of  Christ,  the  higli  C)fficcs  Mhicli  lie 
 now  sustains,  or  to  which  he  is  to  be  appointed  hereafter, 
 are  said  to  fjc  incompatiI)le  vath  the  ISupposition  of  his 
 proper  and  simple  Humanity. 
 
 I.  His  universal  government,  p.  315.  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  con. 
 sidere.d,  ibid.  How  understood  by  Trinitarians  and  Ar\a.i)S.)  ibid. 
 Strange  hypothesis  of  the  Polish  Socinians  concerning  the  uni- 
 versal government  of  Christ,  p.  317.  Unitarian  interpretation, 
 p.  318,  Dr.  Prie5(le_v  understands  it  of  soiTe  personal  dignity, 
 b 
 
xTiii  TABLE  OP  CONTENTS. 
 
 p.  319,     Mr.  Lindsey,  more  correctly,  of  (lie  moral  influence  of 
 the  Gospel,  il'irl. 
 
 II.  Christ  personally  present  with  his  disciples,  p,  523.  Matt. 
 xxviii.  20,  considered,  ibid.  The  promise  only  extends  to  the 
 apostolic  ae,c,  p.  324.  Facts  accounted  for  by  this  interpreta- 
 tion, p.  325.  Intercession  of  Christ  explained,  p.  327.  In 
 ■what  sense  Christ  forgives  sin,  p.  329.  '  Sinner'  often  equiva- 
 lent to  '  Heathen,'  and  does  not  always  imply  guilt,  p.  330. 
 
 III.  Christ  appointed  to  raise  the  dead.  ]).  332.  1  Cor.  xr. 
 22,  proves  the  jjroper  hiimaiiity  of  Christ,  p.  333.  Mr.  Tyr- 
 •vvhit's  judicious  observations,  ibid.  Christ  raises  the  dead  by  his 
 Father's  power,  p.  3'S5. 
 
 IV.  Christ  aj)poinfed  to  the  oiliro  of  unlrers:)]  judge,  p.  335. 
 Matt.  \xv.  31,  &c.  uiidei'b*:u()Jj  by  susne,  of  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem,  p.  336.  Many  texts  assert  the  judicial  ofiice  of 
 Clirist,  p.  337,  &c.  Hence  many  reiiecting  persons  have  inferred 
 his  suj)erior  nature,  j).  3-10.  Out  the  Scriptures  attribute  this 
 oiiice  to  him  as  a  Man,  p.  341.  Tliey  represent  the  apostles 
 and  all  christians  as  assessors  with  Clirist  in  this  ofiice,  p.  342. 
 Events  often  diftcient  from  what  the  language  of  prophecy  leads 
 to  expect,  p.  343.'  Prophets  said  to  perform  what  they  onlj^  pre- 
 dict, p.  344.  This  principle  may  perhaps  apply  to  the  judge- 
 meat  of  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ,  p.  345; — countenanced  by 
 our  Lord's  exjH'cssions,  John  xii.  48,  p.  3  15.  Advantages  of  this 
 hypothesis,  p.  317. 
 
 SECTION    X[. 
 
 Concerning  the  Worship  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 Relij^ious  worship  and  idolatry  defined,  p.  319.  Christian 
 idolatry  distinguished  from  Ilealheti,  p.  3bO.  Socinian  worship 
 of  Christ  exploded,  j).  351.  iVlodern  Allans  abandon  the  wor- 
 ship of  Christ,  and  hence  claim  the  title  of  Unitarians,  ibid, 
 Christ  said  to  be  the  object  of  religious  regard,  p.  352  ; — of 
 faiih,  ibid. : — of  love,  p.  35 1.  Love  to  Christ  not  a  personal 
 ulTcclion,  p.  355.  CaTiiinitling  (he  care  of  the  soul  to  Christ, 
 p.  358.  Great  mistake  of  J>r.  Doddridge  and  otheis  upon  (his 
 subject,  p.  35D.  Christians  live  to  Christ,  j).  3G0.  Lxternal 
 homage  j  aid  to  Christ  while  on  earth,  ibid. : — tliis  no  more  than 
 civil  respect,  p.  oCl.     John  v.  23,  explained,  ibid.     Captism  to 
 
TABLE  or  CONTEXTS.  x\x 
 
 bc.ul ministered  into  the  namo  of  Christ,  p.  3C2.  Form  of  bap- 
 tism no  proof  of  Christ's  equality  or  unity  with  the  Father, 
 p.  '3G3.  Angels  required  to  \voi>'iip  Cijrist,  p.  3C1.  Every 
 knee  to  bow  at  his  name,  p.  30:'.  Adjuration  by  him,  ibid. 
 Appealed  to  as  a  witness,  p.  36G.  Christians  described  as  those 
 who  invoke  his  name,  ibid.  Dtpen<!ence  on  his  direction  and 
 blessing,  p.  367.  Doxolo^ies  addressed  to  Christ,  p.  368. 
 Tlianksgivinfjs  to  him,  p.  370.  Prayer  to  Christ,  p.  373.  De- 
 vout wishes  of  blessing'^  from  him,  p.  375  ; — not  to  be  con» 
 founded  with  prayers,  ibid. 
 
 SECTION    xir. 
 
 Direct  Arguments  for  tlie  proper  Humanity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 Not  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  Unitarian  doctrine, 
 p.  379. — 1.  ihe  total  silence  of  three  evangelists,  p.  380.  How- 
 accounted  for  by  Athanasius,  Chrysostom,  and  others,  ibid.  note. 
 — 2.  Pre-cxistonce  and  divinity  of  Christ  not  expressly  taught  la 
 the  New  Testament,  p.  381. — 3.  Great  dilViculties  upon  the  sup- 
 position that  this  fact  was  revealed  during  our  Lord's  personiil 
 ministry,  p.  383.  Still  greater  diflicullics  upon  the  supposition 
 th:it  it  was  not  then  known,  p.  385. — 4.  Christians  not  charged 
 with  polytheism  by  the  Jews  in  the  apostolic  age,  p.  387. — 
 5.  Christ  in  the  most  unqualified  language  styled  a  Man  after  his 
 ascension,  p.  389.  An  angel  incarcerated  in  a  human  body  not 
 properly  a  man,  p.  390. — 6.  Jesus  often  calls  himself  the  Son  of 
 Man,  p.  391.  Remarks  upon  this  j)hrasc,  ibid. — 7.  Christ  ap- 
 peared  as  a  man,  with  all  tiie  incidents  and  infirmities  of  human 
 nature,  and  was  universally  regarded  as  such  by  his  contempo- 
 varier:,  p.  393. — '8.  The  writer  to  the  Hebrews  asserts  and  argues 
 that  he  was  a  mere  man,  and  could  not  be  a  being  of  superior 
 nature,  ])■  30G. 
 
 9.  The  great  body  of  primitive  christians  for  the  two  first  cen- 
 turies and  upwards  were  believers  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Je- 
 sus Cllri^t,  p.  398.  This  fact  of  high  importance,  and  fully  esta- 
 blisi'.ed  by  Dr.  Priestley,  p.  359.  The  ])roper  humanity  of  Christ 
 must  be  the  first  impression  ui)on  the  primitive  converts,  ibid.',—" 
 and  ni\ist  have  continued  (ill  John  wrote  his  Gospel,  ibid.  Nor 
 is  there  any  proof  that  the  uriaiigs  of  this  evangelist  produced 
 any  iudden  change  of  opirious  oa  this  subject,  p.  401.  Thi^ 
 b2 
 
%x  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 
 
 Unitarians  always  maintained  tiiat  their  doctrine  was  the  prerail- 
 ing  belief  till  the  time  of  Victor,  A.  D.  200,  p.  403,  That  the 
 Jewish  christians  were  in  goneral  Unitarians,  is  proved  hy  their 
 not  being  f*xcomniunicatfd,  ibid.; — by  the  concessions  and  the 
 moderate  language  of  Juslin  Martyr,  p.  404; — by  the  direct 
 testimony  of  Origen,  i\  406 ; — confirmed  by  Eiisebius,  p.  407, 
 ]^o  distinction  upon  this  subject  between  Nazarenes  and  Ebic- 
 nites,  ibid.  Dr.  Horsley  constrained  to  concede  this  point  to 
 Dr.  Piiestloy,  p.  408,  jiute.  No  foundation  for  the  hypothesis 
 of  an  orthodox  Jpwish  church  at  iElia,  p.  4lO.  That  the  great 
 body  of  Gentile  christians  were  Unitarians,  attested  by  Origen, 
 p.  413; — and  most  explicitly  by  'J'ertuliian,  p.  4l4,  Dr.  Hors- 
 ley's  extraordinary  method  of  repelling  Tertullian's  testimony, 
 p.  4l6.  Testimony  of  Athanasins  to  the  Uintarianism  of  the 
 Gentile  church,  p.  4l8; — and  of  Jerome,  p.  419,  note.  Con- 
 clusion, ibid. 
 
 APPENDIX  TO  SECT.  XII. 
 Abstract  of  the   Controversy  between   Dr.   Horsley   and 
 
 Dr,  Priestley  concerning  the  Existence  of  a  Church  of 
 
 orthodox  Hebrew  Christians  at  JEYm. 
 
 Origen's  assertion  stated  by  Dr.  P.,  p.  422; — contradicted  by 
 Dr.  H.,  who  charges  Origen  with  wilful  falsehood,  and  asserts 
 the  existence  of  a  Hebrew  orthodox  church  at  MUa,  a  colony 
 established  by  Adrian  after  the  demolition  of  Jerusalem,  ibid. 
 Dr.  P,  consults  the  wrong  reference,  p,  424.  Charges  the  arch- 
 deacon with  making  additions  to  Mosheim,  p.  425  ; — denies  the 
 existence  of  the  Hebrew  church  at  ^I^lia,  ibid-  ; — and  accuses 
 Pr,  H.  of  being  a  falsifier  of  history,  and  defamer  of  the  dead, 
 p.  426. 
 
 The  archdeacon  resents  the  charge,  p.  427 ; — acknowledges 
 that  he  borrowed  every  thing  from  Mosheim,  ibid. ; — and  retorts 
 upon  Dr.  P.,  ibid.  Sets  iiiiuself  to  prove  the  fact  he  had  asserted 
 in  seven  propositions,  p.  4^1H  ; — the  three  first  acknowledged 
 facts,  but  nothiitg  to  the  purpose,  ibid.  : — the  three  next  arc 
 gratuitous  and  improbable  assumptions,  ibid. ; — the  seventh  pro- 
 position argued  from  the  testimony  of  Jerome,  p.  430.  Dr.  U.'s 
 extraordinary  mode  of  bringing  Jerome's  testimony  to  bear  upon 
 the   question,  p.  431 ; — acknowledges  that   his  argument  rests 
 
TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  xxi 
 
 diiofly  upon  his  six  propositions,  p.  432;— which  on]y  assume 
 the  fact  to  be  proved,  ibid.  Dr.  H's  bold  conclusion,  ibid.;'— 
 not  warranted  by  his  premises,  p.  433. 
 
 Dr.  H.  asserts  l!ic  migration  of  the  Jewish  christians  from 
 Pella  to  yElia,  in  order  to  enjoy  (he  immunities  of  Adrian's  co- 
 lony, p.  4:^3; — ajjpeals  to  Epiph.mius's  testimony  to  the  fact, 
 Hid-  ; — who  mentions  the  return  of  the  christians  after  the  war 
 of  Titus  GO  years  before,  p.  434  ; — the  archdeacon  ilc[)recatcs 
 chronological  objections,  ibid.; — these  christians  Uiust  have  been 
 fourscore  years  of  age  when  they  returned  to  A^lia,  p.  433. 
 Aquiia,  surveyor  of  Adrian's  works,  converted  by  them,  bears 
 testimony  to  their  activity  and  zeal,  p.  435.  Another  chronolo- 
 gical dirticulty,  p.  436.  Aquila's  conversion  was  before  Adrian's 
 war  broke  out,  ibid.  Dr.  H.,  now  a  bishop,  complains  of  the 
 trouble  his  opponent  g'lVcs  him  by  his  chronological  objections, 
 ibid,  note; — believes  that  the  Hebrew  christians  who  abandoned 
 the  Mosaic  rit'ial  were  not  ban  shed  by  Adrian,  ibid.-. — but  for- 
 gets to  provide  for  (hem  in  the  interval  between  the  destruction 
 of  Jerusalem  and  the  building  of  ^-Elia,  p.  437,  nole ; — or  to  re- 
 concile this  supposition  with  the  facts  before  alleged,  as  ihc  foun- 
 dation of  his  charge  against  Origon,  p.  437.  His  lordship  wishes 
 to  trust  the  church  of  ^■I^lia  to  herself  against  future  attacks, 
 p.  438. 
 
 Dr.  P.  maintains  that  his  lordship's  assumptions  are  contra- 
 dicted by  the  clearest  facts,  ibid  ; — laughs  at  his  lordship's  pro- 
 test against  clironological  objections,  ibid. : — declares  the  church 
 of  Trinitarian  Jews  to  have  fallen  upon  fhe  head  of  its  founder, 
 ]).  439; — and  gives  the  bishoj)  a  spirited  challenge  to  resume  the 
 pontroversy,  z'fif/.; — wliich  his  lord>hi[)  prudently  forbears  to  ac- 
 cept, ibid.: — and  both  parties  retire  equally  well  satisfied  with 
 the  result,  ibid. 
 
 NOTE  TO  THE  APPENDIX. 
 
 Dr.  Horslcy  triumphantly  appeals  to  Barnabas's  testimony  t» 
 prove  the  early  orthodoxy  of  the  Hebrew  church,  p.  440. 
 Dr,  Priestley's  re;)!y,  ibid.  Jeremiah  Jones's  estimate  of  the 
 value  of  Barnabas's  testimony,  p.  441.  Dr.  H.,  sensible  of  the 
 weakness  of  his  argument  from  the  church  of  ^^lia,  endeavours 
 to  bolster  up  his  charge  against  Origeu  by  two  citations  from  his 
 
xsii  TABLE  OF  CONTEiNTS. 
 
 Reply  to  Celsus,  p.  4i2; — both  charges  unfomiilcd  and  trifling, 
 ihid.  Dr.  P.'s  st?^el■e  remark,  p.  44i.  Dr.  H.  misled  by  Mo~ 
 slieim :  and  having  brought  the  charge,  thonght  himself  bound 
 to  support  it,  ibid.  note.  Little  reason  for  the  Quarterly  Re- 
 viewers to  compliment  Dr.  H.  upon  his  triumph,  ibid.; — or  to 
 represent  Theology  as  his /or/f,  ibid.  Strictures  upon  observa- 
 tions relating  to  the  Unitarians  in  a  late  Quarterly  Review,  ibid. 
 Dr.  H.'s  illiberal  relleclions  upon  Dr.  V.,  p.  447.  Dr.  P.'s  re- 
 ply, p.  448. 
 
 PART  THE  SECOND. 
 
 A  Summary  View  of  the  various  Opinions  which  liavc  been 
 entertained  concerning  the  Person  of  Clirist;  with  the  Ar- 
 guments for,  and  Objections  against,  cacli. 
 Sect.  I.  Proper  Unitarian  Scheme,  p.  447  ; — the  doctrine 
 stated,  ibid.  Reasons  why  tliey  assume  the  title  of  Unitarians, 
 p.  455.  Arguments  for  the  Unitarian  doctrine,  ibid.  Objections 
 urged,  p.  460.  Iltply,  p.  464.  Arians,  who  believe  Christ  to 
 be  the  Maker  and  Governor  of  the  world,  not  properly  Unita, 
 rians,  p.  474. — Sect.  IL  The  Socinian  Scheme  slated,  p.  475. 
 Objections  against  it,  p.  479.-7-Sect.  III.  Low  Arian  Scheme, 
 p.  481; — opposed,  p.  483. — Sect.  IV.  Higli  Arian  Scheme  stated, 
 p,  485.  Argument  in  favour  of  it,  p.  489.  ('bjections  against 
 it,  p.  491.  Objections  against  limited  Arianism,  p.  494. — 
 Sect.  V.  Semi-Arian  Scheme  stated,  p.  486.  Arguments  in  its 
 favour,  p.  497.  Objections,  p.  498. — Sect.  VL  The  Indwellinj- 
 Scheme  stated,  p.  500.  Arguments  and  objections,  p.  501 — - 
 Sect.  VIL  Sabellian  Scheme,  p.  504. — Sect,  VllL  Swedenbor- 
 gian  Doctrine,  p.  505. — Sect.  IX.  Tritlieism,  p.  £07. — Sect.  X. 
 Trinitarian  Doctrine,  p.  508.  Arguments  in  favour  of  the  Deify 
 of  Christ,  p.  609.  Objections,  p.  5l0. — Hypothesis  of  the  Re- 
 alists, p.  517 — of  the  Nominalists,  p.  5l0. — Proper  Athanasian 
 Scheme,  p.  521. — r»,cmarks,  p.  523. — Remarks  upon  those  who 
 adopt  Scripture  language  declining  all  c\planation,  p,  526. 
 
TEXTS 
 CO^MMENTED  UPON  AND  EXPLAINED. 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 Ch.  Pasrc 
 
 i.     23 liio 
 
 ill.  J  7 25/ 
 
 ix.  2 32p 
 
 ~  4 i;y 
 
 xi,27..54,  180,255 
 ..    258 
 
 xii.  18 
 
 —  25 
 
 xiii.  40,  41 
 
 xvi.  2/ 
 
 xvii.  5 , 
 
 xviii.  20 , 
 
 xxi.  25 
 
 xxii.  41 — 46.. 
 XXV.  31,  Sec... 
 
 1/9 
 
 ^^) 
 
 258 
 177 
 
 271 
 ^99 
 33d 
 
 300 
 3U1 
 
 Ch. 
 
 xxii.  67 
 
 xxiv,  52.  .  .  . 
 
 Page 
 201 
 301 
 
 JOHN, 
 i.  1  —  14..    21,    218 
 
 258,  276, 277 
 
 -15 39 
 
 -IS 53,  258 
 
 _  33—34 2O1 
 
 -50 2OI 
 
 ii.  19—21 173 
 
 Ch. 
 
 xiii.  3 
 
 13 
 
 xiv.  7 
 
 —  9-11- • 
 
 13,  14.. 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 Page 
 103 
 270 
 386 
 187 
 ,    326 
 ,    354 
 ,    154 
 xvi.  28 103 
 
 -30. 
 
 179 
 
 xxviii.  9. . 
 
 17.. 
 
 18..    176,315 
 
 19 362 
 
 20..    178,323 
 
 MARK. 
 
 i.  1 255,261 
 
 ii.  7 329 
 
 -  10,  11 331 
 
 viil.  38 199 
 
 xiii,  26,  27 200 
 
 32 200 
 
 xvi.  12 129 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 '•16.17 217 
 
 iii.  27 261 
 
 iv.  41 201 
 
 V.  22 179 
 
 vii,  39,  40..  .  .  ISO 
 
 -  48 330 
 
 ix.  26 336 
 
 -  46,47 180 
 
 X.  22 160 
 
 -24,  25.. 
 
 iii.  12 07 
 
 —  13 41 
 
 —  16 258 
 
 —  IS 258 
 
 —  31 55 
 
 iv.25 180 
 
 —  29 180 
 
 v.  13 251,  256 
 
 —  23 361 
 
 —  26,  27 336 
 
 —  28,  20 332 
 
 vi.  25,  66. .    56,  kc. 
 
 —  40 153 
 
 —  !>6 IS 
 
 —  64 181 
 
 vii.  27 10 
 
 viii.  14 153 
 
 23 153 
 
 3S 154 
 
 42 69 
 
 46 188 
 
 58 70 
 
 ix.  2 
 
 ;  X.  17,  18. 
 
 —  30 
 
 181 
 10a 
 117 
 321 
 156 
 
 .  329 
 
 ,.  173 
 
 ,.  234 
 
 -33 218 
 
 xli.  34 393 
 
 —  ■^D 41,  212 
 
 —  47,4s 340 
 
 28- 
 
 xvii.  5 
 
 24. . . 
 
 xviii.  33. . 
 
 37.. 
 
 XX.  23 330 
 
 —  28 219 
 
 —  31 261 
 
 xxi.  17 182 
 
 ACTS. 
 
 i.   11 337 
 
 iii.  14 1S«5 
 
 —  15 272 
 
 v.  31.  272,  274,332 
 vii.  52 188 
 
 —  59 373 
 
 ix.  14 300 
 
 X.  30 271 
 
 xvii.  31 338 
 
 XX.  28 220 
 
 ROMANS, 
 
 i.  3,  4 262 
 
 I  i-  7 377 
 
 viii.  29 257 
 
 32 256 
 
 34 327 
 
 ix.  1 300 
 
 —  5 222 
 
 x.  0 157 
 
 —  9 352 
 
 xiv.  0 272 
 
axiv  Texts  Commsjited  upon  afid  Explained. 
 
 1  CORINTHIANS. 
 Ch,  Page 
 
 i.  2 3(57 
 
 ii.  8 267 
 
 viii.  6 277 
 
 X.  4 158 
 
 -9 157 
 
 x\\.  10 185 
 
 XV.  21 333 
 
 —  24—27 321 
 
 —  28 256 
 
 ■—47 lip 
 
 ivi.  22 354 
 
 2  CORINTHIANS. 
 
 iii.  16 263 
 
 iv.  4 263 
 
 —  14 334 
 
 V.  14 360 
 
 -21 189 
 
 viii.  9 J  21 
 
 xii  8,  p 374 
 
 xiii.  14 377 
 
 GALATIANS. 
 
 i.  1 158 
 
 iv.  1-4 203 
 
 EPHESIANS 
 i.  20,  2 1 204 
 
 -  21,  23., 
 
 iii.  9 
 
 iv.  p 
 
 V.  ip,  20.  , 
 
 -  30 
 
 Ch. 
 
 ii.  3 
 
 Page 
 182 
 
 -  9 
 
 252 
 
 -  10 
 
 205 
 
 273 
 
 2/8 
 
 127 
 
 370 
 
 19 
 
 111.  10,11 273 
 
 1  THESSALON'. 
 
 iv.  16 334 
 
 V.  27.... 365 
 
 2  THESSALON" 
 
 i   7 205 
 
 ii.  16,  17 377 
 
 1  TIMOTHY. 
 
 i-  2 377 
 
 -  12 370 
 
 ii.  5 389 
 
 iii.  IQ 225 
 
 vi.  20 35p 
 
 2  TIMOTHY. 
 
 i.    11,  12 358 
 
 -  \A 35p 
 
 iv.  17,  18 368 
 
 TITUS. 
 
 ii.  i; 
 
 129 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 
 289 
 264 
 257 
 205 
 2Q4 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 ii.5— 9  ...  128,  &c. 
 
 -  6 252 
 
 -  10 :    365 
 
 -  19 367  I 
 
 iii.  21 176,334  1 
 
 iv.  13 328  ' 
 
 COLOSSI  A  NS 
 i.  1..5— 18.279,cS>:c. 
 
 -  15 145 
 
 -  17 1'18 
 
 -  18, 257 
 
 I.  2,  3... 
 -3 
 
 -  6 
 
 -  4-9.. 
 
 -  8—10.. 
 -8 230,   25f)  i 
 
 -  10 213  j 
 
 -  10  —  12 172 
 
 -  13,  14 208  I 
 
 ii.  2,  3 210! 
 
 -  5  — IS.  .  3p6,  ^c.  ! 
 -10 
 
 -  14 
 
 -  18 
 
 iii.  3,  4..  . 
 iv,  12,  .13. 
 
 Ch.  Page 
 
 xi.  26 161 
 
 xii.  -^ 273 
 
 —  25,26 162 
 
 xiii.  8 162 
 
 20,21 369 
 
 JAMFS. 
 
 ii.  1 267 
 
 V.  6 189 
 
 1  PETER. 
 
 i.  8 355 
 
 -11 163 
 
 ii.  21,22 IpO 
 
 iii.  18 ipo 
 
 —  19,  20 164 
 
 —  22 210 
 
 2  PETER. 
 
 i.  1— 231 
 
 iii.  13 062 
 
 1  JOHN. 
 
 i.  1—5 28,  166 
 
 iii.  5 . ipo 
 
 —  16 231 
 
 iv.  2 16/ 
 
 —  9 259 
 
 158  i 
 328  j 
 205  I 
 183  ! 
 
 vii.  3 159 
 
 —  26 180 
 
 —  28 256 
 
 xi.  3 27 
 
 -  7,  8 236,  &c. 
 
 -  20 232 
 
 2  JOPIN. 
 ver.  7..._ 233 
 
 REVELATIONS, 
 i.  5 257- 
 
 -  5,  6 369 
 
 -  s 177,267 
 
 ~  10,  11 268 
 
 -  17,  18 269 
 
 ii.  2 183 
 
 -  23 183 
 
 iii.  10 190 
 
 -  14 1-10,295 
 
 V.  8-14 ^    371 
 
 xvii.  14 275 
 
 xxii.  13 269 
 
 -  j6.  . .    169,  2l\ 
 
AN 
 
 INQUIRY 
 
 INTO 
 
 THE  SCRIPTURE  DOCTRINE 
 
 CONCERNING 
 
 THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST- 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Three  principal  hypotheses  have  been  main- 
 tained concerning  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 1.  That  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  a  proper  human 
 being,  the  greatest  of  all  the  prophets  of  God. 
 
 2.  That  a  pre-existent  cVeated  spirit  of  a  higher 
 or  lower  degree  in  a  supposed  celestial  hierar- 
 chy animated  the  body  of  Jesus.  3.  That  the 
 divine  nature,  or  a  divine  person,  was  so  united 
 to  the  human  body  and  soul  of  Jesus  as  to  form 
 one  person,  who  is  both  truly  God,  and  truly  man. 
 
 The  first  of  these  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Uni- 
 tarians ;  the  second  is  that  of  the  Arians ;  and 
 the  third  is  that  of  the  Trinitarians. 
 
 All  Christians  agree  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
 3 
 
2  INTRODUCTIOX. 
 
 was  to  outward  appearance  a  man  like  other 
 men  :  and  that  though  he  was  an  inspired  pro- 
 phet, who  performed  miracles,  was  raised  from 
 the  dead,  and  ascended  into  heaven,  he  is  not, 
 on  these  accounts  solely,  to  be  regarded  as  a 
 being  of  rank  superior  to  the  human  race,  but 
 that  separate  and  direct  evidence  is  necessary 
 for  the  establishment  of  this  specific  fact. 
 
 Hence  it  follows  that,  in  this  inquiry,  the 
 whole  burthen  of  proof  lies  upon  those  who  as- 
 sert the  pre-eiistence,  the  original  dignity,  and 
 the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 If  any  one  affirm  that  a  being  who  has  every 
 appearance,  and  every  incident  and  quality 
 of  a  man,  is  not  a  real  man,  but  a  being  of  an 
 order  superior  to  mankind,  it  is  incumbent  upon 
 him  to  prove  his  assertion.  If  he  fail  in  his 
 proof,  his  hypothesis  vanishes,  and  the  person 
 in  question  must  be  regarded  as  a  real  man. 
 
 It  is  therefore  by  no  means  necessary  for  the 
 Unitarian  to  adduce  proof  of  the  proper  simple 
 humanity  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  would  be  equally 
 reasonable  to  demand  of  the  Jews  a  demonstra- 
 tion of  the  proper  humanity  of  Moses.  If  the  Arian 
 or  Trinitarian  doctrines  be  not  satisfactorily 
 proved  by  direct  and  specific  evidence,  the.  Uni- 
 tarian doctrine  mubt  be  received  as  true.     For 
 
INTRODUCTION.  5 
 
 who  is  so  unreasonable  as  to  require  evidence  to 
 prove  a  man  to  be  a  man  ? 
 
 In  this  controversy,  therefore,  the  proper 
 province  of  the  Arian  and  Trinitarian  is  to  pro- 
 pose the  evidence  of  their  respective  hypotheses; 
 that  is,  to  state  those  passages  of  Scripture  ^vhich 
 they  conceive  to  be  conclusive  in  favour  of  their 
 doctrines.  The  sole  concern  of  the  Unitarian  is  to 
 show  that  these  arguments  are  inconclusive:  that 
 the  passages  in  question  are  either  of  doubtful 
 authenticity,  or  misunderstood,  or  misapplied. 
 
 This  is  the  precise  state  of  the  question.  It 
 is  admitted  by  all  parties.  It  must  be  continu- 
 ally kept  in  view. 
 
 This  view  of  the  subject  points  out  the  true 
 and  only  proper  method  of  conducting  the  ar- 
 gument. It  is  by  proposing  and  carefully  exa- 
 minincT  the  controverted  texts.    He  who  will  not 
 
 o 
 
 submit  to  this  labour  must  be  content  to  remain 
 ignorant,  or  to  take  his  opinions  upon  trust. 
 
 The  following  observations  may  be  of  use  to 
 guide  our  inquiries. 
 
 1.  If  Jesus  or  his  apostles  peremptorily  and 
 unequivocally  declare  the  doctrine  of  his  pre- 
 existence  and  original  dignity,  their  evidence 
 must  M'ithout  hesitation  be  admitted.  They 
 could  not  be  mistaken. 
 
 B  2 
 
4  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 2.  Nevertheless,  when  a  fact  is  contrary  t& 
 tlie  established  order  of  Nature,  and  the  ante- 
 cedent improbability  is  very  great,  the  direct 
 evidence  must  be  proportionably  strong.  The 
 doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  and  high  original 
 powers  of  Christ  ought  not  to  depend  upon  a 
 few  obscure,  mystical,  and  ambiguous  texts. 
 
 3.  In  examining  the  validity  of  an  argument 
 from  Scripture,  the  first  inquiry  is,  whether  the 
 text  be  genuine  ;  the  second  is,  to  ascertain  its 
 true  import,  and  the  correctness  of  its  applica- 
 tion. 
 
 4.  In  order  to  judge  of  the  true  sense  of  a 
 disputed  text,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  the 
 connexion  in  which  it  stands ;  the  scope  and 
 design  of  the  writer ;  the  customs  and  modes 
 of  thinking  which  prevailed  in  the  age  and 
 country  in  which  the  author  wrote  ;  his  own 
 turn  of  mind  and  peculiar  phraseology,  and 
 whether  he  means  to  be  understood  literally  or 
 figuratively.  Also,  similar  passage*  and  forms 
 of  expression  must  be  compared  with  each 
 other,  so  that  what  is  obscure  and  doubtful  may 
 be  illustrated  by  what  is  clear  and  intelli- 
 gible. 
 
 5'  Impartial  and  sincere  inquirers  after  truth 
 must  be  particularly  upon  their  guard  against 
 
INTRODUCTION.  5 
 
 what  is  called  the  natural  signification  of  words 
 and  phrases.  The  connexion  between  words 
 and  i^leas  is  perfectly  arbitrary ;  so  that  the  na- 
 tural sense  of  a  word  to  any  person,  means  no- 
 thing more  than  the  sense  in  which  he  has  been 
 accustomed  to  understand  it.  But  it  is  very 
 possible  that  men  who  lived  two  thousand  years 
 ago  might  annex  very  different  ideas  to  the 
 same  words  and  phrases ;  so  that  the  sense  which 
 appears  most  foreign  to  us,  might  be  most  na- 
 tural to  them. 
 
 6.  It  ought  by  all  means  to  be  remembered, 
 that  profound  learning  and  acute  metaphysical 
 subtil ty  are  by  no  means  necessary  to  settle  the 
 important  question  concerning  the  person  of 
 Christ.  The  inquiry  is  into  a  plain  matter  of 
 fact,  which  is  to  be  determined  like  any  other 
 fact  by  its  specific  evidence,  the  evidence  of 
 plain  unequivocal  testimony ;  for  judging  of 
 which,  no  other  qualifications  are  requisite  than 
 a  sound  understanding  and  an  honest  mind. 
 Who  can  believe  that  the  decision  oi'  the  great 
 question  \vhether  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  true 
 God,  and  the  Creator  and  Governor  of  the 
 world,  depends  upon  a  critical  knowledge  of 
 the  niceties  of  the  Greek  Article  ?  With  equal 
 reason  might  it  be  maintained,  that  no  person 
 can  know  any  thing  of  the  History  of  Greece, 
 
O  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 who  is  not  perfect  in  the  metres  of  the  Greek 
 dramatic  writers'. 
 
 7.  Inquiry  to  be  useful  must  be  impartial. 
 The  mind  must  be  kept  open  to  conviction,  and 
 ready  to  follow  evidence  whithersoever  it  leads ; 
 to  sacrifice  prejudices  the  most  deeply  rooted 
 and  the  most  fondly  cherished,  and  to  embrace 
 truths  the  most  unexpected  and  unwelcome. 
 Truth  must  ultimately  be  favourable  to  virtue 
 and  to  happiness. 
 
 The  subject  is  divided  into  Two  Parts.  The 
 First  contains  A  Selection  and  Exammation  of 
 those  Passages  in  the  New  Testament  which 
 have  been  alleged  in  favour  of  the  Pre-exist- 
 ence  and  original  Dignity,  Power,  and  Divinity 
 of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Second  Part  compre- 
 hends A  summary  View  of  the  various  Hypo- 
 theses which  have  been  formed  concerning  the 
 Person  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Arguments  for  and 
 against  each  Hypothesis  respectively. 
 
 '  Who  ever  heard  of  a  juryman  being  challenged  because  he  was 
 not  a  good  grammarian?  Can  no  one  know  that  Gustavus  is  ba- 
 nished from  his  throne,  who  is  not  able  to  read  the  instrument  of 
 his  deposition  in  the  original  language  ?  The  incarnation  of  a 
 God,  the  incarceration  of  the  Creator  of  the  world  in  the  body 
 of  a  helpless  puling  infant  is  a  fact,  the  credit  of  which  must 
 rest,  like  that  of  all  other  facts,  not  upon  grammatical  subtilties, 
 but  upon  evidence  direct,  presumptive,  or  circumstantial,  upon 
 tJie  validity  of  which  every  person  of  common  sense  is  competent 
 to  decide. 
 
PART  THE  FIRST. 
 
 SELECTION  AND  EXAMINATION  OF  THOSE  PAS- 
 SAGES  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  WHICH  HAVE 
 BEEN  ALLECxED  IN  FAVOUR  OF  THE  PRE-EX- 
 ISTENCE,  THE  ORIGINAL  DIGNITY,  POWER,  AND 
 DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 
 
 GENERAL  DISTRIBUTION. 
 
 These  passages  will  be  arranged  under  tlie 
 following  heads. 
 
 I.  The  arguments  which  are  alleged  to  prove 
 
 that  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ  be- 
 lieved in  the  pre-existence  of  their  ex- 
 .pected  Messiah. 
 
 II.  The  narratives  of  the  miraculous  concep- 
 
 tion and  birth  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 III.  The  texts  which  are  conceived   to  express 
 
 in  the  most  direct  and  unequivocal  lan- 
 guage the  pre-existence  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
8 
 
 GENERAL    DISTRIBUTION. 
 
 IV.  The  texts  which,  if  they  are  not  to  be 
 
 admitted  as  direct  arguments,  are  ne- 
 vertheless thought  to  be  most  correctly 
 interpreted  as  alluding  to  this  important 
 fact. 
 
 V.  Those  in  which  attributes  appear  to  be 
 
 ascribed  to  Christ,  which  are  thought  to 
 establish  his  pre-existence,  and  by  many 
 even  his  divinity. 
 
 VI.  Those  passages  which  are  understood  as 
 
 affirming  the  superiority  of  Christ  to 
 angels. 
 
 VII.  Those    passages  which   ascribe    Names, 
 
 Titles,  and  Characters  to  Christ,  which 
 are  supposed  to  infer  great  original  dig- 
 nity in  a  pre-existent  state,  and  by  many 
 to  prove  his  supreme  divinity. 
 
 VIII.  Those  which  are  supposed  to  teach  that 
 
 Christ  is  the  Maker,  Supporter,  and  Go- 
 vernor of  all  things. 
 
 IX.  Those  passages  from  which  it  is  inferred 
 
 that  Christ  was  the  Medium  of  the  di- 
 vine dispensations  to  mankind,  antece- 
 dently to  his  supposed  incarnation,  and 
 particularly  of  the  dispensations  of  di- 
 
GENERAL    DISTRIBUTION.  9 
 
 vine  providence  to  the  patriarchs,  and 
 to  the  Jewish  nation. 
 
 X.  Those  which  express  the  exaltation  to  which 
 
 Christ  is  advanced,  and  the  offices  with 
 which  he  is  now  or  will  hereafter  be 
 invested,  and  which  it  is  argued  are  in- 
 compatible with  the  supposition  of  his 
 proper  humanity. 
 
 XI.  The  passages  which  require   or  exempli- 
 
 fy homage  and  worship  to  be  offered 
 to  Christ,  to  which  it  is  conceived  that 
 no  creature,  at  least  no  man  however 
 exalted,  can  be  entitled. 
 
 This  part  will  close  with 
 
 XII.  A   selection    of  passages   from  the  New 
 
 Testament  to  prove,  if  it  were  necessary, 
 the  inferiority  and  proper  humanity  of 
 Jesus  Christ. 
 
10  That  the  Jem  expected      [Part  I. 
 
 SECTION  I. 
 
 THAT     THE     JEWS    EXPECTED     A     PRE- 
 EXISTENT    MESSIAH. 
 
 One  text  only  is  alleged  with  any  plausibi- 
 lity in  favour  of  this  supposition. 
 
 John  vii.  27.  "  We  know  this  man  whence 
 he  is :  but  when  the  Christ  cometh,  no  man 
 knoweth  whence  he  is." 
 
 Grotius  and  Doddridge  explain  this  passage 
 as  alluding  to  the  miraculous  conception  of 
 Jesus. 
 
 Dr.  Whitby  more  justly  understands  it  as  re- 
 ferring to  a  tradition  among  the  Jews,  that  the 
 Messiah  was  to  be  conveyed  from  Bethlehem 
 soon  after  his  nativity,  and  to  be  concealed  from 
 the  world  till  EHas  came  to  anoint  him. 
 
 It  is  said  that  some  of  the  modern  Caba- 
 lists  maintain  that  the  angel  Metatron,  M'ho 
 led  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  will  be 
 the  soul  of  the  Messiah.  But  it  is  notorious 
 that  the  ancient  Jews,  and  indeed  the  Jewish 
 nation  in  general,  in  all  ages   entertained  no 
 
Sect.].]       a  pre-exist  e7it  Messiah.  11 
 
 such  expectation.  Trypho  the  Jew,  in  his  Dia- 
 logue with  Justin  Martyr  early  in  the  second 
 century,  represents  the  notion  of  the  pre-exist- 
 ence  and  incarnation  of  Jesus,  as  not  only  won- 
 derful, but  silly  :  and  he  reproaches  the  Chris- 
 tians for  their  belief  in  the  miraculous  concep- 
 tion of  Christ,  which  he  ridicules  as  a  fiction 
 equally  absurd  with  that  of  Jupiter  and  Danae. 
 He  says,  that  all  his  nation  expect  the  Messiah 
 to  be  a  man  born  like  other  men. 
 
 Justin  Martyr  0pp.  Edit.  Thirlby,  p.  233—6. 
 Dr.  Priestley's  Hist,  of  Early  Opinions,  vol.  iii. 
 p.  30—40.  Ben  Mordccai's  (H.  Taylor's)  Lett, 
 vol.  i.  p.  359— 61. 
 
12  Argument  from  [Parti. 
 
 SECTION  II. 
 
 ARGUMENT    TROM    THE    MIRACULOUS  CON- 
 CEPTION OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 
 
 1  HE  narrative  of  this  event  is  contained  in  the 
 two  first  chapters  of  the  gospels  of  Matthew 
 and  Luke.  And  the  miraculous  birth  of  Christ 
 is  regarded  by  many  as  a  considerable  presump- 
 tive evidence  of  his  pre-existence.     But, 
 
 1.  The  narrative  itself  is  of  very  doubtful 
 authority. 
 
 The  Ebionite  gospel  of  Matthew  and  the 
 Marcionite  gospel  of  Luke  did  not  contain 
 these  accounts :  and  both  those  sects  main- 
 tained their  own  to  be  the  uncorrupted,  unmu- 
 tilated  copies  of  these  evangelical  histories. 
 
 From  Luke  iii.  1,  compared  with  ver.  23,  it 
 appears  that  Jesus  was  born  fifteen  years  before 
 the  death  of  Augustus,  that  is  at  least  two  years 
 after  the  death  of  Herod  ;  a  flict  which  complete- 
 ly falsifies  the  whole  narrative  contained  in  the 
 preliminary  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 
 
 If  the  relation  aiven  of  the  miraculous  con- 
 
Sect.  2.]    the  miraculous  Conception.  13 
 
 ception  were  true,  it  is  utterly  unaccountable 
 that  these  extraordinary  events  should  have  been 
 wholly  omitted  by  Mark  and  John,  and  that 
 there  should  not  be  a  single  allusion  to  them  in 
 the  New  Testament ;  and  particularly,  that  in 
 John's  history,  Jesus  should  be  so  frequently 
 spoken  of  as  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  with- 
 out any  comment,  or  the  least  hint  that  this 
 statement  was  erroneous. 
 
 The  Ebionites,  who  were  Hebrew  and  Unita- 
 rian Christians,  and  the  Gnostics,  who  were  phi- 
 losophizing Gentile  believers,  who  differed  from 
 each  other  in  almost  every  other  opinion  concern- 
 ing the  person  of  Christ,  agreed  in  disbelieving" 
 the  miraculous  conception.  There  was  nothing 
 in  the  peculiarities  of  these  sects  which  should 
 render  them  averse  to  this  opinion.  Both  would 
 naturally  have  been  pleased  with  any  circum- 
 stance which  would  have  exalted  the  dignity  of 
 the  founder  of  their  faith :  but  both  these 
 sects  had  their  origin  in  the  apostolic  age,  and 
 had  probably  at  that  time  ne\'er  heard  the  re- 
 port. 
 
 Also,  if  the  facts  related  in  the  account  of 
 our  Lord's  nativity  were  true;  viz.  the  appear- 
 ances of  angels,  the  star  in  the  East,  the  visit  of 
 the  Magi,  the  massacre  of  Bethlehem,  «Scc.  they 
 
14  Miraculous  Conception,       [Part  I. 
 
 must  have  excited  great  public  attention  and  ex- 
 pectation, and  could  not  have  failed  to  have 
 been  noticed  by  contemporary  writers,  who  ne- 
 vertheless observe  a  total  silence  on  the  sub- 
 ject. 
 
 2.  The  miraculous  conception  of  Jesus  would 
 no  more  infer  his  pre-existence,  than  the  mira- 
 culous formation  of  our  first  parents,  or  the  mi- 
 raculous conception  of  Isaac,  of  Sampson,  of 
 Samuel,  and  of  John  the  Baptist,  would  prove 
 that  these  persons  had  an  existence  before  they 
 came  into  this  world,  and  were  beings  of  a  su- 
 perior order  to  the  rest  of  mankind '. 
 
 *  See  upon  this  subject  Dr.  Priestley's  History  of  Early 
 Opinions,  vol.  iv.  book  iii.  chap.  20.  Also  the  Notes,  in  the  Im- 
 proved Version  of  the  New  Testament,  on  Prefaces  of  Matthew 
 and  Luke. 
 
Sects.]  t,,^..^^^  ^^ 
 
 ^  their 
 
 SECTION  III.  ^' 
 
 TEXTS  EXAMINED  WHICH  ARE  CONCEIVED 
 TO  EXPRESS  IN  THE  MOST  DIRECT  AND 
 UNEQUIVOCAL  TERMS  THE  PRE-EXIST- 
 ENCE  OF  JESUS   CHRIST. 
 
 The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  fire  com- 
 monly reckoned  eight.  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke, 
 John,  Paul,  James,  Peter,  and  Jude.  Of  these 
 writers  six,  viz.  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  James, 
 Peter,  and  Jude,  are  generally  allowed  to  have 
 advanced  nothing  upon  the  subject  of  the  pre- 
 existence,  and  superior  nature  and  dignity  of 
 Jesus  Christ.  At  least  it  will  be  admitted  that,  if 
 there  be  any  allusions  in  these  writers  to  this 
 extraordinary  fact,  they  are  so  faint  and  obscure 
 that,  independently  of  the  rest  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament, they  would  not  of  themsebes  have 
 proved,  perhaps  not  even  suggested  the  idea  of 
 the  pre-existence  and  divinity  of  Christ.  The 
 credit  of  these  facts  depends  n\  holly  upon  the 
 testimony  of  John  and  Paul. 
 
 Of  the  six  writers  who  make  no  mention  of 
 
16  Texts  supposed  to  assert      [Part  I. 
 
 the  pre-existence  and  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 three  are  professed  historians  of  the  hfe,  the 
 miracles,  and  the  doctrine  of  Christ ;  and  one 
 continues  his  history  to  upwards  of  thirty  years 
 after  our  Lord's  ascension ;  and  relates  many  in- 
 teresting particulars  of  the  lives,  the  sufferings, 
 and  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  the  subjects 
 of  their  preaching,  the  miracles  which  they 
 performed,  and  the  success  of  their  mission. 
 But  neither  the  history  nor  the  discourses  of 
 Christ,  nor  those  of  his  apostles  for  thirty  years 
 after  his  ascension,  contain  the  least  hint  of  his 
 pre-existent  state  and  dignity. 
 
 But  how  can  this  total  silence  be  explained 
 and  accounted  for,  if  the  popular  doctrine  con- 
 cerning the  pre-existence  and  divinity  of  Christ 
 is  true  ?  Is  it  credible,  or  even  possible,  that  three 
 persons,  in  different  places  and  afe  different 
 times,  should  undertake  to  write  the  history  of 
 Christ,  each  meaning  to  communicate  all  that 
 was  necessary  to  be  known,  with  their  minds 
 fraught  with  the  overwhelming  idea  that  the 
 person  whose  historj^  they  were  about  to  write 
 was  a  superior  Being,  a  great  angel,  the  Crt^or 
 of  the  world,  or  the  Almighty  God  himself  in 
 human  shape,  and  that  the  belief  of  this  great 
 mystery  was  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  their 
 
Sects.]     the  Vre-cxhtence  of  Christ,  17 
 
 readers  ;  and  yet  throuf^h  the  whole  of  their 
 narrative  should  abstain  from  mentioning  or 
 even  glancing  at  this  stupendous  fact?  How 
 would  a  modern  Arian  orTrmitarian  have  acted 
 in  similar  circumstances?  Would  he  have  left 
 his  readers  under  the  impression  which  neces- 
 sarily results  from  the  perusal  of  the  three  first 
 evangelical  histories  and  that  of  the  Acts,  viz. 
 that  the  founder  of  the  christian  faith  was  a  man 
 like  to  his  brethren,  and  only  distinguished  from 
 them  as  the  greatest  of  the  prophets  of  God, 
 w  ho  had  been  raised  from  the  dead  and  exalted 
 to  the  rio;ht-hand  of  the  Most  Hioh  ? — That  six 
 of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  should 
 have  observed  such  a  profound  silence  upon  a 
 subject  of  which  their  hearts  must  have  been 
 so  full,  and  with  which  their  imagination  must 
 have  been  so  overpowered,  may  well  induce  a 
 considerate  mind  to  pause,  and  to  reflect  whe- 
 ther this  could  have  happened  if  Jesus  of  Naza- 
 reth were  in  truth  a  being  of  high,  perhaps 
 the  highest  order  in  the  universe  ? 
 
 Athanasius,  Chrysostom  and  others  account- 
 ed for  this  extraordinary  silence  from  the  great 
 prudence  of  the  evangelists,  and  their  unwilling- 
 nevss  to  give  oifencc  to  the  new  converts  ;  but  this 
 
18  Texts  supposed  io  as^t'ri  [Part  I. 
 
 is  a  supposition  which  will  not  now  satisfy  an 
 inquisitive  mind'. 
 
 The  evidence  therefore  of  the  pre-existence 
 and  superior  dignity  of  Christ  must  rest  upon 
 the  testimony  of  John  and  Paul.  And  if  it 
 appears  that  these  apostles  were  authorized  to 
 supply  the  defects  of  their  predecessors,  and  that 
 their  testunony  to  the  received  doctrine  is  clear 
 and  unequivocal,  it  must  without  doubt  be  ad^ 
 mitted. 
 
 But  observe,  they  never  declare  nor  hint 
 that  they  were  authorized  to  teach  any  new 
 doctrine  concerning  the  person  of  Christ :  nor 
 do  they  lay  dow'ii  any  such  doctrine  to  be  re- 
 ceived as  an  article  of  faith.  If  they  say  any 
 thing  upon  the  siibject,  it  is  in  an  incidental 
 way,  and  not  as  if  they  were  introducing  any 
 strange,  and  astonishing  discovery. 
 
 It  is  further  to  be  observed,  that  the  style  of 
 these  two  w^-jters  is  in  many  instances  highly 
 figurative.  In  the  gospel  of  John  our  Lord 
 sometimes  uses  metaphors  of  the  most  obscure 
 and  offensive  kind,  such  as  '  eating  his  flesh'  and 
 'drinking  his  blood,'  to  express  the  reception  of 
 
 '  See  Dr.   PrieslIo)'s  IJi-tory  of   Early   Opinions,   book   lit. 
 chap.  J,  f),  0, 
 
Sects.]       the  Prc-ciisf  dice  of  Christ.         19 
 
 his  doctrine.  Chap.  vi.  oG.  And  Paul  in  his 
 epistles  introduces  many  harsh  and  uncommon 
 figures,  viz.  '  We  are  members  of  his  bod\^,  of  his 
 flesh,  and  of  his  bones,'  to  express  the  union 
 of  true  believers  under  Christ  as  their  head. 
 Eph.  V.  30.  It  is  therefore  reasonable  to  expect 
 that  such  writers  will  use  figurative  language  con- 
 cerning Christ;  and  it  is  peculiarly  necessary,  in 
 rcadino'  their  writings,  to  distin^iuish  carefully 
 between  what  is  literal  and  what  is  figurative. 
 
 With  regard  to  the  apostle  Paul,  it  is  worthy 
 of  remark  that  little  or  no  evidence  is  pretended 
 to  be  produced  from  his  larger  epistles,  in  favour 
 of  the  popular  doctrine  concerning  the  person  of 
 Christ.  Few  proofs  are  alleged  from  the  epistle 
 to  the  Romans,  the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  that 
 to  the  Galatians,  the  two  to  the  Thessalonians, 
 or  those  to  Timothy,  Titus,  or  Philemon.  The 
 principal  appeal  is  to  the  epistles  to  the  Pinlippi- 
 ans  and  Colossians,  which  are  figurative  through- 
 out beyond  all  others;  and  to  the  epistle  to  the 
 Hebrews,  the  author  of  which  is  doubttVd,  and 
 in  which  the  writer  indulges  himself  in  an  inge- 
 nious, but  forced  and  fanciful  analogy  between 
 the  Mosaic  institute  and  the  Christian  dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 Is  it  possible  to  believe  that  this  stupendous 
 c  2 
 
20  T€J:ts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 doctrine,  if  it  were  true,  would  be  found  clearly 
 expressed  in  no  other  part  of  the  sacred  wri- 
 tings, but  in  the  mystical  discourses  of  the 
 evangelist  John ;  in  two  of  the  obscurest  epi- 
 stles of  Paul ;  and  in  the  epistle  of  another  un- 
 known writer  ?  Surely,  if  it  were  fact  that  Jesus 
 of  Nazareth  was  truly  God,  or  the  Maker  of  the 
 world  in  a  human  shape,  it  is  a  fact  that  would 
 have  blazed  in  every  page  of  the  NewTestament; 
 and  would  never  have  been  mentioned  by  the 
 sacred  writers  but  with  the  most  evident  marks 
 of  astonishment  and  awe. 
 
 Persons  wlio  have  not  much  attended  to  the 
 subject,  and  who  have  been  educated  in  the 
 belief  of  these  extraordinary  doctrines,  are  sur-^ 
 prised  when  they  come  to  learn  how  few  pas- 
 sages of  Scripture  can  be  produced  in  favour  of 
 the  pre-existence  ami  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 The  truth  is,  that  these  texts,  yo  few  in  number, 
 are  so  ofter>  cited,  and  repeated,  and  insisted 
 upon,  that  they  occupy  a  very  prominent  place 
 in  the  memory  and  imagination,  and  are  com- 
 monly thoifght  to  be  much  more  numerous,  clear 
 and  decisive,  than  in  fact  they  are.  Like  tlie 
 stars  in  the  firmament,  they  dazzle  the  eye  of  the 
 superficial  spectator,  and  excite  the  ideas  of 
 number  and  magnitude  far  beyond  the  reality. 
 
S<3ct.  3.]     the  Frc-cxistence  of  Chrht.  21 
 
 Tlie  e3'e  of  reiison,  aided  by  philosophy,  dimi- 
 nishes tlieir  number,  deprives  them  of  their  glare, 
 and  reduces  them  to  their  true  proportion^. 
 
 I. 
 
 The  first  passage  which  is  alleged  as  deci- 
 cisively  proving  the  p  re-existence  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 is  John  i.  1  — 14. 
 
 "  In  the  beginningwas  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
 was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.'*  (Sec. 
 
 The  expression  Word,  or  Logo.s  as  it  stands 
 in  the  original,  has  been  understood  in  a  great 
 variety  of  senses,  according  to  the  different  hy- 
 potheses which  have  been  entertained  concern- 
 ing the  person  of  Christ. 
 
 1.  The  early  platonizing  christian  writers  con- 
 ceived the  Loo'os  to  be  the  intellii^ence  of  God 
 personified,  or  converted  into  a  real  person,  and 
 united  to  a  human  soul  \ 
 
 2.  The  proper  Trinitarians  assert  that  the 
 Logos  is   truly  God,  necessarily  derived  from 
 
 •  See  Dr.  Priestlcj  's  History  of  Early  Opinions,  vol  i  lutrod. 
 sect.  1,  1.  vol.  iii.  book  iii.  chap.  6,  7.  Dr.  Carpenter's  Letters 
 to  Mr.  Veysie,  letter  2. 
 
 '  See  Priestley's  History  of  Early  Opinions,  vol  ii.  book  ii. 
 chap.  5.  Lindsey's  Second  Address  to  the  Students  at  the  two 
 UuivcrsitieSj  chap.  ii. 
 
22  Teais  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 the  Father,  but  of  the  same  nature  Avith  him, 
 and  in  all  respects  equal  to  him.  This  is 
 the  doctrine  held  by  bishops  Bull  and  Horsley, 
 Dr.  Waterland,  and  others. 
 
 3.  Others  maintain  that  the  Logos,  or  Word, 
 is  the  first  and  greatest  of  created  beings,  in 
 whom  the  fulness  of  the  godhead  dwells,  and 
 with  whom  the  divine  nature  is  so  intimately 
 united,  that  he  is  truly  and  properly  one  with 
 God.  This  is  the  hypothesis  of  Dr.  Thomas 
 Burnet,  Dr.  Doddridge,  and  many  other  learned 
 men. 
 
 4.  Dr.  Clarke,  and  those  who  have  been 
 called  Semi-Arians,  maintain  tliat  the  Logos  is 
 a  being  uncreated,  but  from  all  eternity  be- 
 gotten, i.  e.  in  some  incomprehensible  manner 
 derived  from  the  will  and  power  of  the  Father, 
 possessed  of  all  divine  attributes,  self-existence 
 alone  excepted,  and  the  delegate  of  the  Al- 
 mighty in  the  creation,  support,  and  government 
 of  the  universe  ;  that  he  assumed  human  na- 
 ture, and  animated  the  body  of  Christ. 
 
 5.  The  Arians  affirm  that  the  Logos  is  the 
 first  and  greatest  of  created  beings,  delegated 
 by  the  Father  to  be  the  Maker  and  Governor 
 of  this  world,  or  system,  or  of  all  worlds  and 
 systems,  and  the  medium  of  all  the  divine  dis- 
 
Sect.  3.]       the  Prc-ciislcncc  of  Christ.         23 
 
 pensations  to  mankind.  He  became  incarnate 
 to  redeem  the  uorld,  and  animated  the  body 
 of  Christ.  This  is  the  hypothesis  supported 
 by  Dr.  Whitby  in  his  Last  Thoughts;  also  by 
 Mr.  Whiston,  Mr.  Emlyn,  Dr.  Price,  and  many 
 others. 
 
 6.  An  opinion  has  been  taken  up  by  some 
 learned  moderns^  that  the  Logos  is  merely  a 
 soirit  of  an  order  superior  to  mankind,  who  as- 
 sumed human  nature  in  the  person  of  Jesus  ot 
 Nazareth,  but  wb.o  had  no  concern  in  the  for- 
 mation of  the  world,  nor  in  any  of  the  preced- 
 ing dispensations  of  God  to  mankind. 
 
 These  hypotheses,  with  the  arguments  for  and 
 ao-ainst  them,  will  he  stated  more  at  larjre  in  the 
 Second  Part  of  this  Inquiry. 
 
 7.  Many  have  maint'ciined  that  the  word 
 Lop:os  means  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God, 
 by  which  all  things  were  originally  made,  which 
 attributes  v/ere  eminently  displayed  in  the  mis- 
 sion, doctrine,  miracles,  and  character  of  the  man 
 Jesus.  This  is  the  explanation  advanced  and 
 approved  by  Grotius,  Lardner,  Lindsey,  Priest- 
 ley, and  most  of  the  modern  Unitarians. 
 
 According  to  this  interpretation  of  the  word, 
 Mr.  Lindsey,  in  his  List  of  False  Readings 
 and  Mistranslations,  p.  40,  has  given  the  fol- 
 
24  Te.vts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 lowing  new  translation  of  the  proem  to  John's 
 gospel. 
 
 "  In  the  beginning  was  wisdom,  and  wisdom 
 was  with  God;  and  God  was  wisdom.  The 
 same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  All  things 
 were  made  by  it,  and  without  it  was  nothing 
 made.  In  it  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the  light 
 of  men.  And  the  light  shineth  in  darkness, 
 and  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not. 
 
 *'  There  was  a  man  sent  from  God,  whose 
 name  was  John.  The  same  came  for  a  witness, 
 to  bear  witness  of  the  light,  that  all  men  through 
 him  might  believe.  He  was  not  that  light,  but 
 was  sent  to  bear  witness  of  that  light.  That 
 was  the  true  light  which  came  into  the  world, 
 and  enligliteneth  every  man. 
 
 "  It,  i.  e.  divine  zoisdom,  w^as  in  the  world, 
 and  the  world  was  made  by  it,  and  the  world 
 knew  it  not.  It  came  to  its  own  land,  and  its 
 own  people  received  it  not.  But  as  many  as  re- 
 ceived it,  to  them  it  gave  power  to  become  the 
 sons  of  God,  even  to  them  who  believe  on  its 
 name.  Who  were  born  not  of  blood,  nor  of 
 the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but 
 of  God. 
 
 "  And  wisdom  became  man  and  dwelt  among 
 \\Sf   and  we  beheld   its  glory,  the  glory  as  of 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Tre-existcnce  of  Christ .  25 
 
 the  well-beloved  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace 
 and  truth/' 
 
 Mr.  Lindsey  argues  at  large  in  favour  of  this 
 interpretation  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Se- 
 quel to  his  Apology,  and  Mr.  Wakefield  in  his 
 Translation  of  the  New  Testament  gives  the 
 same  sense. 
 
 This  interpretation  is  supposed  to  be  favoured 
 by  Solomon's  description  of  wisdom,  Prov.  viii.; 
 — by  the  use  of  the  word  Logos  in  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament for  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  ;  see 
 Psalm  xxxin.  6; — by  the  custom  of  the  Chal- 
 dee  paraphrasts  in  using  the  IForcl  of  God  for 
 God  himself;  see  Isa.  xlv.  12;  xlviii.  13.  Gen.  i. 
 27  ;  in.  8  ;  and  Lindsey 's  Sequel,  p.  380. — And 
 lastly,  it  appears  that  Philo  and  other  platoniz- 
 ing  philosophers  in  or  near  the  apostolic  ago 
 used  the  word  Logos  to  express  the  personifica- 
 tion of  the  div  ine  attributes. 
 
 Against  this  interpretation  the  following  ob- 
 jections have  been  urged: 
 
 1.]  That  the  word  '  beginning  '{ot^^x^)-,  though 
 often  occurring  in  the  writings  of  Jolin,  almost 
 uniformly  signifies  the  beginning  of  our  Lord's 
 ministry,  or  of  the  new  dispensation ;  and 
 very  seldom,  if  ever,  the  beginning  of  the  world ; 
 much  less  does  it   express  duration  from  eter- 
 
26  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part.  I. 
 
 nity  ^  John  vi.  64, "  Jesus  knew  from  the  begin- 
 ning wlio  it  was  that  would  betray  him/'  Chap. 
 XV.  27,  "  Ye  have  been  with  me  from  the  be- 
 ginning''." 
 
 2.]  It  does  not  appear  that  the  word  Logos 
 is  ever  used  for  wisdom  [cQ<pict)  in  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament. V/hen  it  is  said  that  tlie  heavens 
 Avere  made  by  the  'word  of  God,  the  allusion 
 appears  to  be  to  the  account  of  the  creation  in 
 the  book  of  Genesis,  where  every  thing  comes 
 into  existence  at  the  command  of  God.  "  He 
 spake,  and  it  vvas  done."    Psalm  xxxiii.  9- 
 
 3.]  The  expression  "  all  things,"  (^avra,)  in 
 the  writings  of  John,  never  signifies  the  created 
 universe. 
 
 4.]  The    word    ym^LCLi,   which  is   translated 
 
 *  The  history  of  John  beginning  with  the  same  words  as  the 
 liistory  of  Moses,  Genesis  i.  1,  has  induced  many  io  infer  that 
 they  express  tiie  same  date,  though  no  conclusion  can  be  more 
 precarious. 
 
 *  The  word  af%'>j  occurs  six  times  in  the  gospel  of  Jolin  (be- 
 sides twice  in  the  proem),  and  eleven  times  in  his  epistles  ;  in  all 
 Mhich  places  it  clearly  expresses  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  : 
 excepting  chap.  ii.  1 1,  where  it  is  used  for  tJie  first  uiiracle;  and 
 chap.  Tiii.  -1),  and  1  John  iii.  8,  in  which  places  the  devil  is 
 said  to  have  been  from  the  beginning  a  liar  and  uiurderer.  The 
 other  texts  where  the  word  occurs  are,  John  vi.  fi4  ;  viii.  25; 
 sv.'27;  xvi.4.  1  John  i,  1  ;  ii.  7,  13,  14,24;  iii.  11.  2jo]ui,  5,^. 
 See  Simpson's  Essins  ou  Language  of  Scripture,   L'ss,  vii. 
 
Sect.  5.]      the  Trc-cxhtcncc  ofClirUt.         ^7 
 
 to  be  made,  occurs  nearly  seven  hundred  times 
 in  the  New  Testament,  and  more  than  a  hundred 
 times  in  the  writinirs  of  this  ev.iniiehst ;  but  it 
 is  no  where  used  in  tlie  sense  of  creation^. 
 
 8.  Another  interpretation  of  the  Logos  has 
 been  proposed,  which  is  less  liable  to  objection. 
 The  Logos  is  the  man  Jesus  thrist  by  \\hom 
 God  hath  spoken  to  the  world,  the  teacher  of 
 truih  and  righteousness. 
 
 This  was  the  hiterpretation  of  the  Polish  So- 
 cinians :  it  was  adopted  by  Hopton  Ha\'nes,  the 
 friend  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  and  has  lately  been 
 revived  with  some  modifications,  and  defended, 
 by  JMr.  J.  Palmer,  of  Birmingham,  in  the  Theo- 
 logical ReiJositor\',  vol.  vii. :  by  Mr.  Cappe,  in  his 
 Dissertations;  by  Mr.  Simpson,  in  his  Essays;  by 
 Dr.  Carpenter,  in  his  Reply  to  Mr.  Veysie;  and 
 it  is  adopted  m  the  Improved  Version. 
 
 It  is  a  considerable  presumption  in  favour  of 
 this  mterpretation,  that  it  harmonizes  with  the 
 introduction  to  the  lirst  epistle  of  John,  which 
 is  a  kind  of  comment  upon  the  proem  to  ths 
 gospel,   wliich   contains   mary   of  the  same  or 
 
 ^  Ueb.  iv,  3;  xi.  3.  James  iii.  9;  have  been  alleged  as  excep- 
 tions :  but  they  will  all  admit  a  fair  interpretation  without  assign- 
 ing to  ti'-.e  word  yivo|xa»  so  unusual  a  sense.  Simpson,  ibid.  p.  "iJ. 
 S'oe  Improved  Version,  in  loc. 
 
28  Texts  supposed  to  assert  [F^rt  L 
 
 similar  expressions,  and  which  is  universally 
 understood  of  the  person  of  Christ. 
 
 1  John  i.  1,  2.  "That  which  was  from  the 
 BEGINNING,  which  w^e  have  heard,  which  we 
 saw  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked 
 UPON,  or  BEHELD,  wliich  our hands  have  han- 
 dled, of  the  wor'd  of  life.  And  this  life  was 
 manifested,  and  we  have  seen  it,  and  bear  wit- 
 ness, and  show  unto  you  that  eternal  life, 
 which  was  with  the  father,  and  was  aiA- 
 nifested  to  us."  Ver.  5,  "God  is  light,  and 
 in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all.  If  we  say  that  we 
 have  fellowship  with  him,  and  walk  in  dark- 
 ness, we  lie,  and  do  not  the  truth.  But  if  we 
 walk  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light,  we 
 have  fellowship  one  with  another." 
 
 It  is  impossible  not  to  remark  the  similarity  of 
 phrase  between  the  epistle  and  the  gospel ;  the 
 words  '  beginning,'  '  word,'  '  life,' '  hght,'  *  dark- 
 ness,' &c.  occurring  in  both.  But  it  is  plain  that 
 the  IVord  of  life  and  Ught^  which  from  the  he^ 
 ginning  was  heard,  and  seeti,  and  touched,  and 
 manifested,  and  borne  zc'ifness  to,  in  the  epistle, 
 is  Jesus  Christ:  and  therefore  it  is  Jesus  Christ 
 to  whom  the  same  or  a  similar  phraseology  is 
 applied  in  the  gospel. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Pre-aiistence  of  Christ.  29 
 
 •The  following  is  the  translation  and  exposi- 
 tion of  the  passage,  upon  this  hypothesis. 
 
 Ver.  1.  "  In  the  beginning  7  was  the  Word*^, 
 and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was 
 a  god 9." 
 
 '  Or  from  the  first.  Sec  Cappc's  Diss.  vol.  i.  p  19;  and  Simp, 
 son's  Essays,  No.  vii.  p.  5.  Improved  V^ers.  in  loc.  See  p.  26, 
 note  4. 
 
 •  i.  e.  Jesus,  the  person  by  whom  Cod  spake  to  mankind^ 
 Hence,  Rev.  xix.  13,  he  is  called  the  Word  of  God:  and, 
 1  John  i.  1,  the  Word  of  Life  ;  because  he  tuught  the  doctrine  of 
 eternal  life.  Our  Lord  appears  to  be  denoted  by  the  same  title, 
 Luke  i.  2,  They  who  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses, 
 and  ministers  of  the  Word,  And  again,  Luke  iv.  36,  And  thcy 
 were  all  amazed  and  spake,  saying,  Ti;  o  koyog  ovto$;  Qualis  est  hie 
 doctor?  Who  is  this  Word,  or  teacher?  See  Schleusner  in  verb. 
 Christ  is  called  Life,  because  he  is  the  teacher  of  Life;  Truth, 
 because  he  is  the  teacher  of  Truth ;  the  Way,  because  he  teacJies 
 the  Way  of  righteousness  ;  the  Light,  because  he  introduces  Light 
 into  the  Avorld  :  so  he  is  called  the  ^Vord,  because  he  teaches  tliG 
 Word  or  doctrine  of  God. 
 
 •  In  the  Scriptures  the  word  God  is  applied;  1st,  'J'o  pro- 
 phets who  were  commissioned  to  deliver  messages  from  God. 
 John  X.  35,  "  lie  called  them  gods,  to  whom  the  word  of  God 
 came." — 2dly,  To  a  proj)het  who  was  authorized  to  work  miracles, 
 Exod.  vii.  1,  "  The  Lord  said  ilhto  Moses,  See,  I  have  made  thee 
 a.  god  to  Pharaoh,  and  Aaron  thy  brother  shall  be  thy  prophet/' 
 Here  Aaron  is  to  deliver  the  message,  but  Moses  to  jicrform  the 
 miracle. — 3dly,  To  magistrates,  and  persons  in  high  civil  autho- 
 rity. Psalm  ixxxii.  1,  "  God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of  the 
 mighty;  he  judgcth  among  the  gods.'^  Sec  also  ver.  G.  Exod.xxi.C; 
 xxii.  8,  9.  Dcut.  x.  17.  1  Sam.  xxviii.  13.  In  all  these  senses 
 the  title  God  might  with  peculiar  propriety  be  applied  to  Jesus, 
 
30  Texts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 From  the  commencement  of  his  pubhc  mi- 
 nistry, Jesus  was  a  teacher  of  truth  and  hfe* 
 And  as  Moses  was  with  God  in  the  mount  to  re- 
 ceive the  law,  (Exod.  xxxiv.  28;)  so  Jesus  with- 
 drew from  the  workl,  into  the  wilderness  or  else- 
 where, to  receive  his  instructions  and  quahfica- 
 tions  from  God.  And  being  a  prophet  of  the 
 highest  order,  to  whom  the  divine  will  was  fully 
 revealed,  who  was  endued  in  a  very  superior  de- 
 gree with  miraculous  powers,  and  who  was  ap- 
 pointed Lord  and  King,  in  that  new  dispensation 
 which  he  was  authorized  to  introduce  to  super- 
 sede the  Mosaic  covenant,  he  is  for  these  rea- 
 sons, in  the  well  known  phraseology  of  the  Jewish 
 scriptures,  entitled  to  be  called  a  god,  though 
 obviously  in  a  sense  infinitely  below  that  in  which 
 the  same  expression  is  applied  to  the  Supreme 
 Original  Being. 
 
 Ver,  2.  "  This  Word  w^as  in  the  befiinninsr 
 with  God  ^^\" 
 
 for  to  him  wns  comtiuuucaled  the  Spirit  without  measure;  Johu 
 iii.  34.  And  when  a^ked  by  Pilate  whctlier  he  was  a  king  ;  he  re- 
 plied, "  1  am  a  king.  To  tiiis  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause. 
 I  came  into  the  world."  Jolin  xviii,  37,  Crellius  conjectured  that 
 the  true  reading  of  the  original  was  ©ra,  "the  word  was  God's  :" 
 but  this  conjecture,  though  ingenious  and  not  improbable,  vet, 
 being  unauthorized  by  manuscripts,  versions,  or  quotations  iu 
 ecclesiastical  writers,  is  inadmissible. 
 
 '"  The  stress  in  this  clause  appears  to  lie  upon  the  words  sv  a-^yj^.j 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Vrc-cilsfcnce  of  Christ.  31 
 
 Before  he  appeared  in  public,  from  the  very 
 comnicr.Gcment  of  his  ministry,  he  had  inter- 
 course with  God,  and  was  ciiHci],  and  qualified 
 by  him,  for  his  hif^h  and  in^portant  office. 
 
 Ver.  3.   "  All  thinirs  "  were  done^-  throuMi 
 
 *  in  (he  bcgiiiniiig,'  or  •  at  firsf.'  Jesus  did  not  obtrude  himself  into 
 his  high  oftire  w  ithout  a  proper  call.  He  did  not  appear  in  public 
 till  he  had  been  fully  iustriictcd,  qualified,  and  disciplined  for  Lis 
 f^rcat  undertaking.  Compare  Ileb.  v,  5,  "Christ  glorified  not 
 liiinself  to  be  mado  a  high  priest,  but  he  that  said  unto  him,  Thoti 
 art  my  son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee." 
 
 "Jll  things']  {iravta)^  i.  e.  all  things  wliich  concern  the  new  dis- 
 pensation which  Jesus  was  commissioned  to  introduce.  This  word 
 is  often  used  in  a  restricted  sense,  and  in  this  sense  in  particular 
 1  John  ii.  "20,  "  Ye  have  an  unction  from  the  holy  One,  and  Imow 
 all  tilings."  See  also  John  xiii,  J  ;  xiv.  G  ;  xvi.  13.  2  Pet.  i.  3,  4. 
 Eph.  i.  3,  21,  21'.    Acts  i.  1. 
 
 "//^ref/onff](£y£ysror).  Though  yjvoaai  never  signifies  'to  create,' 
 yet,  asMr.Cappe  observes,  (Crit.  lleni.Tol.  i.  pag.  39,)  it  is  a  word 
 of  very  general  signification  :  it  signifies  '  to  be,' '  to  come  to  pass,' 
 '  to  be  done,*  as  well  :is  •  to  be  made.'  John  xt.  7,  "  Ye  shall  ask 
 what  ye  will,  and  it  shall  be  done  unto  you."  xix.  3G,  "  These  things 
 were  done  (sysvero),  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled."  See  also 
 Matt.  V.  18;  vi.  8;  xxi.  42;  xxvi.  C.  Improved  Version  in  loc; 
 and  Dr.  Carpenter's  Letters  to  Veysie,  p.  79.  Mr.  Cappe  ren- 
 ders the  text,  "  All  things  were  by  him,  and  without  him  wai 
 not  any  that  has  been."  Mr.  Simpson,  (Diss.  vii.  p.  45,)  "  All 
 things  were  formed  by  him  ;  all  the  regeneration  of  mankind 
 which  the  Gospel  produced  was  effected  by  his  instrumentality." 
 He  observes,  p.  28,  that  "  though  the  apostle  John  never  uses 
 -/ivo^«<  for  proper  creation,  yet  he  often  employs  it  to  denote  a 
 change  of  rtate,  condition,  or  propertii";."     Dr.  Carpenter  well 
 
32  Teats  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I* 
 
 liim  '^,  and  without  him  not  a  single  thing  was 
 done,  which  hath  been  done  ''^." 
 
 Every  thing  relating  to  the  introduction  of 
 the  new  dispensation  has  been  accomplished, 
 either  by  Jesus  himself,  or  by  his  apostles  and 
 messengers,  who  derived  then'  commission  and 
 
 remarks,  that  "  the  common  reiidering  of  ver.  3,  '  all  thing? 
 were  made  by  him;'  and  of  ver.  10,  '  the  world  was  made  by 
 him,'  has  perhaps  more  than  any  thing  contributed  to  establish  in 
 the  minds  of  the  unlearned  the  Trinitarian  or  tlie  Arian  hypo- 
 thesis concerning  our  Saviour,"  viz.  that  he  was  the  Creator 
 and  Former  of  the  materia!  universe. 
 
 "*  Through  him,^  i5V  ayfn,  '  through  his  instrumentality,'  He 
 was  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant :  the  only  medium  of  the 
 christian  dispensation  :  the  only  person  who  derived  his  instruct 
 tions  and  powers  immediately  from  God.  His  apostles  derived 
 their  authority,  qualificatioiis  and  powers  from  him.  John  xv.  26, 
 "  Wlien  the  advocate  is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  yon  from 
 the  Father."  Ver.  16,  "  Ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen 
 you  and  appointed  you,"  Acts  ii.  32,  33,  "  Jesus,  having  received 
 from  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  holy  spirit,  has  poured  forth 
 this,"  &c. 
 
 ^^  Not  a  single  thing,  iscl  bSb  kv  o  ysyovsv.  See  Campbell.  The 
 apostles  derived  all  their  powers  from  Christ,  and  could  do  no- 
 thing without  him.  John  xv.  5.  Compare  ver.  4,  "  As  the  branch 
 cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself  unless  it  abide  in  the  vine;  so  neither  can 
 ye,  unless  ye  abide  in  me  " — lie  was  probably  personally  present 
 with,  and  occasionally  he  visibly  manifested  himself  to,  his  apostles 
 in  the  course  of  their  ministry :  Matt,  xxviii.  "zO.  They  worked 
 iniraclcs  in  his  name  :  Acts  iii.  6  ;  ix.  34.  lie  converted  Paul, 
 ai)peared  to  him  repeatedly,  and  directed  his  missionary  jour- 
 neys;  Acts  ix.  5;  xviii.  9.    2  Cor.  xii,  8^  9.  Sec  also  Rev.  i,  I. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  TrC'Cxhtence  of  Christ.  33 
 
 powers  from  him,  and  who  performed  nothing 
 without  his  express  warrant  and  authority. 
 
 Vcr.  4.  "  By  him  was  hfe'^,  and  the  hfe  was 
 the  hght  of  men." 
 
 Jesus  is  the  revealer  of  a  future  hfe  by  a  re- 
 surrection from  the  grave ;  and  this  heavenly 
 doctrine  is  the  principal  means  of  instruction, 
 reformation,  and  comfort  to  mankind. 
 
 Ver.  o.  "  And  the  light  shineth  in  darkness, 
 and  the  darkness  hath  not  overtaken  it  ^^." 
 
 This  glorious  light  which  Jesus  kindled,  and 
 which  diffuses  its  beams  over  a  benighted  world, 
 still  continues  to  shine.  It  is  not  yet  extin- 
 guished, nor  ever  shall  be. 
 
 "  By  him  luas  lift:  ]  John  vi.  68,  "  Thou  hast  the  words  of 
 eternal  life."  1  John  v.  11,  "  This  is  the  record,  that  God  hath 
 given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  son."  Hence  our 
 Lord  calls  himself  "  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life,"  John  xi.  25. 
 "The  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life,"  John  xiv.  6.  In  like 
 manner,  and  for  like  reasons,  he  is  called  "  the  Light,"  John  viii. 
 12 ;  xii.  35,  36.  See  Cappe,  p.  43,  44.    Imp.  Ver.  in  loc. 
 
 "  Darkness  hath  not  overtaken  it,"]  s  y.xtsXoc^ev.  Compare 
 Ter.  9.  1  John  ii.  8.  *'  The  word  HaraAapcS'ava;  is  often  used,  of 
 the  day  and  night  and  their  vicissitudes."  See  John  xii.  35, 
 'Walk  while  ye  have  the  light,  lest  darkness  come  upon  you:'  and 
 1  Thess.  V.  4.  See  Cappe's  Crit.  Rem.  ibid.  p.  46.  Some  render 
 the  words  "  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not,"— mankind  in 
 general  did  not  understand  the  true  nature  of  it.  Simpson's  Es- 
 says, p.  45. 
 
 P 
 
34  Terts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 Ver.  6,  7j  B,  9-  "  A  man,  w  hose  name  was 
 John,  was  sent  from  God'".  This  man  came 
 for  a  testmiony,  to  bear  witness  concerning  the 
 light,  that  through  him  all  might  believe.  He 
 was  not  the  light,  but  sent  to  bear  witness  of 
 the  light.  The  true  light  was  that  which,  being 
 come  into  the  world '''^,  is  enliiihtenin"-  every 
 man." 
 
 John  the  Baptist  was  divinely  commissioned 
 to  announce  the  approach  of  a  greater  prophet,, 
 whose  beneficent  errand  it  would  be  to  enlighten 
 and  to  bless  the  human  race.  John,  though  he 
 was  himself  a  burning  and  a  shining  light,  equal 
 to  any  of  the  prophets  who  preceded  him,  was 
 not,  nor  did  he  ever  profess  to  be,  any  thing 
 more  than  the  humbleharbino-er  of  a  far  o-reater 
 prophet  who  was  to  succeed.     That  great  pro- 
 
 "  "  7b  he  senifrom  God,'^  is  to  be  a  prophet,  to  come  to  men 
 with  a  divine  message.  If  John  was  Hent  from  God,  it  implies 
 that  he  had  been  previously  tvilh  God,  to  bo  instructed  by  him. 
 This  explains  (he  plirase  in  verses  1  and  2,  where  it  is  said  that 
 the  Word,  Jesus,  was  with  God.     See  Cappe,  p.  23. 
 
 '*  Thai  which  being  come.']  Cappe  and  Campbell  read  he 
 who,  iifc,  as  being  more  intelligible,  though  not  exactly  corre- 
 sponding with  the  original.  For  the  trajection,  see  Camiibell's 
 valuable  note.  Triie,  is  often  used  in  Scripture  to  signify  ^reo^, 
 illustrious,  excellent.  Cappe,  ibid.  p.  48,  Every  man,  i.  e.  Jew 
 and  Gentile,  all  nations.  John  xii.  3-2.  Acts  xvii.30.  1  Tim.  ii.  4; 
 Rom.  ii.  10.  Ileb.  ii.  9.     Cappe,  ibid. 
 
Sect.  3.]       the  Fre-existcncc  of  Clirid.         35 
 
 phet  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  wlio,  having  risen 
 hke  the  sun  upon  a  benighted  world,  is  to  this 
 hour,  and  will  ever  continue  to  be,  diffusing 
 light,  and  hope,  and  happiness  to  all  of  everj' 
 nation,  Jew  or  Gentile,  who  are  willing  to  receive 
 the  benefit  of  his  beautiful  and  clieering  ra\'s. 
 
 Ver.  10.  "  He  was  in  the  world '9,  and  the 
 world  was  enlightened  by  hini*^*,  yet  the  world 
 knew  him  not." 
 
 "  The  tvorldl  Jioc-^aoc  i)cr  metouymiam  signiiicat  incolas  orbis 
 tcrrarum  a)  geiieratiin,  iiniverstim  genus  humanum  :  /S)  spccia- 
 tim,  niaguam  homiiium  multitiidinein,  &c.  Schleusncr  in  verb. — 
 This  word  occurs  upwards  of  a  hundred  times  in  the  writings  of 
 John,  but  seldom  if  ever  in  the  sense  of  the  visible  creation, 
 or  the  material  world.  Simpson,  p.  35,  And  as  it  is  said  that 
 the  world  knew  him  not,  it  is  evidently  to  be  understood  here  of 
 intelligent  beings,  of  mankind  in  general.  Tb,  p.  37. 
 
 '"  TFas  enlightened  ly  him.']  With  some  hesitation  I  adopt 
 the  method  of  supplying  the  ellipsis,  proposed  by  my  learned  and 
 ingenious  friend  Dr.  Carpenter  in  his  Letters  to  Mr.  Veysio, 
 p.  70.  q.  d.  sy^vsro  o  Koa-y.og  'it£(pujri<ry.syog :  see  ver.  6.  The 
 preceding  context  justifies  in  his  opinion  his  insertion  of  the 
 word  enlightened.  As  Matt,  xxiii.  15.  the  word  proselyte  must 
 be  supplied  from  the  foregoing  clause :  "  Ye  compass  sea  and 
 land  to  make  one  proselyte,  xat  orav  ysvijrai,  i.  e.  rfZc-r^X-Jto;, 
 when  the  proselyte  is  made,  ye  make  him  &c."  This  gives  a 
 better  sense  than  the  common  translation,  "  the  world  was  made 
 by  him,"  if  understood'of  the  new  moral  creation.  For  in  that 
 case  it  would  not  be  strictly  true  that  the  world  knew  him  not. 
 For  the  new-creatcd  world  did  know  him,  and  acknowledge 
 his  authority.  Bi:t  the  world  might  be  enlightened  by  Christ, 
 D  ^ 
 
S6  Te:rfs  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 Jesus  appeared  in  public ;  to  all  without  di- 
 stinction he  proclaiined  hi  heavenly  doctrine : 
 but,  though  a  few  well-  ^isposed  persons  received 
 his  message  and  became  his  followers,  the  bulk 
 of  mankind  disregarded  his  declarations,  and 
 rejected  his  authority. 
 
 and  at  (he  same  time  might  refuse  to  derive  benefit  from  him,  or 
 to  submit  to  his  claims.  They  shut  their  e3'es  against  the  light, 
 and  chose  darkness  because  their  deeds  were  evil. 
 
 Mr.  Simpson  indeed  obviates  this  objection  by  observing,  that 
 verbs  which  signify  the  simple  act  or  ellect,  sometimes  express 
 only  the  design  and  tendency,  and  at  other  times  the  endeavour 
 or  using  means:  q.  d.  The  tendency  of  his  doctrine  was  to  reform 
 the  world.  Ibid.  p.  38.  This  is  ingenious,  and  may  be  just :  but 
 the  other  interpretation  seems  to  suit  the  connexion  better. 
 
 iSIr.  Simpson's  own  translation  is:  "  He  was  in  the  world, 
 and  the  world  wim^  formed  by  him,  yet  the  world  knew  him  not." 
 Which  he  parai;hrases  thus  :  "  He  was  publicly  conversant  with 
 men  ;  many  were  reformed  by  him  ;  and  he  imparted  the  best 
 means  of  renovating  the  human  race,  yet  mankind  in  general  did 
 not  believe  in  him."    Ibid.  p.  40. 
 
 Mr.  Cappe  gives  quite  a  new  turn  to  the  passage.  IJe  trans- 
 lates  the  text;  "  lie  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  was  made 
 for  him."  q.  d.  "He  was  for  some  time  freely  and  publicly  con- 
 versant among  his  countrymen,  preaching  the  word  of  God ; — yet, 
 though  the  Jewish  dispensation  was  calculated  to  excite  the  ex- 
 pectation of  him  at  this  time,  to  reveal  him,  and  recommend 
 him,  &c. ;  that  world,  the  subjects  of  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
 tion, to  whom  such  advantages  in  tins  respect  had  been  vouch- 
 safed, knew  him  not."  Cappe,  ibid.  p.  10, 
 
 Of  this  interpretation  the  learned  and  oxcellcnt  wiiler  gives  a 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Vrc-cxhtence  of  Christ,  37 
 
 Ver.  11,1 2, 13.  "  He  came  into  his  ow  n  coun- 
 try -',  and  his  countrymen  received  him  not. 
 Nevertheless,  to  as  many  as  received  him,  and 
 believed  in  his  name,  he  granted  tb.e  privilege  of 
 becoming  children' of  God.  V»  ho  were  born 
 not  of  l)lood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor 
 of  the  will  of  man,  l)at  of  God-^'." 
 
 The  mmistry  of  Jesus  was  exercised  in  Ga- 
 lilee and  Judea,  among  his  own  countrymen  the 
 Jews.  These  m  general  rejected  his  credentials 
 with  disdain.  A  small  number,  however,  who 
 were   of   a   better  temper,    acknowledged    his 
 
 very  particular  and  ingenious  vindication,  p.  50 — 62.  But  though 
 he  has  brought  abundant  evidence  to  prove  that  oia.  with  a  geni- 
 tivc  sometiuios  expresses  the  final  cause,  I  nevertheless  feel  some 
 reluctance  to  understand  it  in  this  passage  in  a  sense  so  unusual, 
 when  the  construction  does  not  require  it,  and  a  very  good  and 
 obvious  sense  can  be  given  without  it.  Cut  the  intelligent  reader 
 will  form  his  own  judgement  which  of  these  interpretations  is  to 
 be  preferred. 
 
 It  may  nut  be  amiss  to  remark,  en  passant,  that  the  evangelist 
 by  this  form  of  expression,  o  y.or^'ii  h^  cc-jra  sysvero.  cannot  rea- 
 sonably be  understood  to  teach  the  popular  doctrine  that  the 
 material  world  was  created  by  Christ :  first,  because  the  word 
 xo7[i<os  seldom,  probably  never,  signifies  (he  material  world  in  the 
 writings  of  this  evangelist ;  and  secondly,  because  the  word  yivo^ 
 [/,a.i  never  signifies  to  create 
 
 "  Came  to  his  own  country.'}  See  Cappc  and  Campbell. 
 
 **  IVho  were  born,  life.']  Sec  Improved  Version,  and  Mr.  Cappe's 
 Crit.  Hem.  p.  10,  and  p.  03,  kc. 
 
38  Teats  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 claims  and  submitted  to  his  authority.  And  to 
 those  who  received  him  as  the  Messiah  he  im- 
 parted the  great  privilege  of  adoption  into  the 
 family  of  God,  by  which  they  became  entitled 
 to  the  hope  of  immortal  life.  And  this  privilege 
 was  not  obtained  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  the 
 Mosaic  law, — by  birth,  or  by  marriage,  or  by 
 proselytism  ;  but  was  communicated  to  all  be- 
 lievers without  distinction  by  the  free  gift  and 
 abundant  goodness  of  God. 
 
 Ver.  14.  '•  And  the  Word  was  flesh -^  and 
 dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory." 
 
 *'  j4nd  (or  nevertheless)  the  Word  \\ us  flesh']  6  Aoyoj  (yap^  £ye» 
 vsto'  not  was  made  flesh,  or  became  flesh,  hut  teas  l!esh.  So  ver.  6, 
 Eysyato  av^pMitog  arscrrczAp.Evo/, amanw/a^sent, not  Mas7;?«c?esent, 
 or  became  sent.  Luke  xxiv.  19,  the  things  concerning  Jesus  of 
 Nazareth,  05  sysvEto  CLvr^p  TrpopYirY/s,  who  tvas,  not  Avho  became,  a 
 prophet  mighty  in  word  and  deed. 
 
 The  ivord  luas  flesh,]  i.  e.  a  man,  a  proper  human  being.  In 
 this  sense  the  Avord  flesh  is  often  used  in  the  Scriptures.  See 
 Psalm  Ixv,  2.  Rom.  iii.  20.  John  iii.  6;  xvii.  2.  Acts  ii.  17. 
 Luke  iii.  6.  1  Cor.  i.  29.  &c.  &c. :  and  it  occurs  in  this  sense 
 in  the  preceding  verse.  "  Frequently  and  peculiarly,"  says 
 Mr.  Lindsey,  Sequel,  \>.  136,  "  it  stands  for  man  as  mortal,  sub- 
 ject to  infirmities  and  sufl'ering,  and  as  such  is  particularly  appro- 
 priated to  Christ  here  and  in  other  places."  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Rom. 
 i.  3;  ix.  5.  1  Pet.  iii,  18;  iv.  1.  See  Improved  Version,  in  loc. 
 Cajjpc,  ibid.  p.  86.    Simpson,  ibid,  p,  40. 
 
 This  interpretation  of  the  ])roem  of  John's  gospel  is  in  the 
 main  the  same  with  that  of  Socinus,  Sliclitingius,  Wolzogenius, 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Frc-ciisfcuce  of  Chrht.  39 
 
 Jesus, this  great  teacher  of  truth  and  revealer 
 of  the  win  of  God,  thou<;h  so  hi^i^hl}'  honoured 
 above  all  tlie  prophets  who  preceded  him,  -svas 
 nevertheless,  as  it  was  foretold  lie  would  be, 
 (Isaiah  liii.  2,  3,)  a  ruan,  a  frail  suflerino;  man, 
 compassed  with  infirmities,  in  all  things  like  to 
 his  brethren.  He  passed  among  us  a  short  and 
 transitory  life,  and  was  in  no  respect  distin- 
 guished from  other  men,  but  as  he  was  selected 
 by  divine  wisdom,  and  qualified  by  divine  power 
 to  be  the  messenger  of  grace  and  peace  to  man- 
 kind. This  was  his  chief  glory,  and  to  this  high 
 distinction  of  our  exalted  JNIaster  we  were  the 
 personal  and  admiring  witnesses. 
 
 11. 
 
 John  i.  1.5.  "  John  bare  witness  of  him.  This 
 is  he  of  whom  I  said,  He  who  cometh  after 
 me  has  got  before  me^"",  for  he  was  my  prin- 
 cipal'•\" 
 
 and  Crc-Uiiis ;  only  that  the  Sociiiian  expositors  contend  for  a  local 
 ascent  of  Jcsiis  into  heaven  after  his  baptism,  and  previonsly  to 
 his  appearance  as  a  public  instructor. 
 
 ^*  He  who  cometh  after  7ne,]  o  OTticrvo  [j-s  ec-x/jiMyot,  the  comer 
 after  me,  he  Mho  set  out  after  me,  m hose  harbinger  I  was,  ejm.- 
 TTsoo-Ssv  JU.S  /^yovev,  has  overfakcn  and  passed  me  in  the  career. 
 The  idi-a  is  laUcn  from  "  the  relation  of  the  harbinger  to  the 
 jirincc  whom  he  prcredas."  See  Cappc,  p.  108.  'E.'xitporhv  is  aa 
 adverb  bolh  of  time  and  place.    See  Sciileusner. 
 
 "  He  was  wy  principal,']  TTswros  i/,ii.     The  word  is  used  in  this 
 
40  Teiis  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 John  bore  testimony  to  the  superior  character 
 and  dignity  of  Jesus.  Thisj  said  he,  is  the  per- 
 son whose  harbino;er  I  was.  I  announced  his 
 approach,  and  have  finished  my  career.  He 
 has  now  overtaken  me,  and  has  taken  precedence 
 of  me,  to  which  he  is  justly  entitled,  because  he 
 is  the  very  person  whose  advent  I  was  commis- 
 sioned to  proclaim. 
 
 III. 
 
 John  iii.  13.  *'  Now  no  man  hath  ascended  up 
 to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven, 
 even  the  Son  of  Man,  zi^ho  is  in  heaven." 
 
 This  is  a  text  the  right  understanding  of 
 which  is  of  great  importance  for  settling  the  con- 
 troversy concerning  the  pre-existence  of  Christ. 
 
 The  words  in  their  primary  signification  ex- 
 press a  local  ascent  of  the  Son  of  Man  into  hea- 
 
 sensc,  1  Tim.  i.  15,  1(5;  "  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save 
 sinners,  of  whom  I  am  the  chiefs  See  IMark  vi.  21.  Luke  xix. 
 47.  Acts  xiii.  50;  xvii,  4. 
 
 The  common  interpretation  of  the  text  is  :  *'  He  who  cometh 
 after  me  is-preferrod  before  me,  for  he  was  (in  order  of  time) 
 before  me."  And  Ilamiuond,  Doddridge,  Campbell,  and  others, 
 contend  that  the  latter  clause  must  refer  to  antecedLMicy  in  order 
 of  time,  otherwise  the  sentence  is  tautological,  and  the  evangelist 
 is  arguing  idem  per  idem.  But  Mr.  Cappe's  interpretation  suffi- 
 ciently obviates  this  objection.  The  last  clause  is  a  good  reason 
 why  the  person  who  set  out  last  took  precedence  of  him  who 
 was  originally  first. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Vrc-existence  of  Christ.  41 
 
 ven,  a  local  descent  from  heaven,  and  a  local 
 existence  in  heaven  while  he  was  residing  on 
 earth. 
 
 In  this  primary  sense  the  text  is  not  received 
 by  any  ;  but  by  some,  one  clause,  l)y  others, 
 two,  and  by  others,  all  the  clauses  are  inter- 
 preted in  a  figurative  sense. 
 
 1.  The  first  clause,  which  expresses  that  the 
 Son  of  Man  had  ascended  into  heaven,  is  under- 
 stood in  a  literal  sense  by  the  Polish  Soci- 
 nians  onlv,  who  believed  that  Christ  was  taken 
 up  into  heaven  after  his  baptism  to  receive  his 
 commission  from  God,  and  to  be  instructed  in 
 the  divine  counsels.  In  support  of  this  interpre- 
 tation they  argue,  that  the  \erb  is  in  the  preter 
 tense;  that  the  subject  of  the  aflirmation  is  the 
 Son  of  Man,  who  as  such  could  have  no  exist- 
 ence before  his  birth ;  that  the  expression  could 
 not  with  propriety  be  used  of  a  continued  ex- 
 istence in  heaven  previous  to  a  residence  on 
 earth;  and  that  it  is  improper  and  unnecessary  to 
 have  recourse  to  a  figurative  interpretation  when 
 the  hteral  sense  is  obvious  and  probable"^. 
 
 *"  Ay«o£?-jj}4e.]  "  Loquitur  non  de  asconsii  siio  fiituro,  scd  de 
 ascensu  praeteVito  :  ut  srilicct  in  coelo  cilcstia  cdoctus,  ea  deindc 
 e  coelo  rciucans  loqucrctur  et  docciet  in  tLTiis.     Qui  hie  ad  nie- 
 
 y 
 
42  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 Mr.  John  Palmer -7,  improving  upon  this  hy- 
 pothesis of  the  older  Socinians,  supposes  that 
 our  Lord  while  he  was  in  the  wilderness  was 
 favoured  with  .divine  communications,  during 
 which  he  was  completely  secluded  from  all  con- 
 nexion with  the  external  world;  and,  like  St.  Paul, 
 (2  Cor.  xii.)  he  might  imagine  himself  transport- 
 ed into  heaven,  and  not  be  able  to  distinguish 
 whether  what  he  saw  and  heard  was  visionary  or 
 real.  And  Mr.  Palmer  thought  that  when  Jesus 
 spoke  of  himself  as  having  been  in  heaven,  and 
 as  coming  down  from  heaven,  it  was  in  allusion 
 to  this  divine  vision. 
 
 This  very  ingenious  and  plausible  hypothe- 
 sis, which  Dr.  Priestley  mentions  in  terms  of 
 
 taphoras  et  improprias  locutiones  confugiui'.t  sine  iilla  necessi- 
 tate  id  faciunt,  «S:c."  Slichtingias  ia  loc.  See  also  Wolzogciiius 
 in  loc.  :  and  Chrisf.  Rclig.  Institiit.  apud  Socini  0pp.;  torn.  i. 
 p.  674,  67b. 
 
 *'  Mr.  John  Palmer  was  a  man  of  abilities  and  learning,  and  an 
 excellent  Scripture  critic,  lie  was  edticated  at  the  Warrington 
 Academy,  and  for  some  years  was  settled  with  a  congregation 
 at  Macclesfield.  He  afterward  retired  to  Birmingham,  where  he 
 assisted  Dr.  Priestley  in  conducting  the  Theological  Repository, 
 in  which  he  wrote  some  valuable  articles,  and  had  planned  more, 
 but  was  prevented  by  a  stroke  of  the  i)alsy,  which  ])ut  an  end 
 to  his  life  in  December  1787.  Dr.  Priestley  published  an  in- 
 teresting account  of  him  in  the  Theological  llcpository,  vol.  vi. 
 p.  217. 
 
Sect.  3.]       the  Vrc-cxhtcnce  of  Christ.         43 
 
 great  respect-^,  appears  liable  to  the  following 
 objections.  That  a  fact  of  such  high  import- 
 ance, and  so  honourable  to  the  character  of 
 Jesus,  should  not  have  been  mentioned  or  al- 
 luded to  by  any  other  of  the  evangelical  histo- 
 rians or  sacred  writers  ;  that  the  phrases  of  '  as- 
 cendincr  \xu  to  heaven'  and  'descendino;  from  hea- 
 ven/  as  applied  to  Christ,  are  peculiar  to  John, 
 and  therefore  probably  (like  some  other  pecu- 
 liarities of  phraseology  m  this  writer)  mean 
 nothino;  more  than  what  the  other  writers  have 
 expressed  in  different  language ;  and,  finallj', 
 that  it  does  not  appear  that  any  of  the  early 
 christian  sects  or  ecclesiastical  writers  ever 
 heai-d  of  this  supposed  assumption  of  Christ  into 
 heaven,  or  ever  attempted  to  explain  the  evan- 
 gelist's phrases  by  that  hypothesis. 
 
 As  this  personal  ascent  of  Jesus  into  heaven 
 previous  to  his  entrance  upon  his  public  ministry, 
 whether  real  or  visionary,  is  not  allowed  by 
 the  bulk  of  christian  divines,  the  first  clause  of 
 this  text  is  generally  interpreted  in  a  figurative 
 sense. 
 
 Bishop    Pearce,   and   after    him  Archbishop 
 
 ^  After  having  stated  IMr,  Palmer's  hypothesis,  Dr.  Priestley 
 adds  :  "  I  aeknowkdge  myself  to  l)e  ninrh  pleased  nith  Mr.  Pal- 
 mer's ideas  upon  this  subject."     Thca!.  Repos.  ibid.  p.  2'21. 
 
44  Te.vts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 Nevvcome,  render  the  words  "  No  man  goeth 
 up  to  heaven,"  which  they  explain,  No  man  is 
 to  i^o  up  thither.  "  The  preter  tense,"  say  these 
 learned  prelates,  "  is  used  for  the  present,  and 
 this  again  for  the  future -9/' 
 
 This,  however,  is  not  the  interpretation  ge- 
 nerally adopted.  The  most  common  and  best 
 supported   exposition  of  the   phrase  '  JN'o  7)ia7i 
 
 ^  Sec  Pearce  and  Newcome  in  loc.  So  then  the  words  '  No 
 man  haih  ascended  up  to  heaven'  mean  '  No  man  will  ascend 
 thither.'  Let  not  the  Unitarians  be  any  longer  reproached  as 
 the  only  expositors  who  warp  the  Scriptures  from  their  plain 
 and  obvious  sense  to  serve  a  hypothesis.  The  arguments,  how- 
 ever, of  these  learned  prelates  will  not  support  their  conclu- 
 sion. Bp.  Pearce  produces  passages  in  which  the  prefer  tense  may 
 be  and  is  translated  in  the  present.  John  vi.  69;  xi.  27;  xx.  29, 
 17;  iii.  18  :  lie  also  quotes  Iliad,  a,  37.  6;  %/>t'!n3v  au.p'^itrjy.ag . 
 And  the  archbishop  cites  John  iii.  18,  in  which  the  present  tense 
 has  the  force  of  a  future.  Yiut  no  instance  is  produced  in  which  the 
 preter  tense  has  the  force  of  the  future  only;  audit  is  aj)prc]icnded 
 that  none  such  can  be  alleged.  For  the  prater  can  only  be  translated 
 in  the  present  tense  v/hen  it  expresses  the  continuance  of  an  action, 
 *  I  have  been  and  continue  to  be,'  '  Thou  hast  protected  and  dost 
 continue  to  protect,'  &c.  And  the  present  is  only  used  as  a  fu- 
 ture figuratively,  to  express  the  certainty  of  the  event,  or  that 
 it  is  very  near  at  hand.     See  Wolzogcnius  in  loc. 
 
 Campbell  and  Wakefield  both  translate  the  verb  in  the  present 
 tense,  '  ascendeth  ;'  but  without  sufiicient  attention  to  the  con- 
 nexion, which  implies  that  the  Son  of  Man  had  himself  ascended, 
 though  others  had  not.  Erasmus  observes,  "  Gra-cis  pra3t.  tcm- 
 poris  estj  no  quis  putct  de  futura  asccnsionc  intclligi." 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  VrC'txistence  of  Chrht.  45 
 
 hath  ascended  up  to  heaven y'  is  this,  No  o  ^e  is 
 acquainted  with  the  counsels  and  purposes  of 
 God  to  man:  ind'^^. 
 
 *  To  ascend  to  heaven'  is  a  Hebrew  form  of 
 expression  to  denote  the  knowled  e  of  things 
 mysterious  and  remote  from  common  apprehen- 
 
 *•  The  agreement  of  the  commentators  in  this  intcrpretatiou 
 is  very  remarkable. 
 
 "  Asccndere  in  ccelum  dicitiir  qui  arcana  coeli  pencdat.  Quan- 
 tum cceliim  a  terra  distat,  tantum  consilia  divina  ab  humanis."  Gro- 
 tius. — "Ascendit  in  ccelum  :  i.e.  Sjjiritiialis  intcUigcntias  luce  prae- 
 ditiis  est."  Bfza  — "Ascendit  in  ccplum :  i.  c.  Nemo  novit  res  cceles- 
 tes  prajtcr  me."  V^afabki?. — "Ascenderc  in  coehim,  hoc  loco,  uti 
 intuenti  Christiscopum  satis  liquet,  nihil  aliud  est  quam  inquirerc, 
 aut  admitti  in  conscienfiam  consilii  diviui,"  Cameron. — "  II  faut 
 entendre  ces  paroles  figuremcnt  de  la  connoissance  des  verites  ce- 
 lestes." LeClerc. — "In  ccelum  ascendcrc  hoc  loco  significat  arcana 
 atqueinysteriaccElestiascrutari,  acnossc."  Wolzogenius.— ''No 
 man  can  acquaint  you  with  these  heavenly  things,  for  no  other 
 person  hath  ascended  into  heaven  to  learn  them  there."  Whitby. — 
 "No  one  ever  hath  ascended  into  heaven  to  search  into  the  secret 
 counsels,  and  to  obtain  an  intimate  and  perfect  knowledge  of  the 
 truths  of  God."  Dr.  Doddridge:  who  remarks  that  the  phrase 'as- 
 cending up  into  heaven'  is  plainly  used  in  this  sense,  Dent.  xxx.  12. 
 Rom.  X.  G.  Prov.  xxx.  -4. — ^Mr.  Lindsey  in  his  Sequel,  p.  213  cL 
 scq.  observes,  that  "in  the  strict  literal  sense  it  was  by  no  means 
 true,  that  no  one  had  ascended  up  into  heaven  but  the  Son  of  Man ; 
 for  Enoch  in  all  probability,  and  Elijah  the  prophet  had  certainly 
 been  translated  from  earth  to  heaven.  Neither  is  it  true,  in  the  di- 
 rect sense  of  the  words,  that  the  Son  of  Man  had  ascended  up  into 
 heaven.  We  have  no  account  in  Scripture  that  he  ever  ascended 
 into  heaven  but  once,  when  he  took  his  final  leave  of  tliis  eartii 
 
46  Texts  supposed  to  assert        [Part,  I. 
 
 sion.  Dcut.  XXX.  11,  "  This  commandment  is 
 not  in  heaven,  that  thou  shouklest  say  Who  will 
 go  up  for  us  to  heaven  and  bring  it?"  Prov. 
 XXX.  4,  "  Who  hath  ascended  into  heaven  or 
 descended."  Rom.  x.  6,  "  Say  not  in  thy  heart 
 Who  shall  ascend  into  heaven,''  &c.  Banich  iii. 
 29,  "  Who  hath  gone  up  into  heaven  and  taken 
 her,  /.  e.  wisdom,  and  brought  her  down  from 
 the  clouds?" 
 
 In  the  preceding  verse  Jesus  says  to  Nico- 
 demus,  "  If  I  have  told  you  earthly  things,"  /.  c. 
 things  plain  and  intelligible,  '^  and  ye  believe 
 not,  how  shall  ye  believe  if  I  tell  you  heavenly 
 thino-s?"  i.  e.  thinsis  difficult  and  remote  from 
 your  conceptions  ? 
 
 It  is  supposed  that  our  Lord  alludes  to  the 
 ascent  of  Moses  to  the  mount  to  receive  the 
 Law.  This  is  not  iinprobable,  as  he  immediately 
 
 and  of  liis  disciples."  IJoiicehe  infers  that ' ascending  np  to  heaven' 
 signifies  his  being  admitted  to  fhe  knowledge  of  God's  counsels. 
 
 Liidolphus  Raplieliiis,  in  his  preface  to  his  father  George  Ra- 
 phelius's  Annotations  ispon  the  ScriptiireSj  has  given  a  learn, 
 cd  and  judicious  dissertaticu  upon  this  text  ;  and  after  a  very  fair 
 and  impartial  examination  he  concludes,  "  Ex  his  itaquc  satis  eon- 
 stare  arbitror,  Christum  nihil  aliud  vellc,  quam  quod  nemo  con- 
 silia  ])ei  sciat,  nisi  fiiius  hominis,  ipse  dens,  (jui  ex  ccelo  ad  rios 
 descendit.^''  I  add  these  words,  to  show  that  this  is  not  (he  gloss 
 of  a  prejudiced  Unitarian. 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  Trc-cxhicncc  of  Chrht.         4? 
 
 mentions  Moses,  and  speaks  of  his  lifting  up 
 the  serpent  in  the  wilderness.  Perhaps  he  might 
 mean  to  hint  at  the  superior  dignity  and  im- 
 portance of  the  Christian  dispensation  to  that  of 
 Moses.  Moses  ascended  the  mount,  but  the 
 Son  of  Man  ascended  to  heaven. 
 
 The  Jews  in  the  Targum  say,  in  honour 
 of  Moses,  that  "  he  ascended  into  the  high  hea- 
 vens," by  which  they  could  mean  no  more  than 
 his  admission  to  the  divine  counsels.  See  Whit- 
 by in  loc. 
 
 That  which  is  plain  and  obvious  and  well  un- 
 derstood is  said  not  to  be  in  heaven.  Deut. 
 XXX.  11.  Rom.  X.  6.  See  above,  and  Grotius 
 in  loc. 
 
 2.  The  meaning  of  the  first  clause  being 
 thus  settled,  that  of  the  second  is  now  to  be 
 investio-ated. 
 
 o 
 
 "  But  he  that  came  do\An  from  heaven,  even 
 the  Son  of  Man." 
 
 This  clause  was  understood  in  a  literal  sense 
 by  the  Socinians,  who  believed  in  the  local  as- 
 cent of  Christ  up  to  heaven,  and  in  his  local 
 descent  to  earth  again. 
 
 It  is  interpreted  literally  by  the  Arians,  who 
 believe  that  the  divine  Logos  who  made  the 
 
48  Texls  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 world  was  the  spirit  which  animated  the  body 
 of  Christ. 
 
 It  is  interpreted  figuratively  by  the  believers 
 in  the  proper  deity  of  Christ,  who  do  not  main- 
 tain that  the  deity  locally  descended  from  hea- 
 ven to  become  incarnate,  because  God  is  omni- 
 present, but  that  he  manifested  himself  on  earth 
 in  the  person  of  Christ.  So  God  is  said  to  have 
 descended  to  see  the  tower  of  Babe],  and  the 
 iniquity  of  Sodom.  Gen.  xi.  5;  xviii.  21.  See 
 Whitby  in  loc. 
 
 It  is  interpreted  figuratively^  by  the  Unita- 
 lians,  who  explain  the  second  clause  in  a  similar 
 manner,  and  as  perfectly  correlative  with  the 
 first. 
 
 "  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven  :''  i.  e. 
 No  one  is  instructed  in  the  divine  counsels : 
 
 "  But  he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even 
 the  Son  of  Man :"  i.  c.  Excepting  the  Son  of 
 Man,  who  had  a  commission  from  God  to  re- 
 veal his  will  to  mankind^'. 
 
 *'  "  Que  celui  qui  en  est  descondii.  C'cst  a  dire,  qui  a  ete  cn- 
 voye  aux  hommes  par  Dieu  son  Pere :  ou  qui  est  un  present  ce- 
 leste que  Dieu  Icur  a  fait."  Voyez  ch.vi.  58,  Jam.  i.  17;  iii.  15, 
 17.    LeClerc. 
 
 "If  'ascending  up  to  heaven'  is  not  to  be  taken  literally,  neither 
 is  'desceudinfj  from  heaven'  to  be  understood  of  a  local  descent. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  F re-existence  of  Christ.  49 
 
 First,  This  is  a  form  of  expression  which  is 
 unquestionably  used  in  Scripture  to  express  what 
 is  of  divine  origin  or  authority.  Matt.  xxi.  25, 
 "  The  baptism  of  John,  was  it  from  heaven  or  of 
 men  ?  And  they  reasoned  with  themselves,  say- 
 ing, If  we  shall  say.  From  heaven ;  he  will  say 
 unto  us,  Why  did  ye  not  then  believe  him?"  This 
 question  our  Lord  put  in  reply  to  the  question 
 of  the  chief  priests  and  elders,  "  By  what  au- 
 thority dost  thou  these  things  ? ''  So  that  in 
 the  language  of  our  Lord  himself,  '  coming 
 from  heaven'  is  equivalent  to  coming  with  di- 
 vine authority^'. 
 
 Secondly,  This  sense  best  suits  the  connexion 
 of  the  words.     The  second  clause,  '  came  down 
 
 For  the  Son  of  Mao,  as  it  is  here  asserted,  could  not  come  down 
 from  heaven,  where  he  had  confessedly  never  been."  Lindscy's 
 Sequel,  p.  216. 
 
 "  Compare  James  i.  17,  "  Every  good  gift  is  from  above,  and 
 come/A  tfoii/n  from  the  Father  of  light."  iii.  15 — 17,  "This  wisdom 
 descendeth  not  from  above ; . . ..  but  the  wisdom  that  is  from  above 
 is  first  pure,"  &c. 
 
 "E  coelo  descendit  yvw^i  o-faurox." — Juvenal. 
 
 *'  Audire  desidero  coelo  aliquid  lapsum."    Arnobius,  lib.  7. 
 
 It  is  observable  that  Mark  and  Luke  relate  this  incident  of  the 
 application  of  the  elders  to  demand  our  Lord's  authority,  and 
 the  reply  of  Jesus  concerning  John's  baptism,  in  the  same  words 
 as  Matthew,  as  if  they  had  been  solicitous  to  notify  to  their 
 readers  that  descending  from  heaven  signifies  nothing  more  than 
 coming  with  divine  authority.  Mark  xi.  27.  Luke  xx.  1. 
 E 
 
50  Tcdis  supposed  to  assert       [Part  L 
 
 from  heaven,'  is  correlate  to  the  first,  *  ascended 
 up  to  heaven/  It  is  therefore  to  be  understood 
 similarly.  If  the  first  clause  is  iigurativCj  the 
 second  is  figurative:  if  the  first  is  literal,  the 
 second  is  literal.  Good  writers  do  not  in  grave 
 discourse  capriciously  change  the  meaning  of 
 their  words :  and  in  this  case  there  is  no  neces- 
 sity to  suppose  a  change.  On  the  contrary,  the 
 sense  is  perfectly  clear,  intelligible  and  apposite 
 without  it. 
 
 It  is  replied,  that  it  is  no  uncommon  thing, 
 in  two  antithetic  clauses,  for  the  same  word  to 
 be  taken  in  its  primary  sense  in  one  clause, 
 and  figuratively  in  the  other.  Many  instances 
 of  this  kind,  it  is  said,  occur  in  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, of  which  1  Thess.  v.  4,  et  seq.  is  re- 
 ferred to  as  an  example:  "  Ye  are  not  in  dark- 
 ness, that  that  day  should  overtake  you  as  a 
 thief,^^"  and  the  like. 
 
 '^  This  objection  to  the  common  interpretation  of  the  second 
 clause  of  the  test  in  Jolin,  from  the  change  of  the  sense  of  an 
 important  word  without  any  notice  or  necessity,  though  so  ob- 
 vious and  forcible,  is  not,  that  I  recullcct,  mentioned  by  any 
 critic  but  Haphelius,  whose  words  1  transcribe.    Prx'f.  §  17. 
 
 "  Coronidis  loco  objeclioni  cuidani  adhiic  respondendum  est. 
 Scilicet  faeile  qiiisqaam  putet,  si  ascenilere  in  coelum  idem  sit  quod 
 scire  mystcria  divina,  oppositum  desrendcrc,  idem  fore  quod 
 iiesdre.  Ad  quam  objectioiiem  respondit  Dunnhaucrus  quod  ejus 
 nulla  sit  stMiuda,  quia  nihil  sit  insolilura  inter  duas  voces  opposi- 
 
Sect.  S.]     the  Pre-eiistence  of  Christ,  51 
 
 But  it  may  be  answered  that  such  a  chano:e, 
 in  the  meaning  of  the  same  word  in  the  same 
 sentence  without  notice,  is  not  common,  nor  to 
 be  admitted  without  necessity. 
 
 3.  "  Who  is  in  heaven." 
 
 This  clause  is  omitted  in  the  Vatican  and 
 some  other  manuscripts,  and  is  at  least  of  doubt- 
 ful authenticity.  See  Griesbach  ;  and  the  Im- 
 proved Version. 
 
 Of  those  who  receive  it  as  genuine,  the  be- 
 lievers in  the  deity  of  Christ  understand  it  as 
 expressing  his  omnipresence^*. 
 
 Arians   and   Socinians  translate  the    words, 
 
 tas,  unam  propric,  alteram  figuratc,  accipi.  Non  probaTit  hanc 
 siiam  thesin  exemplis,  quoniam  operae  pretium  baud  esse  duxit: 
 cum  plurima  ejus  rci  occurrant  in  S.  Codice.  Unicum  solum- 
 iiiodo  allegabo,  1  Thess.  v.  4.  seqq.  ubi  in  una  oratione  dujE  Toces 
 vox  atque  dies  modo  proprie  modo  improprie  accipiuntur,  nti 
 facile  intelliget  qui  verba  Pauli  debita  animi  considerabit  atten- 
 tione." 
 
 It  is  singular  that,  if  examples  are  so  numerous,  only  one 
 should  be  produced.  At  any  rate  this  change  of  signification  is 
 not  to  be  admitted  without  obvious  necessity.  It  is  a  fair  re- 
 mark, that  if  '  ascending  to  heaven'  signifies  kno^ving  the  divine 
 counsels,  '  descending  from  heaven'  may  signify  not  knowing 
 them.  But  the  figure  is  preserved  if  the  person  spoken  of 
 ascends  to  learn  heavenly  truths,  and  descends  to  communicate 
 them.  And  this  sense  is  confirmed  by  the  language  of  Jesus 
 concerning  John's  baptism  :    Matt.  xxi.  25. 
 
 '*  IFho  is  in  henven,'\  as  "  he  is  now  present  there  by  his  di- 
 vine nature,  which  fills  both  heaven  and  earth."  Doddiidgc. 
 See  \Vhitl)v.. 
 
 E  2 
 
52  Texts  supposed  to  assert        [Part  I. 
 
 "  who  was  in  heaven/'  So  John  ix.  25, 
 "  V/hereas  I  n^as  blind,  now  I  see^K"  Tiie 
 Arians  understand  the  clause  of  the  pre- 
 existence  of  Christ ;  the  Socinians,  of  his 
 translation  to  heaven  after  his  baptism. 
 
 The  Unitarians  in  general  consider  it  as  a 
 continuation  of  the  figure  or  allegory  in  the 
 first  and  second  clauses.    "  The  Son  of  Man, 
 
 *'  'O  toy  £y  ru)  ypavu),  \\ho  was  in  heaven.  Compare  chap. 
 ix.  25,  rv(p\os  U3V,  apTi  ^Xeinv'  and  chap,  i.  18,  The  only-begot- 
 ten Son,  6  CUV  £us  rov  xuAtfov,  who  is  or  was  in  the  bosom  of  the 
 Father.  "  This,"  says  Dr.  Harwood  (Soc.  Scheme,  p.  3?,)  "  is 
 so  direct,  positive,  and  solemn  an  assertion  of  the  pre-existence 
 of  our  Saviour  from  the  mouth  of  our  blessed  Lord  himself,  that 
 I  see  not  what  criticism  can  evade  it.  The  ancient  Socinians  in- 
 deed framed  a  hypothesis  that  our  Lord  after  his  baptism  was 
 caught  up  into  heaven.  But  this  journey  to  paradise,  which  has 
 so  much  the  air  of  a  Mahometan  tale,  has  no  existence  in  the 
 sacred  page." — "  Nothing  can  be  more  unreasonable  and  ground- 
 less," says  Dr.  Clarke  (Sciijjf.  Doct.  p.  84,  No.  574,)  "  than  the 
 Socinians'  interpretation  of  this  passage,  who  feign  that  Christ 
 was  taken  up  into  heaven,  as  Moses  of  old  into  the  mount,  to 
 receive  his  instructions,  and  then  came  down  again  to  preach." 
 Perhaps  a  Socinian  might  justly  retort  upon  these  learned  diTincs, 
 that  his  fiction  is  at  least  as  probable  as  the  Arian  fiction  of  a 
 created  Logos,  who,  being  invested  with  such  stupendous  powers 
 as  to  supersede  the  Deity  himself  in  the  creation,  support,  and  go- 
 vernment of  the  universe,  reduced  himself  afterwards,  by  a  meta- 
 morphosis more  wonderful  than  any  recorded  by  the  Roman  poet, 
 to  the  condition  of  a  senseless  and  helpless  infant.  But  it  is  time 
 to  abstain  from  harsh  language  and  injurious  reflections.  These 
 are  not  the  weapons  by  which  this  important  contest  is  to  be  de- 
 cided, and  the  battle  won. 
 
Sect.  3.]     ihc  Frc-cxhtencc  of  Christ.  53 
 
 who  IS  lii  licaveii,  wlio  is  instructed  in  the 
 gracious  purposes  of  God  to  man'^^\'* 
 
 The  true  sense  of  the  whole  text  may  there- 
 fore he  expressed  thus  : 
 
 No  one  has  ever  been  admitted  to  a  partici- 
 pation of  the  divine  counsels,  except  the  Son  of 
 Man,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who  has  been  com- 
 missioned to  reveal  the  will  of  God  to  men,  and 
 who  is  perfectly  instructed  and  qualified  for  this 
 office. 
 
 This  text  seems  to  be  exactly  parallel  to 
 John  i.  18:  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
 time :  the  only-begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the 
 bosom  of  his  Father^  he  hath  declared  him/' 
 
 q,  d.  No  one  knows  the  purposes  of  God, 
 but  his  faithful  servant  and  messenger  Jesus 
 Christ,  who  is  instructed  in  his  counsels,  and  has 
 revealed  his  will. 
 
 **  This  interpretation  of  the  text  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Unita- 
 rians. Le  Cicrc  sa)  s,  "  II  fuiit  expliquer  ccci  conimc  I'expression 
 monterau  del:  c'est  k  dire,  dela  counoissance  qne  Notre  Seigneur 
 avoit  nciie  des  secrets  dn  ciel.  Voyez  ch,  i,  18."  Dr.  Campbell 
 also  refers  to  the  same  text,  which  he  explains  in  a  similar  way: 
 "  liy  the  expression  6  wv  £1$  rov  xoXttov,  '  who  is  in  the  bosom 
 of  the  Father,'  is  meant  not  only  who  is  the  special  object  of  the 
 Father's  love,  but  who  is  admitted  to  his  most  secret  counsels. 
 By  0  ujv  sv  ru)  spavuj,  '  who  is  in  heaven,'  is  meant  whose  abode, 
 whose  residence,  whose  home  is  there." 
 
54  Te.rts  supposed  to  assert       [Part  I. 
 
 To  the  same  purpose,  Matt.  xi.  27,  "  All 
 things  are  dehvered  to  me  by  my  Father,  and 
 no  man  knovveth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  neither 
 knoweth  aiiy  man  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and 
 he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him." 
 
 q.  d.  The  Father  has  communicated  to  the 
 Son  his  whole  v/ill ;  and  no  one  knoweth  the 
 extent  of  the  Son's  commission  but  the  Father. 
 Nor  is  any  one  instructed  in  the  mind  and  will 
 of  God  but  the  Son,  and  those  who  are  taught 
 by  him  ^7. 
 
 From  this  illustration  of  the  text  the  follow- 
 ing conclusions  are  deducible. 
 
 1.]  That  the  phrase  '  to  descend  from  hea- 
 ven' does  not  necessarily  and  universally  signify 
 a  local  descent. 
 
 2.]  That  this  phrase,  according  to  our  Lord's 
 own  interpretation  and  use  of  it,  Matt.  xxi.  25, 
 sometimes  expresses  nothing  more  than  coming 
 with  a  divine  commission  and  authority. 
 
 3.]  It  is  therefore  no  perversion  of  plain  lan- 
 guage to  understand  and  explain  these  words 
 in  this  sense  ;  the  sense  in  which  our  Lord  him- 
 self explained  them. 
 
 "  See  Improved  Version.  "  Monstrat  orationis  series  agi  do 
 mysteriis  ad  salutem  humanam  pertinentibus,  quorum  revelatio 
 Filio  est  credita."     Grotius.   Sec  likcM'ise  Lc  Clerc  in  loc. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Vrc-existence  of  Christ,  55 
 
 4.]  That  from  the  phrase  '  he  came  down 
 from  heaven/  no  argument  can  be  derived  in 
 favour  of  the  pre-existence  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 unless  these  words  occur  in  a  connexion  uhich 
 makes  itabsolutely  necessary  to  understand  them 
 in  a  Uteral  and  local  sense  ^^ 
 
 IV. 
 
 John  iii.  31.  "He  that  cometh  from  above  is 
 above  all :  He  that  is  of  the  earth  is  earthjj 
 and  speaketh  of  the  earth :  He  that  cometh 
 from  heaven  is  above  all." 
 
 '  He  that  cometh  from  above'  or  '  from  hea- 
 ven/ is  he  who  cometh  with  a  divine  commis- 
 sion and  authority.  *  He  that  is  of  the  earth'  is 
 a  teacher  v\'ho  has  no  pretensions  to  such  autho- 
 rity,— the  priests  and  Levites  who  instructed 
 the  people  and  expounded  the  law.  Their  in- 
 structions were  fallible  and  imperfect :   those  of 
 
 "  No  stress  is  laid  (though  possibly  it  might  bear  in  argu- 
 ment) upon  the  absurdity  of  the  Jewish  notion  of  a  lociil  Ijeaven 
 above  the  firnianieiitj  where  God  and  angels  reside,  and  where 
 Jesus  is  supposed  to  have  existed  previously  to  his  incarnation. 
 Modern  discoveries  in  astronomy  amply  refute  this  puerile  hypo- 
 thesis. God  is  at  all  times  equally  and  every  where  present. 
 And  heaven  is  a  state,  and  not  a  place.  To  bo  perfectly  vir- 
 tiious  and  perfectly  happy  is  to  be  in  hoaven,  uhatcvcr  be  the 
 iycal  situation  of  the  being  in  question,     ,^^    .,^.  j;  ,;(,'.  ^  /:  .-, 
 
56  Texts  supposed  to  assert       [Part  I. 
 
 Jesus,  the  prophet  of  the  Most  High,  were  in- 
 falhble  and  divine. 
 
 Or,  as  Mr.  Lindsey  supposes,  perhaps  the 
 Baptist  may  refer  to  himself  and  to  former  pro- 
 phets and  messengers  of  God,  and  may  mean 
 to  speak  modestly  and  disparagingly  of  his  own 
 authority  and  commission  from  God,  in  com- 
 parison with  that  of  Jesus,  which  was  indeed  far 
 more  illustrious  and  divine.  See  Mr.  Lindsey's 
 Sequel,  p.  217  ;  and  Grotius  in  loc. 
 
 V. 
 
 John  vi.  33.  "  The  bread  of  God  is  that  which 
 cometh  down  from  heaven  and  giveth  life  to  the 
 world." 
 
 Ver.  35.  "  I  am  that  bread  of  life.'' 
 
 Ver.  38.  "  For  I  came  down  from  heaven 
 not  to  do  my  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that 
 sent  me." 
 
 Ver.  42.  "  They  said,  Is  not  this  Jesus  the 
 son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we 
 know ;  how  is  it  then  that  he  saith,  I  come 
 down  from  heaven?" 
 
 Ver.  62.  "  What  and  if  you  shall  see  the  Son 
 of  Man  ascend  up  where  he  was  before  ?" 
 
 As  the  greatest  possible  stress  is  laid  by  the 
 advocates  for  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  upon 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Tre-existence  of  Christ.  57 
 
 the  expressions  which  our  Lord  uses  in  this  dis- 
 course, it  is  necessary  to  consider  them  in  their 
 connexion. 
 
 It  has  been  already  proved  that  '  to  come 
 down  from  heaven'  is  a  phrase  not  unfrequently 
 used  to  express  coming  with  divine  authority. 
 The  only  question  therefore  is,  whether  there  is 
 any  thing  in  the  connexion  in  which  the  words 
 occur  in  this  discourse  which  limits  their  signi- 
 fication to  a  local  descent. 
 
 After  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  and  fishes,  Je- 
 sus crossed  the  sea  of  Galilee  ;  and  the  next  day 
 the  multitude  followed  him,  with  a  determina- 
 tion to  compel  him  to  assume  the  title  of  king. 
 The  miracle  he  had  wrought  convinced  thera 
 that  he  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  he  was  able 
 to  deliver  their  country  from  the  tyranny  of  the 
 Roman  government.  Jesus,  knowing  their 
 mean  and  secular  views,  resolved  to  release 
 himself  from  these  selfish  and  unworthy  attend- 
 ants ;  and  for  this  purpose  he  delivers  a  dis- 
 course which  they  could  not  comprehend,  and 
 the  design  of  which  was  to  shoclv  their  preju- 
 dices, to  disgust  their  feelings,  and  to  alienate 
 them  from  his  society. 
 
 Ver.  25.  The  multitude,  having  found  him, 
 
5B  Teiis  supposed  to  assert       [Part  I. 
 
 begin  the  conversation  with  the  question,  "  Rab- 
 bi, when  earnest  thou  hither:'' 
 
 Ver.  26,  27.  Jesus  dechnes  giving  a  direct 
 answer,  and  reproves  their  selfish  and  secular 
 motives  : 
 
 "  Verily,  ye  seek  me  not  because  ye  saw 
 miracles,  but  because  ye  ate  of  the  loaves. 
 Labour  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but 
 for  that  which  endureth  to  everlasting  life, 
 which  the  Son  of  Man  shall  give  you,  for  to 
 him  the  Father,  that  is  God,  hath  given  his  at- 
 testation 29." 
 
 Ver.  28.  They  then  asked  him,  "  What  are 
 the  works  which  God  requireth  us  to  do?'' 
 
 Ver.  29-  "  Jesus  answered,  That  ye  believe 
 on  him  whom  God  hath  commissioned." 
 
 Ver.  30, 31.  "They  replied,  What  miracle 
 doest  thou,  that  seeing  it  we  may  believe  thee.^ 
 Our  fathers  ate  manna  in  the  desert,  as  it  is 
 written,  '  He  gave  them  bread  from  heaven  to 
 ^at.' " 
 
 The  Jews  expected  that  when  the  Messiah 
 came,  he  would  be  made  known  by  some  pub- 
 lic visible  sign  from  heaven.     See  Matt.  \vi.  1 ; 
 
 '^  Sec  Dr.  Campbell's  Translation. 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  Prc-exisience  nf  Christ,         59 
 
 xxiv.  3.  1  Cor.  i.  22.  This  is  wliat  the  multi- 
 tude now  ask  for.  Notwithstanding  the  great 
 miracle  of  the  loa^■es,  they  are  not  perfectly  sa- 
 tisfied till  they  obtain  this  visible  sign  ;  which 
 they  are  the  more  encouraged  to  expect,  as, 
 Moses  actually  exhibited  a  sign  of  this  descrip- 
 tion, viz.  the  manna  which  descended  from 
 heaven. 
 
 Ver.  32,  S3.  "  Jesus  said  to  them,  J\Ioses  did 
 not  give  you  that  bread  from  heaven  ;  but  my 
 feather  is  giving  you  the  true  bread  from  heaven. 
 For  the  bread  of  God  is  that  which  is  descend- 
 ing from  heaven,  and  giveth  light  to  the  world.'* 
 
 Jesus  here  speaks  figuratively.  He  means 
 the  doctrine  of  eternal  life  which  he  was  com- 
 missioned to  teach.  But  he  uses  ambiguous 
 language,  which  the  multitude  understood  lite- 
 rally, and  expected  the  immediate  descent  of 
 some  species  of  food  better  than  the  manna 
 which  Moses  had  oiven  to  their  ancestors. 
 
 o 
 
 Ver.  34.  "  They  said  to  him,  Master,  give 
 us  always  this  bread." 
 
 Ver.  35 — 40.  Jesus  now  confounds  and  per- 
 plexes their  understandings  b}-  speaking  of  him- 
 self personally  as  the  promised  bread  from 
 heaven  : 
 
 "  Jesus  answered,    I  am   the  bread  of  life. 
 
60  Texts  supposed  to  assert       [Part  L 
 
 He  who  cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger,  he 
 who  believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst.  All 
 whom  the  Father  giveth  me  will  come  to  me. 
 But  I  descended  from  heaven  not  to  do  my  own 
 will,  but  the  will  of  him  who  sent  me.  This  is 
 the  will  of  him  who  sent  me,  that  whoever  ac- 
 knowledgeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him, 
 should  obtain  eternal  life,  and  that  I  should 
 raise  him  up  at  the  last  day." 
 
 Jesus  is  the  bread  from  heaven — but  this 
 bread  is  his  doctrme,  as  all  allow, — his  person 
 therefore  is  here  put  for  his  doctrine,  which  like 
 manna  comes  from  heaven.  But  having  men- 
 tioned himself  personally,  he  speaks  of  a  per- 
 sonal descent  from  heaven,  that  is,  as  has  been 
 already  proved,  of  a  divine  mission.  But  the 
 Jews,  taking  the  whole  literally,  are  puzzled  to 
 account  for  his  singular  and,  as  they  thought, 
 extravagant  language. 
 
 Ver.  41,  42.  "  The  Jews  murmured  against 
 him,  because  he  said  I  am  the  bread  which  de- 
 scended from  heaven.  And  they  said.  Is  not 
 this  Jesus  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and 
 mother  we  know  ^" ;  how  then  doth  he  say,  I 
 descended  from  heaven?" 
 
 ^  Observe  how  currently  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  the  son  of  Jo- 
 seph, and  as  one  whose  father  and  mother  were  well  known  ;  and 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Pre-exist ence  of  Christ.  6l 
 
 Ver.  43 — 51.  Jesus  continues  to  assert  the 
 divinity  of  his  mission  and  the  vivifying  power 
 of  his  doctrine,  in  language  still  more  offensive 
 and  unintelligible  to  the  multitude : 
 
 "  Jesus  therefore  answered,  Murmur  not 
 among  yourselves.  No  man  can  come  unto  me 
 unless  the  Father  who  hath  sent  me  draw  him, 
 and  him  I  will  raise  up  at  the  last  day.  Every 
 one  who  hath  heard  and  learned  from  the  Fa- 
 ther cometh  unto  me.  Not  that  any  man,  ex- 
 cept him  who  is  from  God,  hath  seen  the 
 Father.  He  that  believeth  on  me  hath  eternal 
 life.  I  am  the  bread  of  life.  Your  fathers  ate 
 the  manna  in  the  desert,  and  died.  This  is  the 
 bread  which  is  descending  from  heaven,  that 
 whoso  eateth  thereof  may  not  die.  I  am  the 
 living  bread  which  descended  from  heaven. 
 Whoso  eateth  of  this  bread  shall  live  for  ever : 
 and  the  bread  which  I  shall  give  is  my  flesh, 
 which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world." 
 
 Our  Lord  first  states  plainly  that  he  had  a 
 
 this  without  any  remark  by  the  evangelist  to  caution  his  readers 
 against  the  popular  error  concerning  his  natirity,  which  surely  he 
 would  have  done  if  he  had  known  any  thing  of  our  Lord's  mira- 
 culous conception,  especially  as  he  had  omitted  that  fact  in  his 
 history. 
 
(>2  Texts  supposed  to  assert        [Part  L 
 
 mission  from  the  Father,  and  that  all  who  prac- 
 tically behevpd  his  doctrine  should  be  entitled 
 to  eternal  life.  He  then  expresses  the  same  sen- 
 timents in  figurative  language.  Moses  gave 
 manna  from  heaven,  he  gives  bread  from  hea- 
 ven— those  who  ate  manna  were  mortal,  those 
 who  eat  his  bread  are  immortal — nay,  he  is  him- 
 self this  life-giving  bread — to  become  immortal 
 they  must  eat  him,  his  very  flesh,  which  he  is 
 ready  to  impart  to  them  for  this  purpose. 
 
 What  can  this  mean,  but  that  he  was  ready 
 freely  to  impart  his  heavenly  doctrine?  But 
 the  Jews,  understanding  him  hterally,  are  lost 
 in  astonishment  at  the  extravagance  of  his  dis- 
 course. 
 
 Ver.  52.  "  The  Jews  then  debated  among 
 themselves,  saying.  How  can  this  man  give  us 
 his  flesh  to  eat  ?" 
 
 Ver.  i)S — 58.  Jesus,  knowing  their  mean  and 
 secular  motives,  and  desirous  of  being  forsaken 
 by  them,  does  not  condescend  to  correct  their 
 mistake,  but  proceeds  to  expr^^ss  himself  in  lan- 
 guage still  more  offensive  and  disgusting  : 
 
 "  I  say  unto  you,  Unless  ye  eat  the  flesh  of 
 the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have 
 no  life  in  you.     He  that  ealeth  my  tiesh  and 
 
Sect.  S.]     the.  Prc-existence  of  Christ.  63 
 
 drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life,  and  I  will 
 raise  him  again  at  the  last  day.  For  my  flesh 
 is  truly  meat,  and  my  blood  is  truly  drink.  He 
 who  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood 
 abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  As  the  Father  liv- 
 eth  who  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  so 
 lie  that  eateth  me  shall  live  by  me.  This  is  the 
 bread  which  descended  from  heaven.  It  is  not 
 like  the  manna  which  your  fathers  ate,  for  they 
 died.  He  that  eateth  this  bread  shall  live  for 
 ever. 
 
 It  is  universally  agreed  that  the  meaning  of 
 our  Lord  in  this  highly  iigurative  passage  is, 
 that  the  man  who  receives,  digests,  and  practi- 
 cally improves  his  divine  and  hea\  eniy  doctrine, 
 shall  be  raised  by  him  to  everlasting  life.  This 
 doctrine  he  compares  to  bread  from  heaven, 
 from  God,  far  excelling  the  manna  which  their 
 fathers  ate.  He  further  compares  it  to  his  own. 
 person,  his  flesh,  his  blood ;  w  Inch  bread,  which 
 person,  which  flesh  and  blood  descending  from 
 heaven,  will  make  those  who  eat  and  drink  it 
 immortal. 
 
 The  Jews  observing  the  seriousness  and  so.- 
 lemnity  of  our  Lord's  manner,  and  understand- 
 ing his  declarations  in  a  strict  literal  sense,  are 
 more  offended  and  distrusted  than  ever,  and  re- 
 
64  Texts  supposed  to  assert      [Part  I. 
 
 solve  to  forsake  his  society,  probably  conceiving 
 him  to  be  disordered  in  his  mind*'  ! 
 
 Ver.  60.  "  Many  of  his  disciples  having  heard 
 it,  said,  This  is  hard  doctrine,  who  can  bear 
 it?" 
 
 This  is  such  extravagant  unintelligible  raving, 
 that  it  is  impossible  to  endure  it  any  longer. 
 
 They  did  not  speak  out :  but  Jesus  judged 
 from  their  looks  and  whisperings  what  passed  in 
 their  minds :  and  in  order  to  fix  them  in  their 
 purpose  of  leaving  him,  he  adds  one  more  re- 
 mark in  the  same  strain,  which  served  to  con- 
 firm them  in  their  former  opinion  : 
 
 Ver.  6 1 — 62.  "  Does  this  otiend  you?  What 
 then,  if  you  should  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascend- 
 ing thither  where  he  was  before"^-.'*'' 
 
 *'  Our  Lord's  own  friends  and  near  relations  suspected  him  at 
 times  to  be  beside  himself.  Mark  iii.  '21.  See  2  Cor.  v.  13.  And 
 his  enemies  repeatedly,  publicly,  and  witlioiit  any  regard  to  de- 
 cency, charged  him  with  insanity.  John  viii.  48,  "  Say  we  not  well 
 that  thou  art  a  Samaritan,  and  hast  a  demon  ?"  q.d.  a  blasphemer 
 and  a  madman.  John  x,  '20,  "  Many  said,  He  hath  a  demon  and  is 
 mad,  Why  hear  ye  him  ?"  q.  d.  Why  do  you  listen  to  a  mau  that  is 
 raving  mad?  Ver.  21;  "Others  said'' more  justly,  "Thesearenot 
 the  words  of  him  that  hath  a  demon,"  q  d.  of  a.  madman,  "  Can 
 a  demon,"  q.d.  a  madman,  "  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind'?"  See 
 Improved  Ver>ion,  in  ioc. 
 
 **  This  text  h;is  alwnys  been  considered  as  the  strong  hold  of 
 Arianisuij  the  paiiuiny  ;ijj;unieut  for  liie  pro-existence  of  Jesus 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Fre-ciidaict  of  Christ.  65 
 
 q.  d.  Are  you  so  disgu.sted  wiih  ^vhat  I  have 
 said,  as  to  be  upon  the  point  of  deserting  me, 
 after  all  your  professions  of  regard  :  What  then 
 
 Christ;  and  the  glosii-s  as  they  arc  called,  of  the  Sociiiians  and 
 Unitarians,  hy  which  they  evade  what  is  stated  to  Ixj  ihe  plain  ob- 
 vious meaning  of  the  text,  are  animadverted  upon  with  no  light 
 degree  of  severity.  And  Unitarians  themselves  have  appeared 
 almost  to  despair  of  giving  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  it. 
 
 Dr.  Price,  in  the  Appendix  to  his  Sermons,  p  39^2,  says  :  "  I 
 ninst  think  this  text  as  decisive  a  declaration  of  Christ's  pre- 
 existence  by  himself  as  words  can  well  express.  Were  I,  what 
 some  of  my  best  friends  wish  to  see  me,  a  Socinian,  I  should 
 probably  in  this  case,  instead  of  seeming  to  wrest  a  phiin  text, 
 either  give  it  up  and  own  a  dilTicuIfy,  or  with  a  magnanimous 
 openness,  like  that  of  Dr.  Priestley  in  objecting  to  the  authority  of 
 IMoses  and  Paul,  (piestion  the  propriety  of  building  an  article  of 
 faith,  of  such  magnitude,  upon  the  correctness  of  John's  recol- 
 lection and  representation  of  our  Lord's  language." 
 
 But  with  the  permission  of  tJiis  able  and  candid  writer,  our 
 Lord's  language  by  no  means  necessarily  implies  his  prc-existcnce, 
 even  if  it  should  be  taken  in  its  literal  acceptation  :  for  in  this 
 sense  it  better  expresses  the  Socinian  hypothesis  of  a  personal 
 ascent  to  heavert  previously  to  his  public  appearance,  than  the 
 Arian  notion  of  a  pre-existent  Logos.  It  seems  to  have  escaped 
 the  attention  of  the  learned  advocates  for  Arianism,  that  it  is  the 
 Son  of  ^lan,  not  the  Son  of  God,  it  is  Jesus  in  his  human  form, 
 that  is  spoken  of  as  having  been  in  heaven  before.  There  is  no 
 occasion,  theret'ore,  at  any  rate,  to  have  recourse  to  the  supposi- 
 tion of  a  lapse  of  memory  in  the  evangelist.  The  interpre- 
 tation proposed  above  appears  to  me  to  explain  (he  text  satis- 
 factorily without  the  supposition  of  a  local  ascent  :  but  it  is  offer- 
 ed with  diTidence  to  the  candid  and  inipiisitive  reader,  as  the  au- 
 thor docs  not  recollect  to  have  met  with  it  before,  though  Le 
 Clcrc  seems  to  hiut  at  something  bin;ilar.  To  (he  deeply  preju- 
 F 
 
66  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 would  you  say,  if,  after  having  eaten  my  flesh 
 and  drunk  my  blood,  you  should  see  me  in  my 
 own  person  ascending  up  to  heaven  again,  from 
 whence,  as  I  told  3^ou,  I  the  bread  of  life  came 
 down  ? 
 
 This  language  must  have  appeared  to  our 
 Lord's  selfish  and  ambitious  followers,  who  un- 
 derstood it  all  in  a  literal  sense,  more  absurd 
 and  extravagant  than  any  thing  which  they 
 had  heard  before  ;  and  would  no  doubt  fix  them, 
 in  their  resolution  to  renounce  all  connexion 
 with  him. 
 
 It  is,  however,  highly  probable  that  our  Lord 
 still  intended  the  same  thing  by  the  same  figu- 
 rative expressions.  By  his  person,  the  Son  of 
 Man,  he  still  means  his  doctrine.  By  ascending 
 up  where  he  was  before,  i.  c.  to  heaven,  he  still 
 means  the  knowledge  of  sublime  and  mysteri- 
 ous truths,  beyond  the  reach  of  common  appre- 
 hension. 
 
 The  sense  then  appears  to  be  this :  Are  you 
 oflended  at  what  I  have  already  taught :  What 
 would  you  say  if  I  were  to  reveal  truths  still 
 
 diced,  and  to  those  who  arc  not  accustomed  to  judge  of  tiie  sense 
 of  a  passage  by  the  connexion  and  context,  it  will  necessarily  ap- 
 pear harsh  and  unnatural.  To  the  juilgcnient  of  the  calm,  serious, 
 and  inipartia!  inquirer  it  is  now  submitted. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Pre-existence  of  Christ.  67 
 
 more  foreign  to  your  conceptions,  and  more  of- 
 fensive to  your  prejudices? 
 
 Exactly  corresponding  with  this  is  our  Lord's 
 remark  to  Nicodenms  :  John  iii.  12,  "  If  I  have 
 told  you  earthly  things  and  ye  believe  not, 
 how  shall  ye  believe  if  I  tell  you  of  heavenly 
 things  ?" 
 
 This  will  be  called  a  forced  interpretation. 
 And  it  is  certainly  very  different  from  the  plain 
 literal  meaning  of  the  words.  But  it  is  most 
 ao-reeable  to  the  connexion.  It  is  nothing;  more 
 than  a  continuation  of  the  same  allegory,  in 
 which,  throughout,  our  Lord's  doctrine  is  repre- 
 sented by  him  as '  bread  %om  heaven,'  as  '  living 
 or  life-giving  bread,'  as  ••  himself,'  as  *  his  own 
 flesh  and  blood,'  which  must  be  eaten  and  drunk 
 in  order  to  secure  immortal  life. 
 
 Seeing  the  offence  which  his  discourse  had 
 already  given,  what  could  be  more  suitable 
 to  his  design  than  to  add,  What  if  I  should 
 speak  truths  which  would  be  still  more  obscure 
 and  offensive  ?  or,  in  the  language  of  the  alle- 
 gory, What  if  you  see  me  the  Son  of  Man  (/.  e. 
 my  doctrine)  ascend  to  heaven  where  I  was 
 before,  i.  e.  go  further  out  of  your  reach,  and 
 become  still  more  perplexing  and  mysterious  ? 
 Thus  the  text  appears  not  as  an  insulated 
 r2 
 
66  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  L 
 
 remark  unconnected  with  the  context ;  but  as 
 an  observation  appropriate  to  the  occasion,  and 
 couched  in  lan<ruao;e  similar  to  what  he  had  al- 
 leady  used  ;  not  more  harsh  than  the  tenor  of 
 the  preceding  discourse,  but  made  purposely 
 obscure  and  offensive,  that  "  seeing  they  might 
 see  and  not  perceive,  and  hearing  they  might 
 hear  and  not  understand/^  Luke  viii.  10. 
 
 It  is  obvious  to  remark  that  the  words  taken 
 in  this  sense  have  no  relation  to  the  pre-exist- 
 ence  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 Also,  if  this  be  the  true  interpretation,  there 
 is  no  reference  in  the^Bd  verse  to  our  Lord's 
 local  ascension;  nor  m  the  preceding  discourse 
 is  there  any  allusion  eilher  to  his  death,  or  to 
 his  supposed  atonement,  or  to  the  institution  of 
 the  eucharist.  The  whole  discourse  relates  to 
 his  divine  and  heavenly  doctrine  only. 
 
 At  the  conclusion,  our  Lord  suggests  a  hint 
 that  his  laniruage  was  to  be  taken  in  a  fioura- 
 tive  and  not  in  a  literal  sense. 
 
 Ver.  6S.  "  It  is  the  spirit  that  givetli  life  ;  the 
 flesh  profiteth  nothing  :  the  words  which  I  speak 
 unto  you,  they  arc  spirit  and  they  are  life." 
 
 fj.  d.  It  is  the  hidden  meaning  of  my  enig- 
 matical discourse  which  alone  is  useful.  If  you 
 could  actually  eat  my  liesh  it  would  do  you  no 
 
Sect.  3.]     Uic  Trc-cxislcnce  of  Christ.  69 
 
 sood.  The  doctrine  which  I  teach  is  that  hea- 
 venly  bread,  that  flesh  and  blood,  which  if  re- 
 ceived, digested,  and  reduced  to  a  hving  prin- 
 ciple of  action,  will  lead  to  everlasting  life. 
 
 This  declaration  of  Christ  is  a  key  to  the 
 whole  preceding  discourse.  But  the  selfish  and 
 ambitious  persons  who  were  in  his  train  were 
 too  much  disgusted  with  what  they  had  already 
 lieard,  to  listen  to  any  explanation.  They  found 
 that  Jesus  was  not  the  man  to  take  the  lead  in 
 a  pohtical  revolution.  Their  ambitious  projects 
 Mere  disappointed,  and  they  abandoned  his 
 party. 
 
 Ver.  66.  "  From  that  time  many  of  his  disci- 
 ples went  liack,  and  walked  no  more  with  him." 
 
 This  was  what  our  Lord  desired.  He  was 
 now  deserted  by  those  who  had  followed  him 
 from  mercenary  and  political  motives  only. 
 He  was  no  longer  teased  to  assume  a  secular 
 crown :  and  he  was  left  in  privacy  with  the 
 apostles  and  a  few  others  whom  he  had  selected, 
 and  whom  he  gradually  instructed  and  (pialified 
 to  propagate  his  gospel  in  the  work]. 
 
 VI. 
 
 John  viii.  4'2.  "  If  God  \yerc  your  Father,  ye 
 would  love  me;  for  I  proceeded  and  nm  come 
 
70  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 from  God.  I  came  not  of  myself ;  but  he  sent 
 me. 
 
 Dr.  Whitby  and  Dr.  Doddridge  think  that 
 in  these  words  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  eter- 
 nal generation  of  the  Son ;  the  word  s^iX^sof, 
 to  proceed,  not  being  applied  to  any  other  apo- 
 stle or  prophet. 
 
 But  as  it  is  said  of  Jesus,  that  '  he  was  in  the 
 beginning  with  God,'  to  express  his  divine  in- 
 struction and  commission,  so  the  expressions  *he 
 proceeded,'  or '  came  out  from  the  Father'  and 
 came  to  mankind,  very  naturally  indicate  that 
 he  was  the  chosen  messenger  of  God  to  the 
 human  race"^^. 
 
 The  last  clause  explains  the  preceding.  Com- 
 pare John  xiii.  3 ;  xvi.  27,  28.  30. 
 
 VII. 
 
 John  viii.  58.  "  Jesus  answered,  Verily,  verily, 
 I  say  unto  you.  Before  Abraham  was  born"^*, 
 I  am.'^ 
 
 ^' E^>j A 6ov  xai' Y-uj'  g.  d.  s^BKhjv  rjKUJ,  'a  Deo  missus  sum.' 
 Grotius.     See  Lardner  on  the  Logos,  p.  21. 
 
 **  Before  Abraham  was  born.']  ntf^iv  Af^aa/x-  yivev^ai,  syu  si^j^i. 
 So  Anian  Epict.  itpiv  ^lififox^arr)  ysvsaSai,  'before  Hippocrates 
 ■was  born.'  Raphel.  in  loc.  who  cites  other  parallel  instances 
 from  Herodotus.  Upiv  ysvsa-^ai  ij/^aj,  '  before  we  were  born.' 
 Platen.  Phaedon.    See  Wolfius,  and  Archbishop  Newcome. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Fre-exhience  of  Chrht,  71 
 
 This  text  is  held  up  as  a  triumphant  argu-  . 
 ment  for  the  deity,  or  at  least  the  pre-existence, 
 of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 1.  "  I  that  am  truth  itself/'  says  Dr.  Guyse  in 
 his  paraphrase  upon  the  text,  "  assuredly  tell  you 
 that  how  young  soever  I  be,  yet  before  Abra- 
 ham was  born,  and  before  all  worlds,  I  had  a 
 real  existence,  as  the  unchangeable  I  AM,  who 
 ordered  Moses  to  speak  of  me  to  your  fathers 
 under  that  name." 
 
 "  Something  more  is  implied,"  says  Dr.  Sher- 
 lock (Disc.  vol.  iv.,  on  Philip,  ii.  6,)  "  in  the  ex- 
 pression I  AM,  than  that  he  had  long  existed 
 before  his  comino-  into  the  world  ;  somethinor 
 peculiar,  as  we  may  learn  from  the  original  use 
 of  the  words,  they  being  the  very  same  which 
 God  made  choice  of  to  express  his  own  eter- 
 nity and  power,  when  Moses  inquired  after  his 
 name.  Now  what  could  tempt  our  Saviour  to 
 use  and  apply  this  expression  to  himself,  when 
 he  knew  that  it  had  never  been  applied  to  any 
 but  God. ^" 
 
 "  I  cannot  imagine,"  says  Dr.  Doddridge  in 
 his  Note  upon  this  text,  "  that  if  our  Lord  had 
 been  a  mere  creature,  he  would  have  ventured 
 to  express  himself  in  a  manner  so  nearly  bor- 
 
72  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I, 
 
 dering  upon  blasphemy,  or  have  permitted  his 
 beloved  disciple  so  dangerously  to  disguise  his 
 meanins:." 
 
 o 
 
 After  the  solemn  appeal  of  these  grave  and 
 learned  men  to  this  text  as  a  decisive  proof  of  the 
 deity  of  Christ,  who  would  suspect  that,  when 
 our  Lord  made  the  declaration  upon  which  this 
 important  conclusion  rests,  there  is  no  reason 
 to  believe  that  he  had  the  slightest  allusion  to 
 the  text  in  Exodus  iii.  14,  without  which  every 
 appearance  of  argument  vanishes  away  ? 
 
 The  truth  is,  that  the  translators  of  the  Old 
 Testament  having  rendered  erroneously  a  pas- 
 sage in  Exodus,  and  the  translators  of  th^ 
 New  Testament  having  also  mistranslated  a 
 text  in  John;  from  a  combination  of  the  two, 
 the  unlearned  or  inadvertent  reader  draws  a 
 conclusion  still  rnore  erroneous  and  pernicious 
 than  either  or  both  the  others. 
 
 When  Moses  asks  by  what  name  he  shall  de- 
 scribe the  Almighty  to  the  Israelites  ;  God  aur 
 swers  him,  Exod.  iii.  14,  "  I  will  be  what  I  will 
 be,'' — a  phrase  expressive  of  the  immutability  of 
 the  divine  nature  and  counsels:  which  the  public 
 version  renders,  "  I  am  that  I  am."  In  the  text 
 in  John,  our  Lord  says  to  the  Jews,  "  Before 
 Abraham  was  born,  I  was,^'   for  so  it  must  be 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Pre-ciistc?2ce  of  Christ.  73 
 
 rendered  in  order  to  make  sense,  as  expositors 
 generally  allow.  But  the  public  version  renders 
 the  words,  "  I  am;"  which,  beinn;  connected  in 
 idea  with  the  same  words  in  the  English  version 
 in  the  book  of  Exodus,  have  led  to  the  conclu- 
 sion that  our  Lord  assumed  a  title  peculiar  to 
 the  Supreme  Being  :  he  is  therefore  God,,  equal 
 to,  or  one  with,  the  Father. 
 
 It  is  plain  that  no  such  inference  would  have 
 been  thouiiht  of  had  the  translation  of  the  two 
 
 o 
 
 passages  been  more  correct.  Nor  can  it  be  rea- 
 eonably  alleged  that  the  words  of  our  Lord  are 
 a  citation  from  the  Septuagint  version  and  not 
 from  the  Hebrew  ori«:inal.  For  the  words  in  the 
 LXX.  are  Eyu  siy^i  o  Civ.  "I  am  the  Being.''  And 
 ^uch  would  probably  have  been  the  words  of 
 the  evangelist,  had  he  mtended  to  express  in 
 Greek  an  allusion  to  this  text,  which  our  Lord 
 had  delivered  in  iiis  native,  that  is  the  Syro- 
 
 chaldaic  tongue"*\ 
 
 '*  This  supposed  allusion  of  our  Lord  to  the  declaration  in 
 ]]\'odiis  is  not  notircd  either  by  Calvin  or  Beza,  though  the 
 former  understands  it  as  an  assertion  of  his  divine  nature.  The 
 latter  indeed  appears  to  incline  to  refer  tlie  expression  to  the  di- 
 vine decree  contcmiiig  Christ  as  mediator  :  "  Quatenus  est  oculis 
 fidci  visus  ab  Abrahamo — alioqui  non  vidcretur  Cliristus  apposite 
 disserere."  iN'either  the  LXX.  translation  nor  the  Latin  Vulgate 
 would  be  likely  to  lead  any  one  into  the  same  error  into  which 
 tic  Liiglish  version  leads  ^n  Knglish  reader.   The  LXX.  is  cited 
 
74  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 2.  "  Before  Abraham  was  born  I  existed." 
 The  present  tense  of  the  substantive  verb  is 
 sometimes  used  for  the  past.  John  xiv.  9? "  Have 
 I  been  (e/p,  am  I,)  so  long  time  with  you,  and 
 yet  hast  thou  not  known  me  ?"  Psalm  xc.  2, "  Be- 
 fore the  mountains  were  brought  forth  thou  wert 
 {ffu  St,  thou  art,)  God/'  John  v.  13,  "  He  that 
 was  healed  knew  not  who  it  was,"  (ng  earn,  who 
 it  is.)  In  other  verbs  the  present  is  also  some- 
 times used  for  the  preterite.  John  viii.  25, "  They 
 said  to  him.  Who  art  thou?  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
 Even  what  I  told  you  at  first,"  (XuXco,  I  tell.) 
 See  also  John  xii.  9 ;  xv.  27 ;  xx.  14 ;  xxi.  4. 
 12.    Acts  ix.  26  ^^. 
 
 above.  The  Latin  Vulgate  reads,  "  Ego  sum  qui  sum :  sic 
 dices  filiis  Israel,  Qui  est  misit  me  ad  vos."  Indeed  the  supposed 
 allusion  of  our  Lord  to  the  words  in  Exodus,  is  so  palpably 
 groundless,  and  so  completely  abandoned  by  all  learned  and  ju- 
 dicious critics,  that  one  cannot  help  wondering  that  so  enlightened 
 and  liberal  a  writer  as  Archbishop  Newcome  should  have  given 
 any  countenance  to  it. 
 
 ^  Newcome  in  loc.  "  Eywejp,  prsscns  pro  impcrfecto  :  eram. 
 syw  ireXoy.  Nonnus.  Sic  in  Gra^co.  Ps.  xc.  2"  Grotius.— "  I 
 am,  that  is,  I  was  "  Bishop  Pcarce,  who  observes  in  his  note 
 that  the  present  tense  is  sometimes  used  for  the  preterite,  and  re- 
 fers to  John  viii.  25;  i.  18.  Matt,  xxiii.  39.  and  his  notes  upoa 
 them.  "  Le  present  se  prend  souventdans  I'Ecriture  pour  I'im- 
 parfait,  qui  est  un  terns  dont  les  langues  Orientalcs  manqucut." 
 Lc  Clcrc. — "  I  assure  you  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  I  ex- 
 isted l)eforc  Abraham  drew  the  breath  of  life."  Harwood.— 
 *'  The  peculiar  use  of  the  present  tease  ia  tlie  usage  of  scrip- 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Fre-cxhtence  of  Christ.  7-5 
 
 Tlie  Jews  evidently  understood  the  language 
 of  Jesus  as  an  assertion  of  his  existence  before 
 the  birth  of  Abraham  ;  for  in  the  paroxysm  of 
 their  rage  they  took  up  stones  to  stone  him  as 
 a  liar  and  a  blasphemer. 
 
 tural  expression  is  to  imply  determination  and  certainty,  as  if  he 
 had  said,  My  mission  was  settled  and  certain  before  the  birth  of 
 Abraham."  U'akofield, — "  The  words  may  bo  rendered,  I  was. 
 The  present  for  the  imperfect,  or  even  for  the  preterperfect,  is 
 no  unusual  figure  with  this  writer."  Campbell. — "  Dixerat  prius, 
 diem  suam  ardenti  desiderio  expetitum  fuisse  ab  Abraham.  Quia 
 hoc  Judaeis  iucredibile  erat,  subjecit  se  tunc  quoque  fuissc."  Calvin. 
 
 The  expositors  and  critics  arc  almost  unanimous  in  giving  to 
 the  words  iyjj  £tju,j  the  sense  of  past  time.  Nevertheless  a  learned 
 writer  in  the  Theological  Rcp.ository,  vol.  iv.  p.  350,  objects, 
 '•.If  it  be  said  that  eyu)  bijjli  may  be  translated  /  was,  this  ap- 
 pears to  me  more  easily  asserted  than  proved.  Indeed  the  pre- 
 sent tense  of  bi[ii  in  Greek  and  of  sum  in  Latin  may  in  some 
 instances  be  translated  have  been,  but  I  imagine  in  those  only 
 where  the  present  time  is  taken  in  with  the  past,  and  a  con- 
 tinuance of  being  is  implied."  And  Dr.  Carpenter,  in  his  Letters 
 to  Mr.  Veysie,  p.  ^46,  remarks,  that  "  for  the  interpretation 
 which  requires  tyuj  si'u,  lam,  to  have  the  sense  of  J  was,  no 
 justification  appears  in  the  writings  of  John,  at  least,  if  in  any 
 part  of  the  New  Testament." 
 
 The  learned  reader  will  judge  how  far  the  evidence  alleged 
 supports  the  general  sense  of  critics  and  expositors,  that  the 
 present  tense  is  here  used  to  express  what  is  called  the  imperfect, 
 I  am,  for  /  jvas. 
 
 It  is  observable  that  in  the  text  above  cited,  John  v.  13,  the 
 Cambridge  manuscript  for  ri;  spiy  reads  rig  r^v.  The  Vulgate, 
 the  old  Italic,  and  lieza,  translate  "  quis  tsset." 
 
76  Tc2  is  supposed  to  assert        [Part  I. 
 
 This  te\t  is  regarded  by  tlie  supporters  of 
 the  Arian  hypothesis  as  a  decisive  proof  of  the 
 prc-existence  of  Christ ;  and  the  Unitarian  ex- 
 position of  it  is  treated  by  them  with  great  con- 
 tenipt^7. 
 
 "The  Socinian  interpretation  of  this  passage," 
 says   Dr.  Clarke,  (Scrip.   Doc.   No.   391.)  "  is 
 
 *''  Dr.  Ilarwood  in  his  Obscrvyfions  on  the  Socinian  Scheme, 
 |>.  4'2,  alloMS  liiriiscif  groat  fnedom  and  warmth  of  language  upon 
 Hiis  subject.  "  Tliat  plain  declaration,"  says  he,  "  of  our  Sa- 
 viour to  (he  Jews,  tliat  before  Abraham  was,  he  had  an  exist- 
 ence, will,  I  think,  for  evi-r  stand  in  full  force  against  all  the 
 acumen  of  criurism,  and  sagacity  of  refinemeJJt,  which  may  be 
 employed  to  invalidate  and  e.\j)lain  away  its  natural  and  obvious 
 significatirKJ.  The  interjiretation  that  our  Lord  had  an  existence 
 iu  the  divine  decree  before  Abraham,  and  that  it  was  before  the 
 times  of  this  patriarch  fore-ordained  that  he  shouhl  appear  in 
 such  an  age  and  state-  of  the  world,  is  extremely /flrcfof  an^  futile^ 
 and  does  not  discriminate  our  Lord  from  thyself,  O  reader,  who 
 hadst  from  tternity  an  existence  in  the  divine  decree.  It  is  plain 
 that  our  Saviour'^,  audience  took  these  words  in  their  natural  ac- 
 ceptation ;  for,  upon  his  asserting  to  them  that  he  was  in  being 
 before  their  great  anceslor,  they  were  instantly  transported  with 
 fury  against  him  as  a  blaspht-mer  and  im|)ostor,  and  took  nj) 
 stones  with  a  disign  to  murther  liim.  'ihese  actual  violences  of 
 the  Jews  prove,  1  a|)preiiend,  better  than  a  thousand  inane  and 
 chimerical  theories,  how  our  lledeemer  was  understood,  and  in- 
 tended to  be  understood." 
 
 After  all,  nohvithstanding  this  fme  declamation,  the  Jews 
 might,  for  any  tiling  tiiat  appears,  misunderstand  our  Lord's 
 ■word.*,  as  uiKjiiestionabiy  they  did. 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  Prc-exhtcncc  of  Christ.         77 
 
 very  languid  and  unnatural,  that  Christ  was 
 before  /Vbrahani  in  the  to  re  know  ledge  and  ap- 
 pointment of  God.  The  plain  meaning  is,  that 
 he  was  really  with  God  in  the  beginning,  and 
 before  the  world  was." 
 
 This  lan<rua2;e  is  rather  too  confident, 
 especially  as  the  learned  advocate  of  this 
 high-iVrian  or  semi-Arian  hypothesis  has  not 
 condescended  to  state  his  objections  to  the 
 Unitarian  interpretation.  The  venerable  bi- 
 shop Pearce  has  given  his  explanation  of 
 the  text  in  less  olTensive  terms.  "  What  Je- 
 sus here  says  relates,  I  think,  to  his  existence 
 antecedent  to  Abraham's  days,  and  not  to  his 
 having  been  the  Christ  ap|)ointed  or  foretold 
 before  that  time  :  for  if  Jesus  had  meant  this, 
 the  answer  would,  I  apprehend,  not  have  been 
 a  pertinent  one.  He  might  ha\  e  been  appoint- 
 ed, foretold,  for  the  Christ;  but  if  he  had  not 
 had  an  existence  before  Abraham's  days,  nei- 
 ther coukl  he  have  seen  Abraham,  nor  could 
 Abraham  have  seen  hini^'''^." 
 
 In  his  own  liberal  and  gentle  spirit,  Dr.  Price, 
 
 *'  The  learned  prolate  cutijccUiri'S  thit  the  cvaiigolist  wroto 
 Affaaa  ga-'ia^E  ere,  "  did  Abraham  sec  thee  ?"  whicli  he  thinks 
 would  best  suit  the  comie.vioii  :  hut  his  cor'jfi!.iiit;  is  unsuj>- 
 jiorted  1))-  any  authority. 
 
78  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 in  his  Discourses  upon  the  Person  of  Christ, 
 p.  135,  makes  the  following  observations  upon 
 the  Unitarian  interpretation  of  this  text : 
 
 "  The  interpretations  which  the  Socinians 
 give  of  these  texts  are  such  as  cannot  easily 
 occur  to  any  plain  man.  By  saying  that  he 
 existed  before  Abraham,  they  think  that  he 
 only  meant  that  his  existence  was  intended 
 before  Abraham:  and  by  the  glory  which  he 
 had  witli  the  Father  before  the  world  was,  they 
 understand  the  glory  which  he  had  in  the  di- 
 vine foresight  and  appointment  before  the 
 world  was.  I  must  own  to  you  that  I  am  in- 
 clined to  wonder  that  wise  and  good  men  can 
 satisfy  themselves  with  such  explanations.  But 
 I  correct  myself.  1  know  that  Christians, 
 amidst  their  differences  of  opinion,  are  too  apt 
 to  wonder  at  one  another,  and  to  ibrget  the 
 allowances  which  ought  to  be  made  for  the 
 darkness  in  which  we  are  all  involved.  Sen- 
 sible of  this  truth,  and  hoping  to  be  excused  if 
 I  should  ever  express  my  conviction  in  too 
 strong  language,  I  proceed  to  recite  to  you 
 some  other  texts  "^o/' 
 
 *"  It  is  curious  toobsorvc  how  Dr.  Clarke,  Dr.  Price,  and  Dr. 
 Ilarwood  arc  led  away  by  (he  notion  that  the  Sociiiiaii  inturprc- 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  Pre-existence  of  Christ.         79 
 
 It  cannot,  I  think,  be  denied  that  the  words 
 of  our  Lord  in  this  declaration  to  the  Jews, 
 will,  when  considered  in  their  grammatical  im- 
 port and  construction,  bear  the  sense  which  the 
 Arian  expositors  annex  to  them,  and  in  which 
 the  Jews  appear  to  have  understood  them. 
 
 But  against  this  interpretation  it  may  be  al- 
 leged, that  the  word  tif/.i,  even  when  used  abso- 
 lutely, very  rarely,  if  ever,  expresses  simple 
 existence^";  that  it  is  not  probable  that  our 
 Lord  would  have  been  so  very  open  and  ex- 
 plicit upon  this  high  and  mysterious  subject  to 
 his  enemies,  when  he  was  so  reserved  to  his 
 friends,  and  does  not  appear  to  have  hinted  it 
 even  to  his  disciples^'  ;  that  if  he  had  intended 
 
 tation  is  languid,  forced,  and  unnatural,  without  assigning  any 
 reason  why  they  think  so,  and  without  reflecting  that  a  sense 
 •which,  from  established  associatious,  may  appear  most  obvious 
 and  natural  to  one,  may  to  another,  wliose  train  of  associations 
 is  different,  appear  forced  and  far-fetched.  The  bishop  of  Ro- 
 chester docs  not  fall  into  this  error. 
 
 so  a  By  interpre;ing  gj^i  as  meaning  to  exist,  they  take  it  in 
 a  sense  different  from  its  most  common  acceptation,  and  from 
 the  meaning  in  which  it  is  used  in  every  instance  iu  which  it  oc- 
 curs in  this  very  chapter."     Simpson's  Essay  ix.  p.  105. 
 
 *'  ''  Did  we  not  daily  experience,"  says  an  excellent  writer, 
 (Mr.  Lindscy)  in  the  Comment,  and  Essays,  vol.  i.  p.  408,  "  the 
 power  of  prejudice  to  darken  our  understandings,  and  Jiiudt-r  us 
 from  seeing  the  most  palpable  contradicri  iis,  one  might  be  sur- 
 prised that  any  could  ever  suppose  our  Lord  to  be  so  very  open 
 
80  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 in  this  instance  to  announce  his  own  pre-exist- 
 tnce  so  very  cxphcitJj  as  many  beheve,  he 
 would  have  taught  this  extraordinary  doctrine 
 more  frequently,  in  a  greater  variety  of  phrase, 
 and  would  have  laid  greater  stress  upon  it;  and 
 tinally  that  this  fact,  so  solemnly  declared,  would 
 have  been  more  attended  to,  and  would  have 
 made  a  more  permanent  and  vivid  impression. 
 It  would  have  been  a  subject  of  general  conver-* 
 sation  and  scrutiny,  of  admiration,  or  offence. 
 Whereas  the  idea  of  such  a  claim  on  the  part 
 of  our  Lord  vanished  immediately.  The  dis- 
 ciples did  not  notice  it.  The  Jews  did  not 
 repeat  it.  And  it  is  not  alleged  as  a  charge 
 aiiainst  our  Saviour  that  he  arroo'ated  this  ex- 
 traordinary  attribute.  It  is  probable  therefore 
 that  Jesus  did  not  mean  to  be  understood  in 
 the  sense  in  which  the  Jews  did  or  pretended  to 
 apprehend  him,  and  for  which  the  Arian  expo- 
 sitors contend.  Another  sense  may  be  given 
 to  our  Lord's  declaration,  which  is  liable    to 
 
 and  fariiiliar  with  tliosc  Pharisees,  his  most  bitter  adversaries,  as 
 lo  tell  tlieni  inch  a  wonderful  secret  concerning  liiiiiself,  that  he 
 was  the  I  AM,  Jihovah,  tlic  cicrnal  God,  as  some  construe  his 
 words,  or  according  toothers,  that  he  had  existed  with  (iodfrom 
 tlic  l)eginning,  before  the  world  was,  at  the  same  time  that  he 
 kept  liis  dibciplis  quite  iu  the  dark  about  things  so  inodigious 
 and  extraordii\ar}  .'* 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  Pre^existencc  of  Christ.         81 
 
 fewer  objections,  and  which  is  perfectly  con- 
 sistent w  ith  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ. 
 
 3.  "  Before  Abram  shall  become  Abraham, 
 I  am  he,"  i.  e.  the  Christ. 
 
 It  was  promised  to  Abraham  that  he  should 
 be  the  father  of  many  nations;  and,  as  a  pledge 
 of  the  accomplishment  of  this  promise,  by  spe- 
 cial divine  appointment  his  name  was  changed 
 from  Abram  to  Abraham.  Gen.  xvii.  4,  5.  In 
 this  declaration  to  the  Jews,  our  Lord  solemnly 
 avers,  that  before  the  accomplishment  of  this 
 promise  to  Abraham  he  appears  as  the  Messiah. 
 
 This  explanation  of  the  text  was  proposed, 
 though  not  absolutely  adopted,  by  Slichtingius, 
 Wolzogenius,  Stegman,  and  others  of  the  old 
 Socinians.  It  has  been  revived  and  defended 
 by  a  writer  in  the  Theological  Repository, 
 vol.  iv.  p.  348 ;  and  Dr.  Carpenter,  in  his  Let- 
 ters to  Mr.  Veysie,  p.  246,  expresses  his  appro- 
 ])ation  of  it.  In  favour  of  this  interpretation  it 
 is  stated,  1.)  That  the  original  word  [yivza-Sai) 
 does  not  necessarily  refer  to  past  time,  but 
 much  more  frequently,  and  in  the  writings  of 
 this  evangehst  uniformly,  to  that  which  is  fu- 
 ture'^-.     2.)  That  as  the  second  clause  is  al- 
 
 "  The  word  y£Kecr6a»  occurs  38  times  in  the  Now  Tcsfanieuf. 
 In  fire  passages  only  it  signifies  past  liuie.     Luke  iii.  22;  ix.  2^n 
 Q 
 
62  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  L 
 
 lowed  to  be  elliptical,  so  probably  is  the  first ; 
 and  the  ellipsis  cannot  be  bettc'  supplied  than 
 by  this  hypothesis.  3.)  That  this  interpreta- 
 tion retains  the  proper  sense  of  the  present 
 tense  [I  am)  in  the  second  clause,  a  sense  which 
 it  bears  uniformly  in  all  other  places  where  the 
 words  are  used  absolutely.  That  nothing  but 
 absolute  necessity  will  justify  a  departure  from 
 this  usage.  And  though  it  cannot  be  denied 
 that  in  some  instances  the  present  indicative, 
 I  am^  has  the  sense  of  the  preterperfect,  I 
 have  been,  it  does  not  appear  that  it  is 
 ever  used  for  I  was''^.  4.)  This  interpre- 
 tation connects  well  with  the  tenor  of  our 
 Lord's  discourse  :  Your  father  Abraliam  de- 
 sired to  see  my  day,  he  did  see  it,  and  rejoiced. 
 "  And  veril}^  I  say,  that  the  time  for  the  accom- 
 plishment of  what  he  foresaw  is  not  yet  ar- 
 rived :  for  before  Abram  shall  be  Abraham, 
 i.  e.  become   the  father  of  many  nations,  ac- 
 
 Acts  xxii.  17.  Phil.  i.  13,  1  Tht-ss.  i.  7.  In  John  xiii.  19,  the 
 phrase  Tf  o  ra  yevec-fia*  is  found,  which  is  properly  rendered  '  he- 
 fore  it  shall  come  to  pass.'  And  John  xiv.  29,  the  Tcry  same 
 V  ords  occur  which  are  used  in  ch.  viii.  53  ;  ir^iv  ysvco-Sa*,  where 
 they  must  refer  to  future  time.  "  I  have  now  told  you  before  it. 
 come  to  pass."  Theol.  Rep.  vol,  iv.  p.  318, 
 "  See  Note  4G,  p.  75. 
 
Sect.  3.]     tliv  Pre-existence  of  Christ.         83 
 
 cording  to  the  import  of  bis  name,  I  am  the 
 Christ  your  Messiah^"^."  j.)  This  declaration 
 of  his  superiority  to  Abraham  best  accounts 
 for  the  violent  rage  of  the  Jews,  who  would 
 rather  have  been  disposed  to  treat  our  Lord 
 with  contempt,  as  a  lunatic,  if  they  had  under- 
 stood him  as  meanin";  iiothino^  more  than  that 
 he  existed  before  Abraham  was  born. 
 
 To  these  arguments  it  is  replied,  1.)  That 
 this  solution  is  not  necessary;  for  it  is  uni- 
 versally admitted  that  the  common  interpre- 
 tation of  the  first  clause  is  fully  justifiable: 
 and  it  is  generally  agreed  that  the  authorities 
 for  giving  a  preterite  signification  to  the  latter 
 clause  are  competent  and  satisfactory.  2.)  If 
 the  proposed  interpretation  is  just,  the  text 
 ought  to  have  stood  thus:  "  before  Abram  shall 
 "become  Abraham."  The  present  ellipsis  is  too 
 harsh,  and  the  mode  of  supplying  it  quite  arbi- 
 trary. 3.)  The  word  Abraham  always  in  the 
 New  Testament  occurs  as  a  proper  name,  and 
 
 **  Theol.  Repos.  vol.  iv.  p,  351.  Sec  ;i!so  Slichtingius  and 
 Wolzogcnius  in  loc.  The  latter  seems  io  give  the  preference  to 
 this  interpretation,  which  the  former  does  not.  Both  these 
 learned  critics  state  at  large  the  two  Unitarian  interpretations  of 
 this  text,  and  neither  of  ihcm  seems  to  feel  any  difficulty  in  as- 
 signing to  £Ja;  a  preterite  signification. 
 
 G  2 
 
84  Texts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 is  never  used  in  a  mystical  sense -^.  4.)  It  is  a 
 tritlino-  proposition,  and  unworthy  of  the  so- 
 lemnity with  which  it  is  introduced,  that  Christ 
 existed  as  the  Messiah  before  an  event  which 
 it  was  known  was  not  to  happen  till  many 
 years  or  ages  afterwards  ^^.     5.)  The  connex- 
 
 "  '•  It  being  evident  that  the  discourge  is  of  Abraham's  per- 
 son, it  is  incongruous  here  to  introduce  a  mystical  sense  of  the 
 word,  which  the  Jews  never  thought  of,  and  which  had  Christ 
 intended,  he  would  in  all  likelihood  have  said  rrfiiv  A^patj.  ys- 
 vscrSat  Afoaa/A."     Whitby. 
 
 *'  "  Ipsa  Graica  phrasis  vel  sola,  satis  refutat  Socinianos,  qui 
 mire  torquent  hffc  verba,  quasi  Salvator  id  diccre  voluerit,  se 
 jam  esse  antequara  Abram  factus  sit  Abraham,  id  est  pater 
 multartim  gentium  :  qtiod  contigit  post  ascensionem  Christ}. 
 Solent  isti  homines  valde  ingeniosi  ct  acuti  haberi.  Scd  vere  di- 
 cam  in  hiijus  loci  explicatione  ita  versantur,  ut  acumen  omne 
 perdidissc,  et  obtusissimi  esse  Vidcantur,  Quid  euim  jejunius 
 dici  cogitarive  potest,  quam  Salvatorem  hocsensisse,  sejam  esse, 
 aiitcquam  ea  fierent,  qua?  aliquot  annis  post  futnra  erant?  Nam 
 quis  sanus  ita  loquitur  ?  Et  quid  hoc  ad  istud,  propter  quod 
 Judaii  Jesnm,  quasi  blasphema  locutum  lapidibus  obruere  vole- 
 bunt."     Raphel.  Annot.  torn.  i.  p.  651. 
 
 Now,  without  adopting  the  hard  words  of  this  learned  and 
 orthodox  critic,  it  may  surely  be  permitted  to  remark,  that  whca 
 our  Lord  thought  fit  publicly  and  plainly  to  announce  to  the 
 Jews  the  ofleusive  truth  that  he  was  himself  their  JMessiah,  it 
 was  hardly  consistent  with  the  dignity  of  his  character,  with  the 
 greatest  solemnity  of  language  to  announce  another  fact,  which 
 every  one  present  must  have  known  as  well  as  himself,  viz.  that 
 if  he  really  was  the.promiscd  Messiah,  he  was  such  antecedently 
 to  an  event  which  was  then  future.     What  would  he  tliought  of 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Fre-ejistcucc  of  Christ,  85 
 
 ion  with  the  preceding  context  is  not  very  ob- 
 vious. It  is  no  reply  to  the  objection  of  the 
 Jews.  Nor  does  it  at  all  illustrate  or  vindicate 
 our  Lord's  own  assertion,  "  that  Abraham  had 
 seen  his  day.""  The  declaration,  "  I  am  the 
 Messiah  before  the  promises  are  fulfilled  to 
 Abraham,''  seems  both  insulated  and  irrelevant. 
 6.)  It  is  an  interpretation  altogether  novel,  and 
 unheard  of  till  it  was  proposed  by  the  Polish 
 Socinians  ^7. 
 
 4.  "  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  was  he  :" 
 i,  e.  the  Christ. 
 
 q,  d.  Before  that  eminent  patriarch  was 
 brought  into  being,  my  existence  and  appear- 
 ance under  the  character  of  the  Messiah  at 
 this  period,  and  in  these  circumstances,  was 
 so  completely  arranged,  and  so  irrevocably 
 fixed  in  the  immutable  counsels  and  purposes 
 of  God,  that  in  this  sense  I  may  be  said  even 
 then  to  have  existed. 
 
 This  is  the  interpretation  proposed  by  the 
 
 a  certain  great  personage,  if  he  should  say,  "  I  solemnly  aver 
 that  even  before  the  ])rinc'ess  Charlotte  becomes  queen  of 
 England,  I  am  now  prince  of  Wales."  IS'um  quis  sanus  ita 
 loquitur? 
 
 "  "  This  interpretation  is  contrary  io  all  antiquity,  as  their 
 (the  Socinian)  expositions  jn  these  cases  use  to  be."     Whitby, 
 
86  Texts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  L 
 
 Unitarians.  It  is  that  uhich  Dr.  Clarke  calls 
 "  languid  and  unnatural ;"  which  Dr.  Harwood 
 styles  "  forced  and  futile,  inane  and  chime- 
 rical;" and  at  which  Dr.  Price  **  wonders." 
 It  remains  to  be  considered  whether  it  be  scrip- 
 tural and  true. 
 
 1.)    In  the  first   place,    this    interpretation 
 well  accords  Avith  the  connexion  and  context. 
 
 Our  Lord  declares,  ver.  56,  "  Your  father 
 Abraham  longed  to  see  my  day,  and  he  did  see 
 it.''  The  Jews,  foolishly  or  perversely  misre- 
 presenting his  language,  ask,  "  Hast  thou  seen 
 Abraham?"  Our  Lord  never  pretended  that  he 
 had  seen  him  :  and  not  deigning  to  rectify  this 
 silly  mistake,  he  goes  on  to  establish  the  rea- 
 sonableness of  his  assertion:  q.d.  Abraham  did 
 foresee  my  appearance,  and  the  blessings  of 
 my  kingdom.  And  this  was  possible  :  because 
 though  I  was  not  then  born,  yet  my  appear- 
 ance und(>r  the  cliaracter  of  the  Messiah,  and 
 all  the  happy  consequences  which  flow  from  it, 
 had  been  determined  in  the  divine  counsels 
 long  before  that  eminent  patriarch  was  in  exist- 
 ence. 
 
 2.)  The  words  1  am  [iyu  s/p)  must  be  un- 
 derstood to  mean,  and  should  be  translutedj 
 /  uas» 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Fre-cxhtencc  of  Christ.  87 
 
 The  connexion  of  the  words  renders  this 
 construction  necessary  to  the  sense.  '  Before 
 such  an  event  I  am,'  is  without  meaning, 
 unless  the  event  be  future  :  and  in  this 
 instance,  if  the  event  referred  to  be  future,  it 
 has  been  shown  that  the  assertion  would  be 
 trivial,  and  unworthy  of  our  Lord's  cha- 
 racter. 
 
 3.)  The  elhpsis  must  be  supplied  by  the 
 word  he,  i.  e. '  he  who  cometh,'  or, '  the  Christ/ 
 For  it  has  been  already  stated  that  the  verb 
 g/p  is  seldom  if  ever  used  to  express  simple 
 existence.  And  wherever  it  occurs  in  this  el- 
 liptical form,  it  is  commonly,  and  very  pro- 
 perly, supplied  by  the  pronoun  (civto^)  he. 
 John  iv.  26,  "  I  who  speak  unto  thee  am  he" 
 John  ix.  9j  "  The  blind  man  said,  I  am  he." 
 John  xviii.  5,  *'  I  am  he"  i.  e.  whom  ye  seek. 
 Luke  xxi.  8,  "  Many  will  come  in  my  name, 
 saying  (gyw  £if/.i)  I  am  he,"  or  Christ.  Com- 
 pare Matt.  xxiv.  5.  Mark  xiii.  6.  Matt.  xiv.  27. 
 Mark  vi.  50.     John  ti.  20. 
 
 The  context  in  all  cases  easily  determines 
 the  sense  of  the  ellipsis.  In  the  former  part 
 of  this  very  discourse  the  phrase  occuis  twice, 
 in  a  connexion  in  which  the  translators  of  the 
 public  version,  being  under  no  bias  to  the  con- 
 
88  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I, 
 
 trar}',  have  supplied  the  elhpsis  properly. 
 Ver.  24,  *'  If  3'6  believe  not  that  I  am  he,  i,  e. 
 tke  Messiah,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins."  Ver.  '28, 
 "  When  ye  have  lifted  up  the  Son  of  Man, 
 then  shall  ye  know  that  I  am  lie,"  It  is  the 
 very  same  phrase  which  occurs  in  ver.  58 ; 
 Mhich  ought  therefore  to  have  been  translated 
 in  the  same  form.  "  Before  Abraham  was 
 born,  I  was  lie,"  i.  e.  the  prophet  who  was  to 
 come,  the  Messiah. 
 
 4.)  In  the  language  of  the  sacred  M^riters, 
 a  being,  or  a  state  of  things,  is  said  to  exist, 
 when  it  is  the  eternal  immutable  pvr^ 
 POSE  OF  God  t^at  it  shall  exist,  at 
 the  time  and  in  the  circumstances  which  his 
 infinite  wisdom  hath  chosen  and  ordained. 
 
 The  apostle  Paul  expressly  teaches  concern- 
 ing God,  that  "  he  calleth  those  things  which 
 are  not,  as  tliough  they  w^ere ;"  Rom.  iv.  17: 
 an  observation  which  he  applies  to  the  pro- 
 mise made  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.  5,  "  I 
 have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations,"  i.  e, 
 I  have  determined  the  future  actual  existence 
 of  this  event. 
 
 1.]  In  the  Old  Testament  nothing  is  more 
 common  than  to  express  prophecy  in  the  lan- 
 guage of  historv,  and  to  state  future  events  as 
 
Sect.  3.]       the  Prc-eaisfence  of  Christ.         89 
 
 present  or  even  past.  Thus  Cyrus  is  addressed 
 before  his  birth  as  though  he  were  actually  ex- 
 isting; Isaiah  xlv.  1,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  t^ 
 his  anointed,  even  to  Cyrus,  Mhose  right  hand 
 I  have  holdcn."  And  Babylon  is  represented 
 as  captured  seventy  years  before  the  event; 
 Jer.  U.  41,  "  How  is  Sheshach  taken,  and  how 
 is  the  praise  of  the  whole  earth  surprised  !  How 
 is  Babylon  become  an  astonishment  among  the 
 nations!" 
 
 These  events  at  that  time  had  no  existence 
 but  in  the  divine  purpose.  Other  future  events 
 are  mentioned  as  already  past.  Exod.  xv.  12 
 — 17.  1  Sam.  XV.  28;  xxviii.  17,  18.  And  in 
 Isa.  xlvi.  10,  11,  the  Supreme  Being,  in  very 
 sublime  lan2:uao;c,  declares  the  absolute  cer- 
 tainty  of  the  accomplishment  of  his  eternal 
 purposes  :  "  I  have  spoken  it,  I  will  also  bring 
 it  to  pass :  I  have  purposed  it,  I  will  also  do  it. 
 My  counsel  shall  stand.'' 
 
 This  prolepsis,  this  anticipation  of  future 
 events,  is  particularly  remarkable  in  the  pro- 
 phecies M'hich  relate  to  the  Messiah,  who  is 
 frequently  represented  as  actually  existing,  and 
 executing  his  divine  commission,  many  ages 
 before  his  public  appearance  and  ministry. 
 Jsa.  ix.  Q,  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us 
 
90  Tc:iis  supposed  to  assert         [Part  L 
 
 a  son  is  given/'     Ch.  xlii.  1,  "  Behold  my  ser- 
 vant, whom  I  uphold;  my  elect,  in  whom  my 
 soul  delighteth :  I    have   put   my  spirit   upon 
 him."     And  in  that  celebrated  prophecy  in  the 
 fifty-third  chapter,  the  humiliation  of  the  Mes- 
 siah, his  rejection  and  sufferings,  are  described 
 throughout  in  the  language  of  history.     "  He 
 is  despised   and    rejected   of  men.      He   hath 
 borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows.     He 
 was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  and  bruised 
 for  our  iniquities.     He  was  brought  as  a  lamb 
 to  the  slaughter.     He  was  cut  off  out  of  the 
 land  of  the  living**^/''  chap.  xlix.  5 — 10.    The 
 Messiah  himself  is  introduced  as  speaking  and 
 stating  the  promise  of  God  to  him,  that  "  he 
 should  be  a  light  to  the  Gentiles,  and  salvation 
 to    the    ends    of   the    earth  ^^."     And    again, 
 
 **  The  argument  from  tlie  prolepsis  is  not  at  all  invalidated  if, 
 as  the  Jews  and  some  modern  xvriters  (to  whose  opinion  how- 
 ever I  do  not  accede)  suppose,  this  prophecy  is  not  applicable 
 to  the  Messiah,  but  to  Jeremiah,  or  to  the  present  state  of  the 
 Jewish  nation. 
 
 *"  ".  The  character  and  a.Ticr  of  tho.  Messiah  was  exhibited  in 
 jjencral  terms  at  the  bnsinoing  of  chap.  xlii.  ;  but  here  he  is  in- 
 troduced in  person,  declaring  the  full  extent  of  his  commission, 
 which  is  not  only  to  restore  the  Israelites,  but  to  be  a  light  to 
 lighten  the  Gentiles,  to  call  them  to  the  knowledge  and  obcdi. 
 ence  of  the  true  God,"  Bishop  Lowth  in  loc.  See  Cardale's 
 True  Doct.  of  the  New  Testament  concerning  Christ,  p.  81—87. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Vrc-exhtence  of  Chrht,  91 
 
 chap.  Ixi.  1 — 3,  "  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  is 
 upon  me,  because  he  hath  anointed  me  to 
 preach  good  tidings  to  the  meek ;  he  hath 
 sent  me  to  bind  up  the  broken-hearted,"  a 
 prophecy  which  our  Lord  declares  to  have 
 received  its  accomphshment  in  his  own  person; 
 Lukeiv.  ^L 
 
 \n  these  mstances,  and  in  other  similar  pro- 
 phecies,  the  Messiah  is  described  as  actually  in- 
 vested with  the  insignia  of  his  office,  and  per- 
 forming its  duties.  To  the  Jews,  therefore,  who 
 were  familiar  with  the  language  and  imagery  of 
 their  own  prophets,  our  Lord's  declaration  of 
 his  existence  as  the  Messiah  before  the  birth  of 
 Abraham  would  not  scund  so  harsh  and  offensive 
 as  it  does  to  modern  readers ;  who,  not  being 
 accustomed  to  the  bold  dramatic  language  of 
 prophecy,  are  apt  to  understand  that  of  actual 
 existence  which  the  Jews  would  easily  perceive 
 to  be  figurative.  The  prophetic  representa- 
 tions in  the  Jewish  Scriptures  amply  justify  the 
 language  of  Christ  in  reference  to  them.  If 
 the  prophets  describe  the  Messiah  as  contem- 
 porary with  them.  Christ  might  with  propriety 
 speak  of  himself  under  that  character,  as  their 
 contemporary^  If  Isaiah  writes  as  having  seen 
 the  Messiah,  having  heard  his  complaints,  and 
 
93  Teiis  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 havino-  been  witness  to  his  labours,  bis  miracles, 
 and  his  bufFerings ;  our  Lord  might  with  equal 
 propriety  represent  himself,  under  his  official 
 character,  as  having  existed  in  the  days  of 
 Isaiah.  If  Abraham  saw  his  day ;  he,  as  the 
 Messiah,  must  have  co-existed  viith  the  pa- 
 triarch, and,  by  parity  of  reason,  before  Abra^' 
 ham*s  birth.  But  all  allow  that  the  prophetic 
 representations  of  the  Messiah's  existence  are 
 iio'urative  :  they  only  express  what  existed  in 
 the  divine  purpose,  and  imply  nothing  more 
 than  certainty  of  event.  Let  it  then  be 
 granted,  that  when  our  Lord  speaks  of 
 himself  as  the  Messiah  before  Abraham  was 
 born,  he  means  the  same  thing  :  that  his  lan- 
 guage only  implies  that  he  was  the  Messiah  in 
 the  divine  purpose.  No  reasoning,  I  think, 
 can  be  more  conclusive. 
 
 2.]  The  same  language  of  anticipation  occurs 
 in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  persons,  and 
 things,  and  states  of  things,  are  described  as 
 actually  existing,  which  only  existed  in  the  di- 
 vine mind  and  declared  purpose ;  particularly 
 those  which  relate  to  the  Messiah,  and  the  dis- 
 pensation of  the  Gospel*^'". 
 
 ••  "  Nothing  is  more  common  uilh  tlie  wrifers  of  the  New 
 Testament  llian  to  ie[)re.scnt  tliose  things  as  lia\iiig  had  csistciicj: 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Vre-cxisicnce  of  Christ,  93- 
 
 Of  this  language  a  very  remarkable  instance 
 occurs,  Luke  xx.  38.  Our  Lord  argues  against 
 the  Sadducecs  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
 from  the  declaration  of  God  to  Moses,  Exod. 
 iii.  6,  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of 
 Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob  :  for  he  is  not  a 
 God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living."  And  to 
 obviate  the  objection  that  the  patriarchs  were 
 now  in  fact  dead,  he  adds,  "  for  all  live  to 
 him :"  that  is.  As  it  is  the  determined  purpose 
 of  God  to  raise  them  to  life,  they  are  in  his  all- 
 comprehending  view  actually  alive. 
 
 The  Gospel  and  its  blessings  are  represented 
 as  peculiarly  the  objects  of  the  divine  purpose 
 and  decree.  Matt.  xxv.  34,  "  Come,  and  inherit 
 the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  found- 
 ation of  the  world."  1  Cor.  li.  7,  "  The  mystery 
 which  God  ordained  before  the  world  to  our 
 glory/'  Eph.  iii.  9^  "  The  mystery  which 
 from  the  beginning  of  the  world  has  been  hid 
 in  God." 
 
 from  the  beginning,  which  were  always  designed  by  God  to 
 come  to  pass,  and  were  promised  in  the  prophi-ts.  And  as  this 
 was  more  especially  the  case  in  the  Gospel,  so  \\c  And  it  repre- 
 sented throughout  th'i  Scripture  as  having  existed  in  the  eternal 
 counsels  of  the  Almiglify."  Dr.  DaMson  at  Moyei's  Lectures, 
 p.  68,  69. 
 
94t  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  Xi 
 
 This  dispensation  and  its  blessings  had  been 
 promised  and  foretold  by  the  prophets.  Rom.  i. 
 2,  "  The  gospel  of  God  which  he  had  promised 
 before  by  his  prophets  in  the  holy  Scriptures." 
 See  also  Acts  xxvi.  22,  23.    1  Pet  i.  10, 11. 
 
 Of  this  dispensation  it  was  the  divine  purpose 
 that  Jesus  should  be  the  publisher,  and  the  me- 
 dium throLTgh  -which  its  blessings  were  to  be 
 conveyed  to  mankind.  1  Pet.  i.  20,  "  Who 
 verily  was  foreordained  before  the  foundation 
 of  the  workh"  Acts  ii.  23;  iv.  27,  28.  John 
 i.  44. 
 
 Hence  he  was  the  object  of  the  Father's  lo^e 
 —John  xvii.  24,  "  Thou  lovedst  me  before  the 
 foundation  of  the  world  " — and  "  had  glory  with 
 the  Father  before  the  world  was."  vcr.  5.  And 
 his  violent  death  constituting  an  essential  part  of 
 the  divine  plan,  he  is  represented,  Rev.  xiii.  8, 
 as  "  the  lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the 
 world." 
 
 Aiid  the  happy  state  of  things  under  the 
 dispensation  of  the  Messiah  being  thus  pre- 
 destinated in  the  divine  counsels,  Abraham  is 
 represented  as  having  actually  seen  them  two 
 thousand  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ. 
 John  viii.  b6,  "  Your  father  Abraham  desired  to 
 see  my  ('ay  ;  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad.''    Th© 
 
Sect.  3.]     thcTrc-cxistenceofChnat.  OJ 
 
 prophet  Isaiah    also   "  saw  his    glory/'    John 
 xii.  41. 
 
 Believers  are  "  chosen  before  the  foundation 
 of  the  world,  and  predestinated  to  the  adop- 
 tion of  children,"  Eph.  i.  4,  5  :  "  predestinated 
 according  to  the  purpose  of  him  who  worketh 
 all  thino-s  accordino;  to  the  counsel  of  his  own 
 
 wilL"  ver.  11 
 
 And  what  is  thus  predestinated  is  described 
 as  actually  accomplished  from  the  beginning  of 
 time,  2  Tim.  i.  9,  "  Who  hath  saved  us — ac- 
 cording to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which 
 was  aiven  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  tlie  world 
 
 to 
 
 began." 
 
 Our  Lord  describes  his  apostles  as  already  in 
 possession  of  the  honour  which  he  intended  for 
 them.  John  xvii.  2'2,  "  The  glory  which  thou 
 gavest  me,  I  have  given  them."  And  the  apo- 
 stle Paul  represents  virtuous  believers  in  general, 
 as  already  in  possession  of  that  felicity  which 
 God  in  his  great  wisdom  and  mercy  has  ordain- 
 ed for  them.  Rom.  viii.  2,9,  30,  "  Whom  he 
 foreknew  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  con- 
 formed to  the  image  of  his  Son;  whom  he  did 
 predestinate,  them  he  also  called :  whom  he 
 called,  them  he  also  justified  :  whom  he  justifi- 
 ed, them  he  also  glorified  :    in  purpose  glorified 
 
96  Texts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  L 
 
 is  archbishop  Newcome's  translation,  with  whom 
 ao-rec  Grotius,  Locke,  Doddridge,  and  others. 
 John  V.  24,  our  Lord  declares,  "  He  that  hear- 
 edi  my  word,  and  believeth  on  him  that  sent 
 me,  hath  everlasting  hfe/'  See  also  John  vi* 
 47.  54. 
 
 From  this  induction  it  clearly  follows  that 
 persons,  things,  and  states  of  things,  are  not 
 unfrequently  described  in  the  Scriptures  both  of 
 the  Old  and  New  Testament  as  actually  exist- 
 ing, when  they  exist  only  in  the  divine  purpose 
 and  decree  ^^.  When  therefore  our  Lord  de- 
 clares to  the  Jews,  "  Before  Abraham  was  born 
 I  was  lie,"  the  plain  meaning  is,  I  was  marked 
 out  in  the  divine  counsels  as  the  Messiah. 
 
 5.)  Though  this  interpretation  is  by  some 
 expositors  rejected  with  contempt,  it  is  not  de- 
 stitute of  support  from  the  authority  of  many 
 able  and  learned  critics  and  divines  ^^-. 
 
 ®'  See  Slichtingiiis  and  Wolzogenius  in  loc.  Also  Cardalc's 
 True  Doctrine  of  N.  T.  p.  84 — 92.  and  Simpson's  Dissert.  Es- 
 say is. 
 
 **  Eya;  eifjtJ,  pracsons  proimperft'cto,  ej-a/H.  Syrus,  Sic  in  Graze, 
 Psalm  xc.  2.  "  Fuerat  autem  ante  Abraliamum  Jesus,  in  divina 
 constitiifione."  Rev.  ?Jii.  8.  1  Pet.  i.  20.  Grotius  in  loc. — "Ego 
 qiiamvis  non  cxistimcru  Christum  hie  simpiieiter  agere  desc,  qua- 
 tcnus  Ucus  est,  sed  quatenus  est  oculis  lidei  vi>us  ab  Abruhamoj 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  Trc-cxistence  of  Christ.         97 
 
 *'  This/'  says  Dr.  Lardner,  (on  the  Logos, 
 p.  14,)  "  may  be  thought  a  strong  text  for  the 
 pre-existence  of  our  Saviour's  soul.     But  really 
 
 Dei  videlicet  lioniinum  mediator,  sive  Deus  in  carne  manifestatus, 
 (nam  alioqtii  Jioii  videretiir  Christus  apposite  disscrcre)  tamen 
 quia  ut  mediator  considerari  non  potest,  nisi  vere  sit  Emma- 
 nuel, et  hac  ctiam  ratione  dicitur  agniis  a,  constitutione  mundl 
 occisusj  imo  vcro  Christus  fiiisse  hcri  et  hodie,  putavi  servan- 
 dam  esse  antitliosin."     Bcza  in  loc. 
 
 "  Regessit  Jesiis  cos  multuui  falli  in  a-stimanda  astatc  sua ; 
 nam,  primo,  se  fuisse  ab  omni  aeternitate.  Secundo,  licet  trices, 
 simum  multis  annis  superasse  non  videretur,  attamcn  dc  se  in 
 niundum  mittvndo,  longe  ante  Abrahami  tera[)ora,  dccretum  a 
 Deo  factum  esse,  quod  cum  benigtie  a  Deo  Abrahamo  revelatum 
 fuissct,  se  ei  quoque  ratione,  Abrahamo  notum  fuisse."  Ham. 
 mond  in  loc. 
 
 This  reference,  by  Bcza  and  Hammond,  of  the  existence  of 
 Christ  as  mediator,  to  an  existence  in  the  divine  decree,  is  the 
 more  remarkable,  as  the  known  orthodoxy  of  these  expositors 
 places  tliem  above  all  suspicion  of  parttality  to  Unitarian  in. 
 terpretations. 
 
 "  Priusquam  Abraham  esset  ego  sum.  Jud;ei  ipsi  dicunt,  le- 
 gem ac  iMessiam  longc  ante  mundum  conditum  fuisse.  Nam  quae 
 a  Deo  dcstinata  et  constituta  sunt,  antequam  rebus  et  factis  ipsis 
 e.vhiboantur,  aptid  Deum  esse  dicuntur.  Sic  Joannes  de  vita 
 ffiterna  dicit :  1  Joh.  i.  2.  Ilinc  et  Petrura  Christum  praecogni- 
 tum  dicit  ante  mundi  coiistitutionem."     Slichtingius  in  loc. 
 
 "  Poterat  Christus  diccre  se  fuisse  ante  Abrahamum  non  acta 
 sed  divini  praidestinationc  ac  constitutione.  Vid.  1  Pet.  i.  20. 
 Atque  hie  sensus  pulchrc  convenit  cum  eo  quod  Christus  supra 
 dixerat  Abrahamum  vidissc  diem  suam.  Neque  est  quod  quia 
 banc  rcsponsioncra  vel  expiicationem  textus  frigidam  vocet,  prop- 
 terea  quod  sic  non  Christus  tantum  sed  omnia  quic  in  dccrcto 
 
 H 
 
98  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 he  there  only  represents  his  dignity  as  the  Mes- 
 siah, the  special  favour  of  God  towards  him, 
 and  the  importance  of  the  dispensation  by  him. 
 It  is  a  way  of  speaking  resembhng  that  in  Rev. 
 xiii.  8,  "  the  lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of 
 the  world,"  explained  by  1  Pet.  i.  20,  "  who 
 verily  was  fore-ordained  before  the  foundation 
 o  j  the  world.''  The  Jewish  people  have  a  saying, 
 that  the  Lau^  was  before  the  world  was  created. 
 In  like  manner,  the  dispensation  of  the  Messiah 
 was  before  the  dispensation  of  Abraham  in  dig- 
 nity, nature,  and  design,  though  not  in  time." 
 
 "  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  was."  "  I  can- 
 not see,"  says  Mr.  Cardale  (True  Boct.  of 
 Nev/  Test.  p.  8o,)  "  that  this  rendering  must 
 
 ilivino  fiienint,  fuisse  did  possunt  aiitequani  Abraham  fierct. 
 Obscrvaniiiim  cnim  est  Christum  non  simpliciter  diccre  sc  fuisse 
 in  Dei  decrcto  imtequam  Abraham  fierct,  sed  se  fuisse  Messiam. 
 Itaque  indicat  Chrisciis  sc  ad  hauc  dignitatem  tarn  .sublimem, 
 longe  antequam  Abraham  nasceretur,  Dei  decrcto  esse  dcsigna- 
 tum."     Wolzogeiiius  in  loc. 
 
 "  Notre  Seigneur  vcut  diroqu'il  n'cst  pas  siirprenant  qu' Abra- 
 ham ait  prevu  le  tenis  auquel  Dicu  avoit  rt'solu  do  Icur  cnvoyer 
 son  Filsj  parccque  le  Fils  de  ])ieu  cloit  avant  Abraham.  Sur- 
 quoi  les  interprete.s  sont  partages.  Les  uns  cnlcndcnt  Ic  vcrbe 
 J'ctuis  dc  la  divinile  elernelle  qui  a  habite  en  Jesus  Christ  dans 
 le  tenis  marque  j)ar  I;i  Sagessc  divine  :  ct  les  autrcs,  entrc  lesquels 
 est  Tlicodore  de  iicza,  de  I'humani(e  mcsmc  de  Jesus  Christ,  qui 
 etoit  dans  le  decret  dc  Dieu,'^qui  appelle  ce  qui  u'est  pas,  conuiie 
 s'll  /ffiii."      |,(.  Clorc  in  loc. 
 
Sect.  3.]       the  Pre-cxistcnce  of  Christ.         99 
 
 necessarily  imply  either  his  eternal  generation 
 or  his  actual  existence  before  Abraham.  But 
 it  should  be  rather  understood,  as  I  conceive, 
 of  God's  eternal  and  wise  designation  or  ap- 
 pointment of  him  to  the  office  and  work  of  a 
 Saviour;  v.hen,  in  pursuance  of  ancient  pro- 
 mise and  prediction,  he  should  be  born  into 
 the  world,  and  appear  and  act  as  the  Messiah. 
 Nor  does  this  appear  to  me  such  a  low  and 
 languid  sense  as  some  have  represented  it ;  but 
 the  only  true,  rational,  and  consistent  one,  and 
 perfectly  consonant  to  the  sacred  writings  both 
 of  the  Old  and  New  Testament;  where  the 
 spirit  of  God,  who  seeth  the  end  from  the  be- 
 ginning, often  speaks  of  future  things  as  already 
 existing,  or  even  as  already  past,  to  denote  the 
 certainty  of  their  accomplishment.''  Isa.  xlvi. 
 10  ;  vii.  14.     Rom.  iv.  17. 
 
 "  Our  Lord,"  says  Mr.  Lindsey  (Sequel, 
 p.  222,)  "  without  regarding  the  impertinent 
 question  of  the  Jews,  goes  on  to  confirm  what 
 he  had  before  been  saying  concerning  Abra- 
 ham :  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Before 
 Abraham  was,  I  am :'  that  is,  You  need  not  be 
 surprised  at  what  I  have  asserted  of  the  great 
 account  Abraham  made  of  me ;  for  I  assure 
 you,  that  before  Abraham  himself  was  born  I 
 11  2 
 
100  Tc\its  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 am  he,  or  tlie  Christ.  Not  that  he  actually  ex- 
 isted before  Abraham,  but  only  in  the  destina- 
 tion and  appointment  of  God,  to  whom  all  live 
 who  are  in  any  future  time  to  be  brought  into 
 being." 
 
 "  Jesus  did  not  say,"  says  Dr.  Priestley  in 
 his  Note  upon  the  Text,  '  either  that  he  had 
 seen  Abraham,  or  that  Abraham  had  seen  him, 
 but  only  his  day  :'  All  that  he  meant  was, 
 that  as  the  future  glory  and  happiness  of  the 
 posterity  of  Abraham  ^ycls  connected  with  his 
 kingdom,  and  that  this  had  been  intimated  to 
 Abraham,  this  kingdom  of  his  must  have  been 
 intended  in  the  di\ine  counsels  before  the  time 
 of  Abraham.  Christians  are  also  said  to  be 
 chosen  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the 
 world;  Eph.  i.  4: •though  it  is  certain  they 
 had  no  being  at  that  time.  But  hi  the  eye  of 
 God,  whatever  is  to  be  may  be  said  already  to 
 exist.  With  him  a  thousand  years  are  as  one 
 day,  and  one  day  as  a  thousand  years." 
 
 "  It  was  determined,"  says  Mr.  Wakefield, 
 HI  his  Inquiry  into  the  Opinions  of  Christian 
 Writers,  p.  1<29,  "  in  the  counsels  of  Provi- 
 dence, l)efore  the  ages,  before  Abraham  was  ', 
 that  the  Messiah  should  appear,  that  Jesus  of 
 Naxjiivih    should    be    the    Messiah.       So    the 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Prc-exisfcucc  of  Christ.         101 
 
 names  of  the  true  serxants  of  God  were  writ- 
 ten in  the  book  of  Yite  ironi  tlic  foundation  of 
 the  world,  Rev.  xiii.  8  ;  xvii.  8.  E\ents  deter- 
 mined are  often  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  al- 
 ready accomplished.  Matt.  xvii.  11  ;  xxvi.  45. 
 This  manner  of  speaking,  with  a  view  to  the 
 pre-detcrminations  of  the  Deity,  was  custo- 
 mary among  the  Jews.  '  Before  the  zvorld 
 was  created  the  Lord  Jehovah  created  the 
 Law,  he  prepared  the  garden  of  Eden  for  the 
 just/    Targum  of  Jonathan  on  Gen.  iii.  24." 
 
 "  In  the  conversation,  of  which  this  clause  is 
 a  part,"  says  Mr.  Simpson  in  his  accurate  Essay 
 upon  this  Text,  p.  1  12,  "  Jesus  says,  '  Your 
 father  Abraham  earnestly  desired  to  see  my 
 day,  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad.'  This  can- 
 not signify  that  Abraham  was  alive  while  Jesus 
 was  speaking,  or  during  any  part  of  his  mi- 
 nistry. The  apostle  Paul  will  assist  us  in  the 
 interpretation  of  this  passage.  Gal.  iii.  8,  he 
 says,  '  The  Scripture  having  foreseen  that  God 
 would  justify  the  Gentiles  by  faith,  proclaim- 
 ed before  glad  tidings  to  Abraham,  saying. 
 Through  thee  all  nations  shall  be  blessed.' 
 Abraham's  seeing  the  day  of  the  Messiah, 
 therefore,  means  only  his  having  very  general 
 information  of  the  previous  divine  purpose  and 
 
102  Text!<  supposed  to  assert       [Part  I. 
 
 appointment  that  the  Messiah  should  descend 
 from  him.  In  hke  manner,  the  clause  *  Before 
 Aljraham  was  born,  I  was  he,'  signifies  that 
 previous  to  Abraham's  existence  God  had  ap- 
 pointed that  Jesus  should  be  the  Messiah. 
 Since  every  event  from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
 of  time,  and  throughout  eternity,  is  present  to 
 the  omniscient  mind  of  the  Deity,  and  since 
 everything  which  he  appoints  will  certainly  come 
 to  pass,  his  original  appointm.ents  are  represent- 
 ed in  the  language  of  Scripture  as  being  actu- 
 ally fulfilled  before  the  events  really  take  place." 
 In  the  explanation  of  this  important  text  it 
 was  thought  necessary  to  be.  thus  particular, 
 because  it  is  in  a  great  measure  decisive  of  the 
 vv'hole  controversy  :  for,  if  this  declaration  does 
 not  establish  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  no 
 other  passage  caii.  And  the  impartial  reader 
 will  consider  whether,  when  our  Lord  had  de- 
 clared, "  your  father  Abraham  saw  my  day," 
 meanmg  thereby  in  prophetic  vision;  and  v/hen, 
 immediately  afterwards,  he  assigns  as  a  reason, 
 "  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  was  he,"  it  be 
 not  most  reasonable,  and  most  consistent  with 
 the  connexion,  to  understand  these  words  in  the 
 corresponding  sense,  not  of  real  existence,  but 
 of  existence  in  the  di^  ine  purpose. 
 
Sect.  3. J     the  Frc-exhtcncc  of  Cnvist.         103 
 
 Further,  As  it  appears  to  have  been  com- 
 mon with  the  sacred  writers  to  represent  per- 
 sons and  things  as  actually  existing,  which 
 existed  only  in  the  divine  counsels,  it  follows 
 that  wherever  Cliiist  or  his  glory  is  repre- 
 sented as  existing  previously  to  his  appearance 
 on  earth,  it  may  justly  be  understood  of  an 
 existence  in  the  divine  purpose  and  decree 
 only,  unless  the  connexion  necessarily  deter- 
 mines it  to  the  contrary  signification. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 John  xiii.  3.     "  Jesus  knowing  that  he  was 
 come  from  God  and  went  to  God/'  See  No.  VI. 
 He  came  from  God  as  the  messen2:er  of  his 
 
 o 
 
 will  to  mankind.  See  John  i.  6.  He  was  re- 
 turning to  God,  having  finished  his  embassy, 
 to  render  an  account  of  his  mission. 
 
 Dr.  Harwood  (Soc.  Sch.  p.  45,)  cites  this 
 text  as  decisive  in  favour  of  the  pre-existence 
 of  Christ.  Dr.  Clarke,  with  more  judgement, 
 appeals  to  it  (Scrip.  Doct.  No.  51,)  only  as  a 
 proof  of  the  inferiority  of  the  Son. 
 
 IX. 
 
104  Texts  supposed  to  assert       [Part  L 
 
 ther,  and  am  come  into  tlie  world  ;  again,  I 
 leave  the  world  and  go  to  the  Father/' 
 
 It  is  here  argued,  that  as  the  last  clause 
 clearly  refers  to  a  local  ascent  into  heaven,  so 
 the  first  and  corresponding  clause  ought  in  all 
 reason  to  be  understood  of  a  prior  local  (descent 
 from  the  Father.  Hence  Arians  and  Trinita- 
 rians argue  the  pre-existence  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 and  the  Polish  Socinians  infer  his  ascent  into 
 heaven  antecedently  to  his  public  a])pearance 
 as  a  messenger  from  God. 
 
 On  the  other  hand  it  has  been  urged,  that 
 "  it  is  frequent  with  the  best  authors,  and  with 
 the  sacred  writers  in  particular,  when  the  same 
 words  are  put  in  opposition  to  each  other,  to 
 take  the  one  in  a  literal,  the  other  in  a  figura- 
 tive sense.  Ivlatt.  viii.  22,  '  Let  the  dead  bury 
 their  dead."'  So  Jesus  came  into  the  world 
 in  a  figurative  sense  as  a  messenger  from  God  ; 
 but  he  left  the  world  and  went  to  the  Father 
 literally  and  locally  when  he  ascended  into 
 heaven. 
 
 But  it  is  better  to  take  both  clauses  figu- 
 ratively. As  Jesus  came  into  the  world  when 
 he  appeared  in  public  as  a  messenger  from 
 God  ;  so,  conversely,  he  left  the  world  and 
 returned  to  the  Father  when  his  mission  closed, 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  Pre-exisiciice  of  Christ.       10.5 
 
 and  he  ceased  to  appear  an}-  longer  as  a  public 
 teacher  ^^ 
 
 X. 
 John  xvii.  5.    "  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify 
 thou    me    with   thy  own  self,   with    the   glory 
 which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was." 
 
 1.  This  text  is  understood  by  many  Trinita- 
 rians as  a  petition  to  the  Father  from  our  Saviour 
 in  his  divine  nature,  requesting  that  his  human 
 nature  might  be  assumed  to  a  participation  of 
 those  honours  which  the  divine  nature  had  from 
 all  eternity  possessed.  The  truth  of  this  hypo- 
 thesis it  would  be  useless  to  discuss  ^"^. 
 
 *  Slichtiiigi'.is  argues  strenuous!),  from  the  opposition  of  the 
 two  clauses,  the  local  ascent  and  descent  of  Christ.  Wolzogc- 
 nius,  Groti'js,  and  Mr.  Liodsey,  Coram,  and  Ess.  vol.  i.  p.  395, 
 contend  for  the  figurative  interpretation  of  the  first,  and  the 
 literal  sense  of  the  latter  clause.  It  may  be  remarked,  that  in 
 this  text  the  Ariaas  take  both  clauses  in  the  same,  i.  e.  the  literal 
 sense  :  and  the  Unitarians  understand  one  literally,  and  the  other 
 figuratively.  In  John  iii.  13,  '•  Who  lialh  ascended  up  into 
 heaven  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven?"  the  Arians  un- 
 derstand the  first  clause  figuratively,  and  the  second  literally  : 
 ■whereas  the  Unitarians  interpret  both  clauses  figurativelv.  And 
 surely  it  is  always  right  to  interpret  the  same  words  in  the  same 
 sense,  whether  literal  or  figurative,  where  they  occur  in  the  same 
 sentence,  unless  the  connexion  imperioubly  requires  the  contrary. 
 Upon  this  principle,  the  figurative  interpretation  of  both  clauses 
 in  the  present  case  a])poars  the  most  eligible. 
 
 "*  "  Nunc  autem,  0  Pater,  adsumito  hanc  mortalcm  naluram 
 
106  Tcais  supposed  to  assert        [Part  I. 
 
 2.  By  tlie  advocates  for  the  pre-existence  of 
 Christ,  this  text  is  understood  as  a  prayer  to 
 be  restored  to  that  dignity  and  fehcity  which 
 he  possessed  with  the  Father,  before  the  found- 
 ation of  the  world,  and  of  which  he  had  volun- 
 tarily divested  himself  when  he  became  in- 
 carnate. 
 
 This  it  is  alleged  is  the  natural  obvious 
 meaning  of  the  words.  If  interpreted  by  the 
 rules  of  sound  criticism,  they  will  bear  no  other 
 sense.  The  words  -^rct^cc  crsocvro),  '  with  thy  own 
 self,'  are  opposed  to  the  words  S'^i  rtjg  y/jg,  '  upon 
 the  earth,'  in  the  preceding  verse  :  and  the 
 words  Tra^a  g-oi,  '  Avith  thee,'  in  the  Scriptures 
 and  in  all  good  writers,  are  used  in  a  local 
 sense  to  express  '  in  thy  house,'  '  in  thy  pre- 
 sence,' and  the  like;  and  never  signify  *  in  thy 
 purpose  or  decree  ^''.' 
 
 ad  participalionem  honoris  et  dignitatis  et  gloriac!,  qua  anteqiiam 
 mihi  hanc  conjungcrem  naturam,  ante  crcationcm  raundi,  imo  ab 
 omni  aetcrnitate  frucbar."  Hammond  in  loc. — "  Declarat  se 
 nihil  advcntitium  cupcrc,  scd  tantiim  ut  apparcat  talis  in  carnc, 
 qualis  fuit  ante  condituni  mundiim."  Calvin. — Dr.  Whitby  gives 
 tlie  same  interpretation,  wliich  he  supports  by  a  quotation  frora 
 Thcophylact,  "  rriv  av^pwTTivrjv  ij.8  <pv(Tiv  ayays  si;  tr^v  So^av,  ijv 
 
 "  See  Numb,  xxii,  9,  "  Who  arc  the  men  that  are  {ntccpx  (TOi) 
 ■with  thee  in  thy  house  ?"  I  Sam.  xxii.  3,  "  Let  my  father  and 
 mother  be  {tapx  (xoi)  with  thee  in  thy  house."     "  Wc  shall  re- 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Vre-ciistcnce  of  Christ,         107 
 
 This  text  is  held  up  by  the  Arian  expositors 
 as  an  unanswerable  argument  tor  the  pre-exist- 
 ence  of  Christ,  and  the  interpretation  of  the 
 Unitarians  is  treated  by  them  with  \e\y  little 
 ceremony. 
 
 "  To  suppose  with  the  Socinians,"  says  Dr. 
 Doddridge,  who  agreed  with  the  Arians  in  the 
 belief  of  a  created  Logos,  "  that  this  refers 
 only  to  that  glory  which  God  intended  for  him 
 in  his  decrees,  seems  to  sink  and  contract  the 
 sense  far  short  of  its  genuine  purpose.'' 
 
 "  The  Socinian  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
 sage," says  Dr.  Clarke  (No.  60?,)  "  is  too 
 much  forced." 
 
 The  value  of  such  kmd  of  observations  has 
 been  already  stated.  Low  and  forced  inter- 
 pretations mean  nothing  more  than  interpreta- 
 tions to  which  these  learned  expositors  had  not 
 been  accustomed  ;  but  which  might  neverthe- 
 less be  true. 
 
 Dr.  Harwood,  as  he  is  w^ont,  uses  language 
 still  more  triumphant.     "  Was  there  no  intima- 
 
 ccive,"  says  the  mother  of  the  seven  martyrs,  "  the  prize  of 
 virtue,  and  we  shall  be  {itxpx  Qcm)  with  God  :''  i.  e.  ia  his  pre- 
 sence. Joseph.  0pp.  torn.  ii.  p,  509.  See  Aristoph.  Pint,  vi, 
 394.  Demosth.  de  Coron.  §  25.  Ilarwood  Soc.  Sch.  p.  46 
 —48. 
 
108  Texts  supposed  to  assert       [Parti. 
 
 tion/'  says  he  (Soc.  Sch.  p.  46,)  "  in  the  whole 
 New  Testament  of  the  pre-existcnce  of  Christ, 
 this  single  passage  would  irrefragably  demon- 
 strate ,and  establish  it.  It  is  a  plain  solemn 
 address  to  the  Deity,  that,  since  he  had  glori- 
 fied his  name  upon  earth,  lie  would  be  pleased 
 to  re-admit  him  to  that  state  of  glory  and  hap- 
 piness which  he  had  possessed  in  his  presence 
 before  the  creation  of  the  world.  Upon  this 
 single  text  I  lay  my  finger.  Here  I  posit  my 
 system.  *  And  if  plain  words  be  designedly 
 emplo}' ed  to  convey  any  determinate  meaning ; 
 if  the  modes  of  human  speech  have  any  preci- 
 sion; I  am  convinced  that  this  plain  declaration 
 of  our  Lord,  in  an  act  of  devotion,  exhibits  a 
 great  and  important  truth  Mdiich  can  never  be 
 subverted  or  invalidated  by  any  accurate  and 
 satisfactory  criticism." 
 
 The  learned  writer  adds  in  a  note,  "  The 
 solemnity  with  which  I  once  heard  Dr.  Benson 
 appeal  to  this  text  greatly  affected  me  when  I 
 was  a  young  man.  Dr.  Newcome  also,  the 
 very  learned  and  worthy  bishop  of  Waterford, 
 (afterwards  archbishop  of  Armagh,)  in  a  visit 
 with  which  he  condescended  to  honour  me, 
 insisted  on  this  text  as  decisive." 
 
 These  authorities  are  considerable.     But  au- 
 
Sect.  3.]     the.  Fre-exisfence  of  Christ.         109 
 
 thorities,  at  least  equally  grave,  may  be  pro- 
 duced oil  the  other  side.  And  the  (]^uestion 
 must  be  determined  by  reason,  not  by  au- 
 thority. 
 
 3.  "  O  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thyself, 
 Mith  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee,"  that  is, 
 in  thy  immutable  purpose  and  decree,  the 
 glory  which  was  intended  for  me  "  before 
 the  world  was.'' 
 
 This  is  the  sense  in  which  the  words  are  ex- 
 plained by  the  Polish  Socinian  expositors  and 
 by  the  modern  Unitarians  :  and  if  this  sense 
 be  admissible,  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from 
 this  text  in  favour  of  the  pre-cxistence  of 
 Christ. 
 
 The  great  error  of  most  expositors  seems  to 
 be  concerning  the  nature  of  that  glory  which 
 was  the  object  of  our  Lord's  earnest  petition 
 upon  this  solemn  occasion.  It  is  commonly 
 supposed  that  he  solicits  some  personal  benefit ; 
 some  high  distinction  to  be  conferred  upon 
 himself  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  and 
 sufferings.  But  this  would  .have  been  a  selfish 
 request,  unworthy  of  the  dignity  and  disin- 
 terestedness of  our  Lord's  character.  The 
 glory  to  which  he  aspired  was  that  of  ful/illing 
 the  purposes  of  his  divine  mission;  of  redeem- 
 
1 10  Texts  supposed  to  assert        [Part  I. 
 
 ing  mankind  from  the  bondage  of  ignorance, 
 idolatry,  vice,  and  misery  ;  and  restoring  them 
 to  the  knowledge  and  love  of  God,  and  to  the 
 hope  of  immortality.  That  this  is  the  true 
 meaning  of  oar  Lord  in  this  prayer,  will  appear 
 from  the  following  considerations  : 
 
 1.)  It  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  the  glory 
 of  God,  to  will  and  to  accomplish  the  virtue  and 
 liappiness  of  mankind.  Luke  ii.  14,  "  Glory  to 
 God  in  the  highest  for  peace  on  earth  and  good- 
 will towards  men."  John  xv.  8,  "  Herein  is 
 my  Father  glorified,  that  ye  bear  much  fruit.'' 
 PhiL  i.  11,  "  Being  filled  with  the  fruits  of 
 righteousnessj  which  are  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  the 
 praise  and  glory  of  God.''  See  also  John  xii. 
 28.  31,  32;  xvii.  4.     Rom.  xv.  7. 
 
 2.)  Christ  himself  represents  the  success  of 
 his  doctrine  as  constituting  his  own  true  glory, 
 and  as  the  proper  reward  of  his  sufferings : 
 John  xii.  23.  When  the  Greeks  expressed  a, 
 desire  to  be  introduced  to  him,  Jesus,  in  con- 
 templation of  the  future  triumphs  of  his  go- 
 spel, saith;  "The  hour  is  come  that  the  S^*n  of 
 Man  should  be  glorified.  Verily  I  say  unto 
 you.  Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the 
 ground  and  die,  it  abideth  alone  ;  but  if  it  die, 
 it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit." 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Prc-twistence  of  Christ.         1 1 1 
 
 3.)  Tliis  is  the  glory  which  Christ  communi- 
 cated to  his  apostles,  and  which  they  partici- 
 pated in  common  with  the  Father  and  himself. 
 Ver,  22,  "  The  glory  which  tliou  gavest  me  I 
 have  given  them." — To  them  he  communi- 
 cated the  doctrine  he  had  received  from  God. 
 Ver.  8,  "  I  have  given  them  the  words  which 
 thou  gavest  me." — To  them  he  gave  a  commis- 
 sion similar  to  that  which  he  had  himself  re- 
 ceived from  God.  Ver.  18,  "  As  thou  hast 
 sent  me  into  the  world,  so  have  I  also  sent 
 them  into  the  world." — To  them  he  promised 
 the  holy  spirit  to  qualify  them  for  their  work, 
 and  to  ensure  success  to  their  exertions.  John 
 xiv.  16,  "I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall 
 give  you  another  Comforter  (advocate)  Mho 
 may  abide  with  you  for  ever."  Chap.  xvi.  13, 
 "  When  the  spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  guide 
 you  into  all  truth." — And  this  glory  is  con- 
 ferred upon  the  apostles,  that  they  may  be  asso- 
 ciated with  God  and  Christ  in  diffusing  the  bless- 
 ings of  the  gospel.  Chap.  xvii.  22.  25,  "  That 
 they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one:  that  they 
 ^1  may  be  one ;  as  thou.  Father,  art  m  me,  and 
 I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us:  that 
 the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me." 
 
112  Te.rts  supposed  to  assert       [Part  I. 
 
 4.)  This  glory  of  Christ  as  the  instructor  and 
 redeemer  of  mankind,  was  the  object  of  the 
 divine  eternal  purpose.  2  Tim.  i.  .9,  "  Accord- 
 ing to  his  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given 
 (/.  e.  intended  and  determined  to  be  given)  us 
 in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began."  See 
 also  Eph.  i.  5.  10;"ii.  10. 
 
 5.)  This  glory  of  Christ,  in  the  success  of 
 his  gospel,  and  the  universal  extent  of  his 
 spiritual  dominion,  is  the  subject,  of  many 
 prophecies  and  promises.  See  particularly  Isa. 
 liii.  10—- 12. 
 
 6.)  This  glory  of  Christ,  in  the  recovery  of 
 mankind  from  sin  and  death,  having  been  the 
 object  of  the  divine  eternal  and  immutable 
 purpose,  and  the  subject  of  the  divine  pro- 
 mise, is  represented  by  our  Lord  as. what  he 
 possessed  with  the  Father  before  the  world 
 was. 
 
 It  has  been  already  proved  under  Text  VII. 
 that  such  a  prolepsis  is  not  unusual ;  and  that 
 persons,  things,  and  states  of  things,  are  not 
 unfrequently  represented,  in  the  language  of 
 the  sacred  writers,  as  actually  existing,  when 
 they  exist  only  in  the  divine  counsel  and 
 decree. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Tre-eiistence  of  Christ,        113 
 
 And  the  language  which  is  here  used  by  our 
 Lord  may  justly  be  interpreted  in  this  sense. 
 It  is  not  true  that  the  preposition  -zu^a  with  a 
 dative  case  always  has  a  local  signification. 
 When  applied  personally,  it  sometimes  signifies 
 '  in  that  person's  estimation  or  account ;  viz. 
 2  Pet.  iii.  8,  "  One  day  is  with  the  Lord  (^a^a 
 Kv^iu,  '  in  the  account  or  estimation  of  the 
 Lord/)  as  a  thousand  years*." 
 
 Further : — In    this    very    prayer   the    pro- 
 lepsis    is    repeatedly   used,    which   justifies    a 
 similar  interpretation  of  the  fifth  verse.    Ver.  4, 
 "  I  have  finished  the  work  which  thou  gavest 
 me  to  do.'*      Our  Lord   had   not   then   com- 
 pletely finished  his  labours :  See  chap.  xix.  30. 
 Ver.  12,  "  None  of  them  is  lost  but  the  son  of 
 perdition."     Judas  had  not  at    that  time   de- 
 stroyed himself.     Ver.  22,  "  The  glory  which 
 thou  gavest  me,  I  have  given  them.'*   The  suc- 
 cessful discharge  of  their  apostolic  mission  was 
 an  honour  intended  for  them  and  promised,  but 
 of  which  they  were  not  at  that  time  actually  in 
 possession.     Also,  ver.  24,  "  That  they  may  be 
 with  me  where  I  ain"  i.  e.  am  to  exist  hereafter ; 
 
 *•  See  also   Rom.  ii.  11  ;  xi.  'lb  ;  xii.  iG,  and  Schleiisiier  in 
 verb.     See  Dr.  Carpenter's  valuable  observations  upon  tbis  tej:t 
 in  his  Letters  to  Mr.  Veysie,  p.  247 — 265. 
 I 
 
114  Texts  supposed  to  assert       [Part  I. 
 
 "  that  they  may  behold  my  glory  which  thou 
 hast  given  me/'  i.  e.  intended  for  me. 
 
 7.  Hence  we  conclude,  that  the  true  inter- 
 pretation of  this  celebrated  clause  in  our  Lord's 
 valedictory  prayer, — that  which  best  suits  the 
 connexion,  and  which  is  most  consistent  with 
 the  dignity  and  disinterestedness  of  his  cha- 
 racter,— contains  no  proof  of  his  pre-existence, 
 but  is  perfectly  compatible  with  his  proper  hu- 
 manity,   viz, 
 
 ''  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with 
 thy  own  self;''  q,  d.  allow  me  to  participate  in 
 that  which  is  thy  own  greatest  glory,  "  with 
 the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the 
 world  was  ;"  the  glory  of  recovering  lost  man- 
 kind to  virtue  and  happiness,  a  glory  which  was 
 intended  and  reserved  for  me  in  the  eternal 
 immutable  counsels  of  infinite  wisdom  and 
 benevolence. 
 
 Many  expositors  have  explained  the  text  in 
 reference  to  the  divine  counsels  and  decrees; 
 but  few,  if  any,  before  Mr.  Lindsey,  appear  to 
 have  given  the  right  interpretation  of  the  ob- 
 ject of  our  Lord's  dying  request^'',    . 
 
 ^  "  va^a  ffsavrui  in  calo,  opponitur  enim  ei  ett*  rijj  "vjjf .  rij 
 eo^?)  r  siyjv,  di'stiiKilionc  tua  :  ut  1  Pet.  i.  20.  Simile  loqucndi 
 genus  Eph.  i.  3.  Sic.  k-gcin  fuisse  ante  munelum  aiuiit  llebraei. 
 rxpa.  <roi,  refer  ad  iiJud  f^ov;  et  intelJigc  ut  dixiiiuis  io  decreto 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  F re-existence  of  Christ.        115 
 
 "  This/'  says  Dr.  Lardner,  (Log.  p.  15,) 
 *'  according  to  Jewish  phraseology  may  be  very 
 well  understood  of  the  glory  always  designed 
 for  Christ  by  the  immutable  purpose  of  God. 
 That  our  Lord  had  not  before  his  nativity  the 
 glory  which  he  here  prays  for,  is  apparent  from 
 ths  whole  tenor  of  the  Gospel,  and  from  clear 
 and  manifest  expressions  in  the  context;  for 
 the  glory  which  he  now  prays  for  is  the  re- 
 ward of  his  obedience." 
 
 tiio."  Grotius. — "  Saepissime  de  rebus  quai  a  Deo  certe  constituta 
 atque  decreta  sunt  ut  fiant,  dicitur  quasi  jam  actu  ipso  facta 
 sunt.  1  Tim.  i.  9.  Col.  iii.  1."  Wolzogenius  in  loc.  ;  who  con- 
 cludes a  long  note  upon  the  text  wiih  these  words  of  Augustin  : 
 *'  Ad  hoc  valet,  quod  ait,  Kt  nunc  gloritica  me.  Hoc  est,  sicut 
 tunc,  ita  et  nunc;  sicut  tunc  in  prtedestinatione,  sic  et  nunc  per- 
 feclione.  Fac  in  mundo,  quod  apud  te  jam  fuerat  ante  mundum  j 
 fac  in  suo  tempore,  quod  ante  omnia  tempora  statuisti." 
 
 "  Glorificari  a  Patrc  petit  in  ccelo.  Ad  quod  votum  suum  im- 
 petrandum  non  adducit  raeritasua,  ut  qui  ex  officio  fecisset  quic- 
 quid  fecisset,  sed  decrctum  Petri."     Brcnnius. 
 
 "  Cur  non  dicanius  quod  planum,  quod  certum,  quod  SS.  Li- 
 teris  apertissime  testatum  est,  Christum  petere  gloriam  illam  sibi 
 dari,  quae  sibi  ante  mundum  conditum  a  Patre  Deo  illo  uno  de- 
 stinata  erat  ?"     Slichtingius. 
 
 *'  Comme  il  s'agit  ici  de  la  gloire  de  I'humanite  dc  Jesus  Christ, 
 car  la  divinite  ne  peut  ni  perdre,  ni  acquerir  de  la  gloire  dans  le 
 ciel,  ou  il  n'y  a  rien  de  sujet  au  changement :  on  ne  peut  jjas 
 doutcr,  que  Jesus  Christ  ne  veuille  parler  du  dessein  que  Dieu 
 avoit  de  r61ever  quelque  jour  ^  la  gloire,  avant  que  le  moad«  X^t 
 crte."     LcClcrc, 
 
 I    2 
 
116  Texts  supposed  to  assert       [Part  L 
 
 "  What  so  proper,"  says  Mr.  Lindsey  (Se- 
 quel, p.  243,)  "  for  the  holy  and  benevolent 
 Jesus  to  ask  at  the  close  of  life,  as  the  success 
 of  that  Gospel  by  which  the  virtue  and  happi- 
 ness of  mankind  was  to  be  promoted,  which  had 
 been  his  sole  aim  and  pursuit,  for  which  he  had 
 lived,  and  for  which  he  was  about  to  die  ?  To 
 suppose  him  to  pray  for  his  own  happiness  and 
 advancement,  and  to  animate  himself  with  a 
 prospect  of  that  from  God,  as  is  the  common 
 opinion  of  the  glory  he  sought,  would  not  be 
 suitable  to  that  perfection  of  moral  character 
 which  we  cannot  but  ascribe  to  him,  nor  act- 
 ing up  to  that  idea  of  that  enlarged  univer- 
 sal benevolence  which  seems  to  have  actuated 
 hini.'^ 
 
 "  What  propriety,'*  says  Dr.  Priestley  (in 
 loc)  "  could  there  be  in  Christ  praying,  as  the 
 reward  of  his  sulFerings,  for  the  same  state  of 
 glory  which  he  had  enjoyed  before  them  ? 
 This  Mould  be  to  make  it  no  reward  at  all. 
 Whereas  he  now,  very  naturally,  asks  for  that 
 reward  which  had  been  promised  to  him  when 
 he  should  have  fulfilled  the  conditions  on  which 
 the  promise  was  made." 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  V re-existence  of  Chvi at.         117 
 
 XI. 
 
 John  xvii.  24.  "  Fiither,  I  will  that  they  also 
 whom  thou  hast  ghcn  me  be  with  me  where  I 
 am,  that  thej  may  behold  my  glory  which  thou 
 hast  given  me,  for  thou  lovedst  me  before  the 
 foundation  of  the  world." 
 
 Some  expositors  have  strangely  supposed 
 that  our  Lord  is  here  authoritatively  claiming 
 and  insisting  upon  a  right,  in  consequence  of 
 previous  stipulations  in  the  counsels  of  Heaven  ; 
 and  hence  infer  not  only  his  pre-existence  but 
 even  his  divinity ^*^. 
 
 *  It  is  unaccouiita1)Ic  that  Dr,  Doddridge  should  have  fallen 
 into  this  egregious  error.  He  thus  paraphrases  the  text  :  "  O 
 Father,  permit  me  to  say  that  I  will,  that  is,  I  importunately  ask 
 it,  and  in  consequence  of  the  mutual  transactions  between  us  I 
 ain  bold  to  claim  it,  and  insist  upon  it  as  a  matter  of  right,"  &c. 
 
 But  this  is  no(hing  to  the  language  of  Dr.  Guyse,  whose  expo- 
 sition would  lead  us  to  conclude  that  the  Father  wished  to  be  off 
 his  bargain,  if  the  Son  had  not  held  him  closely  to  the  terms  of 
 the  bond.  "  The  upshot,  O  ray  Father,  of  my  will  and  plea- 
 sure, which  I  insist  on  as  matter  of  right,  according  to  my  pur- 
 chase and  thy  agreement,  is,  that  all  whom  thou  hast  given  me 
 may  be  admitted  into  my  immediate  presence  in  heaven,  where  I 
 already  am  in  Hiy  divine  nature,  and  for  ever  shall  be  in  my 
 entire  person,"  &c. 
 
 The  learned  Calvin,  whoso  disciples  these  pious  expositors 
 professed  to  be,  would  have  taught  them  better  if  they  h;id  con- 
 sulted his  Commentary  :  "  Fdle  pro  optare  positum  est:  ncque 
 
118  Tej'ts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 No  conclusion  can  be  more  unfounded.  The 
 word  ^cXu,  '  I  will/  expresses  nothing  more 
 than  simple  desire,  *  I  request/  Matt.  xii.  38, 
 "  Master,  we  desire  (S^gXo^sv),  to  see  a  sign 
 from  thee."     See  also  Mark  vi.  '25;  x.  So. 
 
 '  Father,  I  request  that  they  whom  thou  hast 
 given  me  be  with  me  where  I  am  ;'  or,  as  Dr. 
 Campbell  renders  it,  *  n  here  I  shall  be.'  The 
 present  tense  is  used  for  the  future,  to  denote 
 the  certainty  of  the  event. 
 
 '  Tha  they  may  behold  my  glory  which  thou 
 hast  given  me.'  That  glory  is  described  as 
 actually  given,  which  it  was  the  purpose  and 
 determination  of  God  to  bestow.     See  ver.  5. 
 
 This  glory,  it  has  been  proved  already,  was 
 that  of  instructing  and  reforming  the  world. 
 Our  Lord  pram's  that  his  apostles  may  be  wit^ 
 nesses  to  the  great  success  of  his  Gospel. 
 
 How  low  and  unworthy  of  our  Saviour's 
 character,  to  suppose  that  he  prays  thus  ear^ 
 nestly  for  nothing  more  than  that  his  apostles 
 might  be  admitted  to  see  some  personal  honour 
 with  which  he  was  to  be  hereafter  adorned  ! 
 
 enim  praeripicntis,  scd  rogantis,cst  oratio," — "This  argument," 
 «ays  J)r.  Campbell,  ''  is  built  upon  an  Anglicism  in  their  traus» 
 lations,  for  which  the  sacred  author  is  not  accountable." 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Tre-cxistence  of  Christ.       119 
 
 "  For  tliou  lovedst  me  before  the  foundation 
 of  the  world."  q.  d.  In  thine  eternal  counsels 
 thou  didst  select  me  to  the  high  honour  of 
 being  the  messenger  of  peace  and  good-will  to 
 mankind  ^'\ 
 
 To  love,  in  Scripture  phraseology,  is  to  select 
 to  peculiar  privileges.  Rom.  ix.  II-t-13,  "  Be- 
 fore the  children  were  born,  having  done  nei- 
 ther good  nor  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God, 
 according  to  election,  might  stand,  it  was  said, 
 The  elder  shall  serve  the  younger.  As  it  is 
 written,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I 
 hated ;"  i.  e.  I  have  chosen,  without  regard  to 
 personal  merit,  to  grant  privileges  to  Jacob 
 which  will  be  denied  to  Esau. 
 
 XII. 
 
 1  Cor.  XV.  47-  "  The  first  man  is  of  the 
 earth,  earthy;  the  second  man  is  the  Lord  from 
 heaven ''\" 
 
 "'  *'  He  prays  that  his  apostles  and  followers  may  be  partakers 
 of  his  spiritual  gifts,  and  contribute  to  the  spreading  of  the  Go- 
 spel, and  promoting  the  virtue  and  happiness  of  mankind,  in 
 which  he  himself  had  been  destined  before  all  ages  to  be  the 
 prime  instriiment,  and  they  to  have  (he  honour  of  being  inferior 
 workmen  under  him."     Lindsoy's  Sequel,  p.  257. 
 
 '°  6  Ssvrepos  av^puiiro;  o  K^pios  e^  ovpxvov.  The  words 
 0  Kupiof  are  wanting  in  the  Ejlirem,  Clermont,  and  four  other 
 maijuscripts    in    the    Coptic,    Ethiopic,    Vulgate,    {ind    Italic 
 
120  Te.rfs  supposed  to  assert        [Part  I. 
 
 <'  He  came  originally  from  the  heavenly 
 world  to  which  he  is  now  returned."  Dod^ 
 d  ridge. 
 
 The  Polish  Socinians,  who  believed  that 
 Christ  after  his  ascension  was  advanced  to  a 
 dignity  superior  to  that  of  the  highest  angel, 
 and  was  constituted  vice-regent  of  the  whole 
 created  universe,  understand  this  text  as  as- 
 serting that  the  body  of  Christ  was  of  celestial 
 substance  and  origin'^'. 
 
 Tensions;  in  Origen,  Basil,  Gregory  Nyssen  and  Nazianzen, 
 Tertullian,  Cyril,  and  others.  It  is  said  that  they  were  intro- 
 duced by  Marcion.  The  words  o  apccvioi  are  added  at  the  end  of 
 the  verse  in  two  uncial  MSS.  and  in  the  Vulgate  and  Ethiopia 
 version  :  and  they  are  cited  by  Ambrose,  Augustin,  Jerome,  &<•. 
 The  genuine  reading  perhaps  is  o  Stvtspos  avSpcvrfos  s^  spx'/a,  o 
 Kpavios.  See  Griesbach. — "  Primus  homo  de  terra,  tcrrenus  : 
 secundus  homo  de  ccclo,  ccelestis."    Vulgate. 
 
 "  "  Quasi  dixisset  apostolus,  Secundus  homo,  nimirum,  Do- 
 minus  ille,  ex  coclo,  scilicet,  est :  habita  nempe  ratione  cor, 
 poris."  Crellius. — This  ingenious  and  learned  writer  proceeds 
 to  state  the  expedience  and  necessity  that  the  body  of  Christ 
 should  be  of  heavenly  substance.  *'•  So  great  a  being,"  says  he, 
 "  than  whom  no  one  is  more  nearly  united  to  God,  who  is  raised 
 above  all  ceUstial  spirits,  so  as  to  govern  them  all,  God  only 
 excepted,  annon  decuit,  immo  annon  etiam  nccesse  fuit,  ce- 
 lestem  etiam  naturam  et  angclicam,  si  non  pra»stantiorera  saltern 
 parem,  Deiautcm  ipsius  naturaisimillimam  etproximam  adipisci?" 
 
 Siirhtingius  and  Brennius,  both  of  them  men  of  great  learning 
 and  ability,  adopt  the  same  strange  interpretation.  It  is  cliielly 
 in  this  extra\agant  notion  of  the  advancement  of  a  human  being 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  V re-existence  of  Christ.        121 
 
 *  The  second  man  will  be  the  Lord  from 
 heaven/  i.  e.  will  descend  tVom  heaven  to  raise 
 the  dead.  This  is  the  interpretation  of  New- 
 come,  Whitby,  Alexander,  and  others,  uho^ 
 though  themselves  believers  in  the  doctrine, 
 do  not  regard  this  passage  as  asserting  the  pre- 
 existence  of  Christ. 
 
 The  Vukate  renders  the  text,  "  The  first  man 
 was  of  tlic  earth,  earthy.  The  second  man 
 will  be  from  heaven,  heavenly." 
 
 This  is  not  improbably  the  true  reading  ;  and 
 the  sense  is,  '  The  first  man,  taken  from  the 
 earth,  was  frail  and  mortal ;  the  second  man 
 will  descend  from  heaven  in  a  heavenly  form, 
 and  with  immortal  radiance  and  vigour.' 
 
 XIII. 
 
 2  Cor.  viii.  9-  "  For  ye  know  the  grace  of 
 our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  though  he  was  rich, 
 yet  for  yonr  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye 
 through  his  poverty  might  be  rich/' 
 
 to  the  government  of  the  universe,  and  niaking  him  thi-  object  of 
 religions  worship,  a  doctrine  which,  as  Dr.  I'lice  says,  "  would 
 make  Christianity  itself  incredible,"  that  (he  Unitarians  of  the 
 present  day  dilfer  from  the  old  Socinians ;  to  whom,  notwith- 
 standing their  gross  error  in  this  jiarticular,  they  ncvertlicless 
 look  with  great  veneration,  us  the  most  enlightened  critics  and  ex- 
 positors of  the  a^e  in  which  they  lived.— £^  a^va,  i.e.  a^^vjo;, 
 **  ccclcstis:  habcns  jam  corpus  cojleslc."     Grotius. 
 
1^'2  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 No  person,  whose  mind  was  not  wholly  pre- 
 occupied with  a  persuasion  of  the  pre-existence 
 of  Christ,  would  ever  dream  of  finding  it  in  this 
 text.  If  the  fact  were  antecedently  establish- 
 ed, this  passage  might  indeed  be  admitted  as  a 
 graceful  allusion  to  it :  but  it  can  never  with  any 
 propriety  be  alleged  as  a  proof.  For  when  it 
 is  said  of  any  man,  that  though  he  is  rich  he 
 spends  nothing,  who  in  his  senses  infers  from  it 
 that  he  existed  before  he  was  born  ?  Upon  this 
 principle,  every  miser  would  have  a  claim  to 
 pre-existence.  Dr.  Clarke,  with  great  pro- 
 priety, takes  no  notice  of  this  text  in  his 
 arguments  for  the  pre-existence  of  Christ. 
 Others,  with  less  judgement,  have  held  it  up 
 as  a  decisive  proof  of  this  favourite  doctrine, 
 and  have  indulged  to  no  little  asperity  of 
 reflection  upon  those  who  thought  differ- 
 ently, 
 
 "  He  was  rich"  —  "  rich,"  says  Dr.  Doddridge, 
 "  in  the  glories  of  the  heavenly  world,  and  in 
 supreme  dominion  and  authority  there,  yet  for 
 your  sakes  he  became  poor." 
 
 "  Rich,"  says  archbishop  Newcome,  "  in  the 
 glories  of  the  divine  nature,  he  became  poor  by 
 taking  on  him  human  nature,  and  appearing 
 even  in  a  humble  state  of  life." 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  PrC'txistcnce  of  Christ.       125 
 
 "  Rich/'  says  Dr.  Harwood  (Soc.  Sch.  p.  46,) 
 "  in  his  pre-existent  state  in  glory,  honour,  and 
 happiness,  with  a  greatness  of  soul  which  can 
 never  be  sufficiently  extolled,  he  abdicated  all 
 this,  and  became  poor.  The  apostle's  argu- 
 ment upon  this  scheme  only  is  cogent,  appo- 
 site, and  very  elegant  and  persuasive.  To 
 interpret  this  of  our  Lord  being  rich  in  mi- 
 racles, and  becoming  poor  in  them  at  his 
 crucifixion,  is  such  a  jejune  and  forced  criti- 
 cism, as  I  imagine  was  never  used  to  explain 
 any  author/' 
 
 This  lofty  language  is  now  become  too  fami- 
 liar to  excite  alarm :  and,  as  inquirers  after 
 truth,  we  are  to  consider  not  what  the  apostle's 
 expositors  are  pleased  to  say  for  him,  but  what 
 he  has  actually  said  himself;  which  is  this  : 
 
 "  Ye  know  the  kindness  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ,  that  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  your 
 sakes  he  hved  in  poverty  7^,  that  ye  through 
 his  poverty  might  be  rich." 
 
 '•  The  only  shadow  of  SrgutneFit  which  can  be  adiluced  from 
 this  text  in  favour  of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  is  from  the 
 words  STfruj^sua-e  ttXHO'iOi  ur  in  the  public  vt-rsion,  '  though  he 
 was  rich  he  became  poor.'  But  1.)  The  verb  "rrrvox^vio  docs  not 
 properly  si^rnify  '  to  become  poor,'  but  *  to  be  poor.' — ^Stcphan. 
 Thcs.  irrw;^eua;,  *  mendicus  sum,'  <  mendicu*.  ^iro.'  He  translates 
 
124  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 Observe  here,  that  the  apostle  does  not  say 
 that  having  been  rich  he  became  poor;  that  he 
 passed  from  an  antecedent  state  of  opulence  to 
 a  subsequent  state  of  poverty;  much  less  does 
 he  insinuate   that  the  riches  which  our  Lord 
 
 the  icxt  '  q.  vcstri  causa  mendicans  vixit.'-— Constantin.  Lex. 
 *rw%£t,'a»,  '  inops  Jt'go,'  '  mcndico.*  In  the  New  Testament  it 
 only  occurs  in  this  place,  in  the  LXX.,  six  times.  See  Trommii 
 Concord,  in  verb. 
 
 2.)  The  construction  requires  that  the  two  states  should  be 
 simultaneous.  The  aorist  expresses  a  perfect  action,  in  past 
 definite  time ;  -wdiich  time  is  ascertained  by  the  connexion. 
 Christ  £7rrw%2ucre,  '  was  poor.'  When  ? — irXova-iOi  luv,  '  at  the 
 time  that  he  was  rich.'  For  this  observation  I  am  indebted  to  a 
 learned  and  ingenious  friend,  who  has  distinguished  himself  by 
 the  accuracy  of  his  remarks  upon  the  English  verb,  and  by  some 
 other  learned  publications.  It  is  objected  that  TrXsaos  uiv  may 
 refer  to  past  time,  as  Tv(pkog  wv,  John  ix.  25,  signifies  '  having 
 been  blind.'  But  the  adverb  aprt,  '  nmv  I  sec,'  which  immedi- 
 ately follows,  shows  that  the  participle  which  precedes  is  to  be 
 understood  in  a  preterite  sense.  And  had  the  apostle  intended 
 to  express  that  the  state  of  poverty  was  subsequent  to  that  of 
 affluence,  he  would  probably  have  introduced  the  word  sirx,  oB 
 vcrfspov,  before  the  verb  ayrrm^svcrs. 
 
 The  most  accurate  critics  and  commentators  translate  and  ex- 
 pound the  words  as  expressing  siiniiltaueous  and  not  successive 
 states.  "  Cum  vi  ita  polleret  onitii^  generis  miracula  patrandi, 
 personam  tamen  gcssit,  tarn  humilcm,  ut  ne  domuni  quideuj 
 haberet  propriam."  Grotius  in  loc. — To  the  same  purpose 
 Slichtingius  and  Brcnnius.  "  Consider  the  kindness  of  our 
 Lord  Jesns  Christ,  that,  being  rich,  he  was  poor  on  account  of 
 you."     Wakefield's  Inquiry,  p.  176. 
 
Seel.  3.]     the  Fve-exhience  of  Christ.         12.5 
 
 possessed  consisted  in  the  dignity  and  felicity 
 of  a  pre-existent  state.  The  apostle  affirms  the 
 existence  of  two  contemporary  events,  that 
 Christ  was  rich,  and,  at  the  same  time,  that  he 
 lived  in  poverty.  That  this  is  tlie  proper  primary 
 meaning  of  the  apostle's  word'--,  no  person  ac- 
 quainted with  the  original  can  doubt.  Whether 
 the  genius  of  the  Greek  language  will  even  ad- 
 mit of  the  sense  commonlj' annexed  to  the  words, 
 viz.  of  a  transition  from  a  state  of  afHuence  to  a 
 state  of  indigence,  may  justly  be  questioned. 
 Hence  it  follows,  that  whatever  the  apostle 
 meant  by  the  word  rich,  it  expresses  a  state 
 which  Jesus  possessed  not  before  he  was  born 
 into  the  world,  but  while  he  was  leadino-  a  life 
 of  poverty  in  it. 
 
 It  is  inquired  in  what  sense  Jesus  was  rich, 
 if  not  in  his  divine  nature  and  pre-existent 
 glory  ? 
 
 To  this  question  some  have  answered,  that 
 he  was  rich  in  good  works,  in  virtue,  piety, 
 benevolence,  and  the  divine  favour.  q.  d. 
 Though  eminently  virtuous,  he  was  ver^"^ 
 poor  '^. 
 
 "'  See  the  Theol,  Repos.  vol.  iii.  p.  438.  Note  hy  the  lat« 
 Trnerable  William  Turner,  of  WakeQelU.  See  also  Wakefield'? 
 Inquiry^  ubi  supra. 
 
126  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 But  this  interpretation  destroys  the  opposi- 
 tion between  the  two  conditions  which  are 
 ascribed  to  Jesus  ;  nor  would  it  so  well  suit 
 the  apostle's  purpose  in  urging  the  example 
 of  Christ  as  a  motive  to  charity  and  gene- 
 rosity. 
 
 The  interpretation  of  Grotius  and  others, 
 adopted  by  Mr.  Lindsey,  is  more  to  the 
 apostle's  purpose.  Jesus  Christ  was  rich  in 
 miraculous  powers,  which  it  was  at  his  option 
 to  employ  for  his  own  benefit.  He  fed  the 
 multitude :  he  brought  miraculous  draughts 
 of  fishes  into  the  net ;  he  paid  tribute  by 
 miracle ;  and  by  miracle  he  supplied  a  wed- 
 ding feast  with  wine.  With  equal  ease  he 
 could  have  supplied  himself  and  his  friends 
 ■with  all  the  comforts,  the  conveniences,  and 
 the  elegancies  of  life.  He  was  rich — but  he 
 lived  in  poverty.  He  made  no  use  of  his 
 miraculous  powers  for  his  own  advantage. 
 He  subsisted  upon  the  liberality  of  his  fol- 
 lowers, and  had  not  where  to  lay  his 
 head  74. 
 
 '*  "  Christ's  riches  were  his  wisdom  and  great  powers  from 
 God,  by  which  he  had  all  nature  at  his  command,  and  could 
 supply  every  want.  And  his  meritorious  poverty  consisted  ia 
 his  never  entertaining  a  single  desire  to  employ  his  miraculous 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Fre-existence  of  Christ,         12? 
 
 From  kindness,  and  for  the  sake  of  bis  fol- 
 lowers, he  submitted  to  these  privations,  to  set 
 them  a  memorable  example  of  fortitude,  of  re- 
 signation, of  self-denial,  for  the  benefit  of 
 others. 
 
 '  That  they  through  his  poverty  might  be 
 rich.'  Here  the  connexion  requires  that  the 
 word  should  be  taken  in  a  figurative  sense : 
 rich  in  faith,  in  holiness,  in  benevolence,  and 
 in  the  promises  and  blessings  of  the  Gospel. 
 How  admirably  calculated  such  an  argument 
 was  to  excite  a  spirit  of  compassion  for  the 
 poor,  of  gratitude,  of  kindness  and  generosity, 
 and  of  active  persevering  benevolence,  it  is 
 unnecessary  to  remark.     It  speaks  for  itself. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Ephes.  iv.  9-  "  Now  that  he  ascended,  what 
 is  it  but  that  he  also  descended  first  into  the 
 lower  parts  of  the  earth?" 
 
 "  That  is,'*  says  archbishop  Ncwcome,  "  he 
 descended  into  the  grave."  Psalm  Ixiii.  9> 
 "  They  that  seek  my  soul  to  destroy  it  shall 
 go  into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth." 
 
 powers  for  his  private  case  or  benefit,  but  choosing  lo  lead  a 
 poor  ile|)endent  Hfc,  because  such  an  example  was  of  most  last- 
 ing^ benefit  to  us."     Litidse}'s  Scq.  p.  268. 
 
128  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 This  text,  though  some  are  disposed  to  un- 
 derstand it  as  a  proof  of  the  pre-existence  and 
 incarnation  of  Christ,  is  generally  allowed  even 
 by  learned  Trinitarians  and  Arians  themselves 
 to  be  of  little  weight  in  the  controversy. 
 
 XV. 
 
 Philipp  ii.  5 — 9-  "  Let  this  mind  be  in  you, 
 "wiuch  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus  : 
 
 "  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought 
 it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  : 
 
 "  But  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and 
 took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was 
 made  in  the  likeness  of  men  : 
 
 '*  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he 
 humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  to 
 death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross. 
 
 "  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted 
 him,"  &c. 
 
 This  is  a  passage  of  considerable  difficulty^ 
 upon  which  the  greatest  possible  stress  is  laid 
 by  tlie  advocates  for  the  pre-existence  and 
 divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  therefore  merits 
 the  closest  and  the  most  impartial  attention. 
 Each  clause  must  be  considered  in  detail ;  after 
 which  it  will  be  more  easy  to  sum  up  the  evi- 
 dence of  the  whole. 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  Prc-Lxistence  of  Christ.        129 
 
 1.  "  \yiio  being  in  th^iform  of  God'^/' 
 
 The  word  translatedybr/?2  properly  signifies  the 
 
 shape,  the  human  figure.     Mark  xvi.  12,  "  He 
 
 appeared  in  another  form   to  two  of  them   as 
 
 "  Being  in  the  form  of  God]  bv  [lopC-^  0=s  -uTrocp^cov.  .Mop^rjj 
 i.  e.  EiSos,  i^cx.  Ilcsychius,  Suidas. — "  Forma  gcncraliter  do  qua- 
 visrc."  Constantin.  Lex, — ■•'•  Forma,  omne quod  in  oculos  occur- 
 rit,  imago."  Sclilcusner. — "  r.foc^oj  speciem  sonaf,  aut  figiiram." 
 Erasmus  ;  who.  in  his  long  and  learned  note  upon  this  celebrated 
 text,  remarks,  "  Nou  video  quid  hie  locus  proprio  faciat  advcr- 
 siis  Arianos,  qui  non  negal)ant  Dei  Filium  esse  Deum.  Proindc 
 totus  hie  locus  mihi  ridctur  violentius  detorqueri  ad  Christi  na- 
 tiiram,  cum  Paulus  agat  de  specie  exhibita  nobis." 
 
 By  this  liberal  and  fair  concession,  this  elegant  critic  has  in- 
 curred the  high  displeasure  of  those  stern  champions  of  the 
 orthodox  faith,  Calvin  and  Beza  ;  the  former  of  whom  loudly 
 accuses  Erasmus  as  a  traitor  to  (he  cause,  who,  while  he  every 
 where  professes  to  believe  the  divinity  of  Christ,  abandons  in  the 
 detail  what  he  maintains  in  the  gross,  and  explains  away  every 
 text  by  which  that  sublime  doctrine  is  proved.  "  Mihi  ccrte," 
 adds  the  zealous  reformer,  "  ne  omnes  quidem  diaboli  hunc  lo- 
 cum extorqucant,  quia  in  Deo  firmissimum  est  argumentuin,  a 
 gloria  ad  essentiam." 
 
 This  argument  from  the  form  to  tljc  essence  of  divinity  is 
 much  insisted  upon  by  Trinitarian  expositors.  See  Hammond, 
 Vatablus,  Castalio,  Guyse,  &c.  Sir  Richard  Ellys,  in  his  For- 
 tuita  Sacra,  in  a  learned  note  upon  this  text,  Jays  great  stress 
 (after  Beza)  upon  the  word  uTfxcyjjj,  as  appropriated  to  the  di- 
 tinc  nature  of  Christ,  while  yivc>;j.cci  and  Kaii>JZxvio  arc  used  in 
 reference  to  his  human  nature.  Jjut,  to  support  this  criticism, 
 it  must  be  first  proved  that  Christ  had  a  divine  nature.  The 
 word  Cirapy^M  will  not  itbclf  prove  it.     See  Schleusncr. 
 
 K 
 
130  Teiis  sypposcd  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 they  M'alked  into  the  country."  See  Joseph. 
 Ant.  1.  L\  ix.  7 ;  1.  6.  xiv.  2. 
 
 All  expositors  agree  that  the  word,  in  its 
 present  connexion,  is  to  be  understood  figu- 
 ratively. They  differ  widely  in  their  inter* 
 pretation  of  the  figure. 
 
 1.)  Calvin,  Beza,  and  most  of  the  triuitarian 
 expositors  explain  it  of  the  manifestation  of  the 
 attributes  of  God  in  his  works,  from  which 
 may  be  inferred  the  divinity  of  his  essence. 
 By  parity  of  reason,  from  the  divine  form  and 
 majesty  of  Christ  they  infer  his  divine  na- 
 ture. 
 
 But  as  Christ  is  said,  ver.  7>  to  have  as- 
 sumed the  form  of  a  slave  when  he  was  not 
 really  a  slave,  so  he  might  appear  in  the  forin 
 of  God,  without  being  really  and  essentially 
 God. 
 
 2.)  Dr.  Clarke  (Scrip.  Doct.  No.  934,)  repre- 
 sents the  Logos  as  the  person  "  by  whom  God 
 created  all  things,  by  whom  he  governs  all 
 things,  by  whom  he  appeared  to  Adam,  to  the 
 patriarchs,  and  to  Moses,  the  angel  that  ap- 
 peared in  the  bush.  This,"  says  he,  "  was 
 being  in  the  form  of  Gud."  Heb,  i.  3.  Col. 
 i.   1.5.      With    this    learned   writer   airree    Dr. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Fre-cxhtence  of  Christ .'        131. 
 
 Wliitby,  Di\  Doddridge,  and  most  of  what  are 
 called  the  high  Arian  expositors'^'. 
 
 Dr.  Clarke  thinks  it  necessary  to  caution  his 
 readers  against  "  the  very  unnatural  interpre- 
 tation which  not  only  the  Socinian  writers,  but 
 Grotius  also  and  some  others,  put  upon  these 
 words ;"  and  Dr.  Doddridge,  wdth  bishop  Bur- 
 net, (on  the  Art.  p.  46,)  thinks  "  the  Socinian 
 interpretation  very  cold  and  insipid.'' 
 
 It  must  be  so,  if  the  Arian  interpretation 
 of  this  text  is  true.  But  it  has  not  yet  been 
 proved  that  the  soul  which  animated  the 
 body  of  Jesus  was  the  maker  and  governor 
 of  the  world,  the  Jehovah  who  appeared  to 
 Adam,  to  the  patriarchs,  to  Moses  in  the 
 bush,  and  to  the  Israelites  upon  mount  Sinai. 
 Nor  can  this  stupendous  and  not  very  natural 
 hypothesis  be  justly  mferred  from  the  figura- 
 tive and  indefinite  expression,  that  Jesus  was  in 
 the  form  of  God''. 
 
 '•  In  the  outward  appearance  of  God  before  his  incarnation, 
 as,  after  it,  he  vras  in  the  outward  appearance  of  a  slave;  ver.  7. 
 New-come. 
 
 "  Sir  Richard  EUys,  in  Ihc  Note  before  referred  to^  asserts, 
 that  the  Arian   interpretation  of  '  the  form  of  God,'  as  refer- 
 ring  to  the  splendour  of  the  appearance  of  the  Logos  to  tha 
 patriarchs,  is  unsupported  by  the  authority  of  the  ancients. 
 K  2 
 
132  Texts  supposed  to  assert         [Part  L 
 
 3.)  Grollus,  and  vvitii  him  the  old  Sociniang 
 and  the  modern  Unitarians,  understand  the 
 expression  '  being  in  the  form  of  God,'  of  the 
 miraculous  powers  with  which  our  Lord  wad 
 invested,  and  by  which  he  controuled  the  laws 
 of  nature,  healed  the  sick,  raised  the  dead,  and 
 performed  other  godlike  works '^ 
 
 This  interpretation  best  agrees  with  the  an- 
 tithesis, ver.  7}  "  He  assumed  the  form,"  i.  e. 
 the  appearance^  of  a  slave.  Also  the  miracles 
 of  Christ  might,  with  as  much  propriety,  be 
 figuratively  described  as  the  form  of  God,  as 
 an  appearance  to  Moses  in  the  bush.  But  we 
 are  sure  that  our  Lord  performed  miracles,  and 
 we  are  not  sure  that  he  appeared  to  Moses  and 
 the  patriarchs  ;  l^ut  the  contrary. 
 
 ''  "  MoptpTj  non  signlTicat  iiitcrniini  et  occuUum  aliquid,  sect  id 
 quod  in  ociilos  occnrrif,  quails  erat  eximia  in  Chrisfo  potestas 
 sanandl  morbos  omtic--,  &c.  qiine  vere  divina  sunt."  Grotius. — 
 "  Forma  Dei  quid  est  nibi  exoniplum,  quod  Deus  apparet  dum 
 mortuos  cxcitat,  sunlis  reddit  aiulitum,  Icprosos  nnindat  ?"  Ani- 
 brosius  apiid  Krasmuni. — "  In  forma  Dei  erat  cum  divina  opera 
 <'t  niiracula  solo  jussu  et  nutu  suo  edcret,"  &c.  Slichtingius. — 
 To  the  same  purpose  Crcllius  and  Brcnnius. — "  Jesus  Clirist,  en 
 qualile  d'homiue,  ])aroissoit,  i  certains  egards,  plus  seniblable  a 
 Dieu  qn'aux  homnics,  conime  en  cc  qu'il  commandoit  a  toute  la 
 nature  avec  un  empire  absolu,  et  faisoit  des  miracles  inouis.  Cost 
 cc  que  S.  Paul  appcUe  la  forme,  c'cst  ^  dire  la  rcsscmblaucc  de 
 Dieu."    Le  Clerc. 
 
Sect.  3.]     ihe  rre-existcncc  of  Chrht,         135 
 
 "  The  form  of  God,"  says  Dr.  Lardncr,  (Log. 
 p.  12,)  "  seems  to  me  to  have  been  enjoyed  by 
 our  Saviour  in  this  world.  It  denotes  his  know- 
 ledge of  the  hearts  of  men,  his  power  of  work- 
 ing miracles  at  all  times,  whenever  he  pleased, 
 and  all  the  other  evidences  of  his  divine  mis- 
 sion. This  sense  wonderfully  accords  with 
 what  our  Lord  saith,  John  x.  34.  36." 
 
 Mr.  Lindse}'  (Seq.  p.  27-,)  says,  "  The  form 
 of  God  which  Christ  wore  upon  earth,  evi- 
 dently consisted  in  those  extraordinary  endow- 
 ments of  a  divine  wisdom  and  power,  which 
 shone  forth  in  him." 
 
 2.  "  Thought  it  not  robbery,  to  be  equal 
 with  God  79." 
 
 It  is  universally  agreed  that  the  words  ktu. 
 Qioj,  here  translated  '  equal  with  God,'  onlv 
 express  similarity,  not  proper  and  full  equality, 
 and  ought  to  be  rendered  as  God,  or  like  God. 
 
 The  phrase  occurs  frequently  in  the  Old 
 Testament.  Job  v.  17,  "  They  grope  in  the 
 noon-day  as  in  the  night."  LXX.  kto,  wkti. 
 Chap.  x.  10,  "  Hast  thou  not  curdled   mc  {iccc 
 
 "  "  Ovy^  a.ziia.y^j.w  r,yr,croi.ro  to  eivai  iccc  Qsiu,  Xon  rapinam 
 arbUrafus  est,  esse  so  a-qMuIt'in  Deo."  Viilgale. — "  i(ra,  ncu- 
 t;iMn   pluralc  more  GriJecoruia,   advcrbialitcr  capitur."      Slich- 
 
134  Texts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  L 
 
 rv^oj)  like  cheese  r"  Chap.  xi.  12,  "  Man  is  born 
 (/<ra  ovu)  hke  a  wild  ass's  colt/'  See  also  chap, 
 xiii.  12;  v.  20;  xv.  16;  xxiv.  20;  xl,  15. so 
 No  person  therefore,  who  is  not  grossly  igno- 
 rant, would  from  this  text  infer  the  perfect 
 equality  of  Christ  with  God. 
 
 The  words  "  he  thought  it  not  robbery,''  are 
 attended  svith  considerable  difficulty. 
 
 The  Greek  word  a^Tuyf^og,  here  translated 
 robber?/,  scarcely  occurs  in  any  other  Greek 
 writer  s'.  It  is  a  verbal  noun.  But  it  is  not 
 agreed  among  the  learned,  whether  it  is  to  be 
 taken  in  an  active  or  a  passive  sense  ;  whether 
 
 *°  See  Whitby  in  loc,  ■^^ho,  while  he  establishes  this  sense  of 
 itra,  contends,  justly  enough,  that  it  gives  no  advantage  to  the 
 Socinians.  Classical  anthorities  for  this  adverbial  use  of  »o<^ 
 are  to  be  found  in  Novvcome  and  in  Schleusncr.  When  the  Jcms 
 charge  our  Lord  M'iih  arrogating  to  liimself  equality  uith  God, 
 the  cxjircEslon  is  icrov  iCi'.rov  iroiwv  tw  Gsw.  John  v,  18.  Indeed 
 Mr.  Cappe  (Crit.  Rem.  vol.  i.  p.  233,)  quotes  this  very  text 
 to  iirove  that  icro^  signifies  nothing  more  than  general  similarity. 
 Ky  the  expression  '  God  was  his  Father,'  he  would  at  the  utmost 
 only  assert  that,  in  a  manner,  he  was  like  God, 
 
 •'  The  word  is  found  in  IMutarch,  de  Libcror.  l']duc.  but  in  a 
 connexion  A\hich  throws  but  little  light  on  the  subject,  liar-. 
 ■wood's  Lib,  Trans.  Archbithop  Newcotnt's  Note,  and  Wefsteiu 
 in  loc.  It  seems,  however,  rather  favourable  to  the  supposition 
 <hat  the  w  ord  is  \iscd  in  an  active  sense  ;  in  which  sense  it  is 
 uiidtrstood  by  Calvin,  L'lza.  liammoiid,  jJoddridgc,  and  Gujse. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Fre-exhtcncc  of  Christ,  135 
 
 it  signifies  the  act  of  seizure,  or  the  prey,  the 
 boot}',  the  thing  seized  upon. 
 
 Many  critics,  amongst  whom  are  the  trans* 
 lators  of  the  pubUc  version,  take  the  word  in 
 the  active  sense:  they  render  it  '  robbery ^'^/ 
 And  in  this  sense  of  the  vvord  this  clause  is  to 
 be  understood  in  apposition  with  the.  preceding, 
 and  as  expressing  an  additional  circumstance 
 of  the  dignity  of  Clirist  antecedent  to  his  hu- 
 mihation.  q.  d.  He  was  in  the  form  of  God; 
 and  being  so,  he  thought  it  no  robbery,  no 
 unjust  assumption,  to  be  and  to  appear  hke 
 God. 
 
 The  majority  of  expositors,  for  very  pro- 
 bable  reasons    stated    below  ^'\    interpret    the 
 
 "*  "  '  AsTfxyiJ.cs  proprie  ipsa  rapiendi  actio,  qua?  usitatius 
 9Loita,yri  tlicitur:  dpTTa.Yi.i.%  vcrd  id  qiiod  raptiim  est,  sed  coiifundi 
 scias  Isa.  iii.  14."  Drusius. — la  the  controversy  concerning 
 the  person  of  Christ,  it  is  of  no  consequence  whether  the  word 
 be  taken  in  an  active  or  a  passire  sense.  Mr,  Cappc  seems  to 
 prefer  the  active  signification  :  "  For,"  he  says,  "  I  do  not  think 
 the  words  nuich  mistranslated  in  onr  version.  He  has  not 
 thought  it  robbery,  either  an  injury,  or  an  act  of  usurpation." 
 But  the  learned  writer  docs  not  express  himself  with  his  usual 
 precision  :  for  he  had  just  before  stated  it  as  his  opinion  tliat  the 
 word  «p7rayjw,0f  "  is  of  the  very  same  import  with  acrav'.ca,  the 
 thing  seized  upon,  tiie  subject  of  unjust  usurpation,"  Cappo's 
 Crit.  Rem.  vol.  i.  p.  232. 
 
 •'  The  reasons  for  taking  the  word  in  a  passive  sense  arc  tho 
 following  : 
 
136  Te.vts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 ^^ord  in  a  passive  sense,  a^-^ccyfAog  for  aP'Tcccy^a^ 
 *  a  prey/  '  a  booty/  '  a  thing  obtained  by  force, 
 and  retained  with  eagerness.' 
 
 1.  '  KcTtayij.og  being  derived  from  the  perfect  passive,  retains 
 a  passive  signification.  Mr.  Wakefield  shows  from  Eustatliius, 
 thatj  according  to  the  genius  of  the  Greek  language,  dpircx.y[j,os 
 is  equivalent  to  aotayitx.  "  'Apira^eiv  vcro  est  aliquid  avide  ct 
 \iolenter  arripere,  ut  tibi  vcndiccs,  ct  tuum  facias.''  Sj^lva  Crit. 
 vol.  iii.  p.  112. — '•  'AcTi'ayiJ.o;  proprie,  direptio.  Nomina  in  [lo; 
 desincntia  fere  actionem,  non  retn  significant.  Sed  intcrdum  ta- 
 rnen  passive  ustirpatur,  ut  significat  vel  rem  raptam,  vel  rem 
 avide  diripiendani,  et  vindicandaui."  Schlciisncr. — Sec  Wetbtciiij 
 and  V/akefield's  Inq.  p.  186. 
 
 2.  The  construction  of  the  sentence  requires  that  this  clause 
 sliould  express  the  humilialion  of  Christ,  and  consequently  that 
 dp7f.  should  be  taken  in  a  passive  seubc.  It  would  be  trifling  to 
 say,  that,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  he  thought  it  no  robbery 
 to  be  in  the  form  or  likeness  of  God.  JjO  Clerc,  in  his  notes 
 upon  Hammond,  rcnuuks,  ''  that  to  justify  the  common  transla- 
 tion, the  Greek  ought  to  have  been  xai  ov^  riy8ij.svos  dpTrccyix.ov 
 sivoit  iiTa  Qciv,  6[j.a:;  v..  t.  A."  Sec  also  Dr.  Clarke,  Scrip.  Doct, 
 No.  931. 
 
 3.  The  early  writers,  who  used  the  Greek  language,  ^nd  to 
 ■whom  the  phrase  must  liave  been  familiar,  understood  the  words 
 in  this  sense. 
 
 irrthe  Letter  from  llic  Churc  hcs  of  Vieuiie  and  Lyons  to  those 
 of  Asia  and  Phrygia,  they  say  of  the  martyrs,  "  They  were  such 
 zealous  followers  of  the  example  of  Cljrist,  who,  being  in  (he 
 form  of  God,  did  noteagerly  retain  that  likeness  to  God,"  ('did 
 not  covet  to  be  honoured  as  God,'  J)r,  Clarke,)  ^'  that  though 
 they  had  often  been  cast  to  wild  beasts,  and  had  endured  all 
 manner  of  torments,  yet  they  would  by  no  means  suller  them- 
 selves to  be  lionourcd  with  tlie  title  of  mart}  rs."  Kuseb.  Etcl, 
 Hist.  1.  5. 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  Vrc-e.iis fence  of  Christ.       J  37 
 
 In  this  sense  the  second  clause  of  the  sen- 
 tence is  in  opposition  to  the  first.  It  is  the 
 first  step  in  his  voluntary  humiliation. 
 
 '  Who,  being  in  the  lorm  of  God,  did  not 
 esteem  as  a  prey'  (and  therefore  did  not 
 eagerly  grasp,  did  not  claim  as  his  inherent 
 right,  did  not  refuse  to  relinquish,)  '  this  like- 
 ness to  God/ 
 
 The  latter  clause  is  plainly  exegetical  of  the 
 former ;  this  likeness  to  God  is  the  very  same 
 thino-  as  beino-  in  the  form  of  God.    See  Wake- 
 
 o  o 
 
 field's  Inquiry,  p.  185. 
 
 This  interpretation  has  the  sanction  of  many 
 eminent  expositors  ^■^. 
 
 Origen,  in  his  Commentary  upon  Jolin,  sajs,  "  The  goodness 
 of  Christ  appeared  greater  and  more  divine,  and  truly  after  the 
 imngc  of  the  Father,  when  lie  humbled  himself,  &c.  (ij  si  apKr^^ 
 yYifTOLto)  than  if  lie  had  eagerly  grasped  or  tenaciously  retained 
 liis  likeness  to  God."     Iluet.  p.  34. 
 
 Novatian  says,  "  Christ,  though  he  knew  tliat  he  was  in 
 the  form  of  God,  did  not  eagerly  grasp  (or  tenaciously  retain) 
 equality  with  God.  Fi>r  though  he  knew  that  he  was  God,  ho 
 never  compared  himself  with  Gad  Iiis  Fatiier ;"  &;c.  Do  Trin, 
 C.  17.     Sec  Clarke,  ibid. 
 
 "  "  ylMpialitatcm  quam  cum  Patre  habebat  ambitiose  rctinere 
 noluit,  velut  facere  solent  praidones,  qui  quod  semel  rapucrunt 
 gumma  ctira  et  sfudio  retinent."  Vatablus. — "  Pro  rapina  du- 
 cere,  dicit  pro  rapaciter  uti,  et  rctinere,  ut  Latini  dicunt,  in 
 hostium  numero  hab<'re,  pro  occiderc  ut  hostem.  Sic  enim  poni 
 solet  verbum  ■'^ysiv'iai,  ut  non  solum  cogitationis  sit,  vcrum  cliatn 
 
138  Te.rfs  supposed  to  gssert  [Part  I. 
 
 Dr.  Clarke,  No.  934,  "  He  did  not  covet  to 
 be  honoured  as  God  :  was  not  greedy  or  fond 
 of,  or  unwilling  to  let  go  the  prize  :  so  the 
 words  more  strictly  signify.^' 
 
 Mr.  Lindsey :  (Seq.  p.  272,  Sec)  "  Being  in 
 the  form  of  God,  he  did  not  look  upon  it  as  a 
 prize  to  be  hastily  catchcd  at  to  be  like  God, 
 did  not  eagerly  covet  to  be  honoured  for  his 
 godlike  powers,  was  not  ambitious  of  display- 
 ing them.'' 
 
 The  proper  simple  meaning  of  the  phrase 
 appears  to  be,  not  to  covet,  to  be  fond  of,  or 
 to  affect  to  display,  but  to  hold  fast,  as  a 
 person  does  what  he  has  seized  by  force,  claims 
 as  his  right,  and  is  resolved  not  to  relinquish. 
 In  this  sense  it  stands  in  opposition  to  eKsvcoa-s, 
 *  he  exhausted  himself,'  he  parted  with  all, 
 without  retaining  any  thing. 
 
 rci."  Conf.  v.  25.  Castalio. — "  If  d^itxyit.a,  be  synonymous  to 
 doitayixoc,  as  j3a.Tfrt<r[j.a  to  ^s.rticrac;,  (fccricj-ij.x  to  (pwria-ij.Oiy  &c. 
 the  proper  niciining  scorns  to  be  a  pi'cy,  or  booty,  aiul  may  be 
 cither  just  or  unjust.  They  therefore  hardly  give  the  exact  sig- 
 nification who  cxi)luin  it  by  a  thing  very  desirable,  or  to  be 
 coveted.  Nothing  is  properly  a  prey  or  booty  till  in  possession. 
 The  apos(l«  tiieiefore  may  be  supposed  to  say,  '  vvlio  was  not 
 eager  or  tcnaeioiis  in  retaining  this  likeness,'*' &c,  reirce.-— 
 "  Omnium  bona  pra'dam  tuaui  duceres."  Cicero  in  Vcrremj 
 T.  15. 
 
Sect.  3.]       the  Pre-eiistence  of  Christ,       139 
 5.  "  Bat  madi'  himself  of  no  reputation  ^^J" 
 
 Literally,  *  he  emptied  himself.'  This  phrase 
 is  opposed  to  the  precedino;.  So  far  from  te- 
 naciously grasping,  and  refusing  to  relinquish, 
 lie  voluntarily,  and  of  his  own  accord,  divested 
 iiimself  of  every  thing  that  is  intended  by  the 
 form  or  likeness  of  God.  If  the  immutable 
 attributes  of  Deity  are  intended,  these  were 
 concealed — or  the  prc-existent  glories  of  the 
 Logos,  these  were  quiescent — or  his  extraordi- 
 nary miraculous  powers,  these  were  voluntarily 
 suspended,  while  he  suffered  himself  to  appear 
 and  to  be  treated  as  though  he  possessed  them 
 not.     See  2  Cor.  viii.  9- 
 
 4.  '^  He  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  ser- 
 vant :" 
 
 Or,  "  Assuming  the  form  of  a  slave  ^'^"  In 
 the  form  of  God  he  really  existed  (vTrao^m) — 
 the  form  of  a  servant  he  voluntarily  assumed 
 (Xa^iyi/).  Invested  with  a  high  and  honourable 
 commission  from  God,  he  submitted  to  a  life  of 
 labour  and  dependence.     Mark  x.  43,  "  The 
 
 "  AAA'  kxvrcv  £XBvu}<re.     ''  Exiiiauivit  scmctipsum."    Vulg. — 
 *'  Cessavit  a  niiraculis  et  opcribiis  illis  diviiiis."     Slichdngiiis. 
 
 ^  fj'Of(pr^v  ?aAa  Xa^wv.    Here   the   sentence   closes.    Wake- 
 field. 
 
140  Texts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto, 
 but  to  minister."  Luke  xxii.  27,  "  I  am  in 
 the  midst  of  you  as  one  that  serveth." 
 
 5.  "  And   was  made  in    the    hkeness  of 
 
 men 
 
 87 
 
 Or,  "  Being  in  the  hkeness  of  men/' 
 Trinitarians  and  Arians  argue  from  this  text, 
 that,  antecedently  to  his  divesting  himself  of 
 the  form  of  God,  he  was  not  in  the  likeness  of 
 men,  but  a  being  of  superior  or  supreme  rank, 
 either  a  Logos  or  a  God,  ^\ho  voluntarily  laid 
 aside  his  glory,  and  became  incarnate. 
 
 Unitarians  understand  this  language  solely  of 
 
 '"'  ev  OjtAOia'aan  av^pwitcuv  ysvoiLSvos'  "  being  made  like  other 
 rapn."  VV'akclield, — "  Cum  similis  esset  hoaiinibiis,  illis  ncmpe 
 primis,  i.  e.  peccati  expcrs."  Grotiiis. — "  Nothing,"  says  Dr. 
 Clarke,  ibid.  "  can  be  more  unnatural  than  the  comment  of  Gro- 
 tius  upon  those  wards,  who  understands  them  to  signify  that 
 Christ  was  like  Adam  in  a  state  of  innocence.  Whereas  the 
 plain  meaning  of  the  apostle  is,  that  Christ,  being  in  tlie  form 
 of  God,  humbled  himself  by  condescending  to  take  upon  him  the 
 form  of  a  man."  IIovv  natural  docs  ever)'-  one's  own  hypothesis 
 appeq,r  to  himself !  Grotius  is,  I  think,  mistaken  in  his  com- 
 ment. But  surely  it  involves  no  evtiavagancc  equal  to  that 
 of  supposing  that  it  was  an  act  of  condescension  in  Christ  to  be 
 a  man,  which  Dr.  Clarke  calls  the  ])lain  meaning  of  the  text. 
 Mr.  Pcirce  (in  loc.)  thinks  that  Christ  is  said  to  be  in  the  likeness 
 of  men,  because  he  was  not  really  a  man,  but  a  human  body 
 inhabited  by  tlie  Logos.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  explain  this 
 phrase  of  our  Lord's  declining  to  exert  his  Eiipernatural  powers, 
 and  so  appearing  like  an  ordinary  uian. 
 
Sect.  3.]      the  Pre-existcnce  of  Chvht.       141 
 
 a  voluntary  suspension  of  his  miraculous  powers. 
 Though,  possessing  them,  he  made  no  dis- 
 play of  them  for  his  own  personal  benefit,  but 
 appeared  in  all  respects  like  a  man  who  was 
 favoured  with  no  such  extraordinary  distinc- 
 tion. 
 
 This  interpretation  is  fully  justified  by 
 parallel  passages  in  the  Old  and  New  Test- 
 ament. 
 
 Sampson  was  endued  Avith  supernatural 
 strength.  He  said  to  Delilah,  "  If  they  bind 
 me,  then  shall  I  be  weak,  and  shall  be  [ojg  sig 
 7UV  uvdpwTrm)  as  one  of  the  men :"  in  the  public 
 version,  very  properly,  "  as  another  man.'' 
 Judges  xvi.  7-  11.  13.  17-  See  also  Psalm 
 Ixxxii.  6",  7,  "  I  said,  Ye  are  Gods,  but  ye 
 shall  die  like  men,''  [ug  ccvG^wzgi)  like  other  men. 
 Gal.  i.  J,  "  Paul  an  apostle,  not  from  men, 
 nor  through  man  ',"  i.  e.  not  from  or  by  ordi- 
 nary men. 
 
 6.  "  And    being   found    in  fashion  as    a 
 man^*^: 
 
 •  "  X3C(  o-yjiixxn  sJjeSsfj  cJ;  avSpu.'Troi.']  "  'Ey^raa.  getieraiim,  om- 
 ncin  liabitum  et  statimi  aliciijus  lei  extcrnuni  bigniiicMf :  speciatim 
 vcro  dicitur  dc  habitu,  cuUii,  gestii,  forma  ac  conditioiic  externa 
 corporis  humani."  Schleusiier. — Mr.  Peirre  considcts  this  clause 
 as  exactly  parallel  to  the  precef'iiig  ;  svcsSsi;  answering  to  yivo- 
 p-Evs;,  aad  (T'/r^<j.%ti  to  saoiw/zart.     Pcirce  in  loc 
 
142  Texis  Supposed  to  assert         [Part  I* 
 
 Or,  "  Being  in  fashion  as  a  man." 
 The  word  sv^io-Ku,  *  to  find/  often  expresses 
 nothing  more  than  simple  existence.  1  Cor* 
 XV.  15,  "'  We  are  found  (/.  e.  we  are)  false  M'it-^ 
 nesses  of  God/'  See  also  Est.  i.  5.  Isa.  liii.  Q, 
 1  Cor.  iv.  2.     Matt.  i.  18. 
 
 The  word  (f^^^^^tci,  translated  '  fashion/  signi- 
 fies the  whole  external  appearance  of  any 
 thing,  and  particularly  of  a  human  being. 
 The  sense  therefore  seems  to  be  nearly  tlie 
 same  as  in  the  preceding  clause ;  viz.  being  in 
 external  appearance  a  man,  i.  e.  like  other  men. 
 
 7.  *'  He  humbled  himself,  and  became 
 obedient  to  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross. 
 Wherefore  God  on  his  part  has  very  highly 
 exalted  him  ^i)/'— ^"  exalted  him  higher  than 
 before/'  xv':.  before  his  humiliation  and  suf- 
 ferings. 
 
 Upon  the  whole,  the  I'ollowing  appears  lo  be 
 the  most  correct  version,  and  the  true  sense  of 
 this  celebrated  passage : 
 
 "  Let  this  mind  be  in  you  which  was  iu 
 Christ  Jesus  :" 
 
 ®^  Has  very  highly  exalted  him^  virspV'pxT-s,  "  God  has  ad- 
 Tanccd  him  higher  than  before:"  i.e.  before  his  iiicarnalion. 
 Peirce. — Rather,  '  before  his  siilFerings,  when  lie  appeared  as  a 
 urup])c:t  working  miracles,  or  in  the  form  of  God.' 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  TrC'eiistcncc  of  Christ.         143 
 
 "  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,"  i.  e,  a 
 prophet  invested  with  miraculous  powers, 
 
 "  Was  not  eagerly  tenacious  in  retaining  this 
 likeness  to  God  :" 
 
 Did  not  rrg'.rd  these  powers  as  a  property 
 acquired  by  his  own  exertions,  to  which  he  had 
 an  independent  indefeasible  right,  which  he 
 would  exercise  at  pleasure,  and  upon  no  con- 
 sideration relinquish,  but  as  a  trust,  to  be 
 exercised  only  for  the  benefit  of  others,  and 
 to  be  suspended  or  resigned  at  the  divine 
 command,  or  when  the  purpose  of  his  mission 
 required. 
 
 "  But  divested  himself  of  it,  assuming  the 
 form  of  a  slave." 
 
 When  the  purposes  of  his  mission  required 
 it,  he  conducted  himself  as  though  he  were 
 totally  destitute  of  all  supernatural  gifts.  And 
 far  from  usurping  the  authority  of  a  king,  as 
 some  of  his  ill-advised  followers  urgently  re- 
 commended, so  humble  was  his  station,  so 
 assiduous  his  labours,  and  so  dependent  his 
 condition,  that  he  appeared,  and  chose  to 
 appear,  in  the  rank  of  a  menial  servant. 
 
 "Becoming  thus  like  other  men,"  i.  e.  as 
 one  who  possessed  no  extraordinary  powers  : 
 
 "And  being   in  outward  appearance  as  an 
 
144  Tejfs  supposed  to  assert         [Part  L 
 
 Qrdinary  man,  lie  humbled  himself;"  i.  c. 
 still  further,  "  becoming  obedient  to  death, 
 even  the  death  of  the  cross.  Wherefore  God 
 on  his  part  has  exalted  him  higher  than  he  was 
 before." 
 
 For  Mhereas,  arUecedcntl}^  to  his  sufferings, 
 he  was,  though  in  a  very  dignified  character, 
 no  more  than  a  prophet  working  miracles  in 
 the  name  of  God,  he  is  now  advanced,  since 
 his  resurrection,  and  as  the  reward  of  his  obe- 
 dience and  self-denial,  to  a  nmch  happier  and 
 more  exalted  state.  Be  you  therefore  like 
 him  obedient,  self-denying,  actively  and  per- 
 severingly  benevolent ;  and  upon  all  occasions 
 prompt  to  sacrifice  your  ov,  n  ease  and  gratifi- 
 cation to  the  irood  of  others,  to  a  sense  of  dutv, 
 and  to  promote  the  great  purposes  of  rational 
 existence. 
 
 According  to  this  interpretation,  the  exalta- 
 tion of  Christ  consists  in  his  possession  of  a 
 divine  commission  and  voluntary  miraculous 
 powers.  His  humiliation  consists  in  neglect- 
 ing to  use  those  powers  for  his  own  benefit,  in 
 submitting  to  a  humble,  laborious,  and  de- 
 pendent condition,  and  finally,  in  resigning 
 himself  to  suffering  and  death  in  obedience  to 
 the  will  of  God,  and  for  the  good  of  mankind. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  T re-existence  of  Christ.        145 
 
 Thus  this  celebrated  text,  admitting  of  a  fair 
 interpretation  consistently  with  the  proper  hu- 
 manity -ȣ  Jesus  Christ,  if  not  decisive  in  favour 
 of  this  doctrine,  may  at  least  be  regarded  as 
 neutral.  It  is  one  of  those  passages  of  which 
 no  use  can  be  made  in  deciding  the  contro- 
 versy. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 Col.  i.  15.  "  Who  is  the  image  of  the  in- 
 visible God,  the  first-born  of  every  creature :'' 
 or,  "  of  the  whole  creation  9"/' 
 
 Upon  this  text  very  great  stress  is  laid  for  the 
 purpose  of  illustrating  the  mode  of  the  deriva- 
 tion of  the  Son  from  the  Father. 
 
 1.  The  Trinitarians  understand  the 
 words  as  expressive  of  the  eternal  necessarif 
 generation  of  the  Son  of  God. 
 
 This  is  the  interpretation  of  Calvin,  Beza, 
 and  others,  who  evade  the  inference  of  the 
 Arians,  that  the  Son  must  be  a  creature,  by 
 insisting  that  in  this  case  the  expression  would 
 have  been  *  first-created,'  not '  first-begotten' 9^ 
 
 *'  "  JN'on  ideo  tantum  primogcnitus,  quod  tempore  prseccsserit 
 omncs  creatucas,  sod  quia  in  hoc  a  Pafre  sit  genitus,  ut  per  ip- 
 sum  conderentur."    Calvin. — "  Facilis  est  responsio  ad  Ariano- 
 L 
 
146  Texts  supposed  to  assert  [Part  I. 
 
 2.  Dr.  Clarke  insists  strongly  upon  this 
 text  to  establish  his  doctrine,  "  that  the  Son  is 
 the  eternal  and  voluntary^  but  not  created  pro- 
 duction of  the  Father's  power/' 
 
 "  It  is  observable,"  says  this  learned  writer 
 (Scr.  Doct.  No.  937,)  "  that  St.  Paul  here 
 does  not  call  our  Saviour  r^coroKno-rog,  '  first-cre- 
 ated ;'  but  TT^coToroKog,  '  first-born :'  signifying  in 
 general  that  he  was  before  the  creation  of  all 
 things  brought  forth,  produced  by,  derived 
 from,  the  Father;  but  not  declaring  in  what 
 particular  manner.  Col.  i.  17- — What  the  figu- 
 rative Mord  re^hig,  '  generated'  or  '  begot- 
 ten,' properly  and  literally  implies,  this  the 
 Scripture  has  no  where  revealed  or  explained.'* 
 He  produces  many  passages  from  ancient  wri- 
 ters to  show  that  in  this  sentiment  the}'  coin- 
 cided with  him. 
 
 3.  The  Arians  understand  the  text  as 
 expressing  the  creation  of  the  Logos  by  the 
 Father  before  all  worlds. 
 
 "  It  obviously  denotes,"  says  Dr.  Harwood, 
 (Soc.  Sch.  p.  35,)  "  that  the  Son  of  God  is  the 
 very  first  being  whom  the  power  and  goodness 
 
 rum  cuvil hnr-— nam  Mc  ratione  diccndus  fuissct  rpwros  y.tia-^si^. 
 At  (ni-n  dicitur  TjCaroroxcf,  manifeste  distinguitiir  quod  genitum 
 cBt.ab  00  quod  est  couditinn,"     Beza, 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Trc-existeiice  of  Christ.         147 
 
 of  the  Supreme  produced  into  existence."  To 
 the  same  purpose  is  Mr.  Peirce's  note  upon  the 
 text. 
 
 4.  Grotius,  and  with  him  the  Socinian 
 and  most  of  the  Unitarian  expositors,  inter- 
 pret the  text  as  referring  to  the  new  crea- 
 tion. Eph.  ii.  10;  iv.  24,  The  wovd  first -horn 
 is  used  to  express  excellence  in  its  kind.  Ps. 
 Ixxxix.  27.  Jer.  xxxi.  9-  Job  xviii.  13.9-  And 
 of  the  new  creation  Christ  is  the  head  and 
 chief,  being  the  chief  instrument  of  God  in 
 the  renovation  of  the  moral  world. 
 
 5.  The  word  '?r:>uroTOKog,  '  first-born,'  oc- 
 curs again,  ver.  18,  "  who  is  the  beginning, 
 the  first-born  from  the  dead :"  where  it  plainly 
 signifies  that  Christ  was  the  first  person  who 
 was  raised  from  the  dead  to  an  immortal  life. 
 There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  is  the  true 
 
 ^  "  .Tfp'jororoxosj  primus  in  creatione  nova,  de  qua  2  Cor. 
 T.  17.  Apoc.  xxi.  5."  Grotius. — "  Per  crcaturam  non  intelii- 
 gitur  creatura  vetus  sed  nova.  Hujus  creaturse  Christus  est  primo- 
 genitus,  id  est,  omnium  primus  a  Deo  creatus."  Crellius. — "  vpo- 
 roroKoy  Hebi'xis  dicitur  quod  primum  et  quod  suminum  est  ia 
 quoque  generc.  Ps.  Ixxxix.  26—28."  Brcnnius. — The  first- 
 born, i.  e.  the  chief,  the  lord  of  all  mankind  :  ver.  23 :  Mark 
 xvi.  16,  "  of  the  new  creation;  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  now 
 blended  into  one  mass."  Lindsej's  Seq.  p.  478.  Dr.  Priestley's 
 I^ar.  Op,  vol.  iii.  p.  49C.  Ilaynes  on  Atirib.  p.  197. 
 L  2 
 
148  l^e.rfs  supposed  to  assert         [Part  I. 
 
 meaning  of  the  word  in  the  15th  verse.  It  is 
 so,  probably,  in  the  few  remaining  passages  in 
 which  this  epithet  is  apphed  to  Christ  in  the 
 writings  of  Paul.  Rom.  viii.  29-  Heb.  i.  6. 
 And  certainly  Revel,  i.  5 :  "  The  first-born 
 from  the  dead ;"  the  very  phrase  which  is  used 
 Col.  i.  18. 
 
 XVII. 
 Col.  i.  17.  "  He  is  before  all  things  s^ :" 
 
 i.  e.  in  time,  dignity,  and  excellence,  in  the 
 natural  creation,  if  that  be  the  subject  of  the 
 apostle's  discourse ;  or,  of  the  new  creation,  if 
 that  be  the  subject  treated  of,  as  Unitarians 
 maintain.  This  question  will  be  discussed  here- 
 after. Mr.  Lindsey  explains  the  phrase  of 
 "  priority  in  the  destination  and  purpose  of  Al- 
 mighty Cod,"  Seq.  p.  482.  Grotius,  Brennius, 
 and  the  old  Socinians  understand  it  of  the  high 
 rank  and  dignity  to  which  he  is  now  advanced, 
 and  the  authority  which  is  given  him  over  all 
 creatures,  as  they  apprehend. 
 
 No  argument  for  the  pre-existence  of  Christ 
 can  be  drawn  from  this  ambisiuous  text. 
 
 ^  nai  avrog  scrri  ifpo  Ttavrwv.']  "  Ttpo  is  an  adverb  of  time  and 
 place,  and  sometimes,  figuratively,  of  excellence.  James  T.  12. 
 1  Pet.  iv.  8."     Schleusner. 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  F re-exist encc  of  Christ,         149 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 Rev.  iii.  14.  "  These  things  saith  the  Amen, 
 the  faithful  and  true  witness,  the  beginning," 
 or  head,  "  of  the  creation  of  God." 
 
 The  natural  creation,  according  to  Arians 
 and  Trinitarians— the  new  moral  creation,  as 
 Unitarians  believe.  And  that  it  will  bear  this 
 interpretation  is  acknowledged  by  learned  Tri- 
 nitarians themselves.  Beza  and  Hammond  both 
 explain  the  words  in  this  sense  9^. 
 
 Mr.  Lindsey  justly  observes,  that  "  our  Lord 
 having  characterized  himself,  first,  as  the  truth, 
 or  teacher  of  truth  ;  next,  as  the  faithful  martyr 
 to  the  truth  ;  it  is  much  more  consistent  with 
 these  characters  to  proceed  to  represent  himself 
 as  the  head  of  the  new  creation,  the  leader  and 
 chief  of  the  whole  army  of  martyrs,  than  as  the 
 being  who  created  all  things."  Comm.  and 
 Essays,  vol.  i.  p.  449. 
 
 The  old  Socinians  understood  the  words  of 
 the  universal  dominion  to  which  Christ  was,  as 
 
 °*  "  a,^%^>  a  quo  principiiim  ducunt  omnes  res  conditae ;  vel 
 potius  novi  scculi,  i.  e.  ecclcsiae,  caput  verum,  et  unicum  princi- 
 pium."  Bcza. — "  Qui  primus  pater  et  auctor  est  ecclcsiae  chris- 
 tianac."     Hammond. — "  Nova;  crcationis."     Grotius. 
 
150  Teats  supposed  to  assert        [Part  I. 
 
 they  thought,  advanced  after  his  ascension  into 
 heaven  9\ 
 
 These  are  all  the  passages  which  the  author, 
 many  years  ago,  after  a  careful  perusal  of  the 
 New  Testament,  could  discover  and  select  as 
 ■what  then  appeared  to  him  clear  and  une- 
 quivocal assertions  of  the  pre-existence  of  Jesus 
 Christ;  as  to  the  generality  of  Christians  they 
 still  appear.  He  has  stated  those  criticisms  and 
 interpretations  of  them  which  he  now  thinks  to 
 be  just,  and  by  which  he  was  gradually,  and 
 not  without  much  reluctance,  induced  to  aban- 
 don his  former  conclusions  as  erroneous  and 
 unscriptural.  He  does  not  expect  that  these 
 interpretations  will  afford  the  same  satisfaction 
 to  all  his  readers,  even  to  those  who  are  most 
 candid  and  ingenuous,  who  are  sincere  in^ 
 quirers  after  truth,  and  who  value  it  above  all 
 price.  It  was  long  before  he  himself  attained 
 the  satisfaction  which  he  now  feels.  But  truth, 
 aided  by  time,  will  gradually  piake  its  way. 
 And  in  the  mean  while,  it  is  surel}''  not  too 
 much  to  expect,  that  it  will  be-  allowed  that 
 these  texts,  which  at  the  first  glance  appear  so 
 
 $s  a  Prjiiceps  omnium  crcaturarum  Dei."     Drennius, 
 
Sect.  3.]     the  Pre-cxtsteiice  of  Christ.         151 
 
 decisively  to  assert  the  pre-existence  of  Christ, 
 nevertheless  admit  of  an  interpretation,  founded 
 upon  the  principles  of  just  criticism,  perfectly 
 consistent  with  his  proper  and  simple  humanity. 
 Upon  these  texts,  which  lie  at  the  very 
 foundation  of  the  Arian  and  Trinitarian  doc- 
 trines, it  has  been  thought  expedient  to  insist 
 at  largei  These  being  thus  copiously  discussed, 
 the  remaining  articles  may  be  dispatched  with 
 greater  brevity. 
 
152  Texts  supposed  to  allude  to      [Part  I. 
 
 SECTION     IV. 
 
 A  COLLECTION  OF  TEXTS,  WHICH,  IF  THEY 
 DO  NOT  DIRECTLY  ASSERT  THE  PRE- 
 EXISTENCE  OF  CHRIST,  HAVE  NEVER- 
 THELESS BEEN  THOUGHT  TO  ALLUDE  TO 
 IT,  AND  TO  BE  MOST  EASILY  EXPLAINED 
 UPON  THAT   HYPOTHESIS. 
 
 In  the  preceding  Section  it  has  been  shown 
 that  the  phrases  '  to  be  with  God,'  and  '  to 
 ascend  into  heaven,'  mean,  to  be  made  ac- 
 quainted \^ith  the  divine  purposes  and  will : 
 and  that  the  correlate  phrases  '  to  be  sent  by 
 God,'  '  to  come  from  God,'  '  to  descend  from 
 heaven,'  and  the  like,  express  a  divine  commis- 
 sion to  reveal  the  purposes  and  will  of  God  to 
 mankind. 
 
 Also,  that  the  phrase,  «  being  in  the  form 
 and  likeness  of  God,'  signifies  being  invested 
 with  miraculous  powers;  and  the  correspondent 
 phrases,  *  being  in  the  likeness  of  a  man,'  or 
 '  the  form  of  a  servant,'  when  put  in  opposition 
 
Sect.  4.]      the  T re-existence  of  Christ.       153 
 
 y.4.0  '  the  form  of  God/  signify  appearing  in  a 
 humble  condition,  like  an  ordinary  man,  who 
 possessed  no  such  miraculous  powers. 
 
 It  has  also  been  proved  that,  in  the  language 
 of  Scripture,  persons,  or  things,  or  states  of 
 things,  are  spoken  of  as  actually  existing,  when 
 they  exist  only  in  the  divine  purpose  and 
 decree. 
 
 These  principles  being  premised,  there  will 
 be  little  difficulty  in  the  explanation  of  those 
 texts  which,  though  they  cannot  be  regarded  as 
 asserting,  are  nevertheless  understood  by  many 
 as  alluding  to,  the  pre-existence  of  Christ. 
 
 1.  John  vi.  46.  "  Not  that  any  one  hath 
 seen  the  Father,  save  he  who  is  of  God,  he 
 hath  seen  the  Father.'' 
 
 i.  e.  No  one  is  acquainted  with  the  Father's 
 will,  but  he  who  hath  received  a  commission 
 from  him. 
 
 2.  John  viii.  14.  "  I  know  whence  I 
 came  and  whither  I  go ;  but  ye  cannot  tell 
 whence  I  come  and  whither  I  go.'' 
 
 i,  e,  I  know  from  whom  I  received  my  au- 
 thority, and  to  whom  I  am  accountable ;  but 
 you  are  wilfully  ignorant  of  both. 
 
 3.  John  viii,  23.  "  Ye  are  from  beneath; 
 
154         Texts  supposed  to  allude  to       [Part  I. 
 
 I  am  from  above :  ye  are  of  this  world ;  I  am 
 not  of  this  world." 
 
 2.  e.  You  are  of  a  mean  and  worldly  disposi- 
 tion ;  I  am,  i.  e,  my  doctrine  is,  from  heaven ; 
 and  its  tendency  is  to  purity  and  exalt  the  mind. 
 John  XV.  19.     Col.  iii.  2. 
 
 4.  John  viii.  38.  "  I  speak  that  which 
 I  have  seen  with  my  Father  :  and  ye  do  that 
 which  you  have  seen  with  your  Father.'* 
 Ver.  44,  "  Ye  are  of  your  Father  the  devil," 
 
 L  e.  I  teach  you  what  I  have  learned  from 
 God :  ye  do  what  you  have  learned  from  the 
 devil.  The  expression  in  both  clauses  is  figu- 
 rative. 
 
 5.  John  xiv.  28.  "  My  Father  is  greater 
 than  L" 
 
 This  is  a  very  perplexing  text  to  those  who 
 believe  in  the  proper  deity  of  Christ.  Some 
 say,  the  Father  is  greater  than  the  Son  in  his 
 divine  nature,  the  Son  being  an  emanation  from 
 him  '  ; — others,    that    he   is  greater    than    the 
 
 '  Of  this  mind  are  the  Athanasians  ancient  and  modern  ; 
 Alexander  of  Alexandria,  Athanasius,  Novafian,  (iregory  Nazi- 
 anzen,  Bull,  Watcrland,  Whitby.  "Quod  autom  Ililarius  dicit, 
 *  Patrem  esse  majorem  Filio,  F'iliiim  tamen  non  esse  miuorem,' 
 intelligcndiim  est  Patrem  esse  principiiim  Filii,  qui  naturii  tamea 
 est  eequalis  Patri.     In  divinis  personis,  ordo  est :  inauiualitas  nott 
 
Sect.  4.]     the  Fre-exhfence  of  Christ,        155 
 
 Son  ill  his  human  nature  ^  ; — and  some,  in  hh 
 official  capacity  as  mediator.  This  latter  is 
 the  interpretation  of  Hammond,  Doddridge, 
 and  Guyse. 
 
 The  Arians  claim  this  text  as  decisive  in  their 
 favour.  "  The  sense,"  says  Dr.  Clarke  in  his 
 usual  manner,  "  in  which  the  Socinian  writers 
 understand  these  words  is  very  low  and  mean. 
 The  plain  meaning  is,  that  God  the  Father  is 
 greater  than  the  Son.''     Scr.  Doct.  No.  830. 
 
 But  this  learned  writer  appears  not  to  have 
 recollected  that  his  own  Logos  was  as  much 
 inferior  to  the  infinite  self-existent  Deity,  as 
 the  meanest  worm.  Nor  would  Dr.  Clarke  say, 
 whatever  our  Lord  might  mean,  that  his  dig- 
 
 est: quemadmodum  distinctio  est,  dlversitas  nirlla  est."  Eras- 
 mus.— "  The  primitive  fatliers  owned  that  the  Father  was  greater 
 than  the  Son  as  to  his  original,  the  Son  being  begotten  by  him ; 
 and  yet  declared  that  he  was  God,  and  equal  to  God,  as  to  his 
 essence."     Whitby. 
 
 '  Beza  is  very  angry  with  the  Arians  for  not  being  sadsficd 
 •\yith  one  or  other  of  these  solutions,  cither  of  which  ought  to 
 have  silenced  them,  "  si  sanabiies  fuissentaut  etiamnum  t'ssent." 
 Neither  of  them,  however,  in  Boza's  judgement,  expresses  our 
 Lord's  true  meaning,  viz.  "  that  his  future  state  of  exalta- 
 tion would  be  greatly  superior  to  his  present  state  of  humiliation." 
 But  the  pious  reformer  scorns  to  have  thought  that  any  argu- 
 ments were  good  enough  for  the  Arians.  And  they  might  have 
 guessed  a  good  while  before  they  had  discovered  what  he  tells 
 them  is  the  truth. 
 
356*  Texts  supposed  to  allude  to      [Part  I. 
 
 ciples  understood  him  in  this  subhme  sense  :  it 
 is  plain  that  they  must  have  regarded  him  as  a 
 human  being,  otherwise  their  minds  would  have 
 been  overwhelmed  with  astonishment  and  ter- 
 ror. But  surely  our  Lord  must  have  used  his 
 words  in  that  sense  in  which  he  knew  that  his 
 hearers  would  understand  them,  viz. 
 
 That  God  was  infinitely  more  wise  and 
 powerful  and  good  than  he ;  and  therefore 
 able  to  reward  him,  and  to  protect  them  when 
 he  was  withdrawn  from  them  3.  This  is  the 
 interpretation  of  the  Unitarians.  Nor  is  this 
 phraseology,  which  Dr.  Clarke  thinks  so  "  flat 
 and  insipid,"  without  example  in  Scripture. 
 Job  xxxiii.  12,  13,  "  God  is  greater  than  man: 
 why  then  dost  thou  strive  against  him  ?"  John 
 X.  29,  "  My  Father,  w^ho  gave  them  me,  is 
 greater  than  all.'' 
 
 6.  John  xviii.  37-  "  To  this  end  w^as  I 
 born,  and  for  this  came  I  into  the  world :" 
 
 "  From  another  and  much  better  abode,'' 
 says  Dr.  Doddridge. 
 
 But  how  will  this  interpretation  apply  to 
 John  xvii.  18,  "  As  thou  hast  sent  me  into  the 
 
 3  "  Uatyjp  jxa  pi^wv,  mitfeiis  raisso.  Hoc  autem  ideo  dicitur 
 ut  intelligatiir,  et  se  ibi  tutum  fore,  et  ipsis  in  Patre  plus  fiiturum 
 praesidii,  quurn  in  sua  corporali  prasscntia,"     Grotius. 
 
Sect.  4.]       the  Vrc-existence  of  Christ.       157 
 
 world,  even  so  have  I  also  sent  them  into  the 
 world/*  '  To  be  sent  into  the  world  '  is  to  be  in- 
 vested with  a  divine  commission  :  '  to  come  into 
 the  world'  is  to  appear  in  public  under  a  pro- 
 phetic character.  Chap.  iii.  17-  19;  ix.  2>9'> 
 xi.  27. 
 
 7-  Rom.  X.  6.  "  The  righteousness  (or 
 justification)  which  is  by  faith  speaketh  thus : 
 Say  not  in  thy  heart,  Who  shall  ascend  into 
 heaven?  (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down  from 
 above.)'' 
 
 q.  d.  The  language  of  faith  in  the  Gospel  is 
 not,  Who  shall  teach  us  divine  truths?  as  though 
 Christ  had  not  revealed  all  that  was  needful, 
 and  it  would  be  necessary  for  him  to  visit  this 
 world  again.     See  John  iii.  13."^ 
 
 8.  1  Cor.  X.  9.  "  Neither  let  us  tempt 
 Christ'',  as  some  of  them"  (the  Israelites  in 
 the  wilderness)  "  also  tempted  him,  and  were 
 destroyed  by  serpents." 
 
 For  '  Christ,'  the  Vatican  and  Ephrem  manu- 
 scripts, and  the   Syriac    and   Coptic    versions, 
 
 ••  "  Solent  qui  rem  perquam  difRcilem  volunt  significare,  uti 
 similitudine  ascensus  in  coelmn,  &c.  Intellige,  nihil  opus  de  eo 
 DOS  laboremus."     Grotins. 
 
 •  CAm/]  Xfijcrcv.  Irenaeus  certainly  read  Kucr^v,  Lord.  See 
 Wetstein  in  loc. 
 
158         Texts  supposed  to  allude  to      [Part  I. 
 
 read  ILv^iov,  '  Lord/  and  the  Alex.  MS.  ©gov, 
 '  God/  Epiphanius  charges  Marcion  the  he- 
 retic with  substituting  X^/<rr<jv,  '  Christ.' 
 
 If  we  retain  the  received  text,  archbishop 
 Newcome  says,  "  the  sense  is.  Nor  let  us 
 tempt,  try,  prove,  provoke  Christ  now,  as  some 
 of  them  did  God  at  that  time.''  See  the  Im- 
 proved Version  in  loc. 
 
 9.  1  Cor.  X.  4.  "  They  drank  of  the  spi- 
 ritual rock  which  followed  them :  and  that  rock 
 was  Christ." 
 
 i,  e,  A  type  or  similitude  of  Christ,  from 
 whom  flow  all  the  refreshing  blessings  of  the 
 Gospel. 
 
 10.  Gal.  i.  1.  "  Paul  an  apostle,  not  of 
 roan  nor  by  men,  but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God 
 the  Father  who  raised  him  from  the  dead." 
 
 q.  d.  "  Not  of,  nor  by,  ordinary  men,"  see 
 Phil.  ii.  7  :  but  by  Jesus  Christ,  the  sole  head 
 and  governor  of  the  church,  from  whom  alone 
 an  apostolic  mission  could  be  derived. 
 
 11.  Heb.  ii.  14.  "  Forasmuch  then  as 
 the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he 
 also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same  ^." 
 
 "Tookpartof  the  same.]  -^  ^zreTxs   i.  e.  SKOivwyr^os   y.sraXa^£v:* 
 Cyrill.   Phavoriaus.      See    Schlcusner.      The    word,   therefore, 
 
Sect.  4.]     the.  Frc-cxistcncc  of  Christ.         159 
 
 The  expression  '  took  part'  seems  to  indicate 
 a  voUmtary  assumption  of  human  nature,  and 
 so  it  is  translated  by  Dr.  Hiirwood,  and  ex- 
 pounded by  Dr.  Dodtlridge.  It  ought  to  have 
 been  rendered  *  he  pcn-ticipatcd  of  the  same/ 
 And  it  no  more  imphes  that  to  become  a  man 
 was  a  voluntary  act  in  Christ,  than  the  other 
 expression,  translated  *  are  partakers,'  implies 
 that  it  is  a  voluntary  act  in  other  human 
 beings.  "  The  word  'xa.Da,'7r}.r,(TiMc^''  says  Mr. 
 Peirce,  "  does  not  here  import  a  faint  likeness 
 or  resemblance,  but  a  proper  and  exact  confor- 
 mity. For  he  as  properly  partook  of  flesh  and 
 blood  as  any  of  the  children  do/'  The  sense 
 therefore  is,  that  Christ  was  in  every  respect 
 really  and  truly  a  man,  as  much  so  as  any  of 
 the  children  of  God  \vhom  he  came  to  save. 
 And  this  certainly  is  the  scope  of  the  writers 
 argument,  as  "will  be  evident  to  every  unpre- 
 judiced person  \vho  reads  the  paragraph  with 
 attention. 
 
 12.  Heb.  vii.  3.  "  For  this  Melchisedec 
 — without  father,  without  mother,  without 
 descent  (or   pedigree),   having    neither    begin- 
 
 which  our  translators  render  took  part,  is  equivalent  to  that 
 which  they  translate  are  partakers :  and  hy  no  means  neges* 
 nrWy  Implies  a  Tuluntary  act. 
 
160  Texts  supposed  to  allude  to      [Part  I. 
 
 ning  of  days,  nor  end  of  life,  and  made  like  to 
 the  Son  of  God;  abideth  a  priest  continually/* 
 
 The  writer  of  this  epistle  having  found  in 
 Psalm  ex.  the  priesthood  of  the  Messiah  com- 
 pared with  that  of  Melchisedec,  strains  the 
 similitude  to  as  many  points  of  resemblance  as 
 possible. 
 
 As  Melchisedec  was  a  priest,  without  any 
 mention  having  been  made  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment of  his  pedigree,  either  by  the  father's  or 
 the  mother's  side;  so  Christ,  being  of  the  tribe 
 of  Judah,  ver.  14,  is  also  a  priest,  without 
 priestly  pedigree. 
 
 And  as  the  history  contains  no  account  either 
 of  the  birth  or  the  death  of  Melchisedec,  but 
 only  exhibits  him  as  a  living  man  ;  so  Christ, 
 since  his  ascension,  is  become  a  living  priest, 
 and  is  no  more  subject  to  change  or  death  '^, 
 
 '  "  Hajc  non  sunt  nimium  nunc  urgenda  cum  obsolcverit 
 prorsus  ea  ratio  sic  explicandse  Scripturse."  Le  Clerc  in  Ham- 
 mond,  with  his  usual  good  sense. — If  this  be  the  true  interpre- 
 tation,  which  to  me  seems  unquestionable,  it  puts  an  end  to  all 
 the  curious  speculations  concerning  the  person  of  Melchisedec : 
 some  supposing  that  he  was  the  Logos,  some,  an  angel,  and  some, 
 Shem  the  son  of  Noah ;  and  likewise,  concerning  the  person  of 
 Christ,  as  being  in  his  divine  nature  without  mother,  and  in  his 
 human  nature  without  father,  and  the  like,  with  which  divines 
 have  puzzled  themselves  to  little  purpose.  See  Peirce.  and  Im- 
 proved Vergion,  note. 
 
Sect.  4.]     the  T re-existence  of  Christ.         161 
 
 13.  Heb.  xi.26.  "  He  (Moses)  esteemed 
 the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the 
 treasures  of  Egypt.'' 
 
 "  Such  reproach  as  Christ  endured.''  New- 
 come. —  "  O'log  o'  Hpia-Tog  STudz."  Photius. —  So 
 Lindsej :  and  others.  See  chap.  xiii.  13. — 
 *'  Typical  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ."  Grotius. 
 — "  Which  the  Israehtes  suffered  as  expectants 
 of  the  Messiah."  Eeza  and  Hallet,— "  The  re- 
 proach \vhich  he  incurred  by  the  worship  of  the 
 visible  Jehovah,  whom  Paul  considers  in  his 
 future  character  of  the  Christ."  H.  Taylor  in 
 Ben  Mordecai's  Lett.  p.  297. 
 
 The  best  interpretation  of  this  text  is  that  of 
 Dr.  Whitby,  Dr.  Sykes,  Le  Clerc,  and  others. 
 The  word  Christ  signifies  '  anointed,'  i.  e.  se- 
 parated, consecrated.  Hence  it  is  applied  to 
 the  Israelite  nation,  Ps.  cv.  ]  5 ;  "  Touch  not 
 my  anointed "  (LXX.  '  my  christs,'  ruv  xt^(jro)v) 
 i.  e.  my  chosen  and  consecrated  people.  Habak. 
 iii.  13,  "  Thou  \\entest  forth  for  the  salvation 
 of  thy  people,  even  for  thine  anointed,"  toy 
 X^iG-rov  (Tn,  '  thy  christ,'  «  thy  chosen  people/ 
 
 '  Moses    esteemed  the  reproach   of   Christ,' 
 
 that  is,  of  the  chosen  and  holy  people  of  God, 
 
 *  greater  riches  than  the  treasures    of  Egypt,' 
 
 q.  d.    He    preferred    the    state    of  a    despised 
 
 M 
 
162  Texts  supposed  to  allude  to      [Part  L 
 
 Israelite  to  the  opulence  and  grandeur  of  an 
 Egyptian  prince. 
 
 Dr.  Clarke,  with  great  judgement,  takes  no 
 notice  of  this  text. 
 
 14.  Heb.  xii.  25,  26.  "  See  that  ye  re- 
 fuse not  him  that  speaketh.  For  if  they  esca])ed 
 not  who  refused  him  that  spake  on  earth,  much 
 more  shall  not  we  escape,  if  we  turn  away  from 
 him  who  speaketh  from  heaven,"  &c.  See 
 Haggai  ii.  6.^ 
 
 The  speaker  here  alluded  to  is  God  himself, 
 who,  at  the  giving  out  of  the  Law,  spake  from 
 mount  Sinai,  but  who  now  by  his  spirit  speaks 
 from  heaven.  1  Pet.  i.  12.  "  The  stress  of 
 the  argument,''  says  Peirce,  "  lies  in  the  dif- 
 ferent manner  of  his  speaking,  his  speaking  on 
 earth  and  his  speaking  from  heaven.''  See  also 
 Grotius  and  Whitby. 
 
 15.  Heb.  xiii.  8.  '*  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
 same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  for  ever." 
 
 "  In  the  tenor  of  his  declarations,  as  well  as 
 in  the  glories  of  his  divine  nature."  Dr.  Dod- 
 drid";e. 
 
 *  Archbishop  JNcvvcome  strangely  coucfivos  of  this  passage  as 
 *'  favouring  the  supposition  that  our  Lord  was  the  angel  of  the 
 covenant  who  presided  at  giving  the  Law."  Dr.  Clarke  takes 
 no  notice  of  this  text. 
 
Sect.  4.]      the  Pre-exist ence  of  Christ.       163 
 
 "  The  meaning  of  this  place,  as  appears  from 
 the  context,  is,  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  once 
 taught  by  the  apostles  ought  to  be  preserved 
 unchanged/'  Dr.  Clarke,  No.  662  :  and  with 
 him  agree  Calvin  9,  Whitby,  Le  Clerc,  New- 
 come,  and  the  majority  of  expositors.  This 
 interpretation  is  confirmed  by  ver.  9  ^  "  Be  not 
 carried  away  with  divers  and  strange  doctrine.'' 
 The  word  Christ  olten  stands  for  the  doctrine 
 of  Christ.  Eph.  iv.  20,  "  We  have  not  so 
 learned  Christ,"  i.  e.  his  doctrine.  See  also 
 Phil.  iv.  ]3.  Acts  v.  42.  2  Cor.  iv.  o.  1  Cor. 
 i.  24. 
 
 l6.  1  Pet.  i.  11.  "  Searching  what — the 
 spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did  signify, 
 when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of 
 Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should  follow.''" 
 
 '  The  spirit  of  Christ'  is  that  prophetic  spirit 
 which  revealed  the  advent  and  the  suflerin£:s  of 
 Christ,  as,  John  xiv.  17,  '  the  spirit  of  truth'  is 
 that  inspiration  from  God  which  would  reveal 
 and  attest   the  doctrine   of  the  Gospel.      See 
 
 ®  "  A|)paret  noii  de  aetcriiii  Chiisti  essentia  apostolum  dispii- 
 taro,  scd  de  ejus  notifiA,  qiias  omnibus  scculis  viguit  inter  pios, 
 ac  perpctuuin  eccle:i:i'  fundamenttim  fuit."     Calvin, 
 M  2 
 
l64         Texts  supposed  to  allude  to       [Part  L 
 
 Grotius  in  loc. ;  Clarke,  No.  ]  209 ;  and  Lind- 
 sey's  Seq.  p.  283. 
 
 17.  1  Pet.  iii.  19,  20.  "  By  which  also 
 he  (Chribt)  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits 
 in  prison.  Who  some  time  were  disobedient, 
 when  (once)  the  long-suffering  of  God  waited 
 in  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  pre- 
 paring/' 
 
 More  correctly;  "  By  which  also,  after  he 
 was  gone,  he  preached  to  the  spirits,  ?.  e.  per- 
 sons*^ in  prison:  who  formerly  disbelieved.'' 
 
 q.  d.  By  wdiich  spirit,  communicated  to  his 
 apostles  after  his  ascension,  {'Tro^Bvhtg,  see  ver.  22, 
 where  the  very  same  word  is  used  in  the  same 
 sense,)  he  proclaimed  the  Gospel  to  persons 
 who  were  imprisoned  in  ignorance,  idolatrj^ 
 and  vice,  of  the  same  description  with  those 
 to  whom  Noah  preached  while  the  ark  was 
 building.  Who  indeed  then  preached  with 
 little  effect,  &c. 
 
 Those  to  whom  Christ  preaches  by  his  spirit 
 since  his  ascension  are  not  the  self-same  per- 
 sons to  whom  Noah  preached,  but  persons  of 
 
 '"  iSpmV  is  not  luifrequcntly  used  for  person.  See  1  Tim. 
 Ti.  21,  compared  with  2  Tim.  iv.  22.  riiilcm.  v.  25.  1  John 
 iv.  2,  3. 
 
Sect.  4.]      tlie  Tre-existcnce  of  Christ,       l65 
 
 the  same  cast  and  character,  the  same  race  of 
 idolaters  and  unbehevers,  bound  in  the  same 
 chains  of  ignorance,  vice,  and  prejudice. 
 
 This  is  the  interpretation  of  Grotius",  and 
 seems  to  be  tlie  best  solution  of  this  obscure 
 and  entangled  text. 
 
 Of  the  advocates  for  the  pre-existcnce  and 
 divinity  of  Christ,  some  suppose  with  Dr. 
 Whitby,  Dr.  Doddridge,  c^c,  that  Christ  by 
 his  prophetic  spirit,  in  the  days  of  Noah, 
 warned  the  inhabitants  of  the  antediluvian 
 world,  who  then  rejected  his  admonitions,  and 
 are  now  suffering  in  prison,  /.  e.  in  hell. 
 
 "  "  Bv  M,  per  quera  Dei  spirltum  missum  in  apostolos.  vopsv- 
 tsis,  postquani  in  coeluin  ascendit:  viil,  vcr,  12.  Joh.  xiv.  2,  3. 
 £v  (fvXocxri,  i.  e.  in  carnc.  a.Tis.i.^r,tTa.cn  itritz.  •/..  t.  A.  loquitur  quasi 
 iidem  fuisscnt,  et  fuerant  iidem  non  a^i^'x-jy,  sed  genere.  IIo- 
 mines  a  Deo  plane  abalienati.  Noae  non  crediderunt:  Christo 
 crcdiderunt."     Grotius. 
 
 Christ  Avas  raised  to  life  hy  the  spirit,  that  is,  the  power  of 
 God  :  by  which  spirit,  after  lie  was  gone  to  heaven,  he  preached 
 by  the  ministry  of  his  apostles  to  the  spirits  in  prison,  not  to  the 
 dead,  but  to  the  Gentile  world  who  were  without  any  sense  or 
 knowledge  of  God.  Chap.  iv.  6,  "  The  Gospel  was  preached 
 to  them  that  were  dead."  Isa.  xlii.  6,  7,  "  I  give  thee  for  a 
 light  to  the  Gentiles,  to  bring  out  the  prisoners  from  (he  prison. 
 Who  were  some  time  disobedient  in  the  days  of  Noah." — "  He 
 preached  not  to  the  same  individual  [jcrsons  ;  but  to  men  like 
 them,  in  the  same  circumstances."  Lindsey's  Seq.  p.  283 — i^.S. 
 Dr.  Clarke  makes  no  us«  of  this  ttjxt.  See  Imp.  "V  cr.  not, 
 in  loc. 
 
166  Texts  supposed  to  allude  to       [Part  I. 
 
 Others,  with  Gregory  Nazianzen,  understand 
 this  text  as  teaching  that  Christ  descended  into 
 hell  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  imprisoned 
 souls  of  those  who  perished  in  Noah's  flood. 
 
 18.  1  John  i.  1,2."  That  which  was  from 
 the  beginning,  which  we  have  heard,  which  we 
 have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked 
 upon,  and  our  hands  have  handled,  of  the  Word 
 of  Life ;  for  the  Life  was  manifested,  and  we 
 have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and  shew  unto 
 you  that  eternal  Life,  which  was  with  the  Fa- 
 ther, and  was  manifested  unto  us." 
 
 Tiiis  text  is  parallel  to  John  i.  1 — 14;  and 
 they  are  mutually  explanatory  of  each  other. 
 Jesus  Christ,  the  author  and  finisher  of  the 
 Christian  faith,  who  is  there  called  '  the  Word,' 
 is  here  entitled  '  the  Word  of  Life,' — he  is  there 
 said  to  have  been  "  in  the  beginning ;"  here,  he 
 is  "  that  which  was  from  the  beginning,"  i.  e, 
 from  the  commencement  of  the  new  dispensa- 
 tion.— In  the  Gospel  it  is  said,  "  in  him  was 
 Life  "  in  the  Epistle  he  is  styled  "  the  Life," 
 "  the  Eternal  Life;"  for  this  was  the  main  object 
 of  his  mission,  the  great  doctrine  M'hich  he  was 
 authorized  to  reveal. — In  the  Gospel,  "  the 
 Word  was  with  God ;"  in  the  Epistle,  '*  this  Eter-, 
 
Sect.  4.]      tlie  Prc-exhtence  of  Christ.         167 
 
 nal  Life  was  with  the  Father,"  ?'.  e.  he  was  in- 
 structed by  God,  and  received  his  commission 
 from  him. — In  the  Gospel,  "  the  Life  was  the 
 Light  of  men,  and  John  was  sent  to  bear  wit- 
 ness to  it;"  in  the  Epistle,  "  the  Life  was  mani- 
 fested, and  his  disciples  saw  it  and  bare  wit- 
 ness."—  Finally,  in  the  Gospel,  "  the  Word  was 
 flesh  ;"  the  teacher  of  life  was  a  real  man :  in 
 the  Epistle,  this  Word  of  life  was  also  a  real 
 person,  the  object  of  sense  ;  he  was  heard,  and 
 seen,  and  felt.  He  was  not,  as  the  Docetai 
 then  taught,  a  spiritual  being  in  the  shape  of 
 a  man,  but  without  the  essential  properties  of 
 humanity,  intangible,  and  impassible  '-. 
 
 19.  1  John  iv.  2.  "  Every  spirit  that 
 confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
 flesh,  is  of  God."  See  ver.  3,  and  2  John, 
 ver.  7. 
 
 Calvin  and  bishop  Horsley  argue  from  this 
 phrase  the  pre-existence  and  divinity  of  Christ. 
 Grotius  and  the  old  Socinians  interpret  the 
 words  '  coming  in  the  flesh,'  of  the  humble 
 and  suffering  state  in  which  Christ  appeared. 
 Pr.  Priestley  and  Mr.  Lindsey  explain  the 
 phrase   as   expressive  of  the   real   and   proper 
 
 "  See  Sect.  III.  No.  1.     Also  Impr.  Version  in  loc. 
 
l68  I'exts  supposed  to  allude  to      [Part  I. 
 
 humanity  of  Christ,  in  opposition  to  the  doc- 
 trine of  the  Docetae,  which  was  then  growing 
 into  fashion,  that  Christ  was  a  man  in  appear- 
 ance only.  Of  this  doctrine  the  apostle  ex- 
 presses the  strongest  disapprobation,  ver.  3, 
 "  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus 
 Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  r.ot  of  God  :  and 
 this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist'' — "  which  the 
 world  heareth."    Ver.  5. 
 
 Thus  it  appears  that  the  doctrine  against 
 which  the  apostle  expresses  a  marked  indigna^ 
 tion,  and  which  he  denounces  as  the  very 
 essence  and  spirit  of  antichrist,  is  that  which 
 denies  Christ  to  be  a  real  man,  and  which 
 maintains  that  he  was  a  being  different  from 
 what  he  appeared  to  be.  This  was  the  doctrine 
 which  the  world  received  with  applause ;  and 
 the  reason  is  plain :  because  it  diminished  the 
 odium  which  was  attached  to  the  Christian 
 religion,  from  the  low  extraction,  the  mean  con- 
 dition, and  the  ignominious  execution  of  its  ori- 
 p-inal  founder  ^^. 
 
 "  L'mdsey's  Sequel,  p.  288 — 291. — "  Every  spirit  which  con- 
 fesseth that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  man  is  of  God,  in  opposition  to 
 the  Docetac,  who  maintained  that  he  was  man  only  in  appear- 
 ance." Dr.  Priestley's  History  of  Corrupt,  vol.  i.  p.  8. — '*• '  Com- 
 ing in  the  ilesh '  is  a  very  awkward  and  unnatural  phrase," 
 t 
 
Sect.  4.]     the  Fre-cxislcnce  of  Christ.         169 
 
 •20.  Rev.  xxii.  16.  "  I  am  the  root  and 
 the  offspring  of  Davkl."     Conip.  chap.  v.  5. 
 
 q,  d.  I  am  a  sucker  or  plant  from  the  root  of 
 David.  That  root,  of  \vhich  it  was  foretold 
 that  it  should  jxi'ow  out  of  the  house  of  David. 
 Isa.  xi.  1,  "  There  shall  come  forth,  a  root  from 
 the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  shall  grow  out 
 of  his  roots."  Ver.  10,  "  In  that  day  there 
 shall  be  a  root  of  Jesse."  Isa.  liii.  2.  Hos. 
 xiv.  6.     Rom.  XV.  12.     See  Grotius  in  loc. 
 
 From  the  review  which  has  been  taken  of 
 the  texts  contained  in  this  Section,  we  may 
 conclude,  that,  though  if  the  doctrine  of  the 
 pre-existence  of  Christ  had  been  an  undoubted 
 fact,  established  upon  independent  evidence, 
 some  of  these  passages  might  be  understood 
 as  containing  an  allusion  to  it,  yet  that  no  one 
 of  them  can  be  admitted  as  a  direct  proof  of 
 the  popular  doctrine.     All  of  them  may  be  well 
 
 gays  bishop  llorslcj',  "  to  express  no  more  than  his  bring  truly 
 man  :  it  naturally  leads  to  the  notion  of  one  who  had  iiis  choice 
 pf  (liiVercnt  ways  of  coming.'"  Ilorsiey's  Charge,  p.  15 — i8. — 
 Put  the  controversy  with  tlie  Doccta;  made  that  expression  pro- 
 per, which  would  otherwise  have  been  harsh.  And  this  sufii- 
 ciently  accounts  for  the  apostle's  using  it,  without  having  re. 
 course  io  the  unfounded  and  unscriptural  supposition  of  our 
 Lord's  having  a  choice  of  dill'erent  ways  of  coming  into  the  woild. 
 
170        Texts  supposed  to  allude,  &c.     [Parti. 
 
 explained  upon  the  supposition  of  the  proper 
 humanity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  majority  of 
 them  are  in  fact  interpreted  by  the  most  learned 
 and  judicious  of  the  Arian  and  Trinitarian  ex- 
 positors as  having  no  bearing  upon  the  doctrine 
 of  the  pre-existence. 
 
Sect.  6,]  171 
 
 SFXTION     V. 
 
 ATTRIBUTES  SUPPOSED  TO  BE  ASCRIBED 
 TO  CHRIST,  AVIIICII  INTER  IIIS  PRE- 
 EXISTEXCE   AM)    ]:)[VINITV, 
 
 I.    Eternity, 
 
 1.  John  i.  1.  "  In    the  beginning  was 
 the  Word." 
 
 Answer.  The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  dis- 
 pensation is  here  intended.     See  Sect.  III.  1. 
 
 2.  Col  i.  15.  "  The  first-born  of  every 
 creature." 
 
 AnsTzer.  Compare  ver.  18.  The  first  who 
 was  raised  from  the  dead  to  immortal  hfe. 
 Sect.  III.  18. 
 
 3.  Heb.  vii.  3.  "  Having  neither  begin- 
 ning of  days  nor  end  of  hfe." 
 
 Answer.  This  being  predicated  of  Melchi- 
 sedec,  and  not  proving  his  eternity,  it  cannot 
 prove  the  eternity  of  Christ.     Sect.  IV.  12. 
 
 4.  Heb.  xiii.  8.    "  Jesus   Christ,   the 
 game  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever." 
 
172         Divine  Atfrihutes  supposed      [Part  I, 
 
 Answer.  That  is,  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  as 
 the  context  requires,  and  Calvin  himself  allows. 
 Sect.  IV.  \d. 
 
 11.  Immufdbilifj/, 
 Heb.  i.  iO— 12.  "  And  thou,  Lord,  in 
 the  beginning  didst  lay  the  foundations  of  the 
 earth;  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thy 
 hands  :  they  will  perish,  but  thou  wilt  re- 
 main," &c. 
 
 Answer,  These  words  are  a  quotation  from 
 Ps.  cii.  25,  and  are  certainly  addressed  to  the 
 eternal  God.  The  writer  of  this  epistle  having 
 cited  the  promise,  Ps.  xlv.  6,  that  God  would 
 support  the  throne  of  the  Messiah,  in  an  elor 
 quent  apostrophe  he  addresses  the  Supreme 
 Being  in  the  language  of  the  Psalmist,  ac- 
 knowledging and  adoring  that  immutability  of 
 the  divine  nature,  and  of  his  w'ise  and  benevo- 
 lent purposes,  which  constitute  the  surest 
 pledge  of  the  stability  of  the  Messiah's  king> 
 dom  '. 
 
 *  Sec  Einlyn's  Works,  toI.  ii.  p.  340.  Also  Liiidscj's  Sequel, 
 p.  488:  and  the  Impr.  Vers,  in  loc.  Dr.  Clarke,  though  he  pre- 
 ftTs  fhe  applira{i'>n  of  (lie  Mords  to  (he  Son,^as  being  the  dele- 
 gate of  the  Father  in  the  crealion  of  the  ATorld,  admits  the  pos- 
 si!)ility  that  (hr-j*  ipdv  "  be  intended  as  a  description  of  the  ininiu- 
 tabiiityof  tiic  Faitier,  for  a  confirmation  and  assurance  of  what 
 he  had  declared."     Ver.  8,  9.     Script.  Doct.  p.  81.  No.  552. 
 
Sect.  5.]      to  he  ascribed  to  Christ.  1/3 
 
 III.    Power  to  laij  domi  his  Life,  and  to  re- 
 sume it  at  pleasure. 
 
 1.  John  ii.  19 — -1.  "  Jesus  answered. 
 Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  1  will 
 raise  it  up :" — "  he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his 
 body."     Matt.  xxvi.  6l. 
 
 Answer.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  uni- 
 formly ascribed  in  the  Sacred  Writings  to  the 
 power  of  God.  Acts  ii.  32;  x.  40;  xvii.  31. 
 Rom.  vi.  4;  viii.  II.  Our  Lord's  expression 
 therefore  is  to  be  understood  figuratively  ;  not 
 that  he  would  raise  himself,  but  that  he  would 
 be  raised  by  God.  Thus,  when  it  is  said  "  the 
 dead  shall  rise,''  1  Thess.  iv.  16,  all  that  is  in- 
 tended is,  that  they  shall  be  raised  by  a  divine 
 power.     Mark  v.  41.     John  xi.  44  ;  v.  28,  29. 
 
 2.  John  X.  17,  18.  "Therefore  doth  my 
 Father  love  me,  because  I  lay  down  my  life, 
 that  I  may  take  it  again.  No  man  taketh  it 
 from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself.  I  have 
 power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take 
 (XaCg/f,  to  receive)-  it  again.  This  command- 
 ment have  I  received  (sXaCov)  of  my  Father." 
 
 *  "  Aa/x^avw,  manu  aliqiiid  capio,  Matt.  xiv.  19;  alia  qua. 
 cunque  ratione  accipio,  Matt.  vii.  3  :  rursum  accipio,  recupero, 
 Matt.  xix.  29.  J  oh.  xiii.  12."  Schlcusner.— The  word  is  by  no 
 means  necessarily  taken  in  an  active  sense. 
 
174         Divine  Attributes  supposed      [Part  L 
 
 If  this  text  is  to  be  understood  of  the  death 
 and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  it  is  to  be  explained 
 upon  the  same  principles  as  the  preceding :  and 
 though  active  verbs  are  used,  they  are  to  be 
 taken  in  a  passive  sense.  "  I  have  authority  to 
 receive  it  again/'  q.  d.  If  I  voluntarily  expose 
 myself  to  suffering  and  death,  I  am  assured  by 
 my  Father  that  the  life  sa  sacrificed  shall  be 
 speeddy  restored.  I  shall  receive  again  the 
 deposit  uhich  I  resign. 
 
 Grotius^  explains  the  text  differently,  q.  d. 
 I  have  power  to  expose  myself  to  imminent 
 peril,  and  I  have  power  to  rescue  myself  at 
 pleasure :  so  that  no  person  can  deprive  me  of 
 lite  till  I  voluntarily  resign  it,  and  wave  the 
 power  with  which  I  am  intrusted,  of  rescuing 
 myself  from  all  violence. 
 
 Our  Lord,  to  whom  the  spirit  was  given 
 without  measure,  John  iii.  34,  possessed  a  vo-^ 
 luntary  power  of  working  miracles:  but  his 
 mind  was  so  disciplined  by  his  temptation,  and 
 by  other  circumstances,  as  to  exercise  these 
 powers  only  upon  proper  occasions.     It  is  evi- 
 
 '  "  Ostendit  (^hrbtus  aliquid  in  se  exiinium.  Alii  ctsi  pert- 
 ciilo  so  ofiVrrc  po(erant,  iion  tainen  qiiotics  voluiit  se  pi-ricnlo 
 possiu\t  cximere,  quod  ipso  po(ciat.  Xx^siv,  x.  r.  A.  i.  e.  vitum 
 periciilo  jam  priL'scnli  eripcrc."     Grotius. 
 
Sect.  5.]       to  he  ascribed  to  Christ,  1J5 
 
 dent  ill  particular,  that  it  was  optional  with 
 him,  whether  he  would  submit  to  a  violent 
 death  in  order  to  fulfil  the  purposes  of  his 
 mission.  AVhen  the  officers  came  to  arrest  him, 
 he  struck  them  to  the'  ground  with  terror. 
 John  xviii.  6. — Had  he  thought  fit, to  desire  it, 
 legions  of  angels  would  have  been  sent  for  his 
 rescue.  IVIatt.  xxvi.  53. — Before  the  appointed 
 time  was  arrived,  he  repeatedly  delivered  him- 
 self from  danger  by  miracle.  Luke  iv.  2,9. 
 John  viii.  59- — And  the  apostle  Paul,  Philip, 
 ii.  8,  represents  our  Lord's  submission  to  cru- 
 cifixion as  a  voluntary  act,  in  which  he  sponta- 
 neously suspended  the  exercise  of  his  miracu- 
 lous powers. 
 
 It  may  perhaps  be  objected,  that  if  our  Lord 
 had  refused  to  submit  to  a  violent  death,  the 
 design  of  the  Gospel  dispensation  would  have 
 been  frustrated.  But  this  is  a  case  which  could 
 not  have   occurred   under    the   divine    o-overn- 
 
 o 
 
 ment  ;  events  whieh  result  from  the  election 
 of  voluntary  agents  being  equally  certain  with 
 those  which  are  effected  by  mechanical  causes. 
 And  it  is  more  honourable  to  our  Lord's  cha- 
 racter to  conceive  of  him  as  intrusted  with  vo- 
 luntary powers,  which  the  habitual  n.'ctitude  of 
 his  mind  would  prevent  him  from  abusing  to 
 
176         Dhinc  Attributes  supposed      [Part  I. 
 
 improper  purposes,  than  to  suppose  that .  be 
 ^vas  never  capable  of  performing  a  miracle,  but 
 when  prompted  by  an  immediate  divine  sug- 
 gestion :  in  which  case  there  would  be  no  room 
 for  the  exercise  either  of  discretion  or  benevo- 
 lence. And  the  lanirua2:e  of  the  New  Testa- 
 cy    o 
 
 ment  evidently  favours  the  supposition  that  the 
 miracles  of  Christ  were  voluntary  acts,  while 
 the  apostks  possessed  miracidous  powers  in  a 
 very  inferior  and  limited  degree. 
 
 IV.     Irresistible  Pozcer. 
 
 1.  Matt,  xxviii.  18.  "  All  power"  (sfi^fl'/ci, 
 authority,)  "  is  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  on 
 earth." 
 
 This  text  does  not  refer  to  power  as  an  attri- 
 bute of  Christ,  but  to  his  authority  and  uni- 
 versal dominion,  which  is  a  different  question, 
 and  will  be  considered  elsewliere.     Sect.  X. 
 
 2.  Philip,  ill.  '21.  "  Who  shall  change 
 our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like 
 unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the  work- 
 ing (energy)  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  sub- 
 due (subject)  all  things  to  himself/' 
 
 Answer.  That  Christ  will  be  invested  with 
 authority  to  raise  th.e  dead,  is  a  doctrine  gene- 
 
beet.  5.]  to  he  ascribed  to  Chrii^f,  177 
 
 rally  received  by  christians; — and  that  there  is 
 a  sense  in  \vhich  all  things  will  be  made  subject 
 to  him,  is  admitted  by  Unitarians  equally  with 
 other  christians.  That  this  power,  whatever  it 
 be,  Ts  derived  from  God,  the  apostle  expressly 
 teaches,  1  Cor.  xv.  27-  How  far  this  autho- 
 rity is  consistent  with  the  proper  humanity  of 
 Christ  will  be  the  subject  of  future  inquiry. 
 Sect.  X. 
 
 3.  Rev.  i.  8.  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega, 
 saith  the  Lord  God,  who  is,  and  was,  and  who 
 is  to  come,  the  Almighty.'' 
 
 This  is  the  most  approved  reading  of  the 
 text.  See  Griesbach  and  the  Improved  Ver- 
 sion. The  words  are  undoubtedly  to  be  un- 
 derstood as  uttered  in  the  person  of  God,  and 
 not  of  Jesus.  The  words  repeated  ver.  11, 
 where  Christ  is  the  speaker,  are  certainly  spu- 
 rious. 
 
 V.    Omnipresence. 
 
 1.  Matt,  xviii.  20.  "  For  wjiere  two  or 
 three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there 
 am  I  in  the  midst  of  tbem." 
 
 Answer.  Tiie  apostles  certainly  did  not  un- 
 derstand  these  words   as    an   assertion   of  the 
 
 N 
 
178         Divine  Attributes  supposed     [Parti. 
 
 divine  attribute  of  omnipresence.     For  Peter, 
 witbout  any  marks  of  astonishment  at  so  ex- 
 traordinary  a  declaration   as   that  must  have 
 appeared  to  be  if  he  had  so  understood  it,  and 
 without  any   comment,  proceeds  in  his  usual 
 May   to  propose   a  question   upon  a   difficulty 
 \vl]ich    had    occurred    to  him  :  "  Master,  how 
 often  shall  my  brother  offend,  and  I  forgive?*' 
 The  declaration  therefore  must  be  taken  figu- 
 ratively.   The  context  limits  the  promise  to  the 
 apostles   only.     See   Pearce   and  Newcome. — 
 Ver.  19,  "  If  two  of  you  shall  agree  on  earth 
 concerning  any  thing  which  they  shall  ask,  it 
 shall  be  done  for  them  by  my  Father  who  is  in 
 heaven/'    This  promise  must  necessarily  be  in- 
 tended of  prayers  offered  by  the  impulse  of  the 
 f^pirit.    The  reason  follows :  "  For  where  two  or 
 tliree  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there 
 am  I  in  the  midst  of  them."   q.  ch  Such  requests, 
 dictated  by  my  authority,  and  prompted  by  the 
 spirit  which  I  will  communicate,  will  be  as  effi- 
 cacious as  if  I  myself  were  ptrsonally  present. 
 
 2.  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  "  Lo,   I   am    with 
 you  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world  \" 
 
 *  7b  the   end  of  the  world']    sw^  rr^c  cruvrshstf.s  rov  ximo;. 
 
Sect,  o.]         to  he  ascribed  io  Christ  179 
 
 jrinszccr.  The  promise  is  addressed  to  the 
 apostles  only.  It  is  limited  to  the  termination 
 of  the  Jewish  dispensation  by  the  destruction 
 of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  :  during  which 
 interval  Christ  was  often  personally  present 
 with  his  apostles  ;  and  always  by  the  communi- 
 cation of  the  Holy  Spirit.  See  Mr.  Lindsey's 
 Sequel,  p.  74. 
 
 VI.     Omniscience  :    the    Knozoledge    of    the 
 Thoughts  and  Purposes  of  the  Heart, 
 
 1.  Matt.  ix.  4.  "  Jesus  knowing  their 
 thoughts."  Compare  Mark  ii.  8,  "  When 
 Jesus  perceived  in  his  spirit  that  they  reasoned 
 thus  within  themselves."     See  also  Luke  v.  22. 
 
 Perhaps  the  historians  might  mean  nothing 
 more  than  that  he  judged  from  their  counte- 
 nances what  was  passing  in  their  minds. 
 
 2.  John  ii.  24,  25.  "  He  knew  all  men; 
 and  needed  not  that  any  should  testify  of  man: 
 for  he  knew  what  was  in  man." 
 
 3.  Matt.  xii.  25.  "  But  Jesus  knowing 
 their  thoughts." 
 
 "  To  the  end  of  the  age."  Pearce,  Wakefield,  Newcome.  i.  e, 
 "  of  the  Jewish  age  or  dispensation,  which  seems  to  limit  the 
 promise  to  that  period  of  time.     Chap.  xxiv.  3."     Pearce. 
 
 N  2 
 
180  Divine  Attrihiites  supposed      [Parti. 
 
 4.  Luke  vii.  39,  40.  "  Now  the  Pharisee 
 said  within  himself,  This  man,  if  he  were  a  pro- 
 phet, would  have  known,  who  and  what  this 
 woman  is And  Jesus  answering,  said,  Si- 
 mon, I  have  somewhat  to  say  to  thee/' 
 
 Observe,  that  the  Pharisee  expected  as  a 
 matter  of  course  that  a  prophet  would  know 
 bj  inspiration  the  character  and  thoughts  of 
 those  who  approached  him,  widiout  inferring  or 
 suspecting  that  a  prophet  was  a  being  of  higher 
 order  than  mankind. 
 
 5.  Luke  ix.  46,  47-  "  There  arose  a 
 reasoning  among  them,  which  should  be  the 
 greatest.     And  Jesus  perceiving  the  thoughts 
 
 of  their  hearts ''     Compare  Matt,  xviii.  1. 
 
 Mark  ix.  5S. 
 
 6.  John  iv.  25.  "  The  woman  saith,  I 
 know  that  when  the  Messiah  cometh  he  will 
 tell  us  all  things." 
 
 /.  e.  All  things  relating  to  the  true  and  ac- 
 ceptable worship  of  God ;  which  was  the  sub- 
 ject of  discourse. 
 
 7.  John  iv.  29.  "  Come,  see  a  man  who 
 told  me  all  things  that  ever  I  did:  is  not  this 
 
 the  Christ?" 
 
Sect.  5.]         to  be  ascribed  to  CJirist.  181 
 
 Observe  here,  first,  the  x^ry  restricted  sense 
 in  v,hich  the  phrase  "  all  things''  is  used.  Je- 
 sus had  hinted  at  very  few  incidents  only  of 
 this  woman's  private  life,  and  she  reports  that 
 he  told  her  all  things. — Observe,  further;  that 
 the  Samaritans  fully  expected  that  the  Messiah 
 would  possess  great  and  supernatural  know- 
 ledge of  human  concerns,  characters,  and 
 thoughts ;  notwithstanding  which,  they  had  no 
 expectation  of  him  as  a  being  of  celestial 
 origin. 
 
 8.  John  vi.  64.  "  Jesus  knew  from  the 
 beginning  who  they  were  that  believed  not, 
 and  who  would  betra}^  him."  Compare  chap, 
 xiii.  11. 
 
 9.  John  xvl.  28—30.  "  I  came  forth  from 
 the  Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world. 
 Again,  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  to  the  Father. 
 His  disciples  said  to  him.  Now  thou  speakest 
 plainly ;— now  we  are  sure  that  thou  knowest 
 all  things,  and  needest  not  that  any  should  ask 
 thee  :  by  this  we  believe  that  thou  camest  forth 
 from  God." 
 
 From  the  connexion  it  is  evident  that,  by 
 the  phrase  '  all  things,'  the  apostles  meant  the 
 
182         Divine  Attributes  supposed      [Part  I. 
 
 thoughts  and  specolations  which  were  passino- 
 in  their  minds.  His  accurate  knowledge  of 
 these  speculations  convinced  them  that  he  came 
 from  God  :  by  which  they  could  only  mean 
 that  he  was  an  inspired  prophet.  For  his 
 knowledge  of  their  thouohts  would  warrant 
 this  conclusion,  but  would  prove  nothing  rela- 
 tive to  a  pre-existent  state  and  a  descent  from 
 heaven.  Lastly ;  the  use  of  the  phrase  in  this 
 sense  must  to  the  apostles  have  been  familiar 
 and  intelligible  :  for  when  our  Lord  sailh,  "  I 
 came  forth  from  the  Father  ;"  they  immediately 
 reply,  "  Now  thou  speakest  plainly ;"  and  re- 
 peat his  v/ords  no  doubt  in  the  sense  in  which 
 he  used  them,  i.  e.  as  expressing  a  divine  com- 
 mission. 
 
 10.  John  xxi.  17-  "Thou  knowest  all 
 things;  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee." 
 
 11.  Col.  ii.  2,  3.  "  To  the  acknowledge- 
 ment of  the  mystery  of  God  [even  of  the 
 Father  and  of  Christ]  in  whom  are  hid  all 
 the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge." 
 
 Griesbach  omits  the  words  in  brackets.  The 
 manuscripts  vary.  The  relative  iv  &>,  rendered 
 '  in  whom,'  is  by  archbishop  Newcome  trans- 
 
Sect.  5.]         to  he  ascribed  to  Christ.  183 
 
 lated  '  ill  zchich,'  as  referring  to  the  word  my- 
 stery.    See  cliap.  i.  27- 
 
 12.  T\cv.  ii.  2.  "  I  know  thy  works." 
 Each  of  the  epistles  to  the  seven  churches  of 
 
 Asia  is  introduced  with  this  preface. 
 
 13.  Rev.  ii.  23.  "  And  all  the  churches 
 shall  know  that  I  am  he  who  searches  the  reins 
 and  the  heart."     Compare  1  Kings  viii.  39* 
 
 Solomon,  in  his  praver  at  the  dedication  of 
 the  temple,  saith,  "  Thou,  even  thou,  only 
 knowest  the  hearts  of  all  the  children  of  men." 
 
 To  say  nothing  of  the  doubtful  authenticity 
 of  the  Apocalypse,  or  of  this  portion  of  it, 
 these  passages  would  prove  nothing  more  than 
 that  Christ,  in  his  exalted  state,  is  acquainted 
 with  the  circumstances  of  his  churches,  and 
 with  the  character  of  individual  members. 
 
 14.  Heb.  iv.  12,  13.  "  The  word  of  God 
 
 is   living,   and    powerful, is  a  discerner  of 
 
 the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart: — neither 
 is  there  any  creature  that  is  not  manifest  m  his 
 sight,"  (before  it,)  "  but  all  things  are  naked  and 
 open  to  the  eyes  of  Him  with  whom  we  ha\e 
 to  do/' 
 
184         Divine  Attributes  supposed      [Part  L 
 
 Though  Dr.  Clarke  (No,  657,)  and  a  few 
 others  explain  this  text  of  Jesus  Christ  under 
 the  character  of  the  Logos,  the  great  majority 
 of  commentators  understand  it  of  the  d  c- 
 trine  of  the  Gospel.  See  Grotius,  Whitbv,  and 
 Peii'ce. 
 
 Ixemarks, 
 
 1.  It  appears  that  it  was  a  received  opi^ 
 nion  among  the  Jews,  that  inspired  prophets 
 were  acquainted,  to  a  certain  extent,  with  the 
 thoughts  and  characters  of  those  with  whom 
 they  conversed.  And  they  probably  expected 
 that  the  Messiah  would  possess  this  knowledge 
 in  still  greater  perfection.     John  i.  49. 
 
 2.  It  is  evident  from  the  history  that  our 
 Lord  did  actually  possess  this  knowledge  in  a 
 very  high  degree.  He  knew  the  character  of 
 Nathanael,  and  his  actions  while  in  solitude. 
 John  i.  47,  48. — He  was  acquainted  with  the 
 history  of  the  woman  of  Samaria.  John  iv. 
 17»  IB. — The  death  of  Lazarus  was  revealed 
 to  him  vvhile  he  was  at  a  distance  from  Be- 
 thany.    John  xi.  14. — And  in  many  instances 
 
 .  he    discovers   an    intimate   knowledge    of    the 
 characters  of  his  hearers,  and  of  the  thoughts 
 '    which  were  passing  m  their  minds. 
 
Seel.  5.]         to  he  ascribed  to  Christ.  183 
 
 3.  When  it  is  said  of  Christ,  that  "  he 
 \^iw.\\  all  things,"  it  is  evident  that  the  uords 
 are  to  be  taken  in  a  very  restricted  sense.  He 
 v»as  not  properly  omniscient,  for  lie  knew  not 
 the  season  when  his  own  prophecy  would  be 
 fulfilled.  Mark  xiii.  32.  Nor  does  our  Lord 
 ever  use  this  lano^uaaie  concerning  himself.  In 
 fact,  the  phrase  occurs  no  where  but  in  the 
 writings  of  John,  and  he  applies  it  to  christians 
 in  general.  1  John  ii.  20,  "  Ye  have  an  unc- 
 tion from  tlie  holy  One,  and  ye  know  all 
 things."  All  therefore  that  can  reasonably  be 
 understood  by  this  expression,  as  applied  to 
 our  Lord,  is,  that  every  thing  necessary  for  the 
 purposes  of  his  mission  was  revealed  to  him. 
 
 4.  The  apostles  possessed  what  is  called 
 "  the  power  of  discerning  spirits,"  1  Cor.  xii. 
 10  ;  that  is,  probably,  the  power  of  discerning 
 men's  thoughts  and  characters  upon  certain 
 occasions.  Acts  v.  3.  9-  1  Cor.  v.  4.  This 
 was  the .  same  power  which  Christ  possessed, 
 but  in  a  much  higher  degree.  In  the  apostles 
 it  was  limited  and  temporary.  In  him  it  was 
 no  doubt  more  extensive  and  permanent.  But 
 the  measure  of  it  cannot  be  accurately  ascer- 
 tained. 
 
186         Div'me  Attributes  supposed      [Parti. 
 
 5.  To  argue  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity 
 of  Christ,  or  even  of  his  prc-existence  and  su- 
 perior nature,  from  the  strong  and  hyper- 
 bohcal  expressions  which  the  evangehst  John, 
 unsupported  by  any  other  sacred  writers,  uses 
 concerning  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  especially 
 when  it  is  considered  that  he  applies  the  same 
 language  to  christians  in  general,  is  drawing 
 a  grand  conclusion  from  very  precarious  pre- 
 mises. 
 
 VII.     Christ  alone  Jawws  the  Father,   and  is 
 hioziii  by  the  Father, 
 
 1.  Matt.  xi.  '27.  "  No  man  knoweth  the 
 Son, but  the  Father;  neither  knoweth  any  man 
 the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  M'hom  the 
 Son  will  reveal  him." 
 
 2.  Luke  X.  2'2.  "  All  things  are  de- 
 livered to  me  by  my  Father  :  and  no  man 
 knoweth  who  the  Son  is,  but  the  Father:  and 
 who  the  Father  is,  but  the  Son,  and  he  to 
 whom  the  Son  will  reveal  him." 
 
 Hence  it  is  concluded  that  there  is  something 
 very  mysterious  in  the  person  of  the  Son,  which 
 no  one  but  the  Father  knows;  and  that  the  Son 
 alone  can  comprehend  the  essence  of  the  Fa- 
 
Sect.  5.]         to  be  ascribed  fo  Christ.  187 
 
 ther :  and  from  this  mutual  comprehension  is 
 inferred  a  unity  of  essence  and  equality  ot 
 persons  \ 
 
 No  conclusion  can  be  more  unfounded.  It  is 
 plain  that  he  to  whom  the  Son  reveals  the  Fa- 
 ther, knows  the  Father.  But  what  can  a  man 
 thus  learn  of  God?  Nothing  surely  but  his 
 revealed  will.  In  the  same  sense,  precisely,  the 
 Son  knows  the  Father,  i.  e.  he  knows  his  will, 
 his  thoughts,  and  purposes  of  mercy  to  man- 
 kind. And  the  Father  alone  knows  the  Son, 
 knows  the  nature,  the  object,  and  the  extent  of 
 his  mission.     See  John  i.  18  ;  x.  14,  15. 
 
 3.  John  xiv.  7.  9,  10,  11.  "  If  ye  had 
 known  me,  ye  had  known  my  Father  also.'' — 
 "  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father.'' 
 — "  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am  in  the  Father, 
 and  the  Father  in  me  ?  " — "  The  Father  who 
 dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works." 
 
 Dr.  Thomas  Burnet,  Dr.  Doddridge,  and 
 others,  who  contend  for  what  is  called  the  in- 
 dwelling scheme,  understand  our  Lord  as  as- 
 serting' that  the  essence  of  the  Father  is  in  some 
 
 o 
 
 '"  "  These  words  plainly  declare  that  there  is  SDmolhing  inex- 
 plicably mysterious  in  the  nature  and  person  of  Christ."  Dod- 
 dridge.— On  (he  other  side,  see  Clarke  and  Grotius. 
 
188         Divine  Attributes  supposed      [Part  I. 
 
 mysterious  manner  united  to  the  essence  of  the 
 Son,  so  as  to  communicate  to  him  true  and 
 proper  divinity.  But  this  mystical  language 
 of  the  evangelist,  when  translated  into  popular 
 phraseology,  means  nothing  more, than  that  our 
 Lord  spoke  and  acted  under  a  divine  commis- 
 sion. In  the  same  sense  our  Lord  prays  that 
 his  apostles  may  be  united  with  the  Father  and 
 himself.       See  chap.  xiv.  20;  xv.  4;  xvii.  11. 
 
 VIIL    Christ  was  perfectly  innocent^  and  free 
 from  Sin, 
 
 1.  John  viii.  46.  "  Which  of  you  con- 
 vinceth  me  of  sin  ?  And  if  I  say  the  truth,  why 
 do  you  not  believe  me  ?  " 
 
 Rather,  as  Dr.  Campbell  translates,  and  as 
 the  connexion  requires,  '"  Whicli  of  you  con^ 
 victeth  me  of  falsehood?" 
 
 2.  Acts  iii.  14.  "  But  ye  denied  the 
 Holy  One  and  the  Just.'' 
 
 3.  Acts  vii.  52.  "  And  they  have  slain 
 them  who  shewed  before  of  the  coming  of  the 
 
 ^  Siee  a  valuable  note  of  Dr.  Clarke's  upon  (hcse  texts  (Scrip. 
 Doct.  No.  GOO) ;  also  Whitby  \n  loc. 
 
Sect.  3.]       to  he  ascribed  to  Christ.  189 
 
 Just  One,  of  whom  ye  have  been  now  the  be- 
 trayers and  murderers/' 
 
 4.  James  v.  6.  "  Ye  have  condemned 
 and  killed  the  Just  One ;  and  he  did  not  resist 
 you"/' 
 
 ]\Ir.  Dodson  supposes  that  in  these  texts  there 
 is  an  allusion  to  Isa.  iii.  10,  which  he  thinks  to 
 have  been  wilfully  corrupted  by  the  Jews  in  the 
 original  Hebrew,  and  which,  in  conformity  to 
 the  LXX.  and  to  Justin  Martyr,  he  translates 
 thus  :  "  Wo  to  them,  because  they  have  devised 
 evil  against  themselves,  saying,  Let  us  destroy 
 the  Just  One,  for  he  is  of  no  use  to  us/'  This 
 the  learned  translator  understands  to  be  a  pro- 
 phecy of  the  rejection  and  sufferings  of  the 
 Messiah,  here  and  in  other  places  described  as 
 the  Just  or  Righteous  One. 
 
 5.  2  Cor.  v.  21.  "  He  hath  made  him 
 to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin." 
 
 6.  Heb.  vii.  26.  "  For  such  a  hiah 
 priest  became  us,  who  was  holy,  harmless,  un- 
 defiled,  and  separate  from  sinners/' 
 
 '  "  rov  Ajxajov,  '  the  Righteous  One,'  and  he  did  not  resist 
 you,"    Nevvconie. — Sec  Dodson  gn  Isa.  iii.  10. 
 
1.90         Divine  Attributes  supposed      [Part  I. 
 
 7.  1  Pet.  ii.  21,  22.  "  Christ  suffered, 
 leaving  us  an  example  : — who  did  no  sin,  neither 
 was  guile  found  in  his  mouth.'' 
 
 8.  1  Pet.  iii.  18.  "  Christ  has  once  suf- 
 fered for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust/' 
 
 9.  1  John  iii.  5.  "  And  ye  know  that  he 
 was  manifested  to  take  away  our  sin;  and  in  him 
 was  no  sin." 
 
 10.  Rev.  iii.  10.  "  These  things  saith 
 he  that  is  holy,  he  that  is  true." 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 1.  The  moral  character  of  Christ,  throuoh 
 the  whole  course  of  his  public  ministry,  as  re- 
 corded by  the  evangelists,  is  pure  and  unim- 
 peachable in  every  particular. 
 
 2.  Whether  this  perfection  of  character  in 
 public  life,  combined  with  the  general  declara- 
 tions of  his  freedom  from  sin,  establish,  or 
 were  intended  to  establish,  the  i^ct,  that  Jesus 
 through  the  whole  course  of  his  private  life 
 w^as  completely  exempt  from  all  the  errors  and 
 failings  of  human  nature,  is  a  question  of  no 
 great  intrinsic  moment,  and  concerning  which 
 we  have  no  sufficient  data  to  lead  to  a  satisfac- 
 tory conclusion. 
 
Sect.  5.]        to  he  ascribed  to  Christ,  I9I 
 
 3.  The  uniform  and  consummate  wisdom, 
 propriety,  and  rectitude  of  our  Lord's  conduct 
 in  the  various  singular  and  critical  situations  in 
 which  he  was  placed,  as  related  by  the  concur- 
 rent testimony  of  four  independent  historians, 
 is  a  fact  so  extraordinary,  as  to  preclude  the 
 possibility  of  fiction. 
 
 The  great  original,  from  which  these  artless 
 historians  have  drawn  so  finished  a  portrait, 
 nmst  have  had  a  real  existence,  and  conse- 
 quently the  evangelical  narrative  must  be  true. 
 
192  Alleged  Sttpermitu  of         [Part  I. 
 
 SECTION     Vl. 
 
 COXCEIINING  THE   ALLEGED   SUPERIORITY 
 OF  CHRIST  TO  ANGELS. 
 
 J^OR  the  better  understanding  of  this  question^ 
 it  is  necessary  to  introduce  some  prehminary, 
 remarks. 
 
 I.  The  primary  sense  of  the  word  angel 
 [ayyiXog)  is  '  messenger :'  and  in  this  sense  it 
 frequently  occurs  in  the  Scriptures  both  of  the 
 Old  and  New  Testament.  1  Sam.  xix.  14, 
 "  Saul  sent  messengers  (Gr.  ayyiXovg,  angels)  to 
 take  David."  Luke  ix.  52,  "  He  sent  messen- 
 gers (angels)  before  his  face."  Chap.  vii.  24, 
 "  When  the  messengers  (angels)  of  John  were 
 departed." 
 
 II.  The  word  angel,  frequently  in  the 
 Old  Testament,  and  sometimes  in  the  New% 
 expresses  any  symbol  of  the  divine  presence, 
 or  any  instrument  by  which  God  makes  knowai 
 his  will,  or  executes  his  purposes.      Thus   the 
 
Sect.  6.]  Christ  to  Angels,  193 
 
 pillar  of  cloud  and  fire  is  called  *  the  anc^el  of 
 God/  Exod.  xiv.  It). — The  plagues  of  Egypt 
 are  called  '  evil  angels,'  Psalm  Ixxviii.  49- — 
 And  Herod's  disease  is  called  '  the  angel  of  the 
 Lord,*  Acts  xii.  23. 
 
 III.  The  word  is  sonietimes  used  to 
 express  a  prophet  or  messenger  of  God.  Matt, 
 xi.  10,  "  This  is  he  of  \>hom  it  is  written,  Be- 
 hold, I  send  my  messenger  (angel)  before  thy 
 face."  ^ 
 
 IV.  The  word  angel  sometimes  ex- 
 presses an  order  of  beings,  real  or  imaginary, 
 superior  to  mankind  :  such  as  the  Jews,  at  the 
 commencement  of  the  Cliristian  a?ra,  believed 
 to  be  the  instruments  of  Divine  Providetice  in 
 the  administration  of  the  world.  Mark  xiii.  32, 
 "  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man, 
 no,  not  the  angels  that  are  in  heaven." 
 
 Concerning  these  supposed  celestial  intelli- 
 gences it  may  be  observed, 
 
 1.  That  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  word 
 Qiigel  ever  signifies  a  permanently-existing  spi- 
 ritual being  in  any  book  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 which  was  written  previously  to  the  Babylo- 
 nian captivity* 
 
J  94  Alleged  Super  writ  J)  of         [Parti. 
 
 It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  appearances  in 
 human  shape  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xviii. ;  to  Lot, 
 chap.  xix. ;  to  Joshua,  chap.  v.  13,  and  others, 
 were  any  thing  more  than  temporary  phantoms, 
 visible  symbols  of  the  divine  presence,  and  me- 
 diums of  divine  communications.  The  suppo- 
 sition that  they  were  such  is  the  more  pro- 
 bable, as  one  of  the  three  who  appeared  to 
 Abraham  is  expressly  called  Jehovah :  Gen. 
 xviii.  13.  22,  23.  So  likewise  is  the  ang-cl  who 
 appeared  to  Joshua:  Josh.  vi.  2.  ' 
 
 2.  It  is  certain  that  no  names  nor  orders  of 
 angels,  nor  any  distinction  of  them  into  good 
 and  evil,  is  even  hinted  at  in  any  book  which 
 can  be  proved  to  have  been  written  before  the 
 captivity. 
 
 3.  In  those  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
 which  are  certainly  known  to  have  been  written 
 during  or  after  the  capti\  ity,  and  likewise  in  the 
 Apocrypha,  angels  are  mentioned  as  a  distinct 
 and  superior  order  of  beings ;'  they  are  repre- 
 sented as  of  diilerent  ranks  and  orders;  as  pre- 
 
 *  '■'■  It  is  doubtful  wiic'tlicf  in  some  cases,  uliat  aro  called  an- 
 gels, and  had  the  form  of  ii^'n,  who  even  walked  and  spake,  &c,, 
 like  men,  were  anything  more  than  teni])orary appearances,  and 
 no  permanent  beings  ;  the  mere  organs  of  the  Ocity,  nscd  for  tha 
 purpose  of  making  himself  known  and  understood  by  his  crea- 
 tures."    J)r.  Priestley's  Hist,  of  l^uriy  Opinions,  vol.  i,  p.  5. 
 
Sect  G]  Christ  to  Angels.  19^ 
 
 siding  over  different  countries;  as  separated  into 
 good  and  bad;  and,  what  is  most  extraordinary, 
 as  even  distinguished  by  appropriate  names,  i;?,::. 
 Gabriel,  Michael,  and  the  hkc. 
 
 4.  The  whole  mythology  concerning  angels 
 is  destitute  of  all  foundation  in  the  Jewish 
 and  Christian  revelations.  Antecedently  to  the 
 ca])tivity  it  was  unknown.  By  Jesus  and  his 
 apostles  it  is  alluded  to  as  the  popular  and 
 establislied  belief  of  the  age;  but  by  tham  it 
 was  ne\er  taught  as  an  article  of  faith.  Reve- 
 lation therefore  is  no  more  responsible  for  the 
 existence  of  angels,  good  or  evil,  than  it  is  for 
 the  existence  of  witches,  and  necromancers,  of 
 apparitions,  or  of  demons,  that  is,  human  ghosts 
 entering  into  and  tormenting  living  men, — all 
 which  are  alluded  to  by  the  sacred  writers,  and 
 even  assumed  as  facts.  The  Jews  probably 
 borrowed  their  theory  of  angels  from  the  Ori- 
 ental philosophy.  Our  Lord  and  his  apostles 
 assumed  it,  and  argued  upon  it  as  a  popular 
 hypothesis,  as  they  did  in  the  other  cases :  and 
 they  left  the  credit  of  this  system,  as  they  did 
 the  rest,  to  stand  or  fall  by  its  own  |::vidence, 
 t^hich,  in  fact,  is  none  at  all. 
 
 5.  V/hen  the  superiority  of  Christ  to  angels 
 
 o  2 
 
196  Alleged  Superior  it  tj  of         [Part  I. 
 
 is  affirmed  in  the  sacred  writings,  it  is  to  be 
 understood  in  one  or  other  of  the  followinc: 
 acceptations : 
 
 1.)  That  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  superior 
 to  all  former  prophets  and  messengers  of  God. 
 
 2.)  That  when  Jesus  is  represented  under 
 the  character  of  a  judge  appearing  in  state,  or 
 seated  upon  a  tribunal,  ofiicers  under  the  name 
 of  angels,  or  messengers,  are  with  great  pro- 
 priety introduced  as  attending  in  his  train  to 
 support  his  dignity,  and  to  execute  his  orders. 
 How  far  this  scenery  will  ever  be  realized,  or 
 "whether  the  representation  is  to  be  understood 
 in  a  literal  or  a  figurative  sense,  the  event  only 
 can  ascertain.  But  consistency,  and,  if  one 
 may  so  express  it,  the  costinne  of  the  picture 
 required,  that,  where  there  was  a  judge,  a  tri- 
 bunal, a  hall  of  justice,  books  of  law  and 
 judgement,  arraignment  and  trial,  and  an  im- 
 mense multitude  of  spectators  and  of  culprits, 
 there  should  .also  be  a  just  proportion  of  officers 
 to  support  the  splendour,  and .  to  execute  the 
 mandates  of  the  court. 
 
 3.)  According  to  the  puerile  philosophy 
 of  the  Jews,  the  earth  was  the  centre  of  a 
 number  of  concentric  spheres,  the  uppermost 
 of  which  was  the  highest  heaven,  the  immediate 
 
Sect.  6.]  Christ  to  Anqeh.  197 
 
 residence  of  God,  and  of  good  angels  in  all 
 tbt'ir  orders  and  degrees :  while  evil  angels 
 and  demons  were  thrust  dovvn  into  the  lowest 
 place,  and  contined  to  the  atn:osphere.  In 
 allusion  to  this  theory,  the  sacred  writers,  and 
 particularly  the  apostle  Paul,  describe  the  Jews, 
 who  w^re  the  chosen  people  of  God,  as  existing 
 in  heaven ;  and  the  Gentiles,  the  rejected  na- 
 tions, as  existins:  on  earth -.     But  the  Christian 
 
 •  So  Mr.  Locke,  that  niost  circumspect  and  judicious  of  expo- 
 sitors, explains  Kph,  i.  10,  where  the  apostle  represents  it  as  the 
 great  design  of  the  Gospel  dispensation  to  gather  together  ia 
 one  all  things  in  Christ,  both  things  in  heaven  and  things  on 
 earth,  i.  e.  bv)th  Jews  and  Gentiles.  "  That  Paul  should  us« 
 *  heaven  and  earth'  for  Jews  and  Gentiles,"  says  this  excellent 
 critic,  "  will  not  be  thought  so  very  strange,  if  we  consider  that 
 Daniel  expresses  the  nation  of  Jews  by  the  name  '  heaven.'  Dan. 
 viii.  10,  '  The  horn  waxed  great  even  to  the  host  of  heaven  '" 
 Nor  does  he  want  an  example  of  it  in  our  Saviour  hiir.sclf,  who, 
 Luke  xxi.  20,  by  the  '  powers  of  heaven,'  plainly  means  tha 
 great  men  of  the  Jewish  nation.  Nor  is  ttiis  the  only  place  of 
 the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  which  will  bear  this  interpretation 
 of  '  heaven  and  earth.'  See  chap.  iii.  15,  'Of  whom  the  whole 
 family  in  heaven  and  earth  is  named.'  Whoever  carefully  weighs 
 the  expressions,  and  observes  the  drift  of  the  apostle  in  them, 
 will  not  find  that  he  does  violence  to  St.  Paul's  sense,  if  he  un- 
 derstands by  '  the  family  in  heaven  and  earth,'  the  united  body 
 of  christians,  made  u|)  of  Jews  and  Gentiles."  This  great  man 
 adds,  with  the  modesty  which  alwa}s  accompanies  true  geni\is, 
 *'  However,  this  interpretati.ju  I  am  not  positive  in,  but  otTer  it 
 as  a  matter  of  inquiry  to  those  who  think  an  impartial  search 
 into  the  true  meaning  of  the  sacred  Scripture,  tl:e  best  empl.^y- 
 meut  ©fall  the  time  they  havjt." 
 
198  Alleged  Super ior if i/  of         [Part  I. 
 
 religion  having  aboiished  the  Jewish  peciiliarhy, 
 and  admitted  converted  Gentiles  into  a  partici- 
 pation of  those  privileges  which  had  hitherto 
 been  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  po.-terity 
 of  Abraham,  this  great  event  is  symbolized  by 
 the  sacred  writers  under  the  figure  of  a  revolu- 
 tion in  heaven.  And  Christ  is  represented  as 
 ascending  into  heaven,  and  taking  precedence 
 of  all  ranks  and  orders  of  its  inhabitants ;  and 
 all  who  believe  in  him  are  described  as  ascended 
 with  him,  and  as  seated  by  him.  By  which 
 scenical  representation  nolhing  more  is  meant, 
 than  that  Jesus  Christ  is  superior  to  all  prophets 
 and  teachers  of  every  degree  under  the  old  dis- 
 pensation, and  that  all  persons  of  all  nations, 
 who  receive  the  Gospel,  and  who  profess  faith 
 in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  are  now  admitted 
 into  all  the  privileges  of  the  chosen  people  of 
 God^. 
 
 3  So  tlie  ajiostie  to  the  li.i)h».'sians,  having  first  descnbed  Christ, 
 chap.  i.  20,  21,  us  "  riiivcd  from  llie  dead,  and  set  in  heavenly 
 j;L'ices  idv  above  aii  i)i'iiu'i,  alily  and  power,"  proceeds,  chap.  ii. 
 5,  6,  to  state  th^t  (he  Geiuile  converts  themselves,  having  for- 
 merly been  "•  dead  in  sin,  are  no'v  actually  raised  together  with 
 Christ,  and  are  now,  at  this  very  time,  sifting  together  with  him 
 in  heavenly  places."  This  language  can  irean  nothing  more  than 
 thai  (ieiitilc  converts  were  now  admitted  to  all  the  |)rivileges  of 
 the  chosen  jjcople.  The  same  doctrine,  he  expresses  iMuler  a  dif, 
 ferent  figure,  ver.  14,  "  Ho  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both 
 one,  and  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  j.artition,"  i  e.  the  wal 
 
Sect.  6.]  Chrid  to  Angels.  19^ 
 
 1 .  Matt.  xili.  40,  41 .  "  As  the  tares  are 
 gatliorcd  together  and  hiirncd,  so  shall  it  be 
 at  the  end  of  this  world.  The  Son  of  Man 
 shall  send  forth  his  angels  (messengers),  and 
 they  shall  gather  all  things  that  offend,  and 
 them  that  do  iniquity,  and  shall  cast  them  into 
 a  furnace  of  fire/' 
 
 This  is  a  scenical  representation,  not  to  be 
 taken  too  literally  ;  and  the  only  certain  mean- 
 ing- of  which  is,  that  ihe  wicked  will  in  the  final 
 judgement  be  di^tinguislied  and  separated  from 
 the  righteous,  and  consigned  to  adequate  pu- 
 nishment. 
 
 2.  Matt.  xvi.  27.  "  For  the  Son  of  Man 
 
 shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  his 
 angels.'' 
 
 3.  Matt.  XXV.  31.  "  When  the  Son  of 
 Man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  holy 
 ano-els  vvith  him." 
 
 o 
 
 4.  Mark  viii.  38.  "  —of  him  shall  the 
 Son  of  Man  be  ashamed,  when  he  cometh  in 
 the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  the  holy  angels," 
 
 which  separated  thccoiir;  of  tht:  (Jciitilcs  from  that  of  the  holy 
 people  in  (he  temple-scivice. 
 
 The  subject  of  the  supposed  superiority  of  Christ  to  angels  is 
 treated  at  large,  and  uiih  great  judgement,  by  Mr.  J.indbcy,  in 
 the  Sequel  to  his  Apolog\,  p.  457,  Ike. 
 
200  Alleged  Superiorifij  of         [Part  I. 
 
 — Luke  ix.  26,  "  — when  he  shall  come  in  his 
 own  glory,  and  in  his  Father's,  and  of  the  holy 
 angels," 
 
 5.  Mark  xiii.  26,  27-  "  And  then  shall 
 they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  the  clouds 
 with  great  power  and  glory.  And  then  shall  he 
 send  his  angels  (messeiigers),  and  shall  gather 
 together  his  elect  iVom  the  four  winds," 
 
 6.  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." — Matt.  xxiv.  S6 ;  where  the 
 tvords  are  nearly  the  same,  but  the  clause 
 "  neither  the  Son"  is  omitted. 
 
 This  is  a  triumphant  text  to  the  supporters  of 
 the  Anan  hypothesis  ;  who  argue  from  the  cli- 
 max the  superiority  of  Christ  to  angels,  and 
 from  the  same  climax,  and  his  ignorance  of 
 the  day  of  judgement,  his  inferiority  to  the 
 •Father  K 
 
 The  advocates  for  the   dc^ity  of  Christ  feel 
 
 *  "  I  tlii'ik  the  intention  of  our  Suvn;  ir  in  this  passa;j;c  is  tq 
 declare  tlmt  as  the  Fatlier  alotie  is  aut'jQsos,  '  God  of  himself,' 
 the  aloua  i^iulfrivetl  foiiu(  lia  of  goodness  and  power;  so  he  ig 
 Jikewi^^^e  the  alone  foiintiiiu  of  all  knovvledge,  insomuch  that  no 
 one  knows  any  tiii.ig,  not  even  the  Son  himself,  but  by  comnuj- 
 |iieati:)n  from  him.*'  Ckikc  againtt  Nelson,  p.  I7I.  Scr, 
 pocu  773. 
 
Sect.  6.]  Christ  to  Angels.  201 
 
 great  difilculty  in  repelling;  this  objection.  The 
 common  reply  is,  that  our  Lord  knew  the  time 
 in  his  divine  nature,  but  was  ignorant  of  it  in 
 his  human  nature.  But  this  is  charo:in(>*  Christ 
 with   gross  and  criminal  equivocation  \ — Some 
 
 '  Dr.  Wliiiby.  in  his  Commontary,  qiioies  the  explanation,  or 
 rather  jir£;oii,  of  Dr.  Lightfoot :  "  It  is  one  thing  to  understand 
 "the  ^"un  of  God  barely  and  absfractedly  for  the  serond  person  ia 
 the  Trinity  ;  another  to  understand  him  for  the  Messiah,  or  tb« 
 second  person  incarnate.  To  say  that  the  second  person  in  th» 
 Trinity  knew  not  sometiung.  is  b'asj.'hemous.  To  say  so  of  the 
 Messiah  is  not  so,  who,  nevertheless,  was  the  s>ame  as  the  second 
 person  in  the  Trinit}'.  For  althongh  the  second  person,  con- 
 sidered according  to  his  mere  deity,  was  co-equal  with  the  Fa- 
 ther, co-onmiiiiotent,  co-omniscient.  and  co-eternal;  yet  Messiah, 
 who  was  God-man,  considered  as  Messiah,  was  a  servant  and  a 
 messenger.''— Ca!v in  argues  that  the  two  natures  were  so  united 
 in  the  person  of  Clnist,  that  i.ich  could  exert  its  ovvn  propertici 
 apart  from  the  other  :  and  that  the  divine  nature  was  quiescent, 
 while  the  human  nature  performed  the  oHicc  of  mediator.— 
 ^'  Quare  nihil  ahsurdi  fuit  Christum,  qui  onmia  sciebat,  aliquid. 
 secundum  homiuij  scnsum  nescire,"  Hut  where  do  wc  find  these 
 subtle  distmciions  in  the  New  Te'tament ;  or  who  can  believe - 
 that  the  sini[)le  and  unlearned  evangelists  ever  meant  to  perplex 
 themselves  and  their  rea  !i  rs  \n(h  such  abstruse  speculations?  With 
 much  good  sense  Mr.  F.mlyn  remarks,  "  that  to  suppose  Christ 
 knows  the  day  of  judgement  with  his  divine  nature,  wtiile  he  is  ig- 
 norant of  It  in  hi*-  hiiiean  nature,  i*'  ch-^rging  him  with  an  equivo- 
 cation si:;il4i  to  that  of  a  jjcr-on  who.  conversing  with  another 
 with  one  eye  shut  and  flie  other  open,  auJ  briuii  asked  whether 
 he  saw  hi;n.  shou!  1  answer,  tliai  he  saw  him  not ;  mtaning,  with 
 the  eye  tliat  was  shut ;  though  be  sfiil  saw  him  well  enough  with 
 the  eye  that  was  open.  A  miserable  evasion,  which  would  not 
 »ave  him  from  the  re[»roach  of  b;;ing  a  liar  and  a  deceiver." 
 Kmlyn's  Tracts,  p.  18. 
 
202  Alleged  Superioritij  of         [Parti. 
 
 saj,  that  knowing,  in  this  connexion,  means 
 nothing  more  than  a  commission  to  teach. 
 And  others  again  arc  disposed  to  call  in  ques- 
 tion the  genuineness  of  the  clause  onntted  b}^ 
 Matthew''.   , 
 
 These  are  all  the  texts  in  the  history  of  the 
 evangelists  in  which  any  comparison  is  made, 
 or  implied,  between  Christ  and  angels,  and  in 
 which  any  superiority  can  be  supposed  to  be 
 ascribed  to  him.  Now,  whether  the  event  fore- 
 told be,  as  some  suppose,  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem ;  or,  as  most  believe,  the  solemn 
 transactions  of  the  day  of  judgement ;  or,  as 
 many  apprehend,  both  events  were  in  our 
 Lord's  contemplation,  and  the  less  as  typical 
 of  the  greater  ;— upon  any  one  of  these  suppo- 
 sitions   the    reoresentation    is    scenical.       Our 
 
 ^  The  clanso  'sh  o  ulo;,  '  nt-ither  tlicSou,'  is  found  in  all  ma- 
 nuscripts and  versions  now  exlant :  but  Ambrose  condciiius  it  as 
 an  interpolation. — "  Non  habcnt  codicts  GrKci,  quod  ncc  'fdius 
 scit.'"  Tliis  clause,  though  not  in  the  received  text  of  Matthew, 
 is  nevertheless  found  in  the  Vatican  and  Cambridge  manuscripts, 
 and  in  many  ancient  versions  of  that  evangelist.  It  is  probalj'y 
 genuine.  Erasmus  tbaiks  it  was  intentionally  emitted  by  some 
 I'linitariau  trans^cribcr  ;  but  of  this  there  is  no  more  evidence 
 than  that  the  clause  in  Mark  was  interpolated  by  llic  Arians. 
 
 The  curious  solutions  of  this  difiicult  problem  of  the  igno- 
 rance of  Christ  by  the  Fathers,  may  be  seen  in  Dr. Priestley's 
 Jiist,  of  Early  Opinions,  vol.  ii.  p.  'zoi. 
 
Sect.  6.]  Christ  to  Angels.  '   203 
 
 Ivord  is  introduced  under  the  cbarncter  of  a 
 monarch,  or  a  judge,  attciulcd  by  his  officers 
 of  state,  who  are  ready  to  execute  his  com' 
 mand.s.  But  no  juciicious  person  will  aroue 
 from  symbolical  figures  to  real  facts.  If,  for 
 example,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  the 
 object  of  the  prophecy,  v»e  have  no  proof  that 
 Christ  himself  had  any  personal  concern  in  it 
 whatever.  But,  hke  other  prophets  and  mes- 
 sengers of  God,  he  is  said  to  do  that  whi^h  he 
 only  foretells.  J(?r.  i.  10.  Rev.  xi.  5,  6. — In 
 this  case,  the  angels  who  gathered  the  elect 
 must  have  been  the  preachers  of  Christ-anity, 
 who  warned  their  hearers  to  escape  from  the 
 impending  desolation.  And  tliose  wiiich  ex- 
 ecuted judgement  upon  the  wicked,  wfie  the 
 calamities  of  war,  famine,  and  pestilence  wih 
 which  tliey  were  visited,  and  by  Vvhich  the 
 country  was  laid  waste.  And  probably,  the 
 proceedings  relating  to  the  final  judgement  of 
 mankind  may  be  analogous  to  these,  and  may 
 bear  no  kind  of  rcseniblance  to  the  scenery  hy 
 which,  in  condescension  to  human  inlirmity,  it 
 is  painted  forth  to  our  imaginations. 
 
 7.  Gal.  iv.  1 1.  "  Ye  received  me  as  an 
 angel,"  /.  e.  messenger,  "  of  God,  even  as 
 Christ  Jesus." 
 
204  Alleged  Superiority  of  [Part  I. 
 
 8.  Eph.  i.  20,  21.  "  —when  he  raised 
 hnn  from  the  dead,  and  seated  him  at  his  own 
 right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places ;  far  above 
 all  principality,  and  power,  and  might,  and  do- 
 minion'', and  every  nnme  that  is  named,  not 
 only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to 
 come  ^;  and  hath  pat  all  things  under  his 
 feet." 
 
 The  Jews,  the  chosen  people  of  God,  being 
 "  the  family  in  heaven,"  distinctions  of  ranks 
 among  the  Jews,  such  as  prophets,  priests, 
 teachers,  &c.,  are  described  under  the  symbols 
 of  supposed  distinctions  of  ranks  and  orders  in 
 heaven,  viz.    principalities,  powers,  &:c.     Cor- 
 
 '  "  Nomina  hnec  sumpta  ex  imperio  Persico  sub  quo  olim  Hc- 
 brasi  vixerant."  Grotius  in  Rom.  viii.  38. — These  disfinctioru 
 of  orders  in  heaven  were,  according  to  (Jrotins,  borrowed  from 
 the  distinctions  of  ranks  in  the  Persian  empire.  It  was  the  re- 
 ceived mythology  of  the  age:  St.  Paul  alludes  to  it  as  such.  It 
 was  not  to  be  expected  that  a  revelation  would  be  made  of  so 
 useless  a  subject  as  that  of  the  orders  and  distinctions  of  cf^lcstial 
 beings;  nor  does  the  apostle  pretend  to  any  such  thing- 
 
 •  In  this  world'}  'This  age,'  i.e.  the  Mosaic  dispensation; 
 '  the  age  to  come,'  i.e.  the  dispensation  of  the  Messiah.  Seetho 
 same  words  used  in  the  same  sense,  jMatt.  xii.  32;  and  bishop 
 Pearce's  excellent  note.  That  (Ximv  has  frequently,  and,  as  the 
 learned  prelate  says,  "  most  properly,"  the  sense  of  age  or  dis" 
 pensalion,  is  well  known.  See  Matt.  xiii.  40.  Col.  i.  20.  Eph. 
 iii.  21.  '  The  age  to  come'  means  '  the  Christian  dispensation.' 
 Ikb.  vi.  5.     Kph.  ii.  7.    See  Dr.  Sykos's  Note  on  Heb.  i.  2. 
 
Sect.  6.]  Christ  to  Angels,  205 
 
 respondently  with  this  representation,  Christ, 
 after  his  resurrection,  having  been  appointed 
 the  head  of  the  new  dispensation,  which  was  to 
 supersede  the  former,  and  to  unite  believers, 
 both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  into  one  body,  ascends 
 to  heaven,  and  takes  precedence  of  all  other 
 prophets  and  messengers  of  God,  both  in  this 
 world,  age,  or  dispensation,  i.  e.  the  ]\Iosaic, 
 and  in  that  which  is  to  come,  L  e.  the  Chris- 
 tian :  all  things  being  made  subject  to  him,  who 
 is  the  head  of  that  dispensation  which  includes 
 both  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
 
 9.  Col.  ii.  10.  "  And  ye  are  complete- 
 in  him,  who  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and 
 power." 
 
 10.  2  Thess.  i.  7-  "  When  the  Lord 
 Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his 
 mighty  angels,  taking  vengeance  on  them  who 
 know  not  God." 
 
 1 1.  Heb.  i.  4.  9-  "  Being  made  so  much 
 better  than  the  angels :"  (or  rather,  "  so 
 much  gr  ater   than    those  messengers  ^")  the 
 
 "  Messengers.']  The  connexion  requires  tliat  the  word  ayyeAoi, 
 *  angels,'  in  this  cha;iter,  should  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense  of 
 messengers,  not  angels.  See  Wakefield's  Traasl.  and  Imp.  Vers, 
 ih  loc. 
 
206  Alleged  Superiority  of  [Paft  L 
 
 prophets  mentioned  ver.  1,  "  as  he  hath  by 
 inheritance  obtained  a  more  excellent  name 
 than  they." 
 
 Christ  was  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  by 
 his  resurrection  from  the  dead  ;  by  his  ascen- 
 sion into  heaven  he  had  actually  been  put  into 
 
 possession  of  his  inheritance.  In  this  respect 
 he  far  excelled  all  the  prophets  and  messengers 
 of  God  who  had  preceded  him.  And  it  is  with 
 respect  to  these,  and  not  to  angels,  that  the 
 comparison  with  Christ  is  instiliited  in  the  be- 
 o'inninp-  of  this  eoisllc. 
 
 Ver.  5.  "  For  unto  which  of  the  an^-els 
 (or,  "  of  ibose  messengers,")  said  he,  at  any 
 time,  Thou  art  my  Son,"  &c. 
 
 Vcr.  6.  "  And  when  he  brino-eth  aoiain 
 the  first-born  into  tiie  world,  he  saith,  Let  all 
 the  angels  (or  "  messengers")  of  God  worship 
 him:"  rather,  "  pay  homage  to  him  "'." 
 
 '"  Clirist  is  t!io.  first-born,  as  being  t'lc  first  who  was  raised 
 from  the  (load;  Col,  5.  \?^.  Ilev.  i.  5.  See  Peircc  and  Ncwconie. 
 — It  is  well  known  tliat  Ti'^dcr/iuvsw  is  often  used  for  civil  homage, 
 and  does  not  necessarily  signify  religiotis  worship.  See  SoJileiis- 
 iier.  The  quotation  is  froai  Deut.  xxxii.  43;  LXX.  The  words 
 are  not  to  be  fouml  in  the  Hebrew.  They  are  applied  to  the 
 Hebrew  nation  nj}on  its  restoration  from  a  calamitous  and  deso- 
 late slate;  and  it  is  with  a  very  great  latitude  of  interpretation, 
 
Sect.  6.]  Christ  to  Angels.  207 
 
 By  a  ])old  prosopopa'ia,  the  former  prophets 
 and  messenoers  of  God  are  summoned  to  do 
 homage  to  Christ,  in  consequence  of  his  resur- 
 rection from  the  dead,  and  to  acknowledge  him 
 as  their  superior. 
 
 Ver.  7-  "  And  of  the  angels  (or,  "  con- 
 cerning those  messengers,")  he  saith,  Who 
 maketh  his  angels  spirits,  (rather,  "  who  ma- 
 keth  his  messengers  winds,")  and  his  ministers 
 a  flame  of  fire." 
 
 Former  prophets  and  messengers  of  God  are 
 compared  to  wind  and  lightning.  They  spoke 
 and  acted  under  a  divine  impulse,  and  the  ef- 
 fects of  their  mission  were  frequently  awful 
 and  alarming,  but  their  office  was  of  short  du- 
 ration, and  their  powers  were  transient ''. 
 
 whicli  was  iudood  common  in  that  age,  and  ia  which  this  writer 
 frequently  indulges,  that  they  are  made  applicable  to  Ciirist.  The 
 meaning,  however,  is  sufficiently  obvious.  Sec  Sykes  in  loc. — 
 The  proso;;opccia  here  is  something  similar  to  that  in  ha.  xiv.  9, 
 where  the  departed  heroes  are  represented  as  marching  forth 
 from,  the  grand  receptacle  of  the  dead,  to  meet  and  taunt  the 
 king  of  Babylon  upon  his  descent  thither. 
 
 "  Another  remarkable  instance  of  lax  interpretation.  The 
 quotation  is  from  Psalm  civ.  4,  the  proper  translation  of  which 
 is,  "  lie  maketh  the  winds  his  messengers,  and  the  lightnings  his 
 ministers."  It  is  an  assertion  in  beautiful  and  poetic  language 
 of  the  sovereign  dominion  of  God  over  the  powers  of  nature. 
 Eut  this  w  ritcr  avails  himself  of  the  ambiguity  of  the  language, 
 »ud  accommodates  the  words  to  the  authority  of  the  prophets. 
 
508  Alleged  Superior  it  ij  of  [Part  L 
 
 Ver.  8,  9-  "  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith, 
 Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever :"  or, 
 "  God  is  thy  throne,''  i.  t.  the  supporter  of  thy 
 throne.     Psalm  xlv.  6,  7. 
 
 q.  d.  The  power  and  authority  of  former 
 prophets,  such  as  Moses,  Ehjah,  and  others, 
 however  great  and  awful  for  a  time,  was  but 
 transitory  and  evanescent ;  but  thy  kingdom  is 
 immoveable,  thy  dominion  is  everlasting. 
 
 "  A  sceptre  of  righteousness  is  the  sceptre  of 
 thy  kingdom :  thou  hast  loved  righteousness 
 and  hated  iniquity;  therefore  God,  even  thy 
 God,  hatii  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  glad- 
 ness above  tliy  fellows." 
 
 .  Or,  "  companions,"  /.  e.  all  those  who,  like 
 thee,  were  messengers  from  God  to  men.  This 
 is  a  plain  indication  that  the  writer  is  here 
 speaking  not  of  angels,  but  of  preceding  pro- 
 phets, who  might  justly  be  regarded  as  fellow- 
 servants  and  fellow-labourers  with  Christ. 
 
 Ver.  13,  14.  "  But  to  which  of  the  an- 
 gels (or,  "  of  those  messengers,")  said  he  at  any 
 time,  vSit  thou  at  my  right  hand,"  &c. — "  Are 
 they  not  all  ministering  spirits?  (rather,  "  mi- 
 nisters '-,"   or  "  servants,")  sent   forth  to  mi- 
 
 "  Ministering  spirits.']  i.  e.  '  persons,'  or  '  insijired  ministers.? 
 See   1  Joha  jy.  ). — 3.^,  "  lidoved.   bolicve  not  every  spirit;  bat 
 
Sect.  G.]  Cliri^t  to  Angels.  209 
 
 iiistt-r  to  tlicm  who  shall  be  the  heirs  of  salva- 
 tion," or  rather,  "  to  those  who  were  about  to 
 be  hrirs  of  salvation  '\" 
 
 q.  d.  Though  I  call  them  fellows,  or  com- 
 panions, yet  they  were  not  ecjUals :  they  were 
 servants,  he  is  a  son  and  a  sovereign ;  they 
 were  sent  to  announce  and  to  prepare  the  way 
 for  that  dispensation  which  he  was  to  introduce, 
 and  in  which  he  was  to  preside.     They  were 
 
 try  the  spirits,  whether  (hey  be  of  Ood."  Why?  "  Br'cause 
 many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  info  the  world."  A  spirit, 
 therefore,  is  a  prophet,  one  who  protends  to  inspiration.  "  Every 
 spirit,  (i.  e.  every  prophet^)  that  confcsscth  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
 come  in  the  flesh,  is  of  God:"  and  *'  Every  spirit,  (i.  e.  every 
 one  professing  to  be  a  prophet,)  who  confesseth  uotthis  truth,  is 
 not  of  God."  So  that  the  word  spirit  does  not  necessarily  signify 
 an  incorporeal  bt-iiig,  wliich  is  the  idea  convoyed  to  the  English, 
 or  rather  to  the  inadvertent,  reader:  but  ministering  spirits  were 
 inspired  persons,  prophets  of  a  former  age,  who  sustained  the 
 ollke  of  servants,  not  (he  relation  of  sons. 
 
 "  Who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation. '\  rs;  ij^sKKovrag  y.KrjpoyJiJ.siv, 
 *'  those  who  should  afterward  belong  to  the  Christian  church." 
 Peirce.  — rr^y  oiKeagi'i;/  ^eWacxv,  '  the  world  to  come,'  men. 
 tioned  chap.  ii.  b.  Pruphels  were  ministers  :  to  whom  ?  Not  to 
 their  contemporaries,  who  did  not  comprehend  their  prophecies, 
 but  to  future  believers,  to  those  who  woidd  afterwards  possess 
 the  blessings  which  they  foretold,  to  us  who  are  confirmed  in 
 the  faith  of  Christ,  by  seeing  their  prophecies  accomplished 
 in  hiai. 
 
210  Alleged  Superiority  of  [Part  I. 
 
 onl}^  bis  heralds  and  harbingers  to  the  members 
 of  that  holy  and  happy  community  over  Mhich 
 he  is  appointed  to  rule  as  a  prince. 
 
 12.  Heb.  ii.  2,  3.  "  For  if  the  word 
 spoken  by  angels  ("  messengers/'  i,  e.  former 
 prophets,  who  were  only  servants,)  was  stead- 
 fast, and  every  transgression  received  a  just  re- 
 compence ;  how  shall  we  escape  if  we  neglect 
 so  great  salvation,  M'hich  at  first  began  to  be 
 spoken  by  the  Lord  '-^P" 
 
 13.  1  Pet.  iii.  22.  "  Jesus  Christ,  who 
 is  gone  into  heaven,  and  is  at  the  right  hand 
 of  God,  angels,  (or  "  messengers,'')  and  autho- 
 rities and  powers  being  made  subject  unto 
 him." 
 
 i.  e.  The  missionaries  and  teachers  of  the 
 Gospel,  even  those  of  the  highest  rank  and 
 greatest  iniluence  in  the  church,  together  with 
 all  their  spiritual  gifts  and  miraculous  powers, 
 
 "  III  the  remainder  of  tliis  chnpfer  the  v,rUcr,  soemlngly  ap- 
 prehensive lest  his  moaning  sliouiti  be  uiisiuuierstooil,  enters  info 
 a  direct  proof  that  Jesus,  though  he  was  so  much  superior  in 
 rank  and  character  to  all  former  prophets,  was  not  an  angel  or 
 superior  spirit,  but  a  proper  human  being>  in  all  respects  like  bis 
 brethren.     See  Impr,  Vers,  in  loo. 
 
Sect.  6.]  Christ  to  Angeis.  211 
 
 being  placed    under  his  direction,   and  at  his 
 disposal.     See  Inipr.  Version  in  loc. 
 
 14.  Rev.  xxii.  10'.  "  I,  Jesus,  have  sent 
 my  angel, '^  or,  "  this  messenger  of  mine,''  i»  e* 
 John,  who  saw  the  vision,  "  to  testify  unto  you 
 these  things.''  See  Wakefield  in  loc.  Or  pos- 
 sibly there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  angel- 
 mystagogup,  who,  in  the  vision,  explained  to 
 John  the  prophetic  symbols.     See  chap.  i.  1. 
 
 F  'J 
 
212  Titles  and  Characters         [Part  T. 
 
 SECTION     VII. 
 
 TITLES  AXD  CHARACTERS  ATTRIBUTED  TO 
 CHRIST,  OR  THOUGHT  TO  RE  SO  ATTRI- 
 BUTED, Arnicn  are  supposed  to  imply 
 
 SUPERIORITY    or   NATURE. 
 
 I.  Jehovah. 
 1  HIS  word,  the  appropriate  name  of  God,  is 
 esteemed  so  sacred  by  the  Jews,  that  wherever 
 it  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  they  forbear  to 
 pronounce  it,  and  substitute  the  word  '  Lord' 
 in  its  place.  The  versions,  ancient  and  mo- 
 dern, have  mostly  followed  this  example.  That 
 Christ  is  called  '  Lord '  in  the  New  Testament 
 is  sufficiently  obvious :  but  the  present  ques- 
 tion is,  whether  this  title  is  ever  applied  to  him 
 in  the  sense  of  '  Jehovah.'  The  supporters  of 
 the  divinity  of  Christ  inLuntain  the  atiirma- 
 tive,  viz. 
 
 I.     John  xii.  39—41.  "  Therefore  they 
 could  not  believe,  because  Isaiu.h  said,  He  hath 
 
Sect.  7.]  atiributed  to  Christ.  213 
 
 blinded  their  eyes,  Sec.  These  things  said 
 Isaiali  when  he  saw  his  glory,  and  spake  of 
 him." 
 
 The  quotation  is  from  Isaiah  vi,  10,  where 
 the  prophet  speaks  of  liimself  as  having  had  a 
 vision  of  Jehovah  upon  a  throne.  And  the  glory 
 Avhich  Isaiah  saw  being  the  glory  of  Jehovah, 
 it  is  conckided  that  Jesus  is  Jehovah. 
 
 This  is  the  argument  of  bisliop  Pearce  and 
 bishop  Lowih,  and  of  Trinitarians  in  general. 
 Arehbishop  Newcome  explains  the  text  of  Christ 
 as  the  representative  of  Jehovah,  or,  as  Henry 
 Taylor,  of  the  visible  or  subordinate  Jehovah  ; 
 with  whom  many  Arians  a2;ree.  But  Dr. 
 Clarke,  after  Grotius,  and  with  him  all  the 
 Unitarians,  understand  the  evangelist  as  atlirra- 
 ing.  That  the  prophet  sau-,  that  is,  foresaw,  the 
 glory  of  Christ,  as  Abraham  saw,  ?'.  e.  foresaw, 
 his  day.     John  viii.  5i). ' 
 
 II.  Hcb.  i.  10.  "  And  thou.  Lord,  in 
 the  beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
 earth,"  Sec. 
 
 A  quotation  from  Psalm  cii.  25  ;  where  it  is 
 
 '  Sec  Clarke's  Scrip.  Docf.  No.  597.  Den  JMordecai's  Letters, 
 vol.  i.  p.  291.  Lowth  and  Dodson  on  Isaiah,  v.  1.  Lindsey's 
 Seq.  p.  35  1. 
 
^14  Titles  and  Characters  [Parti. 
 
 an  address  to  Jehovah,  as  it  is  likewise  in  this 
 place.  The  author  here  confirms  his  doctrine 
 of  the  permanent  establishment  of  the  throne 
 of  Christ,  from  the  consideration  of  the  immu- 
 tability of  God  by  whom  it  is  supported,  and 
 whom  he  thus  solemnly  addresses  in  the  lan- 
 guage of  the  Psalmist  "♦ 
 
 II.  God. 
 It  is  generally  believed  that  '  God '  is  a  title 
 not  unfrequently  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New 
 Testament.  This  is  held  by  many  to  be  a 
 strong  argument  in  favour  of  his  true  and 
 proper  deity.  But  as  it  is  undeniable  that  the 
 word  is  used  in  different  senses  in  the  sacred 
 writings,  the  Arians  explain  it,  when  applied 
 to  Christ,  as  expressive  of  his  delegated  domi- 
 nion over  the  world  and  church.  This  also  is 
 the  sense  in  which  the  word  was  understood  by 
 the  old  Socinian  writers.  The  Unitarians  plead 
 that  Christ  is  called  God,  as  being  a  prophet 
 
 *  Some  argne  from  Rom.  x.  i3,  "  Whosoever  shall  call  ii})on 
 the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved :"  from  Joel  ii.  32.  But  the 
 ■words  may  be  rendered  "  Whosoever  shall  call  himself  by  the 
 name  of  the  Lord."  Others  understand  the  words  as  a  phrase 
 expressing  the  professors  of  religion,  the  worshippers  of  the 
 true  God. 
 
Sect.  7-]  attributed  to  Christ.  215 
 
 invested  with  miraculous  powers ;  in  the  same 
 sense  in  which,  E>:o(l.  vii.  1,  IMoses  is  said  to 
 be  a  god  to  Pharaoh.  But  Mr.  Linci.sey,  Seq. 
 p.  19B,  and  some  modern  atlvocates  for  the 
 Unitarian  doctrine,  deny  that  Jcsas  is  ever 
 styled  God  in  the  New  Testament. 
 
 It  is  very  remarkable  that  some  of  those 
 lofty  titles  and  characters  which  are  attributed 
 to  Christ,  and  which  are  thought  by  many 
 to  indicate  liis  superior  nature  and  dignitj', 
 are  also  used  of  christians  in  general,  who 
 are  said  "  to  be  one  with  him  and  with 
 the  Father,"  "  assessors  with  him  in  heavenly 
 places,"  and  "  to  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness 
 of  God."  But  there  is  one  expression,  viz, 
 "  partakers  of  a  divine  nature,''  applied  by  the 
 apostle  Peter,  2  Pet.  i.  4,  to  all  believers,  which 
 is  stronger  than  any  which  are  used  of  Christ, 
 and  which,  if  it  had  been  applied  to  him,  would 
 have  been  held  forth  as  an  irrefragable  proof  of 
 his  proper  deity:  to  such  an  argument  it  would 
 have  been  very  difficult  to  have  given  a  satis- 
 factory reply.  That  explanation  of  the  words 
 which  all  are  now  constrained  to  admit,  would 
 then  have  been  treated  as  a  forced  and  languid 
 interpretation,  and  an  attempt,  hardly  consistent 
 
216  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I* 
 
 with  honest}^,  to  wrest  plain  words  from  their 
 natural  and  obvious  meaning,  in  order  to  bend 
 them  to  a  preconceived  hypothesis.  This  in- 
 stance shows  how  little  stress  is  to  be  laid  on 
 such  phraseology,  and  how  cautious  we  ought 
 to  be  of  interpreting  these  strong  expressions 
 in  a  literal  sense. 
 
 I.  Matt.  i.  23.  "  —that  it  might  be 
 fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet,  Be- 
 hold, a  virgin  shall  biing  forth  a  son,  and  they 
 shall  call  his  name  Immanuel ;  which,  being  in- 
 terpreted, is,  God  with  us." 
 
 Ansi^cr.  ISjot  to  insist  upon  the  evidence 
 produced,  Sect.  II.,  of  the  spuriousness  of  the 
 first  two  clianters  of  the  gospel  of  Matthew, 
 the  prop]iecy  here  citv'd,  iVom  Isaiah  vii.  14, 
 has  no  relation  to  the  birih  of  the  Messiah. 
 The  design  of  the  prophet  is,  to  announce  that 
 before  -d  yoang  v/omar,  shoitly  to  be  married, 
 should  have  a  son  grown  i:p  to  years  of  discre- 
 tion, the  tM'o  kingdoms  of  Svria  and  Israel 
 shoiil  1  oe  overl'iro.  n.  The  name  Immanuel, 
 given  in  prophetic  vision  to  this  child,  was  a 
 syiijbol  that  (iod  wou  J  be  widi  and  deliver  his 
 chosen  people.  And  IukI  that  name  been  given 
 to  Christ  ni  prophecy,  or  otherwise,   it  would 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  217 
 
 have  meant  nothing  moro^.  It  was  common 
 amono  the  Jews  to  give  signiMcant  names, 
 and  in  those  names  to  introduce  tl-.o  name  of 
 Go'vl ;  tv':.  Adonijah,  My  Lord  is  Jrlio^.ih, 
 —  Eliezer,  God  is  my  helper.  And,  Jer. 
 xxxiii.  16,  Jerusalem  is  called  The  Lord  our 
 righteousness. 
 
 IL  Luke  i.  iG,  17.  "  And  many  of  the 
 children  of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to  the  Lord  their 
 God.  And  h.e  (John)  shall  go  before  him,  i.  e, 
 the  Lord  their  God,  in  the  spirit  and  power  of 
 Elias;' 
 
 This  is  the  lana'uase  of  the  anoel  to  Zccha- 
 rias  :  but  the  doubtful  authenticity  of  this  story 
 has  been  already  noticed,  Sect.  II. 
 
 And  thou  ';h  strictness  of  construction  war- 
 rants the  appiication  of  the  pronoun  hiin  to  the 
 antecedent  God,  yet  as  the  phrase  '  Lord  our 
 Ciod'  is  never  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New 
 Testament,  no  Jew  would  ever  think  of  such  an 
 application  of  the  words.  John  was  the  fore- 
 runner of  the    Lord   their  God,  by  being  the 
 
 ^  "God  was  with  liS  in  Christ,  by  Iiis  winlom  aii;l  power 
 comniiinicated  to  hUu  for  the  instructiou  and  bcncat  of  iDon." 
 J^iiidsiy's  Sc'j.  p.  181.  —  See  Lowth  and  JDodson  ou  Isaiah 
 )ii.  14. 
 
218  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 forerunner  of  Jesus,    the  great  messenger  of 
 God  to  mankind  ^ 
 
 III.  John  i.  1 .  "  — and  the  Word  was 
 G^d/'  or,  "  a  god/' 
 
 i.  e.  An  inferior  God  derived  from  the  Su- 
 preme, and  delegated  by  him, — or,  '  God  was 
 Wisdom  ;' — or,  '  the  Word,  i.  e.  the  Teacher, 
 was  a  prophet  endued  with  miraculous  powers  ;' 
 •—or,  if  the  conjecture  of  Crellius  and  others  be 
 allowed,  Qm  for  Seog, '  the  Word  was  God's ;' '  the 
 teacher  was  sent  from  God/    See  Sect  III.  1. 
 
 IV.  John  X.  S3.  "  For  a  good  work  we 
 stone  thee  not,  but  for  blasphemy,  and  because 
 that  thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God/' 
 
 Our  Lord  had  just  declared,  ver.  31,  "  I  and 
 my  Father  are  one." 
 
 But  he  peremptorily  denies  the  conclusion 
 which  the  Jews  drew  from  his  language.  He 
 even  maintains,  ver.  34,  35,  that  if  he  had 
 given  himself  the  appellation  of  God,  he  should 
 
 *  "  lie  Mill  lead  the  \vs,y  in  the  siglit  of  God."  Wakefield, 
 -with  whom  archbishop  Newcome  agrees,  —  Dr.  Clarke  (Scr. 
 Doct.  634,)  admits  tliat  ihc  construction  of  the  sentence  is  fa- 
 vourable  to  the  orthodox  interpretation,  but  that  this  is  contrary 
 to  the  style  of  Luke,  and  to  the  whole  analogy  of  Scripture. 
 Calvin,  Casfalio,  and  Waterlaud  (Serm.  p.  203),  lay  great  stress 
 upon  this  text. 
 
Seel.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  219 
 
 have  been  fully  justifijtl  bv^  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
 tures, in  which  this  name  is  given  to  prophets 
 and  magistrates.  But  that  as  to  himself,  though 
 possessed  of  powers  superior  to  tliose  of  any 
 former  prophet,  he  had  never  affected  to  call 
 himself  by  ^  higher  title  than  the  Son  of  God. 
 
 V.  John  XX.  28.  *'  And  Thomas  an- 
 swered and  said  unto  him,  My  Lord  and  my 
 God." 
 
 This  is  a  sudden  exclamation  of  astonish- 
 ment and  joy.  q.  d.  My  Lord  !  and  my  God  I 
 How  great  is  thy  power  !  Or,  My  Lord,  and 
 my  God,  has  done  this  ! — It  is  however  ob- 
 jected that  the  words  are  expressly  said  to 
 be  addressed  to  Christ,  and  are  an  acknow- 
 ledgement of  his  proper  deity,  for  which  the 
 apostle  would  have  been  severely  reproved  if  he 
 had  been  wrong  '\ 
 
 But  who  can  believe  that  this  sceptical  apostle, 
 "who  immediately  before  had  been  doubting 
 -whether  his  Master  was  a  livino;  man,   would, 
 
 ^  Whitby's  Last  TliPM.hfs  p.  77.  Liiu'.-cy's  Apol.  p.  ,:9; 
 Sequel,  p.  200.     Archbishop  Newcotne  in  loc 
 
 •  Erasmus,  Grotius,  ami  Beza  in  loc.  Dr.  Doddridge  calls 
 these  w(jrds  ''  an  irrclragHbic  argament  of  the  deity  of  our 
 llcssed  Lord." 
 
220  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 from  the  sensible  and  satisfactory  evidence  he 
 had  now  obtained  of  his  resurrection,  directly 
 infer  that  he  was  the  living  and  eternal  God  ? 
 What  an  infinite  distance  between  the  premises 
 and  the  conclusion  !  If,  then,  the  words  are  not 
 to  be  taken  as  a  mere  exclamation,  but  as  an 
 address  to  Christ,  the  apostle's  meaning  seems 
 to  be,  q.  d.  Convinced  of  the  truth  of  thy  resur- 
 rection, I  acknowledge  thee  as  my  master,  and 
 submit  to  thee  as  my  god,  as  a  prophet  coming 
 with  divine  credentials,  and  supported  by  di- 
 vine authority.     See  John  x.  34,  35. 
 
 Erasmus,  Grotius,  and  others  remark  that  this 
 is  the  first,  and  indeed  the  only  instance  occur- 
 ring in  the  Gospels,  in  which  Christ  is  addressed 
 by  his  disciples  under  the  title  of  God.  And  this 
 fact  may  be  fairly  considered  as  a  presumption 
 that  he  never  was  addressed  by  them  under  this 
 name,  and  that  the  words  of  the  apostle  are  to 
 be  understood  as  an  exclamation  only. 
 
 VI.  Acts  XX.  28.  "  —and  to  feed  the 
 church  of  God,  which  he  has  purchased  with 
 his  own  blood." 
 
 "  Tlie  blood  of  Christ,"  sa}  s  Dr.  Doddridge, 
 "  is  here  called  the  blood  of  God,  as  being  the 
 blood  of  that  man  who  is  God  with  us.     And  I 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  221 
 
 cannot  but  npnrelicnd  that  it  was  by  the  special 
 direction  of  the  Hoh^  Spirit  that  so  remarkable 
 an  expression  was  used." 
 
 "  Our  Scriptures,"  says  St.  Athanasius,  "  no- 
 where mention  the  blood  of  God.  Such  impu- 
 dent expressions  are  only  used  by  Arians^." 
 So  widely  do  these  eminent  and  learned  writers 
 differ. 
 
 The  true  reading  is  unquestionably  Kv^m, 
 *  Lord/  This  is  the  reading  of  the  Alexan- 
 drine, Ephrem,  Cambridge,  and  many  other 
 valuable  and  ancient  manuscripts ;  of  the  Sy- 
 riac,  Coptic,  and  other  ancient  versions ;  and  of 
 Athanasius,  Eusebius,  Chrysoslom,and  other  ec- 
 clesiastical writers.  The  word  '  God '  in  the  Re- 
 ceived Text  rests  only  upon  the  autborit}'  of 
 the  Vulgate  version,  and  of  a  few  manuscripts 
 of  little  note  ^ 
 
 «.vMv  to.  ro;avra  ro>.ij.r^ij.arcc.    Athanas.  cont.  ApolUii.  a.pud  Wet- 
 sJcin.  in  Ire. 
 
 '  See  liiip.  Vers,  in  loc.  and  Griesbacb's  invaluable  no(c  in  his 
 second  edition.  This  happens  rather  unfortunate  for  the  credit  of 
 Dr.  Doddridge's  pious  remark.  F'or surely  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
 inspired,  would  als.)  hare  pr'^served  the  text.  Mr.  Wakefield  retains 
 the  word  Qss,  upon  the  authority  of  the  Kthiopic  version;  and 
 with  Dr.  Clarke,  (Scr,  Duct.  f)JS,)  he  explains  the  *•  blood  of 
 God"  as  meaning  the  "  Son  of  God."     But  this  learned  critic 
 
22^  Titles  and  Chm'acters  [Part  L 
 
 VII.  Rom.  ix.  5.  "  Whose  are  the  fathers^ 
 and  of  whom,  as  concernmg  the  llesh,  Christ 
 came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever." 
 
 Erasmus,  Grotius,  Dr.  Clarke,  and  others 
 observe,  that  though  the  word  God  is  found  in 
 all  our  present  copies,  it  was  wanting  in  those 
 of  Cjprian,  Hilar)',  Chrysostom,  and  others, 
 and  is  therefore  of  doubtful  authorit3\ 
 
 did  not  advert  to  a  fact  mentioned  by  Dr.  Marsh  in  his  Notes 
 upon  Michaelis,  p.  611,  viz.  that  the  editors  of  the  Ethiopia  ver- 
 sion had  a  very  imperfect  manuscript  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
 the  charms  of  -vvhich,  i.  e.  the  larger  part  of  the  book,  they  suj)- 
 plicd  by  translating  fronj  the  Viilgate.  So  that  in  tlic  Cook  of 
 the  Arts,  the  Eihiupic  version  is  of  no  authority  whatever*  Sec 
 ]Marsh's  Michaoiis,  vol.  ii.  p.  CO. 
 
 Seven  manuscripts  on!)\,  and  those  of  no  antiquity  and  of 
 little  valtic,  read  ©ss,  'GoJ.'  This  reading  is  supported  oniy 
 by  the  Vidgate  and  i^hilyxeniaa  Syriac  versions,  which  hist  reads 
 K-jf:i8,  '  Lord,'  in  tiic  margin.  It  is  cited  by  no  writers  before 
 Epiphaniiis  and  Ambrose,  and  they  are  doubtful. — The  ancient 
 Syriac  reads  Xpia-rs-,  '  Christ.'  But  in  this  it  is  singular,  and  un- 
 supporfed  by  versions  or  aiithontics, — 'Forty-seven  manuscripts 
 read  Kvpis  nat  ©sb,  '  Lord  and  Cod:'  butthe.-c  manuscri{)ts  arc 
 neither  of  lu;;;i  antiquity  nor  of  great  value;  and  this  reading  is 
 quite  unsupported  by  the  ancient  versions  and  ecclesiastical  wri- 
 ters.—  Ten  n.annscrijjts,  of  which  four  are  ancient,  read  K.upit>f 
 *■  Lord  :'  thtse  matuiscripts  are  of  the  liighest  antiquity  and  au- 
 thority, and  of  dillerent  families.  All  the  readings  in  which  these 
 manuscripts  agree,  are,  by  the  best  criticSj  admitted  as  genuine. 
 And  this  readiii;^  is  supported  by  the  most  approved  ancient  ver- 
 fcioMS  and  ecclesiaitical  authorises.    Soe  Wetstein  and  Griesbach,. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ,  225 
 
 Erasmus  further  rciuarks,  tliat  the  words 
 may  be  translated  ditFerently,  accordnig  to 
 different  modes  of  punctuation.  He  prefers 
 placing  the  stop  after  o-u^ku,  *  Hcsh.'  q.  d.  "  Of 
 whom  is  Christ  according  to  the  flesh.  God 
 who  is  over  all  be  blessed  for  ever.''  This  in- 
 terpretation is  approved  by  Le  Clerc,  Dr. 
 Clarke,  Mr.  Locke,  Mr.  Lindsey,  arid  the  ma- 
 jority of  Unitarians. 
 
 Dr.  Whitby,  in  his  Commentaries,  denies 
 that  the  words  will  bear  the  construction  which 
 Erasmus  gives ;  and  maintains  that  the  text 
 is  decisive  in  favour  of  the  deity  of  Christ. 
 With  him  agree  Hammond,  Doddridge,  and  the 
 Trinitarians.  But,  admitting  the  common  trans- 
 lation to  be  the  true  one,  the  Arians  and  Soci- 
 nians  understand  it  not  of  the  proper  divinity 
 of  Christ,  but  of  liis  supposed  dominion  over 
 the  created  universe.     See  Clarke,  bo[). 
 
 Slichtingius  proposed  a  most  happy  and  plau- 
 sible conjecture  ;  the  transposition  of  a  singkj 
 letter,  m  o,  for  o  wv,  which  gives  a  new  and 
 beautiful  turn  to  the  whole  sentence,  viz.  "  Of 
 whom  is  the  adoption, — of  whom  are  the  fathers, 
 — of  whom  is  the  Messiah, — of  whom  is  God 
 over  all  blessed  for  ever.  Thus  the  climax  rises 
 gradually,  and  finishes  where  it  ought.  Whereas 
 
2U  Tifks  and  Characiers  [Part  I. 
 
 in  the  Recehcd  Text,  while  the  apostle  is  pro- 
 fessedly reckoning  up  all  the  privileges  of  the 
 Hebrew  nation,  the  greatest  of  all,  and  that 
 which  M'OuM  ever  he  uppermost  in  the  mind  of 
 a  Jew,  is  totally  omitted,—  that  God  owned 
 himself  in  a  peculiar  sense  their  God.  See 
 Heb.  xi.  16. 
 
 This  conjecture,  ingenious  and  even  probable 
 as  it  is,  not  being  supported  by  a  single  manu- 
 script, version,  or  authority,  cannot  be  admitted 
 into  the  text.  But  one  may*almost  believe  that 
 the  present  reading  might  be  owing  to  an  inad- 
 vertence in  one  of  the  earliest  transcribers,  if 
 not  in  the  apostle's  own  amanuensis^'. 
 
 ^  It  is  singular  that  Slirhlingius  proposes  it  as  an  objection  tn 
 his  own  coiijcctsire,  that  the  phrase,  "  (iod  over  all,"  is  more 
 api)ropriate  to  Christ,  who  was  made  regent  of  the  universe, 
 than  to  (he  Supreme  Being  himself,  "  Christo  rectius  hie  titulns 
 conveuit,  ut  iiitelligeretur  Chrisfum  non  super  qua.dani  (antum, 
 sed  super  onniia  doiDinum  ac  deum  elfcctum  esse." — So  extrava* 
 gant  were  tliese  great  ciilics  in  some  opinions,  w hile  they  were  so 
 eminently  judicious  in  others.  But  the  strongest  minds  could  not 
 at  once  burst  asunder  the  adamantine  bonds  of  antichristian  pre- 
 judices. It  is  wonderful  that  they  advanced  so  far.  And  it  is 
 owing  to  their  great  energies  and  extraordinary  success,  that 
 modern  inquirers,  who  iinve  followed  their  footsteps,  have  been 
 enabled  to  advance  still  further  than  their  venerable  predecessors 
 in  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  The  princi[)les  upon 
 which  they  acted  have  not  only  been  successful  in  (heir  hands  in 
 defecting  the  gross  error;,  of  the  antichristian  church;  but  have 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  225 
 
 VIII.  1  'ilm  iii.  16.  "  And  without  con- 
 troversy great  is  the  mystery  of  gocUiness.  God 
 was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  spirit, 
 seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  be- 
 heved  on  in  the  world,  received  up  into  glory/' 
 
 There    are   three    different   readings   of  this 
 
 passage. 1.  That    of  the    Received    Text  : 
 
 "  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,''  Gsoj  (abbrevi- 
 ated nilo  02)  i<pavi^oj(}',i  zv  cra^x,'.. 
 
 Whether  this  be  the  reading  of  the  Alexan- 
 drine manuscript  is  disputed  :  but  it  is  supported 
 by  the  majority  of  Greek  copies,  and  by  the 
 later  Greek  ecclesiastical  writers. 
 
 But  the  word  '  God'  is  not  found  hi  the  ear- 
 liest and  most  approved  manuscripts,  nor  in  any 
 ancient  version  of  credit,  nor  is  it  cited  by  any 
 early  Greek  writer,  nor   by   any  Latin  writer 
 
 furnished  their  successors  wi(h  a  clue  for  discovering  and  cor- 
 recting their  own.  No  person  will  now  agree  with  this  learned 
 reformer  in  the  objection  which  he  starts  to  his  own  happy  con- 
 jecture. 
 
 This  conjectural  emendation  was  adopted  by  the  learned  and 
 candid  Whitby,  in  his  Last  Thoughts,  p.  79,  though,  by  mistake, 
 he  imputes  it  to  Crellius,  The  very  same  conjecture  occurred  to 
 that  excellent  and  judicious  expositor  Dr.  John  Taylor,  who  had 
 not  then  heard  that  any  one  had  thought  of  it  before  him.  Mr. 
 Wakefield  likewise  suggests  several  probable  arguments  in  favonr 
 of  this  conjectural  transposition,  in  his  Inquiry  into  the  Opi- 
 nions of  Christian  Writers,  p.  lt)6,  et  seq 
 
 Q 
 
226  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 whatever;  and,  what  is  decisive  in  the  case, 
 this  text  was  never  appealed  to  in  the  Arian 
 controversy  before  the  sixth  century,  when  ths 
 word  'God'  is  said  to  have  been  introduced 
 into  the  Greek  copies  by  Macedonius  bishop  of 
 Constantinople.  This  word  is  therefore  most 
 certanily  spurious  '^^ 
 
 2.  "  Ho  who  (Ow)  was  manifested  in  the 
 flesh,"  c^.c. 
 
 This  is  the  reading  of  the  Ephrem,  of  four 
 other  valual)le  and  ancient  manuscripts,  and,  as 
 Griesbiich  thinks,  of  the  Alexandrine  also;  and 
 certainly,  of  the  copies  of  those  persons  in  the 
 sixth  century'  who  complained  that  Macedonius 
 had  corrupted  the  text : — it  is  supported  by  the 
 Coptic  and  Sahidic  versions, — and  by  the  cita- 
 tions of   Cyril   of  Alexandria ",   Theodore   of 
 
 '°  0eof  is  not  fmind  in  any  manuscript  of  the  Alexaiidiine,  or 
 the  Western  editions.  Those  copies  in  which  it  occurs  are  of  the 
 Constantinople  edition,  of  modern  date,  and  of  very  inferior 
 value.  Of  the  versions,  it  is  found  only  in  the  Polyglot  Arabic 
 and  the  Sclavonic.  See  Griisbach,  It  appears  indeed  in  the 
 printed  text  of  (rrogory  N}sse'n  and  sopie  others;  but,  as  Dr. 
 Clarke  observes,  (■^c^.  Doct.  510.)  "  we  arc  to  judge,  not  from 
 the  present  copies  of  these  writers,  but  from  their  manner  of 
 commenting  upon  the  place,  how  the  text  was  road  in  their  days." 
 (iriesbach  cites  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Theophylact,  as 
 reading  Qsog. 
 
 "  Cyril  does  not  cite  this  text  in  reply  to  Julian,  who  denies 
 ihut  Christ  is  ever  called  God  iu  the  writinsrs  of  Paul. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  22? 
 
 Mopsuestici,  Epiphaniiis,  and  others  ;  and  finally 
 it  is  much  more  probable  that  02,  *  he  who/ 
 should  be  altered  to  02,  '  God/  or  to  O,  '  that 
 which,'  than  that  either  ol*  these  should  have 
 been  changed  to  02.  Upon  these  authorities 
 it  is  received  by  Griesbach  into  his  corrected 
 text. 
 
 q,  d.  "  He  who '-  was  manifest  in  the 
 flesh  '^," — who  appeared  in  a  mean  and  humble 
 form.     John  i.  14.     2  Cor.  iv.  11. 
 
 "  — was  justified  by  the  spirit," — was  proved 
 by  his  mn'aculous  powers  to  be  invested  with  a 
 divine  commission. 
 
 "  — was  seen  by  angels  '"^j"  by  the  men  who 
 were  chosen  to  be  his  messengers  and  ambassa- 
 dors to  the  world. 
 
 "  — preached  unto  the  Gentiles:" — his  gospel 
 was  published  to  all  nations,  and  Gentiles  as 
 
 "  'Oj-,  '  he  who.'  See  a  similar  construction,  Rom.  xiv.  2.  5. 
 Arclibishop  Nevycome,  who  refers  to  Mark  iv.  25 ;  Luke  viii. 
 18;  Rom.  viii.  32.  "Lectio  haec  dilhcilior,  et  insolentior  cae- 
 tcris."     Griesbach. 
 
 "  In  thejlesh.']  Perhaps  the  meaning  may  be,  '  he  who  was 
 really  and  truly  a  man,'  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Do- 
 cctae,  that  he  was  a  man  in  appearance  only.  Sec  chap.  i.  4; 
 vi,  20.  Compare  1  John  iv.  2,  3  :  2  John,  ver.  7.  Imp.  Ver. 
 note. 
 
 "  See  Benson.     One  copy  reads  avSowTrofj. 
 
 q2 
 
'J28  THlcs  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 well  as  Jews  were  invited  to  accept  the 
 blessingv 
 
 " — believed  on  in  the  world," — many  em- 
 braced and  professed  his  doctrine. 
 
 "  — was  elevated  in  glorj^  ^''/' — he  had  a  glo- 
 rious ascension  into  heaven  ; — or  rather,  he  was 
 elevated  above  principalities  and  powers  to  a 
 station  of  the  highest  dignity  and  authority  in 
 the  church. 
 
 3.  O,  quod,  '  that  which,'  c^c.  is  the  read- 
 ing of  the  Clermont  manuscript,  the  Syriac, 
 Ethiopic,  Itahc,  and  Vulgate  versions,  and  of  ail 
 the  Latin  ecclesiastical  writers  without  excep- 
 tion '".     </.  d. 
 
 Gieat  is  that  mystery  of  godhness  which  was 
 manifested  in  the  flesh,  ?.  e.  the  Gospel  which 
 was  preached  by  men  in  humble  life.    Many  of 
 
 "  av£Ay^(p95j,  "  met  \vith  a  glorious  recc-ption,"  Benson;  who 
 explains  it  of  the  great  success  of  the  Gospel  in  the  apostolic 
 age.  Bat  the  text  will  hardly  bear  out  the  learned  writer  in  this 
 interpretation.  The  word,  or  its  derivatives,  occurs  fourteen 
 times  in  the  New  Teslameiit,  and  without  a  single  exception  ex- 
 presses local  ascent  or  change.  Ev  J&^r,  '  in  glory  i'  itotei;  oo^av, 
 '^  into  glory.' 
 
 '*  Of  modern  critics  Bcza,  Whitby,  Pearson,  LeClerc,  Woide, 
 {)oddridgc,  &c.  adhere  to  ©go;,  '  God.'  Calvin,  Slichtingius, 
 Przipcovius,  Erasmus,  Dr.  Clarke,  Wctstcin,  Benson,  Ilarwood, 
 Griesbarli,  Wakefield,  Lindsey,  kc.  read  05  or  0. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attvibidcd  to  Christ.  £2.9 
 
 the  Latin  fathers  explain  the  word  miisterij,  of 
 the  person  of  Christ. 
 
 IX.  Tit.  ii.  13.  "  Looking  for  that  blessed 
 hope,  even  the  glorious  appearance  of  the  great 
 God,  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 
 
 0\\  as  some  contend,  according  to  the  con- 
 struction of  the  original,  "  of  our  great  God 
 and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,"  r»  ^AyaX^  Qea  koli 
 '^cajTrjoog  riy.cjv  lr,(T8  Xoi/r-TH.  It  IS  said,  that  in 
 order  to  justify  the  common  translation,  the 
 article  m  should  be  prefixed  to  1u77i^og. 
 
 In  reply  to  this  argument,  Dr.  Clarke  well 
 observes,  (Scr.  Doct.  541,)  that  though  "  the 
 words  will  grammatically  bear  this  construction, 
 it  is  much  more  reasonable,  and  more  agreeable 
 to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture,  to  understand 
 the  former  part  of  the  words  to  relate  to  the 
 Father  :  the  word  God.,  with  any  high  title  or 
 epithet  annexed,  always  signifying  the  Father 
 
 only'--"     ' 
 
 ''  See  likewise  Clarke's  Reply  to  Nelson,  p.  8  J,  kc.  And  to 
 the  same  purpose  i'>rasmiis  and  Grotius  in  loo. 
 
 The  author  is  not  unapnriKed  of  the  great  zeal  with  which  this 
 argument  for  the  proper  deity  of  Christ,  fron)  the  construction 
 of  the  Greek  article,  has  been  lately  resumed  and  pursued  by  that 
 eminent  philanthropist  Granville  Sharp,  Essq.  and  his  learned  co- 
 adjutors Ijishop  l)uri^c>s,  J)r.  Wordsworlh,  and  Dr.  Middlelon. 
 That  many  of  tlie  observations  of  these  res-pectable  writers  arc 
 
230  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 X.    Heb.  i.  8.  "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is 
 for  ever  and  ever." 
 
 This  is  a  quotation  from  Psalm  xlv.  6.  And 
 it  is  well  known  that  the  words  of  the  original 
 will  equally  well  bear  to  be  translated,  "  God  is 
 thy  throne  ;"  that  is,  the  support  of  thy  throne. 
 See  Grotius,  Clarke,  and  Peirce  in  loc.  Mr. 
 Lindsey  contends  that  this  must  be  the  proper 
 translation,  because  it  is  most  analogous  to  the 
 language  of  Scripture.  2  Sam.  vii.  13.  l6\ 
 1  Chrcn.  xvii.  12.  14.  Psalm  Ixxxix.  4.  Arch- 
 ingenious,  aciifo,  and  just,  as  fai'as  llie  Crit'fli.  language  is  con- 
 corned,  is,  i  belie  vc,  ur.ivorsally  admitted.  But  the  witty  and 
 shrewd  writer  of  Si\  nnjie  Letters  to  Granville  Sharp,  under  the 
 signature  of  Gregory  lilnnt,  has  ably  and  ami)ly  refuted  the  ar- 
 gument derived  from  this  principle  in  support  of  (he  doctrine  of 
 the  deity  of  Christ.  Indeed  it  is  an  indignity  to  the  human  un- 
 derstanding to  maintain  that  a  doctrine,  which,  if  true,  would 
 shine  conspicuously  in  every  page  of  the  New  Testament,  should 
 depend  for  its  evidence  upon  the  critical  use  of  the  Greek  article 
 by  the  plain  arid  unlettered  writers  of  the  New  Testament;  to- 
 gether with  what  would  be  eepjaliy  necessary,  the  immaculate 
 correctness  of  transcribers.  If  this  is  the  state  to  which  (he  con- 
 troversy  is  reduced,  it  would  be  better  to  give  up  (he  point  at 
 once.  A  doctrine  of  such  magnitude  as  the  proper  deity  of  Christ, 
 must  have  clearer  and  more  substantial  evidence,  or  none  at  all. 
 That  Dr.  Middieton's  Theory  of  the  (x reek  Article  will  not  bear 
 him  out  to  the  extent  to  which,  he  has  apjjlied  it,  has  been  am|ily 
 and  saiisfnctorily  shown  in  an  able  critique  upon  that  learned  and 
 laborious  treatise,  b}  (he  hand  of  a  master,  in  the  Monthly  Re- 
 view, IS.S,  vol.  l\ii.  See  alio  iSir.  W  instanley's  able  Vindication, 
 &c.  in  rej/Iy  to  Air.  ^harp. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ,  231 
 
 bishop  Newcome  translates,  "  Tliy  throne,  O 
 God,  is  for  ever  and  ever :"  but  he  remarks, 
 that  in  the  Psalm  the  same  words  are  addressed 
 to  Solomon. 
 
 XL  2  Pet.  i.  1.  "  Through  the  righte- 
 ousness of  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Clirist." 
 ra  ©sa  Yi(jt.ojv  '/,u,i  ffurri^og.  The  words  may  be 
 translated,  "  our  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 
 Amzccr.  It  is  admitted  that  the  original 
 will  bear  this  translation  ;  but  the  common 
 version  is  also  admissible.  And  it  is  prefer- 
 able, because,  as  Dr.  Clarke  observe?.  No.  'iB.Q, 
 "  the  word  God  generally  stands  for  the  Fa- 
 ther ;"  and  the  same  words  are  repeated  in  ihe 
 next  verse  in  a  construction  which  determines 
 the  sense  without  any  ambiguity.  "  Grace 
 ■  and  peace  be  multiplied  to  you  through  the 
 knowledge  of  God,  and  of  .lesus  our  Lord:'' 
 iV  i'Trr/vaa'ti  ra  ©sa  zai  Iri/ra  m  fcvpia  r,t^c■n>,  To 
 which  may  be  added,  that  two  manuscripts 
 and  the  Syriac  version,  instead  of  ©gy,  '  God,' 
 read  Ky^is^,  '  Lord.' 
 
 XIL  1  John  iii.  16.  "  Herebj^  perceive 
 we  the  love  of  God.,  because  he  laid  down  his 
 life  for  us." 
 
 The  word  0sy,  '  of  God,'  has  the  authority 
 
232  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 of  one  manuscript  only,  and  that  of  little  note, 
 of  the  Vulgate  version,  and  of  the  Compluten- 
 sian  edition.  It  is  unquestionably  spurious,  and 
 is  left  out  of  Griesbach's  corrected  text,  and  of 
 Archbishop  Newcome's,  Mr.  Wakefield's,  and 
 the  Improved  versions. 
 
 -  XIII.  1  John  V.  20.  "  And  we  know  that 
 the  Son  of  Ciod  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  au 
 understanding,  that  we  may  knov/  him  that  is 
 true :  and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in 
 his  Son  Christ  Jesus.  Tins  {ovrog)  is  the  true 
 God  and  eternal  Life.'' 
 
 "  To  paraphrase  this  of  true  religion,"  says 
 Dr.  Doddridge,  in  his  note  upon  the  t^'xt,  "  is 
 quite  enervating  the  force  of  Scripture,  and 
 taking  a  liberty  with  plain  words  by  no  means 
 to  be  allowed.  It  is  an  argument  of  the  deity 
 of  Christ,  which  almost  all  who  have  written  in 
 its  defence  have  urged,  and  v\hich  I  think  none 
 who  have  opposed  it  have  even  appeared  to 
 answer  "^." 
 
 Let  us  try  the  learned  expositor's  principle 
 by  the  application  of  it  to  a  similar  case. 
 
 '^  ])r.  JJudd ridge  is  particiilaily  unrofluuato  in  (he  SL-lcction  of 
 most  of  tiiosc  texts  upon  which  he  professes  to  lay  (he  greatest 
 stress  in  support  of  his  system.  See  particularly  his  notes  upon 
 Acts  XX.  28  j  and  Rev.  J.  8.  11. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  233 
 
 2  John  V.  7.  "  Many  deceivers  are  entered  into 
 the  world,  who  coniess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
 come  in  the  flesh.  This  {ovrog)  is  a  deceiver 
 and  antichrist." 
 
 Accordino-  to  Dr. Doddridge's  modeof  reason- 
 ing,  to  refer  the  singidar  pronoun  this,  to  a  re- 
 mote and  phiral  antecedent,  "  is  taking  a  hberty 
 with  plain  words  by  no  means  to  be.  allowed.'' 
 This,  then,  is  an  argument  to  prove  that  Jesus 
 Christ  was  an  impostor,  and  even  antichrist, 
 Mhich  none  who  espouse  his  doctrine  "  have 
 even  appeared  to  answer." 
 
 Upon  the  same  principles,  therefore,  by  which 
 Dr.  Doddridge  and  others  would  prove  that 
 Jesus  Christ  is  the  true  God,  they  might  prove 
 that  he  is  a  decciver.and  antichrist;  which  in- 
 deed he  would  have  been,  had  he  pretended  to 
 be,  what  they  erroneously  call  him,  the  true  G  od. 
 
 In  both  instances  the  pronoun  ^to;,  this, 
 which  usually  belongs  to  the  proximate,  is  to 
 be  connected  with  the  remote  antecedent.  The 
 deceiver  and  antichrist  is  he  who  confesseth  not 
 that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  or,  that 
 he  is  a  real  man.  The  true  God  is  that  Being 
 whom  Jesus  hath  given  his  disciples  understand- 
 ing to  know  :  it  is  his  Father  and  our  Father, 
 his  God  and  our  God. 
 
234  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  L 
 
 From  the  review  of  the  precedmg  texts  we 
 may  remark  ; 
 
 1.  That  the  number  of  texts  in  which  it 
 can  be  presumed  that  Jesus  is  called  '  God/  is 
 comparatively  very  small. 
 
 2.  That  of  these,  some  are  evidently 
 spurious,  and  in  others  the  application  of  the 
 ejjithet  to  Christ  is  by  no  means  clear  and 
 decisive. 
 
 3.  That  if  the  title  God  is  ever  applied 
 to  Christ,  which  perhaps  may  be  admitted  in  one 
 or  two  instances,  it  is  in  that  inferior  sense  which 
 our  Lord  himself  explains,  John  x.  35,  where  he 
 shows  that  in, the  language  of  Scripture  they  are 
 called  gods,  to  whom  the  word  of  God  came. 
 And  it  is  further  observable,  that  our  Lord  never 
 assumes  this  title  himself. 
 
 IIL    One  with  God. 
 
 L  John  X.  30.  "  I  and  the  Father  are 
 one. 
 
 'Ev  gff-^sf,  '  one  thing,'  not  '  one  person,'  as 
 Grotius,  Clarke,   and  even  Calvin  '^  have  ob- 
 
 ^^  "  Abiisi  sunt  hoc  loco  veteres  \\i  probaroiit  Cliri^tum  esse 
 Patri  ojLcoacnoy :  ru'qiic  enim  Christus  de  unitate  substantia;  dis- 
 putat,  sed  dc  consensu  quem  cuiii  Patre  habet,  quicquid  scilicet 
 
Sect.  7.]  nttribidcd  to  Christ.  235 
 
 served,  q.  (I.  '  lo  be  In  my  hand,''  is  the  same 
 as  '  to  be  in  the  hand  of  m}^  Father  ;'  for  I  bear 
 his  commission,  and  act  under  his  authority. 
 Chap.  xvii.  11,  Our  Lord  prays  that  the 
 apostles  may  be  one,  as  he  and  the  Father  are 
 one.  And  again,  ver.  21,  '•  that  all  who  believe 
 may  be  one,  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I 
 in  thee  ;  that  the}^  also  ma}^  be  one  in  us." 
 
 Dr.  Doddridire,  who  affirms  "  that  this  text 
 so  plainly  demonstrates  the  deity  of  our  blessed 
 Redeemer,  that  it  may  be  left  to  speak  for  it- 
 self," adds,  "  How  widely  different  that  sense  is 
 in  which  christians  are  said  to  be  one  with  God, 
 will  sufilciently  appear  by  considering  how  fla- 
 grantly absurd  and  blasphemous  it  would  be 
 for  them  to  draw  the  same  inference."  But,  at 
 any  rate,  a  phrase  which  is  applicable  to  be- 
 hevers  in  general,  cannot,  of  itself,  when  applied 
 to  Christ,  prove  that  he  is  in  nature  one  with 
 God.  And  in  the  connexion  in  w  hich  it  stands, 
 it  may  be  explained  in  a  sense  perfectly  compa- 
 tible with  our  Lord's  proper  humanity. 
 
 gefUur  a  Christo,  Putris  virtiWe  coiifirmafiim  iri."  Cahiii. — Not 
 5(f,  (unus,)  '  one  and  the.  same  person,'  but  ev,  (unum.,)  '  one  and 
 the  san)r  thing.''  The  Father  has  coiiimunicatcd  his  power  to  the 
 Son.  Tertuilian,  Novatian,  Oiigen,  Chrysostom,  and  Basil,  ex- 
 plain the  words  in  the  same  manner.  Dr.  Clarke,  ibid.  No.  59-1. 
 
236  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 II.  1  John  V.  7,  8.  "  For  there  are  three 
 that  bear  record  in  heaven  :  the  Father,  the 
 Word,  and  the  Holi/  Ghost ;  and  these  three 
 are  one.  And  there  are  three  that  bear  zcit- 
 ness  in  earth;  the  Sphit,  and  the  water,  and 
 the  blood ;  and  these  three  agree  in  one." 
 
 The  words  inckided  in  Itahcs  are  manifestly 
 spurious.     For, 
 
 1.  They  are  unnecessary,  and  do  not 
 suit  the  context.  There  is  no  similar  expres- 
 sion in  the  Scripture.  The  sense  is  complete 
 without  it :  and  the  spirit  being  made  a  witness 
 both  in  heaven  and  earth,  destroys  the  anti- 
 thesis. 
 
 2.  These  words  are  not  to  be  found  in 
 any  Greek  manuscript  that  is  older  than  the 
 fifteenth  century. 
 
 3.  This  text  is  found  in  no  Latin  manu- 
 script older  than  the  ninth  century.  In  many 
 of  the  later  manuscripts  it  is  also  wanting.  In 
 some  copies  it  is  only  inserted  in  the  margin, 
 with  additions  and  variations,  which  give  room 
 for  suspicion  of  fraud  and  forgery  ^'^ 
 
 ^  The  text  is  found  in  a  considerable  majority  of  Latin  manu- 
 scripts, though  it  is  wanting  in  many.  It  ai)]K'ars  in  one  or  two 
 ■\vhich  arc  believed  to  be  of  the  ninth  century,  though  Giicsbach 
 
Sect.  7.]  (dtrihutcd  to  Christ.  237 
 
 4.  Tlieso  words  are  wanting  in  all  the 
 ancient  versions.  They  are  not  to  be  found  in 
 the  Italic  version  made  before  the  time  of  Je- 
 rome, nor  in  the  Syriac '"-'',  nor  in  the  copies  of 
 the  Nestorian  or  of  the  Jacobite  christians  in 
 Asia,  nor  in  those  of  the  christians  of  St.  Tho- 
 mas in  the  East  Indies.  Nor  does  it  appear  in 
 either  of  the  Arabic  versions,  nor  in  the  Cop- 
 tic, the  Ethiopic,  the  xlrmenian,  the  Sahidic,  or 
 the  Sclavonian. 
 
 5.  This  text  is  omitted  by  all  the  Greek 
 fathers,  even  by  those  whose  subjects  would  na- 
 turally have  led  them  to  cite  it,  who  ransacked 
 the  New  Testament  for  aro-uments  in  favour  of 
 
 doubts  it.  III  many  it  is  wriitcn  not  in  tlic  text,  but  in  (he  mar- 
 gin by  a  later  hand;  which  makes  it  probable  that  it  was  wanting 
 in  the  older  copies,  from  wiiich  these  were  transcribed. 
 
 **  Trcmelliiis  translated  this  ic\.t  out  of  Greek  in!o  Syriac, 
 and  Gutbirius  and  Schaaf  have  inserted  tliis  translation  into  the 
 text  of  their  editions  of  the  Syriac  version.  A  most  unwarrant- 
 able and  unpardonable  liberty  to  be  taken  with  the  Sacred  Writ- 
 ings, 'they,  however,  probably  believed  the  text  to  be  genuine. 
 But  what  can  be  said  in  exruse  of  those  modern  expositors  and 
 translators,  who,  in  order  to  serve  a  party  or  a  personal  purpose, 
 continue,  in  defiance  of  palpable  evidence,  and  in  opposition  to 
 better  knowledge,  to  retain  this  notorious  passage  in  the  sacred 
 text? 
 
238  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 the  doctrine  of  the  Ti'inity,  and  who  have 
 quoted  the  words  immediately  preceding  and 
 following  the  disputed  text. 
 
 Irenoeus  cites  this  chapter  to  prove  the  deity 
 
 of  Christ,  but  takes  no  notice  of  this  text. 
 
 Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  in  his  epistle  to  Paul 
 of  Samosata,  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the 
 Trinity,  cites  the  eighth  verse,  but  omits  the 
 seventh. — Athanasius  never  mentions  this  text 
 even  in  tliose  books  in  which  he  enumerates  all 
 the  scriptures  he  can  find  to  prove  the  deity  of 
 the  Son  and  the  Spirit. — The  Fathers  of  the 
 Council  of  Sardica  produce  John  x.  20,  to 
 prove  a  trinity  in  unity,  but  take  no  notice  of 
 this  text,  though  more  to  their  purpose. — Gre- 
 gory Nazianzen,  in  his  five  Orations  de  Theo- 
 logid,  alleges  the  next  words  to  prove  the  deity 
 of  the  Spirit,  but  is  silent  concerning  the  hea- 
 venly witnesses. — Cyril  of  Alexandria  cites  the 
 verses  before  and  after  this  text  to  prove  the 
 deity  of  the  Spirit,  but  omits  the  seventh  verse. 
 — Leontius,  in  the  name  of  the  Nicene  fathers, 
 defends  the  deity  of  the  Spirit  from  ver.  6,  but 
 takes  no  notice  of  the  seventh.  —  Griesbach  says 
 that  no  one  of  the  Greek  fathers  ever  cites  the 
 text,  nor  is  anv  mention  made  of  it  in  the  Acts 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  239 
 
 of  any  Council,  general  or  provincial,   that  is 
 in  repute  among  the  Greeks  --. 
 
 6".  This  text  is  not  cited  by  any  of  the 
 Latin  fathers-'',  even  where  it  would  have  been 
 most  pertinent,  and  where  the  subject  seemed 
 to  require  it. 
 
 It  is  not  found  in  the  Treatise  upon  the  Bap- 
 tism of  Heretics,  bound  up  with  Cyprian's 
 Works,  though  the  author  cites  the  verses  be- 
 fore and  after  it ; — nor  yet  in  Novatian,  who 
 wrote  upon  the  Trinity  ;  nor  in  Hilarius ;  nor 
 Phoebadius ;  nor  in  Ambrose,  ^ho  cites  the 
 verses  before  and  after  it ;  nor  in  Leo  Magnus, 
 who,  in  his  Letter  to  Flavianus  presented  to 
 the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  comments  upon  the 
 whole  context ;  nor  in  Faustlnus  ;  nor  in  Je- 
 rome ;  nor  in  Augustin,  who  maintains  that  the 
 Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit  are  mystically 
 signified  by  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood. 
 Bede,  in  the  eighth  century,  wrote  a  comment 
 upon  the  epistle,  in  w^iich  he  expounds  the 
 eighth  verse,  but  takes  no  notice  of  the  seventh. 
 All  this  is  acknowledged  by  Dr.  Mill,  who  is 
 
 ••  Griesbach  Aj^pi-nd.  p.  9;  aptid  Nov.  Test,  vol.  ii.  ad  fin. 
 Emlyn's  Tracts,  p  313 — 316.     Borjson  on  I'^pp.  vol.  ii.  p.  645. 
 
 "  "  A  patribus  I^atinis  non  citatiir,  iibi  vel  maxime  ad  rem 
 pertinerctj  atiiuc  oninino  expcctari  posset."     Griesbach. 
 
240  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 nevertheless  an  advocate  for  the  genumeness  of 
 the  text,  but  who  allows  that,  for  about  seven 
 hundred  years,  it  was  wanting  in  the  Bibles  of 
 the  Latin  church. 
 
 7.  The  best  editions  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, since  the  lleformation,  have  omitted,  or 
 at  least  have  fixed  a  mark  of  caution  and  sus- 
 picion upon,  the  disputed  text. 
 
 It  was  wantinof  in  the  first  and  second  edi- 
 tions  of  Erasmus,  A.  D.  1516  and  1518,  but 
 was  inserted  in  the  third,  to  silence  the  clamour 
 which  had  been  excited  against  him.  "  Ne 
 cui  esset  causa  calunmiandi."  It  was  omitted 
 in  the  edition  of  Aldus,  1518;  in  that  of  Ha- 
 guenau,  1581;  of  Strasburg,  1524;  of  Coli- 
 naeus  at  Paris,  1534.  In  the  version  of  Lu- 
 ther, and  the  edition  of  Zvvinglius  and  Bul- 
 linger,  in  the  editions  of  Bowyer  and  Knapp,  it 
 is  marked  as  doubtful ;  and  is  wholly  omitted 
 in  those  of  Harwood,  of  Matthasi,  and  of  Gries- 
 bach.  Wetstein  marks  it  as  certainly  spurious, 
 but  he  professedly  publishes  the  Received  Text 
 without  alteration  "K 
 
 **  "  Primum  etlidcrunt  illud  comma  Compluteuscs ;  dcin 
 Erasmus  in  tribiis  postrcmis  edifionibus  :  ex  his  propagatum  fiiit 
 in  Stephanicas :  hinc  in  Bczanas,  inde  in  Elzeviriaufis,  csetcras- 
 que."     Gricsbach. — Bcngo!,  like  Mil),  maintains  tlio  genuineness 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  241 
 
 In  the  old  English  Bibles  of  Henry  the 
 Eighth  and  of  Edward  the  Sixth,  the  words 
 were  printed  in  small  types,  or  were  inclosed  in 
 brackets.  In  Queen  Elizabeth's  Bible  of  1566, 
 the  same  caution  was  continued.  But  between 
 1566  and  1580  the  words  began  to  be  printed 
 as  they  now  stand,  without  any  distinction,  but 
 by  whose  authority  is  not  known. 
 
 In  defence  of  this  disputed  text  it  has  been 
 alleged, 
 
 1.  That  the  text  was  contained  in  some  an- 
 cient Greek  manuscripts  which  are  now  lost. 
 
 of  the  verse,  after  having  produced  evidence  sufficient  to  convince 
 every  reasonable  person  that  it  mast  be  spurious.  But  though 
 he  candidly  allows  that  the  words  are  not  to  be  found  in  any 
 known  Greek  or  ancient  Latin  copy,  he  is  unwilling  to  de- 
 spair ;  but  piously  hopes  that  some  copy  may  still  be  discovered 
 which  contains  this  precious  relic.  *'  Et  (amen  etiam  atque 
 etiam  sperare  licet,  si  non  autographum  Johanneum,  at  alios  vc- 
 tustissimos  codices  Graecos  qui  hanc  periocham  habent,  in  occultis 
 providentia;  divinae  forulis  adhuc  latentes,  suo  tempore,  produc- 
 turn  iri."  liengei.  N.  Test,  p,  770,  771, — Wetstein  remarks  up- 
 on this,  *'  Non  equidem  iovid<;o  ci,  qui  hac  spc  lactatur."  This 
 verse  is  omitted  in  Archbisiiop  Newcomc's  Translation,  in  Mr. 
 Wakefield's,  and  in  the  Improved  Version.  "  I  must  own/' 
 »ays  the  bishop  of  Lincoln,  "  tha^  after  an  attentive  considera- 
 tion  of  the  controversy  relative  to  that  passage,  I  am  convinced 
 that  it  is  spurious."  Elements  of  Christian  Theology,  vel.  ii. 
 p.  90,  note. 
 
U2  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 ] .)  The  text  appears  in  the  Conipluten- 
 sian  Polyolot,  published  by  Cardinal  Ximenes 
 about  1510,  from  manuscripts  some  of  which 
 are  now  lost'^^. 
 
 AnszQer.  Stunica,  the  editor  of  this  cele- 
 brated work,  when  challenged  by  Erasmus, 
 could  not  produce  a  single  Greek  manuscript 
 in  which  this  text  was  found.  He  contented 
 himself  with  appealing  to  the  Latin  copies  as  of 
 the  highest  authority,  and  probably  translated 
 the  text  from  the  Vulgate  into  Greek. 
 
 2.)  Iiobert  Stephens,  a  man  of  great 
 ability  and  learning,  published  a  splendid  edi- 
 tion of  the  Greek  Testament  at  Paris  in  A.  D. 
 I0.5O,  from  sixteen  manuscripts  in  the  Royal 
 Library.  He  has  inclosed  in  brackets  the  words 
 sv  y^avr-;,  '  in  heaven,'  and  marked  tliem  as  want- 
 ing in  seven  manuscripts ;  from  which  it  has 
 been  concluded  that  the  remainder  of  the  text 
 
 **  Of  these.  ^Vllat  Stimica  ciills  (lie  Illiodian  manuscript  was 
 tiie  most  celebrated.  It  was  brought  from  the  island  of  Rhodes. 
 These  manuscripts  w  ere  preserved  for  many  years  in  the  library 
 of  Alcala;  but  in  the  year  1749  (hey  were  sold  by  an  ignorant 
 librarian  to  a  rocket-maker,  and  destroyed,  "  I'his  very  cii- 
 cumstance,"  says  i)r.  Marsh,  "  nay  console  us  for  their  loss  : 
 for  as  rockets  are  not  made  of  vellum,  it  is  a  certain  proof  that 
 the  MSS.  were  written  on  paper,  and  therefore  of  no  groat  anti- 
 quity."    Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  p.  4-10.  844. 
 
ct.  7.]  attrihuted  to  Christ  243 
 
 was  found  in  those  se\  en  copies,  and  that  it  was 
 entire  in  all  the  rest. 
 
 Answer.  It  is  most  certain  that  Stephens 
 had  no  more  than  seven  manuscripts  which 
 contained  the  catholic  epistles.  There  is  every 
 reason  to  believe  that  these  manuscripts  are 
 still  in  existence  ;  and  that  they  leave  out 
 the  whole  seventh  verse.  And  as  Stephens 
 himself  has  put  the  bracket  in  the  right  place, 
 after  the  words  in  terra,  '  in  earth,'  in  his  Latin 
 editions  of  1539  and  1540,  it  is  highly  pro- 
 bable that  the  misplacing  of  it  in  the  Greek 
 edition  of  1550  was  an  error  of  the  press, 
 many  of  which  have  been  detected  in  that 
 inagnificent  but  inaccurate  work"'^. 
 
 It  is  further  alleged,  that  Beza  declares  that 
 he  had  actually  read  the  \^■ords  in  some  of  Ro- 
 
 ''•^  Griesbach  contends  that  the  placing  of  the  bracket  must  cer- 
 tainly have  been  a  typographical  error,  for  no  manuscript  exists 
 which,  omitting  the  words  sv  ajsavu;,  retains  the  rest  of  the  text. 
 And  he  triumphantly  asks,  Who  can  be  so  silly  as  to  believe  (hatStc- 
 phens  j)ossessed  seven  manuscripts  coMtaining  (he  dis|)u(ed  text, 
 not  one  of  which  n,ow  exisis:  or  if  one,  why  is  it  not  produced? 
 Or  let  the  pa'.rons  of  this  opinion  show,  if  possible,  how  seven 
 such  manuscripts  could  be  lost  bctsvoen  the  years  1550  and  1700, 
 when  it  is  known  that  Greek  manuscripts  were  in  such  high  re- 
 quest, and  purchased  at  sue!)  an  enonnoiis  price.  Tbid.  p.  G. 
 See  upon  *\m  subject  Travis'-s  Ijetler';  to  Gibbon,  and  I'orsou's 
 Letters  to  Travi.-. 
 
f44  Titks  and  CAaracters  [Part  L 
 
 bert  Stephens's  ancient  books  ; — but  this  is  cer- 
 tainly incorrect.  It  is  not  probable  that  Ste- 
 phens carried  the  manuscripts  with  him  to  Ge- 
 neva; nor  could  Beza  have  seen  in  the  books 
 what  the  books  did  not  contain.  Beza  left  out 
 this  assertion  in  the  third  and  succeeding  edi- 
 tions of  his  New  Testament*". 
 
 3.)  It  has  been  conceived  that  Lauren- 
 tius  Valla  was  in  possession  of  seven  Greek  ma- 
 nuscripts which  contained  the  disputed  text. 
 The  only  evidence  in  the  ease  is,  that  Valla  does 
 not  in  this  instance  note  the  difference  between. 
 
 *'  Beza's  words  are :  "  Hie  vcrsiculus,  omnino,  mihi  retinen- 
 dus  vidctur  :  legit  Erasmus  in  Britamiico  codice — legimus  et  no» 
 in  nonnuilis  Roberti  nostri  veteribus  libris**,'  In  the  third  and 
 following  editions,  instead,  of  the  words  in  Italics  he  wrote  extat. 
 It  is  difiicult  to  save  the  credit  of  tlie  learned  reformer  ia  this 
 hardy  assertion..  Bengel  candidly  observes,  that  he  does  nob 
 say  "  ego  legi,"  but  "  no.s  legimiis,"  and  seems  to  mean  no- 
 thing mor^itlian  that  he  read  (he  manuscripts  with  the  eyes  of 
 Stephens,  as  Erasmus  did  (he  British  manuscript  with  the  eyes  of 
 his  correspondent  there.  Beza  concluded,  from  the  place  of  the 
 crotchet  in  Stephsns's  book,  that  his  manuscripts  contained  the 
 disputed  text.     See  Wetstein  in  loc. 
 
 Hence  we  see  the  foundation  of  Gibbon's  famous  remark  upon 
 this  celebrated  te.xt :  "The  three  witnesses  have  been  established 
 in  our  Greek  Testaments  by  the  prudence  of  Erasmus,  the  honest 
 bigotry  of  the  Complutcnsian  editors,  by  the  typographical  fraud 
 or  error  of  Robert  Stephens  in  the  placing  of  a  crotchet,  and  by 
 the  deliberate  falsehood  or  strange  misapprehension  of  Theodore 
 Beza."     GibboQ's  Hist.  vol.  iii.  p.  645.  4to.  • 
 
Sect.  7.]  attribuM  to  ChrhU  245 
 
 his  manuscripts  and  tlH3  Latin  text. — But  his 
 notes  upon  this  epistle  are  tew  and  trivial ; — ^he 
 might  possibly  have  a  Latin  copy  in  which  the 
 seventh  verse  was  omitted: — or,  finally,  as  he 
 onlv  notes  variations  in  those  passages  in  which 
 he  thinks  that  the  Latin  text  should  be  corrected 
 by  the  Greek,  he  might  think  it  prudent  not  to 
 notice  the  variation  here.     See  Griesbixh,  ibid. 
 
 2.  The  text  is  still  found  in  some  Greek  ma- 
 nuscripts. 
 
 L)  In  th«  Monttbrt  manuscript  in  the 
 library  of  Trinity  college,  Dublin. 
 
 This  manuscript,  given  by  Archbishop  Usher 
 to  Trinity  college,  is  certainly  that  to  which 
 Erasmus  alludes  in  his  controversy  with  Stunica, 
 and  upon  the  sole  authority  of  which  he  intro- 
 duced the  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses  into  his 
 third  edition,  where  it  stands  an  exact  transcript 
 of  the  text  of  this  Codex '-'«.     This  manuscript 
 
 "•  "  Ex  codice  Brilanuico  reposuinius,  quod  in  nosfris  dice- 
 batur  dcesse,  nc  cui  sit  causa  caluiiuiiandi :  tamefsi  siispicor  ilium 
 ■codicem,  ad  uostros  esse  correctum,"  Krasmu*. — In  his  letter  to 
 Stunica  he  cites  (he  words  dittereiitlyfrom  the  Codex  ;  but  in  his 
 text  he  cites  correctly,  "  ne  unica  quidem  iiterula  diifert." 
 Ilcace  Griesbach  concludes  that  there  is  no  foundalion  for  the 
 supposition  that  Erasmub'.s  British  manuscript  is  diHereut  from 
 the  Codex  Dublincnsis. 
 
246  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  T. 
 
 was  written  in  the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  cen- 
 tury, is  of  no  authority,  and  evidently  inter- 
 polated from  the  Latin  Vulgate  "^. 
 
 ^.)  The  text  is  found  in  the  Berlin,  or 
 Ravian  manuscript. 
 
 Jnsrcer.  This  manuscript  has  been  long- 
 known  to  be  in  a  great  measure  copied  from 
 the  Compiutensian  Polyglot,  retaining  even  the 
 errors  of  the  press.  It  was  examined  through- 
 out in  the  year  1796  by  Pappelbaum,  who  dis- 
 covered that  the  portion  which  was  not  tran- 
 scribed from  the  Compiutensian  edition  was 
 taken  from  Stephens's  third  edition,  with  the 
 addition  of  a  few  articles  from  Stephens's  mar- 
 gin, and  the  Compiutensian,  inserted  in  the  text 
 to  concealthe  fraud  ^o. 
 
 3.)  The  Codex  Guelpherbylanus  D,  is  a 
 manuscript  of  the  first  epistle  of  John.  It  con- 
 tains the  disputed  text,  but  it  also  contains  the 
 
 ^^  Gricsbach  mentions,  as  evident  proofs  of  corruption  from 
 the  Latin,  the  omission  of  the  article  before  the  witnesses,  ami 
 more  particularly  ver.  G,  where  it  follows  the  Vulgate  in  reading 
 b  Xptcrrog,  ii<t:te;id  of  to  itvsv^oi,  and  is  the  only  Greek  manu- 
 script in  which  this  reading  is  found.  Gricsbach,  ibid,  p,  4.  Sec 
 Marsh's  Michaclis,  \ol.  ii.  p.  284. 
 
 •'"'  See  Gricsbach,  ibid.  p.  4,  and  Pappelba\im,  Ivxamen  Cod. 
 Ilav.  Borolini,  1796. 
 
Sect.  7-]  attributed  to  Christ.  247 
 
 Versioiis  of  Casialio,  \'atahlus,  and  Beza.  It 
 was  wriileii  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  is 
 of  no  authority  whatever^'. 
 
 4  )  Matliia?!  mentions  two  other  manu- 
 scripts which  contain  the  disputed  text.  One 
 is  a  manuscript  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and 
 in  this  the  seventh  \erse  is  written  in  the  mar- 
 gin by  a  later  hand.  The  other  is  of  no  autho- 
 rity, having  heen  written  since  the  time  of  Eras- 
 mus and  Beza,  whose  version  it  contains''-. 
 
 .'].  It  is  contended  that  the  text  is  citec],  or 
 clearly  alluded  to,  by  some  of  the  earliest  Latin 
 Fathers. 
 
 1.)  Tertullian.  cont.  Praxeam.  c.  2.5. 
 "  Ita,  connexus  Patris  in  fiho,  et  lilii  in  paracleto, 
 
 ^'  See  Griesbach,  ibid.  p.  7,  Marsh's  Michaclis,  vo!.  ii.  p.2G3. 
 jMichaciis  says,  "  ft  is  entitled  neither  (o  colla'ion  nor. descrip- 
 tion :  but. John  v,  7,  is  witii  many  so  favourite  a  passage,  that 
 no  trouble  bestowed  on  it  is  thought  too  great." 
 
 '•^  See  Pope's  Letters  to  Nisbet,  p.  339.  i  iie  hiUer  of  these 
 manuscripts  is  probably  tlie  Cod.  (Juelph.  D.  already  noticed, 
 NeifherGriesbach,  nor  J\iichaebs,  norMarsh,  eitotliese  authorities 
 of  AlatthxM.  On  the  contrary,  Michaeiis  says,  (ibid.  p.  289,)  not 
 one  of  them  has  tlie  spurious  passage,  1  John  v.  7,  Grieshach 
 concludes  his  examination  of  Greek  manuscripts  with  these 
 words:  "  Verissiuunn  igitiir  est,  nullum  codireai  (.ira!C':n  in- 
 veniri  adhuc  potuisse,  qui  comn^a  controversnm  a  prima  nianu 
 cxfiiheaf,  prater  unicum  Dublincnsem  icu  Dritannicum." 
 
248  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  1. 
 
 tres  efficit  cohae rentes,  alterum  ex  altero.  Qui 
 tres  unum  sunt,  non  unus  ;  quomodo  dictum 
 est,  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus^^/' 
 
 Answer.  In  these  words  there  is  no  reason 
 to  suppose  the  least  allusion  to  the  disputed 
 text,  which  would  most  certainly  have  been 
 often  quoted  by  Tertullian  in  his  voluminous 
 works,  if  it  had  been  found  in  his  copy  of  the 
 New  Testament. 
 
 2.)  Cyprian,  de  Unitate  Eccles.  p.  79j 
 edit.  1700,  says  :  *'  De  Patre,  et  Filio,  etSpiritu 
 sancto,  scriptum  est,  Et  hi  tres  unum  sunt^"*." 
 
 Answer.  This  was  probably  Cyprian's  gloss 
 upon  the  words  in  the  eighth  verse.  Such 
 glosses  were  common  in  that  age.  Augustin 
 puts  the  very  same  interpretation  upon  ver.  8. 
 Cyprian  himself  was  fond  of  these  mystical 
 senses.  And  Facundus,  an  African  bishop  of 
 the  fifth  century,  interprets  ver.  8  in  the  same 
 
 ^*  "  So  the  connexion  of  the  Father  with  the  Son,  and  of  Iht 
 Sou  with  the  Paraclete,  makes  three  cohering  one  with  another, 
 which  three  are  one  thing,  not  one  person,  as  it  k  said  '  I  and 
 the  Father  are  one.'  " 
 
 "  "  Of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  it  is  writtCH^ 
 These  three  are  one."  This  is  the  argument  in  which  the  great 
 strength  of  the  cause  lies,  and  which  induced  Dr.  Mill  to  retain 
 the  text  in  opposition  to  all  the  objections,  in  common  estimation 
 irrefragable,  which  he  has  produced  against  it. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attrihuted  to  Christ,  249 
 
 way,  and  expressly  appeals  to  Cyprian  as  au- 
 thorizing the  interpretation  -'''. 
 
 3.)  The  text  is  found  in  a  Preface  to  the 
 catholic  epistles  inserted  in  some  of  the  Latin 
 copies  of  Jerome,  and  sometimes  ascribed  to 
 him. — But  this  prologue  is  certainly  spurious, 
 and  is  not  found  in  any  manuscripts  earlier  than 
 the  ninth  century.     Griesb.  p.  24. 
 
 4.)  Eucherius,  bishop  of  Lyons  A.  D. 
 440,  is  said  to  have  cited  this  text  explicitly  in 
 his  Treatise  de  Formulis,  c.  11. — Upon  this 
 testimony  Archdeacon  Travis  lays  great  stress 
 in  his  defence  of  the  disputed  text.  But  Mr. 
 Porson  has  shown  that  the  words  were  not  in- 
 serted in  the  earliest  editions  of  Eucherius,  and 
 are  probably  an  interpolation  ■^^. 
 
 "  Augustin,  bishop  of  Hippo  in  Africa,  coat.  Maximiii, 
 cap. 22,  *'Trcs  sunt  testes,  ct  tres  unum  sunt:  ut  nomine  Spiritus 
 accipiamus  Patreni,  nomine  au tern  sanguinis,  filiura;  et  nomine 
 aquae,  spiritum  sanctum." — Cyprian,  in  his  book  De  Unit,  allego- 
 rizes our  Lord's  tunic,  which  was  woven  without  a  seam,  as  an 
 emblem  of  the  church.  Gricsbach,  ibid.  p.  13.  Facundus  pro 
 Def.  Tiium  Capitulor.  I.i.  c.  3,  after  having  given  the  interpre- 
 tation of  the  Sj)irit,  the  blood,  and  the  water,  as  signifying  tho 
 Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  adds,  "  quod  Joanni* 
 apostoli  testimonium  b,  Cyprianus  de  Patrc,  Filio,  et  Spiritn 
 sancto  inteUigil."     He  then  quotes  Cyprian's  words. 
 
 *'  Travis's  Letters  to  Gibbon,  ed.  3,  p.  420.  Poreon's  Reply, 
 p.  316.     Griesbach,  ibid.  p.  16,  17. 
 
250  Titles  and  Character  [Part  I. 
 
 .5.)  This  text  is  deaily  and  indisputably 
 cited  by  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  a  writer  at  the  lat- 
 ter end  of  the  fifth  century,  in  a  work  written 
 against  the  Arians.  The  credit  of  tile  text  rests 
 solely  upon  the  authority  of  this  writer,  who 
 Mas  a  person  of  no  good  fame,  who  was  accus- 
 tomed to  publish  works  under  the  names  of 
 other  writers  of  repute,  and  who  is  suspected  by 
 many  to  have  been  the  author  of  the  Athana- 
 sian  creed  ^''. 
 
 Griesbach  concludes  his  learned  and  labo- 
 rious research  into  the  genuineness  of  this  cele- 
 brated text,  with  the  foUowmg  just  and  perti- 
 nent remarks  : 
 
 "  If  witnesses  so  few,  so  doubtful,  so  suspi- 
 cious and  so  modern,  and  arguments  so  trifling, 
 are  suflicient  to  establish  the  genuineness  of  any 
 reading,  in  opposition  to  testimonies  and  to  ar- 
 guments so  numerous  and  so  grave ;  no  crite- 
 
 "  "  InUiir  coinnia  controTorsuni  scptimuni,  pnrcipuc,  nc  di- 
 cam  unict",  nitittir tisti:;:oi)io,  fule.  atque  auctoritate  V^igllii  'lap. 
 fleiisis,  et  libroriini  luiic  at(ribiitorum  aiictori  ante  qnem  iiorDo 
 dare  id  excitavit.  Jaui  dc  Vigilio  observanduni  est  paruni  lau- 
 dabllem  esse  hunc  striptoreni  quod  libcllos  siios  sub  nomiiiibus 
 lictis  Athanasii,  Augiistini,  Idacii^&c.  malnerit  in  lucem  emittore, 
 qiiam  suum  nomen  profitcri.  I'hindem  homincm  plurcs  viri  docti 
 auctoren  esse  existimarunt  symboli  istiiis  cclcberrinii  Athanasio 
 suppositi."     Grifsbach,  ibid.  p.  ^1. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attnhuted  to  Christ.  251 
 
 rioii  would  remain  of  tiiuli  and  falsehood  in  cri- 
 ticism ;  and  the  whole  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment would  be  left  doubtful  and  uncertain '^. 
 
 IV.    Equal  with  God. 
 I.    John   V.  18.    "  Therefore   the  .lews 
 thought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he  had 
 
 ^^  Tli(i  learned  writer  adds  :  "  Ego  quidem,  si  taati  cssct,  sex- 
 centas  Icctioiics  ab  omnibus  rejectas  atque  futilissimas  defcndere 
 posseni  tcstimoniis  et  rationibus  aeque  nuiltis  atque  validis,  imo, 
 jiluribus  plerumque  atque  validioribus,  quam  sunt  ea  quibus 
 utuntur  hujus  dicti  patroni :  nee  habcrcnt  genuini  textus  dcfen- 
 sores  tot,  tantaque  arguinenta  qu;e  conatui  nieo  inani  opponero 
 possent,  quot  quantaque  fautoribns  hujus  dicti  supra  opposita 
 sunt."     Griosbacli,  ibid,  ad  lin. 
 
 The  latest  champions  of  this  forlorn  hope  are  Knittel,  Ifeze- 
 lius,  and  Travis,  whose  zeal  "a  kxt'  str/vwffiv  a  viris  doctissiinis 
 Porsono  et  Marshio,  ut  parerat,  repressus  ac  casfigatus."  Gries- 
 bach. — The  replies  to  their  arguments  by  Porson,  Marsh,  and 
 Gricsbach  have  probably  set  the  controversy  at  rest.  liczeiius, 
 "  utpote  vir  vcri  amantissimus,''  has  already  acKuovvIedgcd  his 
 error.  Ai\d  few  will  have  the  hardiliood  to  revive  the  contro- 
 versy. 
 
 ,  The  principal  writers  upon  tlic  subject  previous  to  the  con- 
 troversy excited  by  Archdeacon  Travis,  are  Mill,  l>eugelius, 
 Wetstein,  and  Mattha:i  in  loc,  Martin  and  Emlyn's  Disserta- 
 tions upon  (he  text.  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  Letter  to  Le  Cierc. 
 Wolfii  Cur.  riiilol.  vol.  v.  p.  29:i— 324.  P.  Simon.  Hist.  Crit. 
 c.  xviii.  Hist,  de  Vers.  c.  ix. ;  and  the  controversy  between  Stu- 
 nica  andErasmus,  Crit,  Sac.  vol.  ix.  p.  ,ihi7  See  Pope's  liCt- 
 ters  to  Nisbef,  p.  310.  The  whole  evidence  is  correctly  stated 
 by  Gricsbach  in  the  Apjiendix  to  his  Nov.  Test.  G\xi\  vol.  ii. 
 ed,  5.  A.D.  17%-. 
 
252  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 not  only  broken  the  sabbath,  but  said  also  that 
 God  was  his  own  {i^iov)  father,  making  himself 
 equal  with  God,''  ktov  rep  Sup. 
 
 Anszi)er.  Jesus  never  claimed  equality  with 
 God.  Nor  did  the  Jews  mean  to  charge  him 
 with  so  gross  a  blasphemy.  They  accused  him 
 of  justifying  his  own  violation  of  the  sabbath 
 by  the  authority  and  example  of  God  ;  in  this 
 respect  making  himself  like  God.  See  Clarke, 
 No.  580 ;  and  Grotius  in  loc.  Compare  John 
 X.  SS.     Mark  ii.  7. 
 
 2.    Philip,   ii.  6.    "  — thought    it    not 
 robbery  to  be  equal  with  God." 
 
 ttra  Ss<p,  *  like  G  od ;'  was  not  tenacious  in 
 retaining  this  likeness  to  God.  See  p.  133, 
 et  seq. 
 
 V.    Fulness  of  Godhead, 
 Col.  ii.  9-  "  For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the 
 fulness  of  the  godhead  bodily  ^^  :  and  ye  are 
 complete  (crecrX^j^w^gvo/,  '  filled ')  in  him  who  is 
 the  head  of  all  principality  and  power." 
 
 In  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  chap.  iii.  19, 
 the  apostle  prays  that  they  may  be  filled  with 
 all  the  fulness  of  God,  z.  e.  with  knowledge  of 
 the  divine  will,  and  conformity  to  the  divine 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ,  25S 
 
 image.  But  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians  was 
 written  at  the  same  time,  when  the  apostle's 
 mind  vvas  occupied  with  the  same  train  of 
 ideas,  w  hich  he  expresses  in  the  same  or  similar 
 metaphorical  language.  The  fulness  of  God- 
 head, therefore,  which  resides  in  Christ,  is  the 
 fulness  of  divine  knowledge,  gifts,  powers, 
 and  authoritVr  This  resides  in  him  bodily^  i,  e, 
 in  reference  to  his  mystical  body,  the  church, 
 of  which  he  is  the  head.  That  this  is  the 
 apostleV  meaning  is  evident  from  the  context. 
 For  he  immediately  adds,  "  Ye  are  filled  in," 
 or  bijy  "  him."  Filled,  with  what?  with  the 
 fulness  of  the  Godhead  no  doubt,  which  is  the 
 only  subject  of  which  he  is  treating,  q.  d.  Ye, 
 his  members,  are  filled  by  him  who  is  your 
 head  ;  filled  with  knowledge,  gifts,  and  powers'^". 
 There  is  no  image  in  which  the  apostle  more 
 
 "•*  See  John  xvil.  21 — ^2 ',  "  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me;  that 
 they  also  may  be  one  in  u&,"  &c. — "  Tlie  fulness  of  the  God- 
 head," says  Mr.  Peirce,  "  is  the  same  thing  \vhici>  he  calls  *  all 
 the  fulness  of  God,'  Eph.  iii.  \i) :  it  is  that  plenty  of  excellent 
 gifts  which  from  the  Godhead  was  communicated  to  Christ,  by 
 hira  to  be  imparted  to  us  in  order  to  the  filling  us :  a  fulness  of 
 grace  and  truth.  John  i.  14.  16,  17  :  "  Ye  are  complete  in  him." 
 It  would  have  led  the  Kn^^Iish  reader  much  better  into  the  apostle's, 
 thought,  had  it  been  rendered,  "  Ye  are  fdlcd  by  him."  Peircr 
 in  loc.     Shnpson's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  ii,  ^79. 
 
254  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  L 
 
 delights,  or  upon  wbicli  he  more  expatiates, 
 than  that  of  the  church  being  the  body  of 
 which  Christ  is  the  head,  and  of  which  indivi- 
 dual christians  are  represented  as  particular 
 parts  and  limbs.  1  Cor.  xii.  27,  "  Ye  are  the 
 body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  particular/' 
 Compare  Eph.  v.  30;  i.  23.  In  consistency 
 with  this  metaphor,  believers  are  said  to  be 
 '•  circumcised  in  Christ,''  Col.  ii.  11:  "  dead 
 and  buried  with  him,"  ver.  12.  20  :  "  raised  with 
 him,"  ver.  13,  Chap.  iii.  1,  "  ascended  and 
 seated  in  heaven  with  him,"  Eph.  ii.  2.  5,  6'; 
 and  in  every  respect  vitally  united  to  him,  as- 
 sociated with  him,  and  deriving  supplies  of  life 
 and  vigour  from  him,  as  the  body  from  the 
 head. 
 
 According  to  this  interpretation,  there  is  no 
 foundation  for  the  argument  which  many  derive 
 from  this  text  to  prove  the  proper  deity  of  Christ, 
 and  particularly  to  establish  that"  hypothesis 
 which  represents  Christ  as  God,  in  consequence 
 of  the  deity  of  the  Father  dwelling  in  him'^'. 
 
 ■*'  "  In  whain  ihcfuhioss  of  deity  substantially  dwells,"  Dr. 
 Doddridge  in  his  note,  fie  adds,  '•  I  assuredly  believe,  that  as 
 it  contains  an  evident  allusion  to  the  Sliechinah  in  which  Cod 
 dwelt,  so  it  ultinjately  refers  to  the  adorable  mystery  of  the  union 
 of  the  divine  and  hninan  natures  in   the  person  of  the  glorious 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  255 
 
 VI.    Jems  is  stijled  the  Son  of  God  in  a  pecu- 
 liar sense,  and  icith  peculiar  epithets. 
 
 1 .    The  Son  oi'  G  od. 
 Mark  i.  1.     "  The  beginninf^  of  the  Go- 
 spel of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God." 
 
 This  title  occurs  upwards  of  forty  times  in 
 the  New  Testament :  it  is  used  by  all  the  evan- 
 gelists, l^y  the  apostle  Paul  in  his  epistles,  and 
 by  our  Lord  himself. 
 
 2.    The  Son. 
 
 1.]    Matt.  xi.  27.   "  No   man  knoweth 
 the  Son,  but  the  Father."    Comp.  Luke  x.  22. 
 
 Immanucl."  But  there  is  ni>  evidence  wliatever  of  any  allusion 
 to  the  Shcchinah,  much  less  coulil  such  an  allusion  aflord  any 
 warrant  to  the  strange  supposition  of  a  physical  union  of  the 
 self-existent  deity  with  the  created  SjJrit  which  animated  the  body 
 of  Christ,  so  as  of  the  two  to  constitute  one  single  intellinjent 
 agent.  Dr.  Whitby,  in  his  Comiiieuiary,  understands  ^eorij;  of 
 the  divine  essence:  but  in  his  Last  Thoughts,  p,  83,  he  explains 
 it,  with  Dt.  Clarke,  (No.  645,)  of  the  fulness  of  divine  wisdom 
 and  power,  lieza  iinds  in  this  text  (illustris  hie  locus  si  quis- 
 quani  alius)  the  whole  mystery  of  two  natures  in  one  hypostasis, 
 and  of  the  equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father.  Erasmus,  iu  his 
 usual  manucr,  acknowltdgcs  that  all  which  is  said  concerning  the 
 divine  nature  of  Christ  is  true,  but  that  this  text  has  no  reference 
 to  it;  ^  eu!u  rem  hie  non  a;;it  PauUis."  He,  with  Grotias,  ex- 
 plains the  text  of  the  doctiltie  of  Christ  which  excels  and  super- 
 sedes (he  law  of  Moses. 
 
2,56  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 2.]  Mark  xiii.  32.  "  —neither  the  Son/' 
 
 5.]  John  iii.  So,  "  The  Father  loveth 
 the  Son/' 
 
 This  phraseology  occurs  upwards  of  twenty 
 times  in  the  writings  of  John. 
 
 4.]  1  Cor.  XV.  28.  "  Then  shall  the  Son 
 also  himself  be  subject  unto  him  that  put  all 
 things  under  him/' 
 
 This  phrase   does   not  occur  again  in  the 
 acknowledged  writings  of  Paul. 
 
 5.]  Heb.  i.  8.  "  But  to  the  Son  he 
 saith" — 
 
 6.]  Heb.  vii.  i28.  "  The  Son  who  is  con- 
 secrated for  evermore." 
 
 3.    God  is  called  his  own  Father.     Christ  is 
 God's  own  Son. 
 
 1.]  Jolin  V.  18.  "  He  said  also  that  God 
 was  his  own  father  " — '!ra7i^a.  idiov. 
 
 2.]  Rom.  viii.  32.  "  He  that  spared  not 
 his  own  Son"— T»  ^h»  vlv, 
 
 Christ  was  the   beloved  Son,  more   highly 
 favoured  than  the  rest  of  his  brethren. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ,  'io7 
 
 4.    Christ  is  the  first-born. 
 
 1.]  Col.  i.  15.  "  The  first-born  of  the 
 *'hole  creation" — v^uTOTOKog.     See  p.  145. 
 
 2.]  Col.  i.  18.  "  Who  is  the  beginning, 
 the  first-born  from  the  dead." 
 
 This  passage  determines  the  signification  of 
 the  phrase  to  be,  The  first  person  who  was 
 raised  to  an  immortal  life :  being  thus  the  first- 
 born of  the  new  creation ;  the  first  of  the  sons 
 of  God  who  obtained  possession  of  the  inheri- 
 tance. 
 
 3.]  Rom.  viii.  29-  "  — that  he  might  be 
 the  first-born  among  many  brethren." 
 
 q.  d.  That  he  being  the  first-born  might  have 
 many  brethren,  who  like  him  should  be  raised 
 to  immortality. 
 
 4.]  Heb.  i.  6.  "  But  when  he  bringeth 
 the  first-born  again  into  the  world." 
 
 5.]  Rev.  i.  5.  "  The  first-born  from  the 
 dead." 
 
 5.    The  beloved  Son. 
 
 1.]  Matt.  iii.   1?.  "And,   lo !   a  voice 
 from  heaven,  saying,  This  is  my  beloved  Son, 
 
 s 
 
2.58  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."     See  Mark  i.  11. 
 Luke  iii.  22. 
 
 2.]  Matth.  xii  18.  " — which  w^as  spoken 
 by  Isaiah  (xlii.  1),  Behold,  my  servant  whom  I 
 have  chosen,  m}^  beloved,  (Heb.  '  my  chosen 
 one,')  in  whom  my  soul  is  well  pleased.'' 
 
 This  shovvs  that  the  word  beloved  here,  as  in 
 other  places,  expresses  being  selected  to  possess 
 peculiar  privileges.     See  Rom.  ix.  13. 
 
 3.]  Matt.  xvii.  5.  "  — a  voice  came  out 
 of  the  cloud,  which  said,  This  is  my  beloved  Son, 
 in  whom  I  am  well  pleased  :  hear  ye  him/' 
 
 This  was  on  the  mount  of  transfiguration. 
 See  Mark  ix.  7-     Luke  ix.  35.     2  Pet.  i.  I?. 
 
 6.  Christ  is  the  only  begotten  Son — fjt.ovoysvjjg. 
 
 1.]  John  i.  14.  "  — we  beheld  his  glory, 
 as  of  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father." 
 
 2.]  Ver.  18.  "  The  only-begotten  Son, 
 who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father." 
 
 3.]  John  iii.  l6.  "  God  so  loved  the 
 v.orld,  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son." 
 
 4.]  Ver.  18.  "  — he  hath  not  believed 
 in  the  name  of  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God." 
 
Sect.  7.]  attrUnitid  to  Christ.  259 
 
 5.]  1  John  iv.  9-  "  God  sent  his  only- 
 begotten  Son  into  the  world." 
 
 These  are  the  only  passages  in  the  New  Tes- 
 tament in  which  the  word  occurs  in  reference  to 
 Christ  ^^. 
 
 Observe  here,  1.  That  John  is  the  only  one 
 of  the  sacred  writers  who  applies  the  title  *  only- 
 begotten'  to  Christ. — 2.  That  this  word  in  the 
 original  properly  signifies  '  an  only  child.'  Lnke 
 vii.  12  ;  ix.  SS. — 3.  That  it  is  often  metonymi- 
 cally  used  to  express  '  dearly  beloved.'  See 
 Heb.  xi.  17-  And  the  same  word  in  the  ori- 
 ginal Hebrew,  which  by  the  LXX.  is  rendered 
 y^ovoyzr/iii  '  only-begotten,'  is  in  other  passages 
 
 .**  The  word  ^ovoyivr^s  occurs  only  in  four  other  places  in  the 
 New  Testament:  Luke  vii.  12,  "The  only  son  of  his  mother  :" 
 Tiii.  42,  *'  He  had  one  only  daughter:"  ix.  38,  "  he  is  my  only 
 child."  Heb.  xi.  17,  "  He  who  had  received  the  promises,  offered 
 up  his  only  son." — The  word  y,ovoysvr)g  occurs  but  four  times  in 
 the  Old  Testament,  and  that  as  a  translation  of  TH^  Psalm 
 xxii.  20,  "  Deliver  my  darling  from  the  power  of  the  dog." 
 LXX.  [j.o'/oyevr)  [/,8,  '  my  only  one,'  t.  e.  my  life.  Psalm  xxv.  16, 
 "  I  am  desolate  and  afilicted  :"  LXX.  jj^ovoysvrjs  £iy.i :  q.  d.  I 
 am  solitiny.  Psalm  xxxv,  17,  "  Rescue  my  darling  from  the 
 power  of  the  lions."  Judges  xi.  34,  Jephtha's  daughter  was 
 h'li  only  child.  The  same  Hebrew  word  Tn»  is  in  .six  places 
 rendered  by  ayocffriTOSi  '  beloved  :'  Gen,  xxii.  2,  "  Take  now 
 thy  son,  thy  only  sou  Isaac:"  LXX.  rov  ayavritov.  See  also 
 ver.  12.  16.  Jer.  vi.  26.  Amos  viii.  10.  Zech.  xii  10.  (Com- 
 pare 1  Cluun.  xxix.  i.    Prov.  iv.  3.     TruUiioii  Concord,  in  verb. 
 
 s  2 
 
260  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 translated  ayarnroq,  *  beloved/  Jer.  vi.  26. 
 Amos  viii.  10. — 4.  Hence  it  is  probable  that  as 
 the  title  ayuiTTirog,  '  beloved/  does  not  occur  in 
 John,  this  writer  uses  the  word  /^oj'oysvjj?, 
 '  only-begotten/  instead  of  it,  and  where  the 
 other  evangehsts  would  use  '  beloved/ — 5.  It 
 is  evident  that  Dr.  Clarke  has  no  just  ground 
 to  conclude,  from  the  use  of  a  word  peculiar 
 to  John,  and  unknown  to  the  other  sacred 
 writers,  that  this  word  is  intended  to  convey 
 the  extraordinary  doctine,  that  there  is  some- 
 thing peculiar  and  mysterious  in  the  derivation 
 of  tlie  Son  from  the  Father '^^. 
 
 Remarks, 
 1.    The   expression  '  The    Son  of  God,*  or 
 
 *•  See  Grotius  on  John  i.  14:  Matt.  xiv.  ^^  :  and  Liudscy's 
 Sequel,  p.  412,  &c.  "  Only-legotten  signifies  being  so  derived 
 from  the  Father  in  a  singular  and  inconceivable  manner,  as 
 tlu'ieby  lO  be  distinguished  from  all  other  beings."  Dr.  Clarke, 
 Scr.  Doct.  p.  239.  This  is  a  favourite  notion  of  Dr.  Clarke, 
 and  his  great  salvo  against  the  charge  of  Arianism  :  but  it  is 
 quite  unworthy  of  him.  He  was  misled  by  his  hypothesis,  and 
 did  not  sufficiently  attend  to  the  connexion  in  which  the  word 
 is  introduced.  I  see  no  reason  to  suppose,  with  Cirotius.  Mr. 
 Lindsey,  and  others,  that  tliere  is  any  reference  in  the  term  Mo- 
 nogenes  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Gnostics.  The  word  used  at  the 
 baptism  and  transtiguratiou  of  Christ  was  probably  TM^,  which 
 the  evangelists,  writing  in  Greek,  would  render  by  one  or  other 
 of  the  words  used  by  the  LXX.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke 
 adopted  ayaTTijrs;,  '  beloved.'  John  renders  it  by  iJ.Qvoyeyrjg, 
 ^  only-begotten,'     See  Simpsou's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  p.  276. 
 
Sect  7.]  attributed  to  Christ,  261 
 
 *  The  Son/  among  the  Jews  appears  to  have 
 been  equivalent  to  '  The  Messiah/  Mark  i.  1, 
 "  The  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
 God/' — John  i.  50,  "  Thou  art  the  Son  of 
 God,  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel.'' — Luke 
 iv.  41,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
 God/' — chap.  xxii.67,"Art  thou  the  Christ? 
 tell  us/' — ver.  70,  "  Art  thou  then  the  Son  of 
 God?"  —  John  xx.  31,  "  These  things  are 
 written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
 Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  This  title  was 
 probably  taken  from  Psalm  ii.  7,  which,  by  the 
 ancient  Jews,  was  understood  of  the  Messiah. 
 
 2.  That  he  was  the  Messiah,  or  the  Son  of 
 God,  was  probably  made  known  to  Jesus  at  his 
 baptism:  Luke  iii.  27.  This  accounts  for  his  own 
 assumption  of  tlie  title  upon  various  occasions. 
 And  being  invested  with  a  commission  of  the 
 highest  importance,  and  with  powers  superior 
 to  those  of  any  former  prophet,  he  is  distin- 
 guished above  the  rest  by  the  title  of  '  be- 
 loved,' *  well-beloved;'  and  '  only-begotten 
 Son.' 
 
 That  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  or  the  Mes- 
 siah, was  at  the  same  time  made  known  to  John 
 the  Baptist,  and  to  all  who  were  witnesses  to 
 his  baptism.  See  John  i.  32.  34. — ^The  miracles 
 of  Christ  also  sometimes  extorted  a  confession 
 
262  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 of  his  Messiahship  from  tlie  grateful  suljijects 
 of  them,  and  from  the  admiring  multitude. 
 But  the  grand  and  decisive  proof  of  his  being 
 the  Son  of  God  arose  from  his  resurrection  from 
 the  dead.     Rom.  i.  3,  4.     Heb.  i.  6. 
 
 3.  All  christians  are  children  of  God,  being 
 the  heirs  and  expectants  of  a  resurrection  to  a 
 happy  and  iniDiOrtal  life  :  John  i.  12.  Rom. 
 viii.  14— 17-  Christ  first  rose  from  the  dead, 
 and  obtained  possession  of  the  promised  inhe- 
 ritance. For  this  reason  he  is  called  the  first- 
 EOH]s^,  ter.  29;  and  christians  are  brethren, 
 and  co-heirs  with  him,  ver.  17-      1  John  iii.  2. 
 
 4.  There  is  no  suflicient  evidence  to  prove 
 that  Jesus  is  called  '  the  Son  of  God '  for  any 
 other  reason  than  as  being  the  Messiah.  Nei- 
 ther because  he  is  the  second  person  in  the 
 Trinity — nor  because  he  is  a  necessary  emana- 
 tion from  the  Father— nor  because  he  is  the 
 voluntary  but  uncreated  production  of  the  Fa- 
 ther's power — nor  because  he  is  the  first  and 
 greatest  of  created  beings — nor  because  he  is 
 the  mediator  between  God  and  man— nor  be- 
 cause of  his  exaltation  to  universal  authority 
 and  dominion,  as  the  old  Socinians  believed — 
 nor  because  of  his  own  plenary  inspiration, 
 being  also  the  fountain  of  spiritual  gilts,  and 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ,  263 
 
 appointed  to  the  office  of  universal  judge,  ^vliich 
 was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Lardaer'^^ 
 
 VII.  Christ  the  Image  of  God,  the  Effulgence 
 of  Divine  Glory. 
 1.     2  Cor.  iv.  4.  "  — lest   the  light  of 
 the  glorious  Gospel  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image 
 of  God,  should  shine  unto  them." 
 
 Chap.  iii.  1 6".  The  teachers  of  the  Gospel 
 reflecting  as  mirrors  the  rays  which  are  con- 
 tinuidlv  pouring  upon  them  from  Christ,  gra- 
 dually become  perfect  and  resplendent  images 
 of  Christ :  That  is,  they  clearly  exhibit  the 
 doctrine  which  he  has  commissioned  them  to 
 teach.  In  a  similar  sense  Christ  is  the  image 
 of  (:iod,  reflectino'  the  lioht  derived  from  him; 
 
 **  It  is  annomiced  by  the  angel,  Luke  i.  3.5,  that  Jesus  should 
 be  called  '  the  Son  of  God'  on  account  of  his  miraculous  con- 
 ception. But  as  it  does  not  apj)ear  that  he  ever  received  that 
 appellation  from  any  one  on  that  account,  it  being  generally  al- 
 lowed that  the  fact,  if  true,  was  unknowii  during  his  personal 
 ministry,  this  circumstance  is  rather  an  additional  presumption 
 against  the  truth  of  the  narrative. 
 
 Upaa  this  subject  see  Dr.  Watts's  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  647. 
 Ridgley's  Body  of  Divinity,  vol,  i.  p.  124.  Clarke's  Scr.  Doct. 
 part  ii.  sect.  13.  Laiduer  on  the  Logos,  p.  19.  Lindsey's  Se- 
 quel, p.  Ij9,  and  p.  41 '2.  Slichtingius  on  1  John  iv.  9.  Gro- 
 tius  on  Matt.  xiv.  33.  Dr.  l^iice's  Scruions,  p.  110.  Dr.  Car- 
 penter's Ijctti'rs  to  Mr.  Vejsioj   p.  181. 
 
264  Titles  and  Characten  [Part  I. 
 
 clearly  manifesting  his  heavenly  doctrijie  to  all 
 who  are  willing  to  receive  it. 
 
 2.  Col.  i.  15.  "  — he  is  the  image  of 
 the  invisible  God^'.'' 
 
 3.  Heb.  i.  3.  "  Who  being  the  bright- 
 ness of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his 
 person. '' 
 
 "  The  brightness  of  his  glory,"  (aTayyao-^a 
 rriq  loln^)^  "  the  effulgent  ray  of  his  glory/* 
 Doddridge  ^'\ 
 
 Hence  the  Nicene  fathers  infer  that  the  Son  is 
 oi^oaa-ioq^  co-essential  with  the  Father,  "  God  of 
 God,  Light  of  Light,  of  the  same  nature  and 
 substance  with  the  Father  :  begotten  and  not 
 
 **  Compare  1  Cor.  xi.  7,  where  the  man  is  said  to  be  the  image 
 and  glory,  or  the  glorious  image,  of  God.  The  M-ords  are  indeed 
 tised  in  a  difterent  sense  from  that  in  which  they  are  applied  to 
 Christ,  but  the  example  sufficiently  shoves  fliat  no  argument  can 
 be  drawn  from  such  language  in  favour  of  tlie  prc-existence  and 
 superior  nature  of  Christ. 
 
 *•  "  ATrauyacTjota,  splendor  solis  repcrcussus."  Schleusner: — 
 *'  qualis  est  solis  in  nube  qui  dicitur  TrapijXioj."  Grotius. — In 
 this  sense  Christ  is  the  bright  rellccted  image  of  God  :  as  2  Cor. 
 IV.  4.  TjX/s  <p£7yof,  Ilesychius. — txKay.'^is,  Suidas  &  Phavo- 
 rinus. — aKTif  ijAis,  Lex.  MS.  Bibl.  Coislin.  apud  Schleus. — '  A 
 ray  of  the  sun's  light.'  The  sense  is  the  same  :  Christ  derives 
 from  the  Father  the  light  which  he  diffuses.  Suiccr.  Thcs.  vol.  i, 
 p.  425.     Wetstein  iu  loc. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  265 
 
 made."  And  Dr.  Clarke  and  Mr.  Peirce  argue 
 that  the  derivation  of  the  Son  is  immediately 
 from  the  Father  himself,  and  in  a  way  different 
 from  that  of  all  created  beings  *'^. 
 
 But  nothing  can  be  more  unreasonable  than 
 to  draw  such  important  and  extraordinary  con- 
 clusions from  a  metaphorical  expression ;  the 
 plain  meaning  of  which  is  no  more  than  this, 
 that  Christ  was  sent  by  God  to  give  light  to 
 the  world.     John  viii.  12.     Chap.  i.  4 — 10. 
 
 "  The  express  image  of  his  person,"  x^'i^^'^^i 
 Tr,g  vTroG-rua-icog  uvra,  "  An  image  of  himself,"  or 
 "  of  his  very  self  "^^.^     So  John  xiv.  9,  Jesus 
 
 ■•^  See  Nicene  Creed,  and  Dr.  Whitby  ia  loc.  "  In  both  (lie 
 expressions  here  used  our  author  may  perhaps  design  to  distin- 
 guish Christ  from  all  other  beings,  and  to  sliow  how  much  he 
 transcends  them.  To  this  purpose  he  represents  him  as  immedi- 
 ately derived  from  God— no  one  intervening  as  the  minister  or 
 means  of  that  derivation."  Peirce. — See  also  Dr.  Clarke's  Scr. 
 Doct.  No.  950,  and  part  ii.  §  12,  p.  237.  But  there  must  be  an 
 end  of  the  use  of  all  figurative  language,  if  metaphors  arc  to  be 
 strained  to  a  seme  so  remote  from  their  usual  *nd  obvious 
 meaning. 
 
 «  "  XccexKtrip,  ipsa  imago,  ac  figura,  alicui  rei,  (v.  g.  nummo) 
 impressa,  aut  insculpta  :  a  ^a^ao-trw,  insculpo  aliquid  vel  liguo, 
 Tel  ferro,  vel  plumbo,  vel  alii  materiae."  Schleusner. — An  image 
 engraven  upon  coin,  or  on  a  seal.  See  Wetstein.  "  Insculpta 
 forma."  Bcza. — vifoa-raa-is,  substance,  reality  in  opposition  to 
 mere  appearance,     iuvrariav  /xe?  s^nv  irXivrn,  uTforatriv  h  /^tj. 
 
266  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 saith,  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Fa- 
 ther." Christ  was  truly  the  image  of  God  in  his 
 moral  excellences  ;   but  perhaps  more  properly. 
 
 Artcniidorus  ap.  Wetste;i.  whore  U'.nre  are  many  siaillar  ex- 
 amples, q.  d.  "  an  engraving  of  his"  real  self."  This  word 
 occurs  oni^  in  four  other  places  in  the  Acnv  I'estanient,  and  in  a 
 similar  sense.  2  Cor,  ix.  4,  '•  lost  wg,"  not  to  say  yoy\^  '•  should 
 be  as-hamod  in  this  same  conlKlent  boasting  :"  ev  rx  oitos'Oi.o'st 
 tavrri  TTji  Kocuy^.  '  in  this  self-same  boasting.'  The  same  w  ords 
 occur  again  chap.  xi.  17.  In  Hob.  iii.  14,  we  read,  "  We  are 
 made  partakers  of  Christ,  if  we  hold  the  beginning  of  our  confi- 
 dence (rijv  ac%i}v  rrii  vTrorccirsivg  ijiu-cuv,  our  earnest,  our  sincere,  in 
 opposiuon  to  feigned  and  hypocritical,  beginning),  steadfast  unto 
 tiicend,"  Heb.  xi.  1,  "  Now  faith  h  thesubstance  of  things  hoped 
 for,"£X7rt^0jxe>'wv  vTfOi'aa-ti,  it  is  "  realizing  the  objects  of  hope." 
 And  this,  reader,  is  all  the  countenance  which  the  Scripture  gives 
 to  the  furious  and  endless  controversies  which  have  existed  coa- 
 certung  essences  and  hypostases  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
 and  the  person  of  Christ.  Hoar  Beza.  That  learned  and  zea- 
 lous expositor  prefers  persona  to  substantia  as  a  translation  of 
 VTfos'a-o'iS}  because  many  are  apt  to  confound  sulstance  virorccc-ig, 
 and  essence  sa-ia.  "  Deiride  hoc  etiam  commodi  habet  ista  inter- 
 pretatio,  quod  hypostases  adversns  Sabellinm  aperte  dislinguit,  et 
 ro  o/xoytriflv  confirmat  adversus  Arianos."  How  surprised  would 
 the  sacred  wiiter  have  been,  could  he  have  foreseen  (he  subtle  me- 
 taphysical distinctions  and  the  wild  disputes  to  which  his  rheto- 
 rical  expressions  have  given  birth  ! 
 
 N.  B.  There  is  no  foundation  for  the  use  of  the  epithet  express, 
 asif  ya^ajtrijp  was  amore  perfect  likcnciiS  tiiau  siKiuv. — th.e  former 
 proj;crly  expressing  an  engraving,  iheliiter  an  imai;e.  But  they 
 are  sometimes  used  j)romiscuoubly,  See.  Schleusner.  Also  Mr. 
 Simpson's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  p.  235.  Dr.  Carpenter's  liep.  tj  Mr; 
 Veysie,  p.  ItJO. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ,  267 
 
 in  this  connexion,  Christ  is  said  to  be  the  image 
 of  the  Father,  as  having  completely  revealed 
 the  Father's  will,  and  confirmed  his  doctrine  by 
 his  miraculous  works.  Jolm  xiv.  11.  2  Cor. 
 iv.  4. 
 
 VII!.    Lord  of  G  Ion/. 
 
 1.  J  Cor.  ii.  8.  "  —had  they  known  it, 
 they  would  not  have  crucified  the  Lord  of 
 glory:"  q.  d.  their  glorious  Lord,  or  Master. 
 
 2.  James  ii.  1.  "  My  brethren,  hold 
 not  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
 Lord  of  glory,  with  respect  of  persons." 
 
 The  words  in  italics  arc  not  in  the  original. 
 The  passage  may  be  translated  either  '  the  faith 
 of  our  glorious  Master,'  or'  the  glorious  faith  of 
 our  Master  Jesus  Christ.'  Dr.  Clarke  prefers 
 the  latter.  Scr.  Doct.  No.  6'63.  See  2  Cor. 
 iv.  4. 
 
 IX.    Alpha  and  Omega,  First  and  Ldist. 
 1.  Rev.  i.  8.  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega, 
 the  beginning  and  the  ending,  saith  the  Lord, 
 who  is,  and  who  was,  and  who  is  to  come,  the 
 Almighty." 
 
 Griesbach's  text  reads,  "  I  am  Alpha  and 
 Omega,  saith  the  Lord  God,"  &c.     This  is  to 
 
26s  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  L 
 
 be  understood  of  the  Father,  to  whom  alone  the 
 attribute  of  omnipotence  belongs. 
 
 2.  Rev.  i.  10,  11.  "  And  I  heard  be- 
 hind n[ie  a  great  voice,  saying  [/  aifi  Alpha  and 
 Omega,  the  First  and  the  Last,  and^  what  thou 
 seest  write  in  a  book.'' 
 
 This  is  certainly  spoken  in  the  person  of 
 Christ :  and,  from  the  repetition  of  the  words 
 in  ver.  8,  Dr.  Doddridge  and  others  have 
 strongly  insisted  upon  this  text  as  a  decisive 
 argument  in  support  of  the  proper  deity  of 
 Christ. 
 
 But  the  words  in  brackets,  upon  which  the 
 argument  rests,  are  wanting  in  the  Alexandrine, 
 Ephrem,  and  many  other  manuscripts  ;  in  the 
 Syriac,  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  Armenian,  and  Vul- 
 gate versions ;  they  are  excluded  from  the 
 Complutensian  edition,  also  from  those  of 
 Geneva,  Plantin,  Bengel,  and  Griesbach;  and 
 from  the  English  translations  of  Newcome  and 
 the  Improved  Version. 
 
 It  must,  however,  be  admitted,  that,  though 
 the  words  in  this  text  are  probably  interpo- 
 lated, in  other  passages  in  this  book,  and  even 
 in  this  vision,  see  ver.  17,  18,  our  Lord  applies 
 the  very  same,  or  nearly  the  same,  epithets  to 
 
Sect.  7.3  attributed  to  Christ.  269 
 
 himself.  All  therefore  which  can  justly  be  ad- 
 vanced in  reply  to  the  argument  above  mention- 
 ed, is,  that  Dr.  Doddridge  ^9  and  other  exposi- 
 tors have  laid  greater  stress  upon  the  words 
 than  they  will  properly  bear  ; — that  they  are 
 not  intended  to  express  self-existence,  but  solely 
 that  the  christian  dispensation  was  begun,  and 
 will  be  completed  by  Christ,  who  is  the  author 
 and  the  finisher  of  our  faith. 
 
 3.  Rev.  L  17,  18.  "  Fear  not:  I  am  the 
 first  and  the  last ;  I  am  he  that  liveth  and 
 was  dead,"  &;c. 
 
 4.  Rev.  ii.  8.  "  These  things  saith  the 
 first  and  the  last,  who  was  dead,  and  is 
 ahve." 
 
 5.  Rev.  xxii.  13.  "  I  am  Alpha  and 
 Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end,  the  first 
 and  the  last'^'\" 
 
 *"  Dr.  Doddridge,  in  his  note  upon  this  text,  remarks  :  "  I 
 cannot  forbear  ricordiiig  it,  that  this  text  has  done  more  than 
 any  other  in  the  Bible  towards  preventing  me  from  giving  into 
 that  scheme  which  would  makti  our  Lord  Josus  Christ  nothing 
 more  than  a  deified  creature."  The  learned  expositor  was  not 
 Bware  of  the  spuriousness  of  this  text.  Indeed  the  posthumous 
 volumes  of  the  Family  Expositor  were  evidently  left  in  a  very 
 unfinished  sfate. 
 
 •"  "  irpujTOi,  summus  dignitate,  Joh.  i.  15,  s<ry^a.rog,  contemp- 
 tissimus  huu;itium."  Grotius. — *'  They  who  apply  these  texts  to 
 
270  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 In  reasoning  from  the  Book  of  Revelation,  it 
 should  not  be  foro^otten  that  this  is  one  of  the 
 books  the  genuineness  of  \vhich  Mas  much  con- 
 tested in  the  primitive  church,  and  which  there- 
 fore, as  Dr.  Lardner  observes.  Hist,  of  Apost. 
 vol.  i.  p.  30,  "  ought  not  to  be  alleged  as 
 affording,  alone,  sufficient  proof  of  any  doc- 
 trine"^'." 
 
 X.    Christ  is  Lord,  Lord  of  all. 
 
 1.  John  xiii.  13.  "  Ye  call  me  Master, 
 {o  h^oca-zuXog,  '  the  Teacher,')  and  Lord,  (o  zv- 
 §tog,  '  the  Master,')  and  ye  say  well,  for  so 
 I  am." 
 
 The  word  Ky^;o?,  commonly  translated  '  Lord,' 
 properly  signifies  '  Master,'  in  opposition  to 
 haXog,  '  slave.'  So  ver.  l6 :  "  The  servant,  laXog, 
 is  not  greater  than  his  Lord,  zv^iog."  In  this 
 sense  this  title  is  challenged  by  Christ,  and  in 
 this  sense  it  was  used  of  him,   and  to  him,  by 
 
 prove  Cluist  to  be  the  supreme  God,  and  parallel  tlifin  •with 
 Isn.  xliv.  6;  xlviii.  12,  should  as^k  themselves  how  it  can  be  said 
 of  God  that  he  was  dead,  or,  if  dead,  who  could  bring  him  to 
 life  again,"  Lindscy's  Sequel,  p.  293.  See  also  Wetstein  in  Ice. 
 *'  Mr.  FiVansoii,  who  adniifs  the  divine  authority  of  the  Apo- 
 calypse, nevertheless  rejects  the  epistles  to  the  churches,  for  rea- 
 sons which  he  assigns  in  his  Dissoa.  p.  338. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  271 
 
 his  disciples.     See  Luke  xii.  42 — 48.    John  xv. 
 15.     Rom.  xiv.  7,  8.-^'- 
 
 2.  Mall.  xxii.  41—46".  "  How  then  doth 
 David,  in  spirit,  call  liini  Lord,  saving.  The 
 Lord  .said  unto  my  Loid,"  &c.  "  If  David  then 
 call  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  Son.''"  See  Psalm 
 ex.  1.     Compare  Mark  xii.  38.     Luke  xx.  4L 
 
 If  this  Psalm  is  a  prophecy  of  Christ,  and  if 
 our  liOrd  is  not  merely  arguing  with  the  Jews 
 upon  their  own  principles,  as  in  the  case  of  de- 
 moniacs, Matt.  xii.  27,  the  proper  answer  to 
 this  question  seems  to  be,  that  the  Psalmist  was 
 transported  in  vision  to  the  age  of  the  Messiah, 
 and  speaks  as  though  he  Mere  contemporary 
 with  Christ.  This  mode  of  writino-  was  not  un- 
 usual  with  the  prophets.  See  Isaiah  liii.  Da- 
 vid, like  Abraham,  was  permitted  to  see  the 
 day  of  Christ.     John  viii.  56. 
 
 3.  Acts  X.  36.  "The  word  which  God 
 sent  to  the  children  of  Israel  by  Jesus  Christ, 
 he  is  Lord  of  all.''      Ovrog  zcrn  vavrojv  Kvoiog. 
 
 **  "  Kvoioi  is  a  title  of  aiithoiity  given  to  kings.  Gon,  \i.  1  ; 
 to  princes,  nobles,  ami  governors,  Acts  xxv.  W.  It  is  also  an 
 appellation  of  rcs|n"ct  and  reverence  to  a  prophet,  1  Kings 
 xviii.  7  ;  to  a  husband,  Gor*.  xviii.  12  ;  to  a  master,  John  xv.  15. 
 It  is  used  as  a  civil  mode  of  address,  Jolm  xii.  '21 ."  Simpson's 
 Fssays,  vol.  ii.  p.  203. 
 
272  Titles  and  Characters  [Part  I. 
 
 i.  e,  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  as  appears  from 
 the  context  ^^. 
 
 4.  Rom.  xiv.  9.  "  For  to  this  end  Christ 
 both  died  and  rose  again,  that  he  might  be 
 Lord  both  of  the  dead,  and  of  the  hving/' 
 
 Christ  is  Lord  of  the  dead,  as  he  will  be  in- 
 vested with  authority  to  raise  them  to  life,  and 
 to  judge  them  according  to  their  works.  He  is 
 Lord  of  the  living,  as  the  whole  human  race 
 will  ultimately  profess  subjection  to  his  gospel. 
 
 XL    Prince  or  Leader  of  Life  and  Salvation. 
 
 1.  Acts  iii.  15.  "  Ye  killed  the  prince 
 {cx>^Xriyo¥,  leader,)  of  life/'  i.  e.  the  person  who, 
 by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead>'  led  the  way 
 to  immortality. 
 
 2.  Acts  V.  31.  "  Him  hath  God  exalted 
 to  be  a  prince,  [oc^-x/iyov,  a  leader,)  and  a  Sa- 
 viour, to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  remis- 
 sion of  sins/* 
 
 q,  d.  a  leader  to  that  salvation  which  consists 
 in  deliverance  from  the  power  and  the  punish- 
 ment of  sin. 
 
 3.  Heb.  ii.   10.  "  It  became  him — to 
 
 *•  Sec  Clarke  ou  Trin.  No.  620,  and  Doddridge  in  loc. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ.  273 
 
 make  the  captain  (aoyjyov,  the  leader),  of  their 
 salvation  perfect  through  sufferings/' 
 
 4.  Heb.  xii.  2.  "  Looking  unto  Jcsus^ 
 the  author  {(X'^yjr/ovy  the  leader,)  and  the 
 finisher  (r;;?.'/^;^;^,  the  perfecter,)  of  our 
 faith '4." 
 
 q.  d.  The  example  and  the  judge  who  will 
 eventually  bestow  the  reward. 
 
 XII.     Christ  is,  or  fills,  all  and  in  all, 
 
 1.  Eph.  i.  22,  23.  "  And  gave  him  to 
 be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is 
 his  body,  the  fulness  {ro  rXj^^coy.cct  the  comple- 
 ment,) of  him  who  filltth  all  in  all." 
 
 Christ  is  the  head  ;  the  church  is  the  body, 
 which  completes  the  whole  mystical  person,  and 
 which  in  all  its  parts  and  limbs  derives  vigour 
 and  nourishment  from  the  head  ^\ 
 
 2.  Col.  iii.  10,  11.  "  Ye  have  put  off 
 the  old  man,  and  put  on  the  new — where  there 
 is  neiher  Greek  nor  Jew,  Barbarian,  Scythian, 
 bond  nor  free  :  but  Christ  is  all  and  in  all." 
 
 "  See  Simpson's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  p.  107.  "  Qui  nobis  e\cmpIo 
 luo  hunc  cursum  praciit,  idcmqiie  ejus  crit  /Spaofurryj.  Couf. 
 ch,  xi.  40."     Grotiu?. 
 
 **  Sec  Ilallt't's  Obs,  on  Script,  vol.  i.  p.  59. 
 T 
 
274  Titles  and  Charactera  [Part  I. 
 
 Jews  and  Gentiles  are  ])}'  Chiist  formed  into 
 one  new  man,  (see  Epli.  il.  15,)  wliicb  is  neither 
 Jew  nor  Genlile,  slave  nor  master,  but  simply 
 the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  in  which  all  the 
 component  parts  are  harmoniously,  and  with- 
 out distinction,  blended.  q.  iL  All  invidious 
 distinctions  are  absorbed  in  the  profession  of 
 Christianity  •'^\ 
 
 XIII.    Saviour  or  Deliverer. 
 
 Acts  V.  3i.  "  Him  hath  God  exalted  to 
 be  a  prince  and  a  saviour" — a-oDrno. 
 
 This  title  is  applied  to  Christ  upwards  of  fif- 
 teen times  in  the  New  Testament,  Christ  was 
 the  deliverer  of  the  Jews  from  the  bondage  and 
 curse  of  the  Law,  Gal.  iii.  13  ; — of  the  Gentiles 
 from  the  bondage  of  idolatry,  Gal.  iv.  8 ; — and 
 of  all  mankind  from  sin  and  misery  ^7. 
 
 ••  Gal.  iii. '28,  is  exactly  parallel  to  this  passage  in  the  epistle 
 to  the  Colossians  :  "  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is 
 neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  mate  nor  female  :  for  ye 
 are  all  one  (elf,  <  one  person,')  in  Christ  Jesus." — "  Ye  are 
 all  one  body,  making  up  one  person  in  Christ  Jesus."  Locke 
 in  loc. — Ver.  27,  "  As  many  of  you  as  arc  bapt'raed  into  Christ- 
 have  put  on  Christ." — ''  So  that  to  God  looking  npou  them 
 there  appears  nothing  but  Christ."     Locke,  ibid. 
 
 "  The  word  crwrrjp,  saviour,  expresses  '  deliverer,'  and  (Tar- 
 njfta,  salvation,  '  deliverance  in  general.'  See  Acts  vii.  lb,  Jud. 
 iii.  9.  15.    2  Kings  xiii.  5.    See  Simpson's  Essays,  vol,  ii.  p.  259. 
 
Sect.  7.]  attributed  to  Christ,  2/5 
 
 XIV.    King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords. 
 Rev.  xvii.    14.  "  And   the  Lamb   shall 
 overcome  them  ;  for  he  is  Lord  of  lords,  and 
 King  of  kings.'*     See  also  ch.  xix.  I6. 
 
 q.  d.  A  great  king,  a  mighty  lord.  It  is  a 
 common  form  of  the  superlative  degree.  See 
 Ezek.  xxvi.  ?.     Ezra  vii.  12.  ''^ 
 
 *'  Simpson,  Ess.  VI.  sect.  17. 
 
 t2 
 
76  Creation  of  all  Thmgs         [Part  L 
 
 SECTION     VIIL 
 
 COLLECTION  OF  PASSAGES  WHICH  ARE 
 SUPPOSED  TO  TEACH  THAT  CHRIST  IS 
 THE  MAKER  AND  PRESERVER  OP  ALL 
 THINGS. 
 
 I.  John  i.  3.  "  Af^L  things  were  made 
 bj  him,  and  Vvithout  him  was  not  any  thing 
 made  which  was  made/' 
 
 The  whole  proem  of  the  Gospel  of  John  has 
 Ijeen  already  considered  at  large,  and  tliis  text 
 in  particular.  See  p.  51,  where  it  is  translated, 
 "  All  things  were  done  through  him,  and  with- 
 out him  not  a  single  thing  was  done  which  was 
 done/'  Christ,  the  Logos  or  Teacher  of  truth, 
 was  the  medium  through  whom  every  thing 
 relating  to  the  new  dispensation  was  accom- 
 plished '. 
 
 '  Dr.  Price,  Sorni.  p.  143,  maintains  that  "the  term  world  in 
 Scripture  moans  only  '  this  world;' and  that  all  things  mean  ojily 
 *  all  things  belonging  to  this  world :'  ai\d  that  the  apostles  pro- 
 l^ably  never  thought  of  a  plurality  of  worlds."    Also,  "  that  the 
 
Sect.  8.]  bij  Jesus  Christ.  277 
 
 II.  John  i.  10.  "  He  uas  in  ihe  world, 
 and  the  world  was  made  by  him,  and  the  world 
 knew  bim  not." 
 
 The  world  was  euUgliteued  by  hiui :  Or,  Tbe 
 moral  creation  was  formed,  or  renewed  by  bim: 
 Or,  according  to  Mr.  Cappe,  Tbe  world  was 
 made  for  bim  ;  tbe  Jewisb  dispensation  was  cal- 
 culated to  excite  an  expectation  of  bim,  and  to 
 prepare  tbe  way  for  bim '-.     See  page  3 j. 
 
 III.  1  Cor.  viii.  6.  "  But  to  us  tbere  is 
 but  one  God,  tbe  Fatber,  of  wbom  are  all  tbings, 
 and  we  in  him,"  iiq  avrov,  '  to   bun,'  q,  d.  bis 
 
 formation  of  the  world  by  Christ  does  not  imply  creation  from 
 nothing,  that  probably  being  peculiar  to  Almighty  power,  but 
 only  an  arrangement  of  them  in  their  present  order."  Dr. 
 Priestley,  with  great  force  of  argument,  contends,  that  there  is 
 no  foundation  for  the  distinction  between  creation  and  other  ap- 
 propriate acts  of  the  Deity.  lie  asks,  "  Since  God  is  said  to 
 liave  created  matter,  and  the  Logos  to  have  formed  it  into  worlds, 
 whether  we  are  also  to  believe  that  the  Deity  created  immaterial 
 substance,  and  the  Logos  formed  it  into  spirit? ''  He  also  argues 
 that  it  is  quite  arbitrary  to  limit  the  operation  of  the  Logos  to 
 this  world,  or  to  the  solar  system  :  for  that,  as  far  as  our  obser- 
 Tation  extends,  the  universe  does  not  consist  of  detached  and  in- 
 sulated parts,  but  forms  one  connected  harmonious  system,  in 
 •which  each  part  bears  a  relation  to  the  whole :  so  that  it  seems 
 reasonable  to  believe  that  it  is  the  production  of  one  almighty 
 and  intelligent  Being.  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters  to  Dr.  Price,  part  i. 
 lett.  3. 
 
 '  •'  )ti<7u.os  pro  hominibus  passim  sumitur."     Grotiufl. 
 
278  Creatmi  of  all  Things  [Part  I. 
 
 creatures  and  servants ;  "  and  one  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ,  hy"  or  '  through/  ^/a,  "  whom  are  all 
 things,  and  we  by,''  or  throngb,  "  him/' 
 
 This  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  the  Corin- 
 thian christians  to  the  apostle,  plea(iing  for  the 
 lawfulness  of  eating  things  offered  to  idols. 
 q.  d.  Whereas  the  Gentiles  have  many  celestial 
 gods,  and  many  terrestrial  or  hero-gods,  we 
 have  learned  to  acknowledge  one  God  only,  the 
 Father,  the  creator  and  proprietor  of  all  things, 
 whose  creatures,  whose  worshippers,  and  whose 
 servants  we  are;  and  one  Lord  and  Master 
 Jtsus  Christ,  through  whose  ministration  this 
 new  dispensation  was  introduced,  and  by  whose 
 ministers  and  messengers  w^e  have  been  con-r 
 verted  to  the  christian  faith,  and  invited  to 
 participate  in  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel"'. 
 
 IV.  Eph.  iii.  9.  "  -  the  fellowship  of 
 the  mystery,  which  from  the  beginning  of  the 
 world  had  been  hid  in  God,  who  created  all 
 things  by  Jesus  Christ/* 
 
 The  words  by  Jesus  Christ  are  wanting  in  the 
 Alexandrine,  Vatican,  Ephrem,  Clermont,  and 
 other  manuscripts  of  high  antiquity  and  repu- 
 
 '  See  Joseph  Mede's  Disc,  on  2  Pet.  ii,  1, 
 
Sect.  8.]  hj  Jesus  Christ.  279 
 
 tation  :  also,  in  the  Syriac,  Arabic,  Coptic, 
 Ethiopic,  Ariijenian,  Vuloatc,  and  Italic  Ver- 
 sions. Thev  arc  omitted  by  Basil,  Cyril,  Theo- 
 doret,  Tertuliian,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  Augustln, 
 and  others :  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
 •they  are  spurious,  being  probably  a  marginal 
 gloss,  introduced  carelessly  or  intentionally  into 
 the  text.  They  are  njected  in  Griesbach's  se- 
 cond edition,  and  in  Mr.  Wakefield's  and  the 
 Improved  Version. 
 
 But  if  they  were  genuine,  the  connexion  re- 
 quires that  they  should  be  understood  in  refe- 
 rence to  the  moral  creation.  '*  The  sense  most 
 suitable  to  the  place,"  says  Archbishop  New- 
 come,  "  is  this :  Who  hath  created  all  things, 
 that  is,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  anew  to  hohness  of 
 life."     See  chap.  ii.  10.  15  ;  iv.  24.  * 
 
 V.  Col.  i.  15—18.  "  Who  is  the  image 
 of  the  invisible  God,  the  first-born  of  every 
 creature  :  For  by  him  were  all  things  created 
 that  are  m  heaven  and  that  are  on  earth,  visible 
 and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones  or  domi- 
 nions, or  principalities  or   powers ;  all  things 
 
 *  The  arclihishop  admits  the  words  into  the  text,  but  marks 
 their  doubtfulness  by  i)laciDg  them  in  crotchets:  he  used  the  first 
 edition  of  Griesbach.  Sec  Mill,  Beugelius,  Wetstein,  and  Gries- 
 bach  ia  loc. 
 
280  Creation  of  all  T/ihigg         [Part  I. 
 
 were  created  by  him  and  for  him :  and  he  is 
 before  all  things,  and  bj  him  all  things  consist. 
 And  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church  ; 
 who  is  the  beginning,  the  iirst-born  from  the 
 dead." 
 
 This  text  is  regarded  by  the  supporters  of 
 the  popular  opinions  concerning  the  person  of 
 Christ  as  a  most  decisive  and  unanswerable  ar- 
 gument in  their  favour.  And  the  Unitarians, 
 who  interpret  the  passage  of  the  moral  creation, 
 and  their  arguments,  are  treated  with  very  little 
 respect  even  by  the  most  moderate  of  their  op- 
 ponents. 
 
 Dr.  Harwocd  sa3^s,  (Soc.  Scheme,  p.  35,) 
 **  Words,  I  think,  have  no  meaning,  and  are  not 
 the  true  signs  of  men's  ideas,  if  these  plain  and 
 clear  passages  do  not  contain  and  manifest  this 
 position :  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  person  who, 
 by  the  direction  of  the  Deity,  originally  formed 
 all  things:" 
 
 Dr.  Clarke  (Scr.  Doct.  No.  550),  says;  "  No- 
 thing can  be  more  forced  and  unnatural  than 
 the  Socinians'  interpretation  of  this  passage  ; 
 who  understand  it  figuratively  of  the  new  cre- 
 ation by  the  Gospel.''    ■ 
 
 Mr.  Peirce  (in  loc.)  remarks,  that  "  the  in- 
 terpretation which  refers  what  is  here  said  of 
 
Sect.  8.]  hy  Jesm  Chrkt.  281 
 
 our  Saviour  to  the  new  creation,  or  the  renova- 
 tion of  all  thinj^'s,  is  so  forced  and  violent,  that 
 it  can  hardly  be  thought  that  men  would  ever 
 have  espoused  it,  but  for  the  sake  of  a  hypo- 
 thesis." 
 
 Dr.  Doddridge  (Not.  in  loc.)  says,  that  "  to 
 interpret  this,  as  the  Socinians  do,  of  a  new  cre- 
 ation in  a  spiritual  sense,  is  so  unnatural,  that 
 one  could  hardly  believe,  if  the  evidence  were 
 not  so  undeniably  strong,  that  any  set  of  learned 
 commentators  could  fall  into  \i." 
 
 Notwithstanding,  however,  all  the  severe  re- 
 flections of  these  and  other  learned  critics,  the 
 Unitarians  persist  in  their  interpretation  of  this 
 celebrated  text,  as  importing  nothing  more  than 
 the  great  change  introduced  by  the  Gospel  in 
 the  state  of  the  moral  world,  and  tlie  authority 
 and  agency  of  Christ  in  this  new  dispensation. 
 In  vindication  of  which  interpretation,  the  fol- 
 lowing observations  are  subniitled  to  the  con- 
 sideration of  the  judicious  and  im})artlal  reader: 
 
 ].  Jesus  Christ  is  no  wliere  in  the  New 
 Testament  expressly  said  to  be  the  creator  or 
 maker  of  the  hea\  ens,  the  earth,  the  sea,  or  of 
 any  visible  natural  objects. 
 
 !J.  When  the  apostle   descends   to  the 
 
282  Creation  of  all  Things         [Pari  I. 
 
 detail  of  things  which  were  created  by  Christ, 
 instead  of  naming  the  san,  the  moon,  the  stars, 
 the  earth,  and  its  inhabitants.  Sec.  which  is  what 
 we  should  reasonably  expect  if  a  natural  crea- 
 tion was  intended,  he  only  specifies  thrones  and 
 dominions,  and  principalities  and  powers;  which 
 are  not  physical  bemgs,  but  mere  states  of 
 things,  and  artificial  distinctions  of  political 
 society  ''. 
 
 3.  The  word  ku^oj^  to  create^  in  the 
 language   of   Scripture   expresses  not  only  to 
 
 '  This  is  a  consideration  of  great  weight,  which  one  would 
 think  must  make  a  deep  impression  upon  every  reflecting  mind. 
 It  is  curious  to  observe  how  -very  different  the  detail  of  the 
 apostle's  comineatators  is  from  his  own.  "  His  nature,"  says 
 Dr.  Doddridge,  in  his  paraphrase  upon  the  text,  "  has  a  tran- 
 gcendent  excellency,  superior  to  any  thing  th.^t  is  made.  From 
 him  were  derived  the  visible  splendours  of  the  celestial  luminaries, 
 the  sun,  the  moon,  and  the  stars,  even  all  the  hosts  of  these 
 lower  heavens,  and  from  him  the  yet  brighter  glories  of  invisible 
 and  angeMc  beings,"  All  this  is  perfectly  natural ;  and  had  the 
 ap'.slle's  theory  been  the  same  with  that  of  his  learned  expositor, 
 his  induction  of  particulars  would,  no  doubt,  have  been  the  same. 
 It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  Dr.  Doddridge  meant  one  thing,  and 
 the  apostle  Paul  another. 
 
 *  tv  avTtx)  e■)^.r^(T^r|  r(n:a.vta.. — "  xri^w,  creo^  ex  iiihilo  produce, 
 item  ex  materia  pra;existente  formo.  Metaphoricc,  JMirabili  vir. 
 tutc  aliquid  eilicio,  corrigo  ac  emendo."  Schleusner. — xritrii^ 
 crealio,  is  sometimes  used  in  a  very  lax  sense  for  ordinatio,  in- 
 stiiutitm  :  I  Pet.  ii.  13,   "  Obey  every  ordinance  (xr<jr£»)  of 
 
Sect.  8,]  hj  Jesus  Christ.  283 
 
 bring  out  of  nolhlnj^  into  existence,  but  li'ce- 
 wise  to  introduce  what  act'ially  exists  into  a 
 new  state  of  being,  and  particuhirly  to  transfer 
 from  a  state  of  nature  into  a  state  of  privilege, 
 and  covenant  uith  God, 
 
 1.)  The  advancement  of  the  Hebrew  nation 
 to  a  state  of  privilege  and  favour  is  described 
 as  creation.  Isa.  xliii.  1,  "  Thus  saith  the 
 Lord  that  created  thee,  O  Jacob,  and  he  that 
 formed  thee,  O  Israel." — Ver.  7,  "  I  have  cre- 
 ated him  for  my  glory.  I  have  formed  him, 
 yea,  I  have  made  him." — Ver.  15,  "  I  am  the 
 Lord  your  holy  One,  the  creator  of  Israel,  your 
 king."- — Hence  tiiis  favoured  people  are  said  to 
 be,  or  to  eaisf.  Isa.  Ixiii.  19,  "  ^Ve  ore  of 
 old."  For  this  reason  the  Jev/s  are  called  by 
 the  apostle  "  things  that  ai'c,"  in  contradi- 
 stinction to  the  Gentiles,  who  are  described 
 as  "  things  that  are  not."  1  Cor.  i.  28,  '*  God 
 hath  chosen  the  thino-s  that  are  not,  to  brin<r  to 
 nothino-  the  thin":s  that  are/' 
 
 2.)  The  advancement  of  believers,  both  Jews 
 and  Gentiles,  to  the  privileges  and  hopes  of 
 Christianity,  is  also  called  creation  :  and  in  con- 
 tradistinction to  the  state  of  the  Jews  under  tlie 
 Mosaic  economy,  it  is  called  a  new  creation, 
 Eph.  ii.  10,"  We  arc  his  workmanship,  created 
 
284  Creation  of  all  Things  [Part  I. 
 
 anew  in  Christ  Jesus  to  good  works/"  Col.  iii. 
 10,  "  And  have  put  on  the  new  man,  which  is 
 renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  him 
 who  created  him." — Hence  converted  Gentiles, 
 who  before  Zicre  not,  are  said  to  be,  or  to  exist. 
 1  Cor.  i.  28,  "  Of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus :" 
 and  conversion  to  Christianity  is  a  new  crea- 
 tion. 2  Cor.  V.  17,  "  If  anj^  man  be  in  Christ 
 Jesus,  {q.  d.  become  a  christian,)  there  is  a 
 new  creation '." 
 
 4.  In  the  Scriptures,  and  particularly  in 
 the  writings  of  Paul,  men  are  often  mentioned 
 in  terms  which  more  properly  express  inani- 
 mate beings;  they  are  called  not  persons,  but 
 things :  viz,  1  Cor.  i.  28,  "  God  hath  chosen 
 the  foolish  things  (rex,  f/.co^a)  of  the  world  to  con- 
 found tlie  wise,  (rag  (rc(piig,  the  wise  men,)  and 
 the  weak  things  (ra  ua-Oiv/i)  to  confound  the 
 mighty  things  (rcc  Kryv^cx)"  i.  e.  persons,  <Scc. 
 Compare  Matt.  xi.  2?.  John  iii.  35 ;  vi.  37 — 
 S9.^ 
 
 '  Sec  Dr.  Taylor's  Key  to  the  Apostolic  Writings,  chap.  ii. 
 ^  17.  19;  chap.  vi.  §  99.  102. 
 
 '  See  Mr.  Tyrwhitt's  excellent  Essny  on  the  Creadon  of  all 
 Things  by  Jesus  Christ.  Comm.  and  Essays,  vol.  ii.  Kss.  xiv. 
 p.  9.  "  The  general  language  of  Scripture,"  says  this  learned 
 and  accurate  writer,   "  concerning  this  new  creation  is  briefly 
 
Sect.  8.]  hij  Jesus  Chrht.         ■  28:5 
 
 Hence  it  clearly  and  distinctly  follows,  iliat 
 according  to  the  customary  language  of  the 
 sacred  writers,  and  particularly  of  the  apostle 
 Paul,  '  to  create  all  things,'  may  signify  nothing 
 more  than  to  bring  men  into  a  new  and  a  better 
 state  ;  to  transfer  them  out  of  a  state  of  nature 
 into  a  state  of  great  moral  privilege  and  advan- 
 tage. 
 
 5.  The  words  heaven  and  earth,  in  the 
 language  of  Scripture,  figuratively  express  the 
 civil  or  moral  distinctions  of  mankind  in  a  so- 
 cial state. — 1.)  Civil  distinctions.  Matt,  xxiv, 
 29,  "  The  stars  shall  fall  from  heaven,  and  the 
 powers  of  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken:"  i,  e, 
 the  Jewish  polity  shall  be  dissolved.  Joel  ii.  10, 
 "  The  earth  shall  quake,  the  heavens  shall 
 tremble  :'*  i.  e.  men  of  all  ranks,  whether  of 
 low  or  of  high  degree,  shall  be  in  consterna- 
 tion. Compare  Hag.  ii.  6,  7-  Acts  ii.  IQ. 
 Rev.  vi.  12.  15. — 2.)  Moral  distinctions.    Matt. 
 
 (his  :  Believing  Jews  and  Gentiles,  considered  jointly,  are  called 
 the  whole  creation  :  Mark  xvi.  15.  Col.  i.  15. -23.  The  Jews 
 are  represented  as  the  first-fruits  of  it;  James  i.  18;  and  Jesus 
 
 Christ  as  the  first-born,  or  heir  :  Col.  i.  15,     Hob.  i.  2. Each 
 
 indiTidual  believer  is  styled  a  new  creature  :  Gal.  vi.  15.  2  Cor. 
 V.  17.  And  by  it  all  believers,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  are  so 
 perfectly  made  one,  that  all  former  distinctions  between  them  are 
 entirely  lost  in  their  common  relation  to  Chiist."     Col.  iii.  II. 
 
S86  •  Creation  of  oil  Things  [Parti. 
 
 xi.  123,  "Thou,  Capernaum,  .that  art  exalted  to 
 heaven ;"  Sec.  Eoh.  iii.  15,  "  Of  whom  the  whole 
 family  in  heaven  and  earth  is  named  ;"  i.  e.  the 
 great  body  of  ehristians  living  promiscuously 
 among  Jews  and  Gentiles  :  or,  perhaps,  consist- 
 ing of  both.  Compare  Eph.  i.  10 ;  and  Mr. 
 Locke's  Note. 
 
 Hence  it  appears  that  *  creating  all  things  in 
 heaven  and  earth,'  may  signify  the  introducing 
 some  great  change  inta  the  moral  or  political 
 state  of  mankind,  and  particularly  under  the 
 relation  of  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
 
 6.  *  Thintrs  visible  and  invisible '  are 
 
 o 
 
 phrases  of  the  same  import  as  things  in  heaven 
 and  things  in  earth. 
 
 7.  As  heaven  expresses  the  privileged 
 state  of  those  who  participate  in  the  benefits  of 
 the  Jewish  or  Christian  dispensations,  so  the  di- 
 stinction of  orders,  which,  according  to  the  crude 
 mythology  of  the  East,  was  supposed  to  exist 
 among  the  inhabitants  of  heaven,  appears  to  be 
 used  by  the  apostle,  in  the  way  of  analogy,  to 
 express  the  different  ranks  and  offices  which 
 subsist  in  the  Jewish  or  the  Christian  church,  all 
 of  which  are  regulated  and  new-modelled  by 
 Christ ;  who,  in  this  sense,  creates  all  things  in 
 heasen  and  earth,  whether  they  be  thrones  or 
 
Sect.  8.]  hij  Jesus  Christ,  287 
 
 dominions,  or  principalities  or  powers,  cj.  d. 
 Jesus  Christ  havinii  introduced  a  new  and 
 better  state  of  diings  into  the  moral  world,  and 
 having  formed  a  church  consisting  of  Jews  and 
 Gentiles,  without  any  distinction,  has  also  com- 
 pletely organized  this  holy  community,  and  has 
 appointed  and  qualified  its  various  officers, 
 apostles,  evangelists,  prophets,  teachers,  and  the 
 hkc,  in  their  several  orders  and  degrees,  for  the 
 promulgation  of  the  christian  doctrine,  and  for 
 the  instruction  and  edification  of  the  church^. 
 
 8.  "  All  things  were  created  by  him"  {li 
 ttuTu) :  he  was  the  founder  of  the  new  dispen- 
 sation ;  he  appointed  apostles,  teachers,  &:c.  he 
 supplied  them  with  spiritual  gifts  and  powers  to 
 qualify  them  for  their  important  work  ^" ; — 
 "  and  for  him"  [sig  ctvrov) ;  to  accomplish  the 
 purposes  of  his  mission: — "  and  he  is  before  all 
 things"  (t^o  'TTocvruv);  he  has  precedence  in  time, 
 character,  and  dignity  : — ''  and  in  him  all 
 things  consist"  (a'vna'rrjKs) ;  he  is  the  bond  of 
 union,  as  the  head  to  the  body.  So  the  sentence 
 
 •  Sec  part  i.  sect.  tI.  p.  196. 
 
 '•  "  ffayra,  intelligc  om-iia  quae  ad  novam  creationem  perti- 
 nent. Certum  est  per  Vcrbum  crcala  omnia.  Scd  qua;  praecc- 
 dunt,  ostcndunt  hie  de  Christo  agi,  quod  hominis  est  noinen : 
 quymodo  ctum  Clirysostomus  hunc  acccpit  locum."     Grotius. 
 
288  Creation  of  all  Things  [Part  I. 
 
 proceeds,  "  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the 
 dmrch,"  the  source  of  vital  influence  and 
 energy  ^'. 
 
 9.  Explaining  this  passage  of  the  moral 
 creation  is  most  agreeable  to  the  context.  The 
 apostle  is  not  speaking  of  natural  objects,  either 
 in  the  preceding  or  the  subsequent  passages ;  but 
 solely  of  the  office  and  dignity  of  Christ,  as  the 
 founder  and  publisher  of  the  Gospel  dispensa- 
 tion. No  homage  is  required  to  be  paid  to  him 
 as  the  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  the  preserver 
 and  supporter  of  all  things.  This  stupendous  fact, 
 if  here  intended,  is  left  in  a  completely  insulated 
 state,  without  a  comment,  and  without  any  con- 
 clusion being  drawn  from  it  but  what  would 
 follow  with  equal  force,  and  with  greater  pro- 
 
 "  "  He  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  ail  things  consist." 
 It  follows  :  "  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church  ;  \>}io  is  tho 
 beginning,  the  first-born  from  the  dead,  that  in  all  things  he 
 might  have  the  pre-eminence."  All  this  is  natural  and  just,  if 
 the  preceding  verses  contain  a  figurative  description  of  Christ,  as 
 having  founded  and  organized  the  chribtian  dispensation.  But  to 
 be  the  first  who  rises  from  the  dead,  though  a  high  distinction  for 
 a  human  being,  is  but  a  poor  addition  to  the  pre-eminence  of  one 
 who  is  the  Creator  and  Preserver  of  all  things,  the  Maker  and 
 Lord  of  angels  and  archangels.  This,  surely,  is  not  the  conclu- 
 sion to  which  we  should  expect  to  have  been  led  by  so  lofty  a 
 description,  if  the  words  arc  to  be  taken  ia  their  primary  and 
 vulgar  acceptation. 
 
Set.  8.]  hj  Jesus  Christ.  28^ 
 
 priety,  from  the  supposition  that  Clirist  was  a 
 
 human  beiiio-  whom  God  had  raised  from  the 
 
 o 
 
 dead,  and  placed  at  the  head  of  the  new  dis- 
 pensation. 
 
 10.  This  interpretation  is  stron;^ly  con- 
 firmed bv  the  consideration  that  where  the 
 natural  creation  is  plainly  spoken  of,  it  is  uni- 
 formly ascribed  to  the  Father.  See  Acts  iv.  24. 
 Where  the  moral  creation  is  plainly  intended, 
 it  is  as  uniformly  ascribed  to  Christ.  Eph.  ii. 
 10.  But  doubtful  passages  are  to  be  explained 
 by  what  is  clear  and  unquestionable  :  wherever, 
 therefore,  the  expression  is  indefinite,  whenever 
 creation  is  ascribed  to  Christ,  it  is  to  be  under* 
 stood  of  a  moral  creation  only,  and  not  of  a 
 proper  natural  creation  '*'. 
 
 VI.     Heb.  i.  2,  3.  "  — by  whom  also  he 
 
 "  This  argument  is  Dr.  Priestley's,  who  observes  very  justly, 
 "  If  this  be  not  a  natural  and  just  rule  of  interpretation,  I  am 
 not  acquainted  with  any  which  ought  to  be  called  such  :  and  this 
 clearly  gives  the  creation  of  the  world  to  the  Father,  and  not  to 
 Christ."  Dr.  Priestle)'s  Letters  to  Dr.  Price,  parti,  p.  117— 
 122. — Dr.  Lardner  refers  toGrotius's  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
 sage as  what  he  approves  and  adopts.  Logos,  p.  69.  Mr.  Lind- 
 sey,  Seq.  p.  477,  observes  from  Wetstein,  "  that  if  we  expound 
 this  passage  by  the  parallel  epistle  to  the  Kphesians,  we  must  un- 
 derstand it  to  speak,  of  the  uevr  creation.     Epb.  i.  10;  ii.  10. 
 
 U 
 
2.90  Creation  of  all  Things  [Part  I. 
 
 made  the  worlds  ''^ — upholding    all  things  bj 
 the  word  of  his  power." 
 
 The  common  interpretation  of  this  text  is, 
 '  That  Christ  as  God,  or  as  commissioned  and 
 delegated  by  God,  was  the  maker  of  all  worlds, 
 and  of  all  things  that  are  contained  in  them/ 
 This  interpretation  is  supported  by  Whitby, 
 Hammond,  Le  Clerc,  Peirce''^,  Newcome,  and 
 many  others* 
 
 One  great  and  indeed  insurmountable  ob- 
 jection against  this  sense  of  the  passage  is,  that 
 the  word  cciu^j  in  the  orio-inal  is  seldom  if  ever 
 used,  either  in  a  singular  or  plural  form,  to  ex- 
 press the  material  world.  It  properly  signifies 
 '  ages*  or  '  dispensations  'V  See  Matt.  xii.  32  ; 
 xiii.  39.  Mark  x.  30.  Luke  xviii.  30.  ]  Cor. 
 ii.  6  ;  X.  11.    Col.  i.  26.    Heb.  vi.  5  ;  ix.  26. 
 
 "  hi  8  V.CH  T'es  oniuvois  sifoir^irav. 
 
 '*  Mr.  Peirce  remarks,  that  "  if  these  texts  are  read  without 
 a  bias  from  prejudice,  and  a  fondness  for  hypothesis,  they  wa/tt- 
 rally  oiirer  this  sense ;  that  as  the  Son  gave  being  to  all  the  crea- 
 tures, so  he  maintains  them  all  m  being."  This  learned  and  good 
 man  does  not  seem  to  have  suspected  that  Arians  also  might  hare 
 their  "  prejudices"  and  ihoir  "  fojidness  for  hypothesis,"  as  well 
 asSocinians  and  Unitarians. 
 
 "  "  The  terra  aiuiv,  in  the  New  Testament,  whether  singular 
 or  plural,  never  signifies  the  material  world."  Simpson's  Essays, 
 •vol.  ii.  p.  93. — "  The  Avoid  a/wyaj,  M'hlch  we   render  worlds, 
 
5ect.  8.J  by  Jesus  C/irist.  291 
 
 Dr.  Sykcs  and  ii.any  with  him  understand 
 the  text  as  affirming;  thai  Clirist,  as  the  Logos, 
 >vas  the  medium  of  all  the  former  dispensations 
 of  God  to  mankind  ;  the  antediluvian,  the  patri- 
 archal, and  the  Mosaic  dispensations.  Dr. 
 Doddridge  renders  the  words,  "  by  whom  he 
 also  constituted  the  ages."  It  cannot,  be  denied 
 that  the  words  will  bear  this  interpretation, 
 could  the  fact  here  supposed  be  proved  by 
 other  and  indej)endent  evidence.  But  this  text 
 •  will  not  of  itself  prove  it ;  because  it  admits  of 
 another  very  fair  and  probable  interpretation, 
 -perfecdy  consistent  with  the  proper  humanity 
 of  Christ. 
 
 Slichtingius,  Crellius,  and  the  old  Socinians, 
 by  '  the  ages/  mc  ccioovocg,  understand  the  Gospel 
 
 /        . 
 
 (says  Dr.  Syke*  in  loc.)  does  not  signify  the  '  heavens  and 
 ,  earth,  and  all  things  in  them,'  but  it  means  properly  '  ages,  or 
 certain  periods  of  time:' — such  were  the  Patriarchal:  that  of 
 tlie  J^iiw  :  that  of  the  Messiah:  (hat  of  the  Antediluvians.  Nor 
 is  there  one  instance  in  the  \e\v  Testament  in  which  more  thaa 
 this  seems  to  be  meant  by  tins  word."  Chap.  xi.  3,  which  in  the 
 public  version  is  translated  "•  through  faith  we  understand  that 
 the  woilds  (aiuiyas)  were  framed  by  the  word  of  God,'"  and 
 Mhich  is  commonly  understood  as  asserting  the  creation  of  all 
 things  by  the  divine  power,  is  translated  by  Dr.  Sjkes,  "  By 
 faith  we  understand  that  the  Ages  were  adai)ted  or  fitted  by  the 
 word  of  God,  i.  e.  b)  his  command  or  direction  suited  to  their 
 proper  ends."     See  bthleusoer  in  verb. 
 
 u2 
 
2P2  Creation  of  all  Things  [Part  I. 
 
 .dispensation  only  which  was  introduced  by 
 Christ,  and  of  which  he  is  the  head.  They 
 regard  this  text  as  having  the  same  significa- 
 tion with  John  i.  3,  and  consider  it  as  alluding 
 to  Isaiah  ix.  5,  where  in  the  LXX.  the  INIes- 
 siah  is  predicted  as  "  the  father  of  the  future 
 age  ^^'."  This  interpretation  has  been  lately  re- 
 vived and  very  ably  defended  by  Mr.  Simpson, 
 in  his  Essays  on  Scripture,  Ess.  VIII.  who 
 maintains,  by  a  variety  of  arguments,  that  the 
 plural  number  is  here  used  to  express  excel- 
 lence:  q.  d.  by  whom  also  he  constituted  the 
 Age,  i.  c.  "  of  the  Messiah,  eminently  distin- 
 guished for  moral  and  religious  advantages/' 
 
 The  principal  objection  against  this  interpre- 
 tation, and  Mhich  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
 learned  writer  has  sufficiently  obviated,  is  that 
 of  Dr.  Whitby,  in  his  Note  upon  the  text, 
 "  that  aicovtg  absolutely  put  doth  never  signify 
 the  church,  or  evangelical  state  ;  nor  does 
 the  Scripture  ever  speak  of  the  world  to  come 
 in  the  plural,  but  in  the  singular  number  only.'^ 
 
 '•  "  Secula  Dens  per  Christum  fecissc  dicitur,  non  quod  omnia 
 quaj  iinqiiani  extitenint  sccula  per  eiim  coudiderit,  sod  quod  con- 
 (iidcrit  aliqua,  uempe  novaet  a  priorlbus  diversa,  iisquc  loiijTe  fe- 
 Jiciora — articuliis  voci  c/jujvo(.s  pra'fixus,  gcncralcin  vocis  sigtiifi- 
 eationem,  ad  spccialem  aliqnani,  minusque  comiiiuticm  solct  re- 
 stringerc."     Slichtingiiis  and  Crcllius  \n  loc. 
 
Sect.  8.]  by  Jesus  C/irist.  2f)3- 
 
 A  less  exceptionable  interpretation,  there- 
 fore is  that  which  m  as  proposed  by  Grotius ;  and 
 adopted  by  Dr.  Lardner,  Mr.  Lindsey,  and 
 many  others.  '  For  whom,  or  with  a  view  to 
 whom,  he  constituted  the  ages/  q,  d.  All  for- 
 mer dispensations  were  arranged  with  a  view  to 
 that  of  the  Messiah  '7. 
 
 To  this,  w  hich  Dr.  Lardner  justly  calls  "  a 
 most  apt  and  beautiful  sense,"  the  principal  ob-, 
 jection  is,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  usual  con- 
 struction of  the  Greek  language,  in  which  the 
 preposition  ha^  when  it  governs  a  genitive,  as  in 
 diis  instance,  usually  expresses  the  instrumental' 
 cause,  and  ought  to  be  rendered  hy^  or  tIiroirj;h; 
 whereas  when  it  signifies  the  final  cause, ybr,  or 
 with  a  view  to,  it  commonly  governs  the  accu- 
 sative case. 
 
 But  this  rule,  though  general,  has  many  ex- 
 ceptions, which  are  not  only  to  be  met  with  in 
 classical  writers,  but  in  Josephus,  a  contempo- 
 rary writer,  and  a  Jew.  The  construction, 
 therefore,  of  the  language  will  fairly  admit  the 
 sense  which  Grotius  gives  to  the  text  '^ 
 
 *"  "  Videtur  ^i'  »,  hie  rccfe  accipi  posse  pro  c('  iv.  Vi(f.  Beza  in 
 Rom  vi.  4.  Videtur  respicere  ad  dictum  vetus  Ilebrieoriim, 
 propter  Mcssiam  conditum  esse  mundum."  Grottos. —See  i^arl- 
 iier  on  the  Log.  p.  70.  Lindsey's  Seq.  p.  483.  Second  AdJiesi, 
 p.  297.     Improved  Vers,  in  loc. 
 
 "  Of  the  use  of  this  construction,  the  learned  Nf.TCOflae  Oa^r-'j 
 
204  Creation  of  all  Things  [Part  L 
 
 "  Upholding''  (^^uvi  directing  or  governing, 
 "  all  things  by  the  word  of  his'*  the  Father's 
 "  power :"  i.  e.  by  authority  received  from 
 God,  and  supported  by  miraculous  works  'f'. 
 
 VII.  Heb.  i.  8.  10.  "  To  ihe  Son  he  saith. 
 Thy  throne,  O  God,"  or,  "  God  is  thy  throne 
 for  ever  and  ever." — Ver.  10.  "  And  thou. 
 Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  founda- 
 tion of  the  earth,"  &c. 
 
 This  is  an  address,  not  to  the  Son,  but  to  the 
 
 has  produced  ample  proof  and  Tarious  examples  from  writers 
 sacred  and  profane,  in  his  Critical  Remarks  on  SS.  vol.  i.  ]).  61, 
 •where  he  applies  it  with  great  plausibility  to  John  i.  10,  which 
 upon  that  interpretation  marly  coincides  with  the  text  in  He- 
 brews. It  may  be  further  added,  that  the  scholiast  upon  the  Plu- 
 tus  of  Aristophanes,  j;.  6.  edit.  [Jasil,  notices  this  use  of  iix  with 
 a  genitive,  as  sonietinies,  though  rarely,  exj)ressiug  the  final  cause. 
 In  Thncyd.  Hist.  1.  vi.  sect.  7,  the  conspirators  determine  to  as- 
 sassinate Hipjiarchus  liiittp^  cujus  causa, '  on  whoseaccount'  they 
 had  exposed  themselves  to  peril.  Josephus  repeatedly  uses  the 
 phrase  ^ia  Xoywv,  to  express  that  persons  came  with  a  view  to 
 or  for  the  purpose  of  conversation.  Antiq.  I.  xviii.  c.  vii.  §  7,  8; 
 c.  X.  §  3.  edit.  Hudson.  The  same  phraseology  is  used  by  Plu- 
 tarch. See  Glass.  Philol.  p.  104(5.  Vigerus  de  Idiotism.  c.  ix. 
 sect.  2.— Schleusner  in  verb.  ex.  19,  cites  2  Pet.  i.  3,  as  an  ex- 
 ample of  Jia  with  a  genitive  being  used  to  express  the  final  cause. 
 Rom.  vi.  4,  cited  by  Beza  and  Grotius,  is  doubtful.  1  Cor.  xiv. 
 19,  5(«  voDj,  i.  e.  v\ith  a  view  to  be  understood,  is  more  to  the 
 purpose.     See  Locke  in  loc. 
 
 '*  "  Seiisus  est,  Christus  vcrbo  potentiie  pat.crna',  t.  e.  jufisUj 
 regit  cuncta,  fa^siv  sa^pe  est  regere.'^     Grotius. 
 
Sect.  8.]  by  Jesus  Christ.  295^ 
 
 Father,  whosu'  imniutability  and  omnipotence 
 are  the  pledge  and  guarantee  ot"  the  Sons  ever- 
 lastmg  kmgdom.     See  Sect.  V.  p.  172. 
 
 VIII.  Heb.  iii.  3,  4.  "  This  person  was 
 counted  worthy  of  more  glory  than  Moses,  in- 
 asmuch as  he  who  budded  the  house  hath  more 
 honour  than  the  house  ;  for  every  house  is  build- 
 ed  by  some  one,  but  he  who  built  all  things 
 is  God." 
 
 This  text  has  no  reference  to  the  creation  of 
 the  world.  The  Christian  dispensation  is  repre- 
 sented by  the  writer  as  an  household,  {oixo?,) 
 ver.  2.  Of  this  household  God  is  o  pcarcca-xiv- 
 a<rug,  the  master  and  regulator  :  ver.  4.  Both 
 Moses  and  Jesus  are  appointed  to  stations  under 
 him:  ver.  2.  Moses,  indeed,  only  as  a  servant, 
 to  announce  future  blessings  :  ver.  5.  But  Je^ 
 sus,  as  a  Son,  was  intrusted  with  the  manage- 
 ment of  the  family,  ver.  6,  and  therefore  he 
 takes  precedence  of  all  the  domestics,  and  even 
 of  Moses  himself:  ver.  3.^0 
 
 IX.     Rev.  iii.  14.  "  The  beginning  (a^;/^) 
 of  the  creition  of  God." 
 
 *  See  Impr.  Vers,  in  loc.  "  O  xaracrxfiuacraf,  '  lie  that  or- 
 ders, governs,  and  presides.'  Wisd.  ix.  10."  Whitby. — *'  Mo- 
 ses pars  familiffj  Chrtstus  supra  familiam."    Grotius. 
 
296  Creation  of  all  Things  [Part  L 
 
 Rather,  the  head  of  the  creation  of  God,  i.  e. 
 of  the  new  creation.     See  Sect.  III.  p.  149. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 1.  In  the  whole  New  Testament  there 
 are  but  nine  texts  which  are  produced,  or  which 
 ean  with  any  shadow  of  reason  be  produced,  to 
 prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Creator,  or  Former,  and 
 Supporter  of  the  world. 
 
 2.  Of  these  the  two  first  are,  John  i.  3, 
 and  10 ;  and  in  order  to  draw  an  argument 
 from  these,  the  word  ym^ot^i  must  be  strained  to 
 a  sense  dififerent  from  that  in  which  it  is  to  be 
 understood  in  any  other  passage  of  the  New 
 Testament,  though  it  occurs  there  upwards  of 
 seven  hundred  times. — The  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  is 
 allowed  to  be  Httle  to  the  purpose. — Eph.  iii.  9» 
 is  a  manifest  interpolation :  and,  if  genuine,  is 
 by  orthodox  expositors  explained  of  the  new 
 creation. — -Col.  i.  l6,  17>  is  the  passage  upon 
 which  the  greatest  stress  is  laid; — but  in  this, 
 when  the  apostle  enters  into  detail  of  things 
 created,  they  are  not  natural  objects,  such  as 
 sun,  moon,  stars,  earth,  sea,  &c. ;  but  artificial 
 distinctions,  thrones,  dominions,  &c. ;  and  the 
 conclusion  drawn,  that  he  is  head  over  all 
 things  to  the  church,  &c.  is  such  as  might  n.a-^ 
 
Sect.  8.]  hy  Jesus  Chrht.  297 
 
 turally  be  expected,  from  his  being  the  founder 
 of  the  new  dispensation  ;  but  very  different 
 from  what  would  properly  follow  from  his  being 
 announced  as  the  Creator  of  all  things,  the 
 Maker  and  Lord  of  an^-els. — To  make  the  aroru- 
 ment  from  Heb.  i.  2,  available,  the  word  ajtuvus, 
 translated  '  Vtorlds,'  must  be  taken  in  a  sense 
 different  from  that  which  it  ever  bears  in  the 
 New  Testament. — Ver.  10,  is  interpreted  bv 
 many  Arian  and  'I'rinitarian  expositors  as  ad- 
 dressed to  God,  and  not  to  Christ ;  and  l)v  all 
 must  be  considered  as  doubtfal. — Heb.  iii.  4,  is 
 most  certainly  nothing  to  the  purpose: — and 
 Rev.  iii.  14,  is  a  text  both  of  doiii)tful  authority 
 and  doubtful  meaning.  Such  is  the  evidence 
 upon  which  the  grand  conclusion  rests,  that 
 Christ  is  the  Creator,  the  Supporter,  and  the 
 Governor,  original  or  delegated,  of  this  and  of 
 all  worlds,  of  all  iheir  inhabitants,  and  of  all 
 things  which  the  universe  contains. 
 
 3.  Had  it  been  the  iniention  of  the 
 sacred  writers  to  have  communicated  the  ex- 
 fraordinary  and  momentous  fact,  that  Jesus 
 Christ  was  the  Maker  and  Supporter  of  the 
 universe,  it  would  have  been  very  easy  for  them 
 to  express  this  doctrine  in  jjlain  language,  which 
 could  not  have  been  misunderstood,  as  all  now 
 
^8  Creation  of  all  Things  [Part  I. 
 
 do  who  hold  this  opinion;  and  as  they  have 
 themselves  done,  in  ascribing  the  formation  of 
 all  things  to  God.  See  Acts  iv.  24.  27  ;  xix.  24, 
 and  innumerable  other  places  in  holy  writ. 
 
 4.  If  the  fact  were  true,  that  the  per- 
 son who  appeared  under  the  form  of  a  man, 
 who  had  been  an  infant  in  a  cradle,  who  had 
 gradually  grown  up  to  maturity,  subject  to 
 hunger  and  thirst,  and  all  the  infirmities  of 
 human  nature,  who  had  afterwards  suffered 
 upon  a  cross,  and  been  confined  to  a  tomb;  if 
 it  were  true  that  this  feeble,  suffering,  dying 
 man  Mas  no  less  a  person  than  the  Creator  and 
 Lord  of  nature  himself  in  the  disiruise  of  a  hu- 
 man  beins:  the  communication  of  this  amazino- 
 fact,  to  those  who  had  no  antecedent  suspicion 
 or  expectation  of  it,  must  have  filled  their 
 minds  with  astonishment ;  it  must  have  been 
 always  present  to  their  thoughts,  and  could  not 
 but  have  made  the  most  prominent  figure  in 
 their  discourses  and  writings.  They  must  have 
 recurred  to  it  again  and  again,  and  have  ex- 
 pressed themselves  upon  the  subject  in  every 
 form  and  variety  of  language  which  would  in- 
 dicate the  unusual  warmth  and  agitation  of 
 their  feelings. 
 
 5.  Notwithstanding  all  these  gra\  c  con- 
 
Sect.  8.]  by  Jesus  Christ.  ^Qff 
 
 siderations,  three  out  of  four  of  the  evangjelists 
 take  not  the  least  notice  of  this  extraordinary 
 event: — the  fourth,  if  he  mentions  it  at  all, 
 mentions  it  in  lan^juage  which  upon  no  other- 
 occasion  carries  the  j^^ame  sense  ;  and  having 
 barely  hinted  it  at  the  beginning  of  his  history, 
 he  drops  the  subject,  and  never  recurs  to  it 
 again. — The  historian  of  the  doctrine  and  mis- 
 sion of  the  apostles  for  upwards  of  thirty  years- 
 after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  is  totally  silent 
 upon  this  subject  — The  apostle  Peter,  who 
 speaks  in  raptures  of  the  glory  of  kis  Master 
 upon  the  mount  of  transfiguration,  ('2  Pet.  i. 
 37>)  makes  no  mention  of  his  being  the  Creator 
 of  all  things. — James  and  Jude  are  both  silent. 
 — In  twelve  out  of  thirteen  undoubted  epistles 
 of  the  apostle  Paul,  some  of  them  of  great 
 length,  in  which  he  takes  pleasure  in  expatiat- 
 ing upon  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel,  and  the 
 glories  of  its  great  Founder,  to  whom  he  was 
 himself  under  peculiar  personal  obligation,  that 
 apostle  suggests  not  the  least  hint  that  his  ad- 
 mired and  beloved  Master  was  the  Creator  and 
 Lord  of  the  external  world.  In  one  short 
 epistle  only,  and  in  one  passage  of  that  epistle, 
 is  he  supposed  to  assert  this  amazing  fact : 
 and   this  he  docs  in  language  so   unusual,  so 
 
300       Christ  Creator  of  all  Things.     [Part  I. 
 
 mystical,  and  symbolical,  that,  comparing  what 
 is  difficult  with  what  is  plain,  it  may  well  be 
 admitted  that  the  writer's  true  meaning  may  be 
 widely  different  from  what  is  commonly  be- 
 lieved.— The  unknown  writer  of  the  epistle  to 
 the  Hebrews,  if  he  meant  to  declare  this  won- 
 derful fact,  uses  language  which,  in  all  other 
 cases,  conveys  a  very  different  sense  : — and  the 
 single  expression  in  the  Book  of  Revelation,  if 
 authentic,  is  at  least  equivocal. 
 
 6.    The  obvious   and  necessary  conse- 
 quence is,  either  that  the  sacred  writers 
 
 KNEW  NOTHING  OF  THIS  EXTRAORIXIN AR Y 
 
 FACT,  or,  what  would  be  still  more  extraordi- 
 nary, that,  knowing  it,  THEY  DID  NOT  THINK 
 IT  OP  SUFFICIENT  IMPORTANCE  TO  INSIST 
 UPON  IT. 
 
Sect.  9.]  301 
 
 SECTION     IX. 
 
 THE  QUESTION  CONSIDERED,  WHETHER 
 JESUS  CUKIST  WAS  THE  MEDIUM  OF  THE 
 DIVINE  DISPENSATIONS  TO  THE  PATRI- 
 ARCHS AND  TO  THE  HEBREW  NATION  I 
 AND  WHETHER  HE  EVER  APPEARED 
 UNDER  THE  NAME  AND  CHARACTER  OF 
 JEHOVAH  K 
 
 It  is  maintained  by  many  that  two  beings  are 
 mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  under  the 
 name  and  character  of  Jehovah  ;  the  one  Su- 
 preme,   the   other    subordinate,    the    angel    or 
 
 '  This  extraordinary  doctrine,  that  a  subordinate  being 
 should  assume  the  name  and  the  character  of  the  Supreme;  a 
 doctrine  which  to  all  Unitarians  appears  diametrically  con- 
 trary to  the  letter  and  to  the  spirit  of  the  Scriptures,  and  di- 
 rectly subversive  of  the  fundamental  doctrine  both  of  the  Jewish 
 and  Christian  revelations,  has  been  siipportcd  by  many  able  and 
 learned  advocates,  ancient  and  modern,  since  the  time  of  Justia 
 Martyr,  who  probably  lirst  invented  it,  and  who  imagined  thaf 
 this  great  secret  was  communicated  to  him  by  express  revelation. 
 See  Just.  Mart.  Dialog,  edit.  Thirlby,  p.  258,  and  J\Ir.  Lin<lsey'» 
 Second  Address,  chap,  ii,  sect.  3.     The  last  and  ablest  advocate 
 
302  Whether  Christ  appeared       [Part  L 
 
 minister  of  the  Snprenie,  the  medium  of  divine 
 operations  and  dispensations;  and  that  the  sub- 
 ordinate Jehovah  was  the  spirit  who  animated 
 the  body  of  Christ. 
 
 First:  This  doctrine  of  two  Jehovahs  appears 
 to  be  pkiinly  contradictory  to  the  Jev/ish  Scrip- 
 tures, which  expressly  and  solemnly  teach,  that 
 "Jehovah  oor  God  is  one  Jehovah,"  or  rather, 
 "Jehovali  is  onr  God,  Jehovah  is  one/'  Deut. 
 vi.  4.  A  declaration  cited  with  the  highest  ap- 
 probation by  our  Saviour,  Mark  ix.  2f).  32.  See 
 likewise  Neh.  ix.  6.  Nor  is  it  pretended  that 
 this  doctrine  was  ever  received  by  the  Hebrew 
 nation.  In  support  of  this  extraordinary  posi- 
 tion it  is  alleged, 
 
 I.  That  one  Jehovah  is  represented  as 
 the  object  of  the  senses, — He  walked  in  the 
 garden,  and    his   voice   was  heard   by  Adam, 
 
 of  this  strange  hypothesis  was  the  late  Mr.  Henry  Taylor,  in  a 
 book  entitled  The  Apology  of  Benjainiti  Ben  Mordccai  to  Eiisha 
 Levi,  Lett.  ii.  and  iii.  The  argiiinonts  of  thiy  learned  writer 
 have  been  so  thoroughly  discussed,  and  so  completely  refuted,  by 
 Mr.  Liiidsey,  in  the  Sequel  to  his  "Ajiology,  chap.  vi.  that  if  such 
 an  issue  could  be  hoped  for  in  a  theological  discu^ssion,  it  might 
 be  presumed  that  the  question  was  now  set  finally,  and  for  ever, 
 at  rest.  This  Section  contains  a  brief  abstract  of  the  argnment 
 oa  both  sides. 
 
Sect.  9-]     inicJer  the  Kame  of  Jehovah.      303 
 
 Gen.  iii.  8  ; — he  descended  to  see  the  tower  of 
 Eabel,  chap.  xi.  6  ; — the  Cod  of  Israel  was  seen 
 by  the  seventy  elders,  Exod.  xxiv.  9  ; — He 
 talked  with  Moses  from  the  mercy-seat,  chap. 
 xxvi.  21,  22, — and  exhibited  his  glory  to  Mo- 
 ses in  the  mount,  chap,  xxxiii.  18;  xxxiv.  5. 
 But  tiie  supreme  Jehovah  could  never  be  the 
 object  of  sense :  he  can  neither  be  seen  or 
 heard. 
 
 Anszcer.  If  the  supposed  subordinate  Je- 
 hovah is  a  pure  spirit,  he  could  no  more  be  the 
 object  of  the  senses  than  the  Supreme : — but  if 
 the  subordinate  Jehovah  could  manifest  his  pre- 
 sence by  sensible  symbols,  so  likewise  might 
 the  Supreme. 
 
 II.  The  existence  of  two  Jehovahs  is 
 expressly  mentioned  in  some  passages  of  Scrip- 
 ture, and  in  others  it  is  evidently  implied. 
 
 1.  It  is  expressly  mentioned,  Gen.  xix, 
 24,  ''  Jehovah  rained  fire  and  brimstone  from 
 Jehovah  out  of  heaven."— Hos.  i.  7,  "  Jehovah 
 saith,  I  will  save  them  by  Jehovah  their  God." 
 Auszi'cr,  This  is  nothing  more  than  an 
 idiom  of  the  Hebrew  language,  in  which  the 
 noun  is  repeated  for  the  pronoun.  The  same 
 argument  would  prove  the  existence  of  two  So- 
 
304  Whether  Christ  appeared       [Part  I. 
 
 lomons.  1  Kings  viii.  1,  "  Then  Solomon  as- 
 sembled the  elders  to  king  Solomon  ;" — and  of 
 two  Rehoboams :  1  Kings  xii.  21,  "  Rehoboani 
 assembled  the  people  to  bring  back  the  kingdom 
 to  Rehoboam."  See  also  Dan.  ix.  17.  1  Tim. 
 i.  18. 
 
 Zech.  ii.  9-  ^'  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  Be- 
 hold, I  will  shake  my  band  over  thee,  &c.  and 
 ye  shall  know^  tliat  Jehovah  of  hosts  hath  se)it 
 me/'     See  ver.  11. 
 
 Answer.  The  prophet  here  makes  an  abrupt 
 transition  from  the  person  of  Jehovah  to  his 
 own  :  q.  d.  You  shall  know^  that  I  am  a  true 
 prophet '.     See  Acts  i.  4. 
 
 2.  As  a  proof  that  where  two  Jehovahs 
 are  not  expressed,  they  are  sometimes  plainly 
 alluded  to,  appeal  is  made, 
 
 1.)  To  the  word  Elohim,  uhich  is  commonly 
 translated  '  God,'  which  in  the  original  is  in  a 
 plural  form,  and  is  thought  by  some  to  imply 
 a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  divine  essence^. 
 
 ^  "  The  fultiJiing  of  these  words,  saith  thn  prophet,  shall  be 
 an  uudeniabk'  evidence  of  the  truth  of  my  raission."  Mr.  Lowth 
 in  loc, — This  is  a  text  upon  which  groat  stress  is  laid  to  prove 
 the  existence  of  two  Jehovahs,  one  the  sender,  the  other  the 
 sent. 
 
 '  The  word  Elohim  is  connnonly  derived  from  a  word  which 
 sigiiifius  powtfr.     But  the  Ilutchinsonians,  a  sect  which  rose  in 
 
Sect.  9.]     nuikr  the  Name  of  Jeliovali.      S05 
 
 AnsK'cr.  This  is  a  triHing  argunient.  In  all 
 lans:uaoes  it  is  a  common  anomaly  for  words  of 
 a  plural  form  to  have  a  singular  signification. 
 The  word  E/oJiim  is  almost  uniformly  used  in 
 apposition  vvith  singular  verbs.  It  is  not  limited, 
 like  Jehovah,  to  express  the  Supreme  Being 
 alone :  and  though  in  a  plural  form,  it  com- 
 monly expresses  one  ohjcct  only.  It  stands 
 for  one  angel,  Judges  xiii.  22  ; — for  one  golden 
 calf,  Exod.  xxxii.  31  ; — for  one  idol,  Judges  xvi. 
 17  ; — for  Moses,  Exod.  iv.  I6" ;  vii.  1 ; — and  for 
 Samuel,  1  Sam.  xxviii.  13. 
 
 2.)  The  plural  number  is  sometimes  used 
 when  God  is  introduced  as  speakiilg.  Gen.  i. 
 26,  "  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our 
 image.''  Gen.  xi.  7,  "  Let  us  go  down  and 
 confound  their  lamruao-e." 
 
 AuHZicr.  This  is  nothing  more  than  the  au- 
 thor's dramatic  way  of  writing.  We  are  not  to 
 suppose  that  God  actually  said  to  the  waters, 
 "  Bring  forth  abundantly,"  or  to  the  birds  and 
 
 the  last  century,  and  wfiicfi  was  of  considtMablc  use  in  reviving 
 attctilion  to  the  IIcI)rov.-  lunguagc,  derive  \\\h  word  from  nb«, 
 Jtiravit:  they  read  it  Alcim,  and  translate  it  '  the  covenanters,' 
 q.juralor€s:  and  they  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  three  persons 
 entering  into  covenant  fur  the  rcdcntptiun  of  man.  Such  reason- 
 ing needs  ao  refutaliou. 
 
 X 
 
306  Whether  Christ  appeared         [Part  I. 
 
 fishes,  **  Be  IruitfLil  and  multiply/'  Perhaps 
 the  expression  "  Let  there  ])e"  may  denote 
 energy; — and  "  Let  us  make"  may  denote 
 forethought;  and  upon  this  occasion  such  lan- 
 guage might  be  employed  by  the  writer  to  in.- 
 timate  that  nuin  is  the  noblest  work  of  God, 
 the  most  distinguished  production  of  divine 
 po-wer  arw:l  wisdom  in  this  world.  Dr.  Ceddes 
 savs  that  the  Jews  understood  these  words 
 to  have  been  addressed  to  the  surroundin« 
 angels  :  but  there  is  no  need  to  have  recourse 
 to  this  supposition. 
 
 In  Eccles.  xii.  1,  Tiie  Received  Text  reads. 
 "  Remend)er  thy  Creditors  :"  and  from  this 
 plural  form  a  plurality  of  persons  has  been  m- 
 fgj-'red.  But  Dr.  Kennicott  has  sliown  that  the 
 best  manuscripts  have  the  singular  number. 
 
 IIL  It  is  alleged  that  the  word  '  angel* 
 is  often  used  in  connexion  with  the  subordinate, 
 but  not  with  the  Suprcune  Jehovah. 
 
 It  is  urged  tiiat  Exod.  xxiii.  20 — 23,  Jehovah 
 having  promised  to  send  an  angel  to  keep  the 
 Israelite  nation  in  the  way,  and  to  bring 
 them  to  the  promised  land,  adds,  "  Beware  of 
 him,  and  obey  his  voice,  for  my  x A:\rK  is  in 
 II I M.''     Here   it  is  said  that  the  name  of  Je- 
 
Sect.  9.]     under  the  Name  of  Jehovah.      307 
 
 hovali  is  expressly  given  to  the  coiiductin;; 
 angel. 
 
 But  this  remark  is  very  erroneous.  An  imgel 
 is  properly  nothing  more  than  a  messenger,  and 
 the  angel  here  alluded  to  was  probably  Josliua, 
 who  aetcd  in  the  name,  that  is,  by  the  authority, 
 of  God. 
 
 Exod.  xxxiii,  3.  Jehovah  says  to  Moses,  ''  I 
 will  send  an  angel  before  thee,  and  I  will  drive 
 out  the  Canaanite,  Sec.  for  I  will  not  go  up  in 
 the  midst  of  thee,  lest  I  eonsuiue  thee  l)y  the 
 way." — But,  whatever  be  the  meiining  of  this 
 threatening,  which  cannot  be  understood  in  a 
 literal  sense,  as  though  God  were  afraid  ot 
 trusting  himself  with  so  rebellious  a  people,  lest 
 his  indignation  should  unawares  gain  the  ascen- 
 dancy over  his  wisdom,  at  the  intercession  of 
 Moses  it  was  revoked.  Ver.  14,  '*  My  presence 
 shall  go  with  thee,"  Sic. 
 
 To  assert  that  the  angel  of  Jehovah  is  a 
 phrase  only  used  of  tlie  subordinate  Jehovah,  is 
 assuming  the  very  point  in  dispute.  Any  sen- 
 sible symbol  of  the  divine  presence  is  called  an 
 angel,  and  this  syn)bol  is  called  indifferently 
 the  "  angel  of  Jehovah,"  or,  "  Jehovali  him- 
 self.'' See  Sect.  VI.  ]).  lyi.-— Gen.  xvi.  7,  "  The 
 angel  of  Jehovali  found  her:"  but  \er.  13,  it 
 
308  Wlietlier  CJirisf  appecirecV      [Part  E 
 
 appears  that  this  angel  \vas  Jehovah  hmiself. 
 This  tlict  is  still  more  evident  from  Exod.  iii, 
 2 — 15,  "Theangel  of  Jehovah  appeared  to  him 
 in  a  flame  of  lire  in  the  midst  of  a  bush: — 
 and  when;  Jehovah  saw — God  ealled  to  him. 
 out  of  the  midst  of  the  bush  : — I  am  the  God 
 of  thy  Fathers,  the  God  of  Abniham,.  &ic. — 
 Moses  said,  They  will  say  to  me,  What  is  his- 
 name? — And  God  said  to  Moses,  I  Am  that  I 
 Am.  Thus  shall  ye  say  ;  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
 your  Fathem,  hath  seat  me:,  this  is  my  name 
 for  ever/' 
 
 What  room  is  there  here  for  the  supposition 
 of  a  Jehovah  subordinate  to  the  Supreme?  The 
 person  mIio  speaks  is  God  himself:  and  it  is 
 plain  that  the  words  '  Jehovali,'  '  I  Am,'  '  God/ 
 «'God  of  your  Fatlicrs,'  '  God  of  Abraham, 
 Isaac,  and  Jacob,'  are  ail  names  for  one  and  the 
 same  divine  person  :  also^  that  the  phrase  '  angel; 
 of  Jehovah'  means  cither  the  visible  symbol  of 
 the  divine  presence,  or  Jehovah  himself.  Gen. 
 ^vii.  1;  xxxi.  1],  12.;  xxxii.24. ;  and  Exod.  xii. 
 21,  which  have  been  appealed  to  in  support  of 
 the  strange  doctrine  of  two  Jehovahs,  admit  of 
 a  similar  explanation. 
 
 IV.     The   Ghaldce   paraph rasts   of  the 
 Old  Testament,  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  are  said 
 
Sect  9.]     tifider  flic  Name  of  Jelwtah.      509 
 
 •to  acknowledge  a  distinction  between  the  two 
 Jehovalis,  by  giving  tiie  title  *  Mimra/  i.  e. 
 If'ord,  to  the  Jeliovalh-angel  K 
 
 Gen.  xxviii.  20,  "  Jacob  vowed,  li"  God  will 
 be  with  me,  -then  sliaJi  Jehovah  be  lay  God." 
 <Onkelos  renders  it,  if  the  Word  of  tlu:  Lord 
 'be  with  me,  then  ?ball  tlie  JVord  of  xhe  Lord  be 
 my  God. — Deut.  iv.  24,  "  Jeho^  ah,  ihy  God,  is 
 a  consuming  fire."  Onkelos  :  Jehovah,  thy 
 God,  his  fiord  is,  clc. 
 
 Gen.  i.  tj,  "  Jehovah  creaited  man,"  Sec. 
 Jonathan  renders  it,  The  IFord  of  Jehovah 
 created  man. —  Chap.  iii.  9?  "  C«od  called  to 
 Adam."  In  the  Taro'iun:  The  Word  of  God 
 called.  Sic. —  Chap,  xviii.  1,  *'  Jehovah,  God, 
 appeared  to  Abram."  \n  the  Targam ;  TJie 
 Word  of  Jehovali  appeared,  &c.  See  G«n.  iii, 
 22 ;  xix.  24. 
 
 *  Tlic  Chaldcc  versions  of  the  Old  Testament  arc  called  Tar. 
 gnins,  a  word  wliich  in  lluit  language  signifies  a  translation.  Of 
 these  Targnnis,  the  two  principal  arc  those  of  Onkelos,  which 
 »is  a  close  and  faithful  translation  of  the  Pentateuch,  written,  ^s 
 Dr.  I^rideaux  thinks,  near  the  time  of  Christ,  and  that  of  Jona- 
 than, which  is  a  jjaraphrastic  version  of  the  prophets  of  consi- 
 derably later  date.  Another  Targuni  on  the  Law,  is  ascribed  by 
 tbe  Jews  to  the  same  Jonathan,  who  was  couteinporary  with 
 -(iamaliel,  but  by  internal  evidence  it  apjiears  to  have  been  writ- 
 ten some  centuries  afterward'-,  and  is  a  worJ;  of  little  repute. 
 J^rideauxj  Conn.  vol.  ii.  p.  5JJ. 
 
310  Whetlicr  Christ  appeared       [Part  I. 
 
 Answer.  This  argument  is  evidently  found- 
 ed upon  a  palpable  mistake.  In  the  Chaldee 
 idiom  the  term  I\limra,  '  Word/  is  substituted 
 for  the  reciprocal  pronou])  self;  so  that  the 
 '  Word  of  Jehovah'  means  nothhig  more  than 
 'Jehovah  himscliV  Thus  Nu)nb.  xv.  32,  "  A 
 ccrlain  man  said  in  hia  aord"  L  e.  within  him- 
 self, '•  I  will  go  forth  and  gather  sticks." 
 2  Sam.  iii.  15,  l6",  "  Phaltiel  put  a  sword  be- 
 tween his  zC'Ord,"  i.  e.  himself,  "  and  Michal, 
 the  daughter  of  Saul."  Eccl.  i.  12,  "  Solomon 
 said  in  his  icord^'  i.  e.  in  himself,  "  Vanity  of 
 vanities  is  this  whole  world  ■\'" 
 
 Secondly  :  It  Is  maintained  that  the  Je- 
 hovah-aniiel  animated  the  body  of  Christ. 
 
 It  would  be  sufficient  to  reply,  that  no  such 
 being  exists  as  the  Jehovah-angel :  but  as  tlie 
 Arian  hypothesis  maintains  that  the  great  An- 
 gel, who  was  the  medium  of  divine  dispensa- 
 
 *  j\lr.  riOWinau,  in  his  Three  Tracts,  at  the  end  of  a  chapter 
 upon  (liis  argument,  observes  justly,  that  "  if  the  person  appear- 
 ing  in  the  Shechinah  was  indeed  only  an  angel  personating  the 
 Most  High,  it  .should  seem  (hat  the  whole  worship  of  the  Jewish 
 church  for  two  thousand  years  together,  was  ofi'trcd  to  an  object 
 beside  and  against  the  intention  of  every  worshipper,  beside  and 
 against  the  chief  fundamental  doctrine  and  rule  of  worship  in 
 their  revelation,^ and  against  the  chief  principles  of  all  religion, 
 according  to  the  light  of  nature." 
 
Svct.  9. J      under  the  }siime  of  Jehovfih.       31 1 
 
 tions  to  tliu  Jews,  is  tlie  .spirit  which  became 
 incarnate  in  Clirist,  it  will  be  proper  to  state  a 
 few  of  the  prnicipal  argiuneiits. 
 
 The  Ibllowing  texts,  among-  otliers,  have  been 
 alleged  from  the  Old  Testament :  Isa.  Ixiii.  8,  9, 
 "  He  was  their  Saviour :  the  angel  of  his  pre- 
 sence saved  them  :  in  his  love  and  pity  he  re- 
 deemed them."  But  this  alludes  to  the  tempo- 
 ral deliverances  of  the  Jews. —  Hos.  i.  7)  "  I 
 y,\\[  have  mercy  upon  ihe  house  of  Judah,  and 
 uill  save  them  by  Jeho\ ah  their  God,"  /.  c,  I 
 myself  w  ill  deliver  them. — Ezek.  xxxiv.  23,  "  I 
 will  set  np  one  shepherd  over  them,  even  Da- 
 vid." Compare  Zech.  xin.  J,  "  Awake,  O  sword, 
 against  my  shoplierd,  against  the  man  who  is 
 my  fellow,  saith  Jehovah,"  or,  as  Archbishop 
 Newcome  renders  it,  "  against  my  friend, 
 and  a2:ainst  the  man  who  is  near  to  me," — 
 Hos.  iii.  .3,  "  The  children  of  Israel  shall  re- 
 turn, and  seek  Jehovah  their  God,  and  David 
 their  king."  Compare  Micah  iv.  7,  "  Jehovah 
 shall  reign  over  them  for  ever."  Hence  it  is 
 concluded  that  David,  /.  e.  Christ,  the  descen- 
 dant of  David,  is  Jeho\  ah. 
 
 Such  argnmcnts  admit  ol  no  reply.  One  can 
 only  wonder  that  learned  men  can  impose  upon 
 
312  IVhethcr  Christ  appeared       [Part  I. 
 
 themselves  by  such  slender  and  miserable  so- 
 phisms. 
 
 The  aro'uments  from  the  New  Testament  are 
 
 o 
 
 more  plausible.  Most  of  them  have  been 
 stated  and  examined  elsewhere.  I  shall  sub- 
 join a  few  which  do  not  so  properly  fall  under 
 any  other  head. 
 
 It  is  alleged  that  the  glory  of  Christ  in  the 
 New  Testament  is  represented  in  terms  similar 
 to  those  which  express  the  glory  of  the  She- 
 chinab,  or  syn^.bol  of  the  divine  presence,  which 
 rested  upon  the  mercy-seat.  1  Tliess.  i.  7» 
 "  The  Lord  will  be  revealed  in  flaming  tire." 
 — Rev.  xxi.  23,  "  The  glory  of  God  did  lighten 
 it,  and  the  Lamb  was  the  light  thereof."  Com- 
 pare Deut.  iv.  ^i4  ;  ix.  3. — But  no  conclusion 
 can  be  drawn  from  the  obscure  and  figurative 
 language  of  prophecy. 
 
 Malachi  iii.  i.  "  Jehovah,  whom  ye  seek, 
 shall  come  suddenly  to  his  temple."  The  pro- 
 phecy, it  is  said,  was  fulfilled  when  Jesus  visited 
 the  temple. — But  tliis  argument  assumes  the 
 fact  to  be  proved.  Jesus  visited  the  temple  as 
 the  messenp;er  of  Jehovah,  not  as  the  imaginary 
 Jehovah-angel. 
 
 Our  Lord,  weeping  over  Jerusalem,  exclaims, 
 
Sect.  9.]     nncky  the  'Same  of  Jehovah.      ;313 
 
 Luke  xlii.  34,  '•  O  Jerusalem,  Jerusul(Mii,  how 
 often  woulcl  I  have  gathered  thy  children  to- 
 gether, and  ye  would  not!"  This  is  explained 
 of  the  superintendance  of  the  Jeho\  ah-angel. — 
 But  it  may  be  better  understood  of  our  Lord's 
 frequent  and  earnest  exhortations  to  repentance. 
 Or  perhaps,  like  other  prophets,  Jesus  may  here 
 mean  to  speak  in  the  name  of  God.  So  Matt. 
 xxiii.  24,  "  Behold,  I  send  unto  you  prophets 
 and  wise  men." — Deut.  xxxi.  23,  Moses  says  to 
 Joshua,  "  Be  of  good  courage,  thou  slialt  bring 
 the  children  of  Israel  into  the  land  that  I  sware 
 unto  them,  and  I  will  be  willi  thee." 
 
 The  feebleness  and  inconclusiveness  of  such 
 arguments  as  these  need  not  be  insisted  upon. 
 Other  texts,  which  are  produced  to  prove  that 
 the  Jeliovah-angel  animated  the  body  of  Christ, 
 have  been  examined  already  under  their  proper 
 ]ieads^\ 
 
 The  currency  which  the  opinion,  tint  Christ 
 was  the  Jehovah-angel,  and  the  medium  of  the 
 divine  dispensations  to  the  Israelite  nation,  has 
 obtained  among  learned  and  iiKphsilive  per- 
 sons, is  truly  sur[)rising,  considering  the  preca- 
 rious foundation  upon  which  it  rests.     "  It  is 
 
 V  *  These  texts  are  Matf.  iii.  1 — 3.  Juhii  i.  1  — 11;  xii.  4!. 
 1  Cor.  X.  4,  V.  IIol).  i.  '_>.  Horn.  x.  13.  Ikb.  xi.  '2G.  1  I\t. 
 iii.  m—W.     llcb.  i.  8,0. 
 
514      Jlhethcr  Christ  appeared,  Sec.     [Part  I. 
 
 the  unanimous  opinion  of  all  antiquity,"  savs 
 Dr.  Clarke,  on  Trin.  p.  121,  '*  that  this  angel 
 who  said,  Exod.  iii.  6',  '  I  am  the  God  of  thy 
 fathers,'  was  Christ/'  •  But  Acts  iii.  13,  the 
 apostle  Peter  says,  "  The  God  of  Abraham,  and 
 the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,  the 
 God  of  our  Fathers,  has  glorified  his  son  Jesus/' 
 and  Jesus  could  not  be  the  God  whose  son  he 
 was.  Mr.  Lindsej  therefore  justly  remarks, 
 Scq.  p.  332,  "  One  may  not  scruple  to  say, 
 with  the  authority  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Luke, 
 that  all  antiquity  was  certainly  nnstaken  in  the 
 Opinion  ascribed  to  them  by  Dr.  Clarke,  so  far 
 5^s  they  entertained  it." 
 
Sect.  10.]  313 
 
 SECTION     X. 
 
 THE  FIM-.SEXT  EXALTATION  OF  CHRIST^ 
 AXD  THE  HIGH  OFFICES  WHICH  Hi:  NOW 
 SUSTAINS,  OK,  TO  WHICH  HE  IS  TO  EE 
 A  r  P O  T  N  TED  H  E  R  i:  A  F T  E  R ,  A  U  K  SAID  TO 
 BE  INCOMPATIBLE  WITH  THE  SUPPOSI- 
 TION OF  HIS  PROPER  AND  SIMPLE  II T- 
 MANITY. 
 
 First;  Christ  is  said  to  be  advanced  to 
 universal  dominion,  and  is  represented  as  at  all 
 times  present  to  assist  and  protect  those  who 
 submit  to  his  authority. 
 
 I.     Ills  Government  is  universal. 
 1.   Matt,  xxviii.  18.   "  All  power,''  s^aa-ia, 
 dominion,   or  a'uthoritj,  "  is  given    to  me    in 
 heaven    and    upon   earth."      This    doctrine    is 
 variously  explained. 
 
 1.)  The  Trinitarians  say,  that  universal 
 dominion  is  given  to  the  Son  in  his  mediatorial 
 capacity,  as  the  reward  ot"  his  ubedience  and 
 sufferings  '. 
 
 '  "  Menjinciinnis  vi-ro,  quod  C'luislus  jure  siio  semper  a;)nd 
 Patrcm  hiibuit  hoc,  illi  in  carno  noblru  (hituni  cs'^lv  vcl,  utcUrius 
 
3i(i     Exaltaiwji  of  Christ  compaiihlc  [Part  L 
 
 2.)  The  Arians  niaintiiin  that  Christ, 
 the  I>ogos,  is  reinstated  iu  the  government  of 
 the  universe,  or,  of  this  system,  or  -world,  or  of 
 angels  and  men,  and  is  appointed  to  be  head 
 and  governor  of  the  church.  But  if  the  Logos 
 v.as  from  the  beginning  tlie  Maker  and  Lord  of 
 all  things,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  a  mere 
 restoration  to  honours  which  he  originally  pos- 
 sessed, and  voluntarily  relinquished  for  a  time, 
 can  with  propriety  be  represented  as  the  rc- 
 ^vard  of  his  mediatorial  undertaking-. 
 
 S.)  Some  say  that  Christ,-  who,  pre- 
 viously to  his  incarnation,  had  been  onl>^  the 
 tutelar  ano-el  of  Judea,  is  now  advanced  to  a 
 donnnion  over  other  guardian  angels,  who  were 
 before  of  equal  rank  with  himself,  and  is  ap- 
 pointed governor  of  tlie  world  and  of  the 
 church^. 
 
 ?oqtiar,  in  persona  mediatoris."  Calvin  in  loc. — So  that  it  ap- 
 pears after  all,  that  nothing  was  given  to  Christ  which  he  did  not 
 already  possess.     See  also  Beza,  Whitby,  and  Gnyse  in  loc. 
 
 **  Clarke  on  Trin.  p,  208.  *'  Our  Lord's  dominion  is  indeoti 
 vastly  extensive,  even  coextcndcd  witli  the  rational  creation  : 
 But  as  it  is  derived,  it  \o  neither  universal  nor  supreme,  as  tli« 
 Father's  is."     li\.  D.  Stott  on  the  Trin.  p,  107. 
 
 '  This  singular  ami  extravagant  hypotl»esis  is  supported  by 
 Mr.  Peirce  on  Ileb.  i.  9;  also  by  Mr.  Ilcnry  Taylor  in  Eco, 
 Word.  Lett.  ii.  p.  S03. 
 
Sect.  10.]      iDitli  h'/s  s'unplc  llamaniiy.        317 
 
 4.)  The  Polish  Socinians  held  that  Je- 
 sus, though  a  mere  human  beuig,  as  a  reward 
 for  his  transcendant  merit,  and  his  obedience 
 to  death,  is  exalted  to  the  throne  of  universal 
 government,  is  made  the  ruler  of  angels  and 
 archangels,  and  is  become  the  proper  object  of 
 religious  homage"*. 
 
 5.)  This  text  is  understood  by  many  to 
 
 ■*•  "  Per  mortem  ct  resurroctiouem  suam,  omncm  potcstatcni  in 
 coelo  ct  in  terra,  i.  t.  illiinitatuin  rcguum  atque  iinporiiim  siijx.*r 
 omnt'S  creatiiras  in  co-lo  ct  in  terra  exi.stentes....ciiiai)roj)ter  etiaiU' 
 ipsi,  suniino  jurcdebetur  cultus  non  modo  adoratioiiis,  scd  etiam 
 invocationis  in  rebus  omnibus,  qnaj  ad  nostrum  sive  temporalc 
 sive  sempiternum  bonum  spcctant.     Wolzogenl-as. — Christus  ad- 
 
 dcxtram  Dei  in  ccclis  collocatus,  ctiam  ab  angclis  adorandus  est 
 
 Omncm  in  co^lo  et  in  terra  potcstatem  acccpit ;  et  omnia,  Deo 
 solo  cxccpto,  I  jus  pedibus  sunt  .snl)jer.ta."  Catach.  Kccles.  Po- 
 Ion.  sect.  iv. — Weil  may  Di:  I'rice  say,  (Scrm.  p.  146,)  that 
 '*  there  is  nothing  in  Athanasianism  itself  more  extravagant  than 
 this  doctrine  of  Socinus  atul  his  fullo\\crs,"  and  that  "  it  not  only 
 renders  the  Scriptures  unintelligible,  but  Christianity  itself  incre- 
 dible. Consider  nhethcr  such  an  elevation  of  a  mere  man  is  cre- 
 dible, or  even  possible  ?  Can  it  be  believed  that  a  mere  man- 
 could  l)e  advanced  at  once  so  high  as  to  be  above  angels,  and  ta^- 
 be  Cjiialilud  to  rule  and  judge  this  world  ?  Docs  n«t  this  contra- 
 dict all  we  see  or  can  conceive  of  the  order  of  God's  works?' 
 Do  not  all  beings  rise  gradually,  one  acquisition  layiug  the  foun- 
 dation of  another,  and  ])reparii!g  for  higher  acquisitions?  What" 
 would  you  think  uere  you  tcld,  that  a  child  just  born,  instead, 
 of  growing  like  all  other  huiuaii  creatures,  had  started  at  once  to 
 complete  manhood,  and  the  government  of  an  empire  :.  This  is- 
 nothing  to  the  fact  1  am  coubidcriiig," 
 
SIS     Eialtatiim  of  Christ  compaiihle  [Part  L 
 
 express  some  unknown  personal  dignity  and  au- 
 thority to  which  our  Lord  is  now  advanced,  as 
 the  reward  of  his  obedience  and  sufferings,  and 
 ])j  ^vhich  he  was  enabled  in  the  primitive  age 
 to  communicate  the  holy  spirit  to  the  first 
 teachers  of  Christianity,  and  to  protect,  assist, 
 and  direct  them  in  their  labours  :  and  by  which 
 lie  is  at  all  times  operating  effectually  for  the 
 benefit  of  the  church,  though  in  an  unknown 
 and  imperceptible  manner  \ 
 
 6.)  Mr.  Locke,  in  his  note  upon  Eph. 
 i.  10,  shows  that  in  the  writings  of  Paul  the 
 words  "  heaven  and  earth  "  stand  for  "  Jew  and 
 Gentile/'  And  if  this  sense  be  admitted  in  the 
 present  case,  the  meaning  of  our  Lord's  decla- 
 ration will  be,  q.  d.  all  authority  is  given  me 
 over  Jews  and  Gentiles  :  that  is,  All  men,  with- 
 out distinction,  will  be  invited  to  become  the 
 subjects,  and  to  participate  in  the  privileges,  of 
 my  kingdom.  And  this  interpretation  derives 
 probability  from  the  exhortation  which  imme- 
 diately succeeds  :  "  Go  ye,  tlierefore,  and  teach 
 all  nations." 
 
 It  is  a  question  among  learned  Unitarians  of 
 
 *  Sec  Grot,  in  loc.     This  appears  to  have  been  the  ojiiiiion  of 
 Dr.  Priestlcj  and  othor  modern  Unitarians. 
 
( 
 
 li 
 
 Sect.  10.]     uith  his  simple  llnmanUy.         PAi) 
 
 tlie  present  day,  whether  the  reign  of  Chriiit 
 upon  earth  is  real  and  personal,  or  symbolical 
 fjgnrutive.  Dr.  Priestley,  thougli  he  first 
 lefended  the  figurative  hypothesis,  became  m 
 is  later  publications  a  decided  advocate  for  the 
 personal  dominion  of  Christ.  He  thought  that: 
 tlK)  kingdom  of  Christ  would  not  commence 
 till  the  period  of  the  Millennium,  and.  that  he 
 would  then  appear  in  the  clouds,  to  raise  mar- 
 tyrs and  confessors  from  the  dead,  to  restore 
 ihe  Jews  to  their  o\\  n  country,  and  to  govern 
 the  world  for  a  thousand  prophetic  years  of 
 peace  and  prosperity,  virtue  and  happiness^. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Lindsey  and  many 
 others  with   him,  conceive   that  tliose  expres- 
 
 *  Sec  Dr.  I'ricstlt'v's  Iiypoflicsis  statist!  and  defeniled  in  IiU 
 Notes  upon  Rev,  xx,  lie  ai>prcheiuk'd  this  period  of  Christ's 
 scccMid  coming  to  be  very  near.  In  tlu;  spring  of  1794,  a 
 few  days  before  he  set  sail  for  America,  ]ie  said  to  a  friend, 
 tliat  iu  his  judgement  this  groat  event  could  not  be  more 
 pemotc  than  twenty  years.  And  it  was  his  firm  convic- 
 tion, (hat  this  period  of  Christ's  personal  dominion  Mill  be  of 
 \L'\y  long  diiration.  He  even  conjectures  that  every  prophetic 
 day  of  Ihc  Millennium  represents  a  natural  year.  lie  conceived 
 that  Cliriit  is  a(  all  times  aclively  cm|)Ioyed  for  the  benefit  of 
 maukiru!,  but  (hat  he  does  not  enter  upon  his  kingdom  till  (lie 
 Millennium  arrives.  Mr.  I'^vanson  also  advances  a  similar  hypo- 
 thesis in  his  llcflectiou!)  on  Religion  iu  Chiislendom,  p.  3y,  and 
 p.  147,  148. 
 
320     Exaltidlon  of  Christ  compatible  [Part  I. 
 
 sions  ^vbich  appear  to  attribute  to  Christ  per- 
 sonal dignity  and  authority,  are  ^^•hol]y  figura- 
 tive. They  plead  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
 is  uniformly  opposed  to  that  of  SataJi.  But  it 
 is  conceived  that  in  this  connexion  Satan  is  a 
 symbolical  and  not  a  real  person,  and  that  his 
 government  expresses  not  the  rule  of  a  powerful 
 evil  spirit,  but  the  prevalence  of  idolatry,  su- 
 perstition, and  vice.  It  is  therefore  reasonable 
 to  conclude  that  the  dominion  of  Christ  is  to 
 be  understood  in  the  same  figurative  sense : 
 that  it  expresses  not  the  personal  authority  of 
 our  divine  Master,  but  the  prevalence  of  his 
 religion  in  the  world,  the  empire  of  truth,  and 
 virtue,  and  happiness,  which  is  continually  ex- 
 tending its  beneficial  influence  in  proportion  to 
 the  progress  of  christian  principles,  and  which 
 we  have  every  reason  to  believe  will  in  due 
 time  become  universal  and  perpetual.  And 
 though  it  is  pleaded  by  the  advocates  for  the 
 personal  dominion  of  Christ,  that  Jesus,  being 
 a  man,  like  other  men,  was  capable  of  being 
 influenced  by  personal  considerations,  and  that 
 it  is  refining  too  much  to  suppose  that  he  was 
 altogether  free  from  every  bias  of  this  natiu'e ; 
 it  seems,  nevertheless,  to  be  more  consistent 
 with  the    ackno^^ledged   piety,    humility,   and 
 
Sect.  10.]      zii(]i  lih  simple  Hiunanity.       321 
 
 disinteresteil  l)eipn'olcncfi  of  our  Lord's  cha- 
 racter, to  conceive  of  him  as  actino;  under  the 
 iiiiiueiice  of  these  generous  prniciples  and  com- 
 prehensive views,  ratlier  than  from  the  com- 
 paratively low  and  interested  expectation  of 
 personal  recompense'. 
 
 2.  John  xviii.  33.  "  Pilate  said,  Art 
 thou  the  king  of  the  Jews?" — Ver.  36,  "Je- 
 sus answered,  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
 world." — Ver.  37?  "  Pilate  said.  Art  thou  ^ 
 king  then  ?  Jesus  answered,  Thou  sayest  that  I 
 am — a  king.  To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for 
 this  cause  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should 
 bear  witness  unto  tlie  truth." 
 
 3.  1  Cor.  XV.  24—27.  "  Then  cometh 
 the  end,  when  he  shall  have  delivered  up  the 
 kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father;  when  he  shall 
 have  put  down  all  rule  and  all  airthority  and 
 power.  For  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all 
 enemies  under  his  feet.  The  last  enemy  shall 
 be  destroyed,  even  death." 
 
 '  ''  Agreeably  to  the  prejudices  and  imaginations  of  Jews  and 
 Gentiles,  (he  subjection  of  all  mankind  to  the  rules  of  piety  and 
 virtue,  delivered  by  Christ,  is  shadowed  out  under  the  imagery 
 of  a  mighty  kiii-f,  to  whom  all  power  was  given  in  heaven  aud 
 earth,"  &c.  LiiKl-cy's  Si«qiicl,  p.  47J. 
 Y 
 
322     Exatiation  of  Christ  compatible    [Parti. 
 
 In  this  pn^'sage  Death,  a  symbolical  person,  is 
 placed  in  the  list  of  those  enemies  of  Christ 
 Avho  are  hereafter  to  be  destroyed  :  it  is  pro- 
 bable therefore  that  the  other  enemies  here 
 alluded  to  are  symbolical  persons  likewise :  and 
 thus  the  whole  paragraph  is  a  figurative  de- 
 sci'iption  of  the  uknnatc  triumph  of  the  Gospel 
 over  all  opposition,  and  of  the  final  extermina- 
 tion of  idolatry  and  superstition,  of  ignorance, 
 and  vice,  and  misery. 
 
 4.  Eph.  i.  20—^23.     See  p.  204. 
 
 5.  Philip,  ii.  9—11.  "  —Wherefore 
 God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given 
 him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name:  that  at 
 the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of 
 things  in  heaven,  and  things  on  earth,  and 
 things  under  the  earth  ;  and  that  every  tongue 
 should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
 glory  of  God  the  Father." 
 
 Compare  Col.  i.  17,  18;  ii.  10.  In  the 
 epistles  to  the  seven  churches,  in  the  Apoca- 
 lypse, chap.  ii.  iii.,  Jesus  assumes  a  sovereigii 
 authority.  And  chap.  xix.  contains  a  symbo- 
 lieal  representation  of  the  final  triumph  of  the 
 Gospel,,  and  of  the  judgements  of  God  upon  its 
 enemies  and  persecutors. 
 
Sect.  10.]       uil/i  his  simple  Humanily.       323 
 
 II.  Christ  is  represented  ns  personally  present 
 for  the  Aid  and  Protection  of  those  Vvho 
 submit  to  his  AutJioriiy. 
 
 1.  Mall,  xxviii.  20.  "  And,  lo,  I  am 
 with  you  alvvay,  even  lo  the  end  of  the  world/' 
 Siy^  rrig  arvvnXziaQ  ra  aioovogj  '  to  tiie  Cbuciusion  of 
 this  age.' 
 
 Grotius,  Wljitl)}^  Dockhidge,  and  the  PoHsh 
 Socinians,  also  Dr.  Priestley  and  many  others, 
 understand  this  text  as  a  promise  that  Jesus 
 will  be  personally  present  with  his  disciples, 
 acting  for  their  benefit  to  the  end  of  time. 
 And  Dr.  VvHiitby  contends  that  this  is  the  only 
 sense  in  which  the  evangelist  uses  the  phrase 
 wherever  it  occurs  in  his  writinirs'^. 
 
 *  The  places  in  which  these  words  occur  in  the  Gospel  of 
 Matthew  are,  chap.  xiii.  39,  40,  "  The  harvest  is  the  end  of  the 
 world,  or  age,  and  (he  reapers  are  the  angels.  As  therefore  the 
 tares  are  s^thered  and  burnt  in  the  fire,  so  shall  it  be  in  the  end 
 of  this  ivorld,  or  c^e." — Vcr.  49,  "  They  gathered  the  good 
 (lish)  into  vessels,  but  cast  the  bad  away.  So  shall  it  be  at  the 
 end  of  the  ivorld,  or  ff^e." — Chap.  xxiv.  3,  "  What  will  bo  the 
 sign  of  thy  coming,  and  of  the  end  of  this  world,  or  age?"  Here 
 the  phrase  unquestionably  means  llie  Jewish  disperisation,  or 
 rather  polity.  For,  in  reply  to  the  question  proposed  by  his 
 disciples,  our  Lord  immediately  proceeds  to  forotel  the  calamities 
 which  should  precodfe  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  And  ver.  34, 
 he  declares,  "  This  gcner.i(ion  shall  not  pass  (ill  all  these  things  are 
 Y   2 
 
324     Exaltation  of  Christ  compatible   [Part  I. 
 
 Dr.  Whitby  was  certain!}^  mistaken  in  this 
 assertion,  as  appears  from  the  note  below.  It 
 may  nevertheless  be  conceded  that  our  Lord  is, 
 or  may  be,  personally  present  in  this  world,  and 
 actively  engaged  at  all  times  in  some  unknown 
 manner  for 'the  benefit  of  his  church.  But  it 
 does  not  follow  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the 
 promise  in  Matthew  ;  much  less  can  it  be  con- 
 cluded that  Christ  in  his  present  state,  however 
 exalted  and  glorious,  is  invested  with  those  di- 
 •^ine  attributes  of  omnipresence,  omniscience, 
 and  omnipotence,  which  are  usually  ascribed  to 
 
 fulfilled."  This  phrase,  Avhich,  as  Mr,  AVakcfiekl  observes  in  Iiis 
 note  upon  Matt.  xiii.  39,  "  is  an  iJioni  of  the  Hebrew  language," 
 occurs  but  once  more  in  the  New  Testament.  Heb.  ix.  26,  "  but 
 now,  once,  in  the  end  of  the  world,  stTj  a-wrsXsia  rwv  aicvvuiv, 
 *  at  the  completion  or  conclusion  of  the  ages,'  hath  he  appeared 
 to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himsoif." — "  But  let  me  ask," 
 sajs  Mr.  Wakefield,  ibid.  "  when  did  Christ  appear,  but  towards- 
 the  end  of  the  Jewish  polity,  civil  and  ecclesiastical  ?  They 
 therefore,  who  interpret  this  phrase  by  '  the  end  of  the  world,* 
 or  '  the  consummation  of  al!  things,'  do  st>  without  any  autho- 
 rity, and  in  direct  opposition  to  fhe  idlf»-m  of  the  Ikbrcw  lan- 
 guage, Knd  the  sense  of  a  plain  text  of  Scripture." — That  excel- 
 lent and  judicious  coDimentator  Bishop  Pearcc,  and  after  him 
 Mr.  Wakefield,  intvri)ret  the  parables  of  the  tares  and  of  the  fish, 
 chap,  xiii,,  of  the  events  which  4ook  place  at  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem,  when  the  christians,  warned  by  divine  admonilion,^ 
 yotircd  from  Jiulea  before  (he  desolation  of  tlic  counlry  by  ih-i 
 Romans.    See  Pcarcc's  Coniuient,  in  ]^^r. 
 
Sect.  10.]       icith  his  mmple  Ilumanihj.       325 
 
 him.  Tlie  truth  is,  tliat  the  Scriptures  have  left 
 us  totally  in  the  dark  with  regard  to  the  present 
 condition,  employment,  and  attributes  of  Clirist, 
 -amX  therefore  it  is  in  vain  to  speculate  upon  the 
 subject. 
 
 The  interpretation  which  is  given  to  this  text 
 in  Matthew,  by  Bishop  Pearce,  Mr.  Wakefield, 
 Mr.  Lindsey,  and  others,  viz,  "  I  am  with  you 
 alway,  to  the  conclusion  of  this  age,"  is  that 
 which  by  Unitarians  is  generally  and  justly 
 preferred. 
 
 Our  Lord  says  "  I  am  with  you"  that  is,  as 
 Mr.  Lindsey  observes,  Seq.  p.  75,  "  with  yoa 
 who  are  now  present  with  me,— yon  may  be  as- 
 sured of  extraordinary  assistance  and  support. 
 But  he  does  not  promise  the  same  to  succeed- 
 ing christians :  the  miraculous  aid  and  gifts  of 
 which  he  obviously  speaks,  were  confined  to  the 
 age  of  the  apostles." 
 
 Mr.  Lindsey  thinks  that  "  this  limitation, 
 w  Inch  our  Lord  himself  prescribes,  throws 
 great  light  upon  many  passages  of  Scripture." — 
 1.  "  It  may  account  for  our  Lord's  appearing  to 
 his  apostles  and  to  Stephen  after  his  ascension. 
 Acts  vii.  55;  ix.  4."  —  2.  "  It  alTords  a  sa- 
 tisfactory reason  why  Christ  has  never  visibly 
 manifested  •  himself   since    the   apostolic   age. 
 
326     Exaltation  of  Christ  compatible  [Part  I. 
 
 Whatever  agency  of  Cbrist  there  may  be  now 
 in  the  affairs  of  his  church,  it  is  wholly  un- 
 known to  us.'- — 3.  "  This  limitation  of  the  ex- 
 traordinary powers  extrcised  by  Christ,  and 
 imparted  to  his  apostles,  and  coniinenient  of 
 them  to  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  will  be  a 
 clue  to  lead  us  to  ihe  iDcaning  of  many  pas- 
 sages in  the  New  Testamei.t,  and  will  help  us 
 to  avoid  those  many  errors  which  men  \vd\e 
 fallen  into,  by  applying  to  the  case  of  christians 
 in  general  such  things  as  related  only  to  the 
 apostles,  and  to  the  miraculous  gifts  conferred 
 on  them," 
 
 These  remarks  appear  to  be  highly  judicious 
 and  important,  and  are  capable  of  very  exten- 
 sive apphcation. 
 
 2.  John  xiv.  13,  14.  "And  whatsoever 
 ye  shall  ask  in  my  name  ^,  that  will  I  do,  that 
 the  Father  may  be  glorified  in  the  Son.  If  ye 
 shall  ask  any  thing  in  my  name,  I  will  do  it." 
 See  chap.  xv.  23. 
 
 *  This  is  not  to  be  understood  as  a  direcdon  to  all  christians  (o 
 conclude  all  theh-  prayers  with  (he  name  of  Cliiis(,  as  though 
 there  was  any  particular  cliarni  in  those  Avords  to  make  their 
 prayers  available.  The  fact  soonis  to  be,  that  our  Lord  himself 
 possessed  a  voluntary  power  of  working  miracles,  but  the 
 apostles  only  au  occasioual  power,  when  prj:;)ptcd   by  some  in 
 
Sev:t.  10.]      icith  his  simple  ihimaniiy.       327 
 
 This  discourse  is  addressed  to  the  apostles 
 only,  and  the  promise  is  lin^ited  to  them.  The 
 meaning  is,  that  whatever  in  the  course  of  their 
 ministry  the}'  requested  in  the  name,  that  is^ 
 .with  a  view  to  promote  tlie  doctrine  and  king- 
 dom, of  Christ,  if  the  request  was  proper  '^,  it 
 should  be  granted.  And  upon  the  whole  it  is 
 promised,  that  they  should  be  amply  qualified 
 by  him  for  the  discharge  of  the  apostolic  office. 
 3.  Rom.  viii.  34.  ''  — who  also  maketh 
 intercession,"  ivrvyya^^yu^  interferes,  "  for  us  "." 
 
 This  expression  is  applied  to  Christ  only  in 
 
 ward  siiggfsfion.  Ami  tlio  language  used  upon  such  occasions 
 generally  correspoiids  with  this  supposition.  Christ  "  rchukjcs 
 the  disorder:" — he  sajs  to  the  leper,  "  I  will,  be  tliou  clean  ;" 
 and  to  thcdead,  "  I  Kay  \n\\.o  tboe,  Arise."  The  language  of  the 
 apostles  is  in  a  humbler  strain,  "  In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ," 
 saith  Pstcr  to  the  lame  man,  ''  rise  up  and  walk  : — Eneas,  Jesus 
 CJirist  m^licth  thee  whole,"  Thus  acknowledging  themselves  the 
 servants  of  Christ.,  and  that  they  performed  miracles  by  power 
 derived  from  him,  and  exercised  in  subservience  to  his  cause. 
 
 ^  That  this  limitation  was  always  to  be  understood  is  evident 
 both  frona  the  reason  of  the  tJiirjg,  and  from  the  fact  that  Paul, 
 ■who  "  was  not  behind  the  very  chief  of  (he  apostles,"  besought 
 flic  Lord  thrice  to  have  his  complaint,  (he  rhorn  in  the  llcsh,  re- 
 moved, but  without  success.     2  Cor.  xii. 
 
 a  u  it/'^xiyyji.yciv  uVs^a  I'lvof,  pro  commodo  alicujus  facere  ali- 
 quid."  Schleuiner, — -It  is  a  word  of  •'icvy  general  import,  and  is 
 used  to  express  any  kind  of  interference  on  account  of  another. 
 Mr.  Lindsey  thinks  that  "  the  perpetual  intcricssion  of  Chris* 
 
328     Emltation  of  Christ  compatible  [Pari  I. 
 
 this  passage  and  in  Heb.  vii.  25,  and  probably 
 means  that  Christ  in  his  exalted  state  is  em- 
 ploying his  powers  in  some  unkiiown  manner 
 for  the  benefit  of  the  church. 
 
 4.  Phihp.  iv.  13.  "  I  can  do  all  things 
 through  Christ,  who  strcngtheneth  mc." 
 
 The  word  '  Christ'  is  omitted  in  the  Alexan- 
 drine and  Ephrem  manuscripts,  and  in  some 
 ancient  versions.  Admitting  it  to  be  genuine, 
 it  may  allude  to  the  promise  of  Christ  to  be 
 present  with  his  apostles,  and  may  express  the 
 apostle's  confidence,  that  he  who  had  invested 
 him  with  the  apostolic  office  would  qualify  him 
 for  it,  and  support  him  in  the  faithful  discharge 
 of  it, 
 
 5.  Heb.  ii.  IS.  "For  in  that  he  him- 
 self suffered,  being  tempted,  he  knows  how  to 
 succour  those  who  are  tempted." 
 
 q.  d.  Having  himself  been  a  great  sufferer, 
 he  knows  how  to  sympathize  with  those  who 
 are  afflicted  ;  and  in  the  great  discoveries,  and 
 the  rich  and  precious  promises  of  the  Gospel, 
 he  has  made  ample  provision  for  their  support 
 and  consolation. 
 
 may  be  the  continual  operation  and  effect  of  his  mission  and 
 doctrine  in  the  worUl."     Sc(].  p.  88,  note.     Sec  Impr,  W'ls,  in 
 
Sect.  10.]      Zi:ii]i  his  simple  Jliimanity.       329 
 
 Under  this  head  it  may  be  remarked  that 
 Christ  sometimes  authoritatively  pronounces  the 
 forgiveness  of  sins  :  from  which  his  enemies,  who 
 were  his  contemporaries,  and  many  christians 
 in  modern  times,  have  erroneously  inferred  that 
 our  Lord  arrogates  to  himself  divine  attri- 
 butes. Matt,  ix,  2,  "  He  said  to  the  sick  of  the 
 palsy,  Son,  be  of  good  cheer :  thy  sins  are  for- 
 given thee.'*  Hearing  this,  the  scribes  said 
 within  themselves,  "  Why  doth  he  thus  speak 
 l^lasphemies  ?  Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God 
 alone?"  See  Mark  ii.  7.'"  In  this  passage  there 
 is  probably  an  allusion  to  an  opinion  known  to 
 have  prevailed  among  the  Jews,  that  c\cry  sin 
 was  visited  with  a  specific  punishment,  and  that 
 bodily  diseases,  accidents,  and  the  like,  were 
 punishments  inflicted  for  particuhu-  crimes. 
 Job's  friends,  from  his  misery  infer  his  guilt: 
 and  the  Pharisees  assume  that  a  man  was  born 
 bhnd,  either  as  a  punishment  for  sins  which  he 
 had  connViitted  in  an  antecedent  state,  or  for 
 the  sins  of  his  [>arents.     John  i\.  2.     See  also 
 
 "  "  Their  principle  iiulicd  was  ri^ht,  but  (ln-.ir  ap'ilication 
 was  cvidcDtiy  wroii^. — Almiglily  Saviour,  may  \vc  each  of  us 
 receive  from  thee  for^ivcne-ss  of  our  sins!"  Doddritlge  iu  loc. 
 Jiut  OHF  Ivord's  reasoning  was  very  dilferent  froii)  (hat  of  the 
 J<ariK:c}  expositor. 
 
x330     ExaUation  of  Christ  eompatibk  [Pait  L 
 
 Luke  xiii.  1—5.  Our  Lord  upon  every  occasion 
 peremptorily  denies  their  principle :  but  in  the 
 case  of  the  paralytic,  he  silences  the  cavils  of  the 
 Jews,  and  supports  his  divine  authority  by  heal- 
 ing the  disease.  Mark  ii.  10,  IL— In  the  same 
 sense  he  confers  upon  his  apostles  authority  lo 
 forgive  snis,  i.  c,  to  heal  diseases,  ujkI  to  remove, 
 tmd  in  some  cases  to  inflict,  calamities.  John  xx. 
 '22^  "  VViiose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remit- 
 ted unto  them,  and  v/hose  soever  sins  ye  retain, 
 they  are  retained."  Compare  luatt.  xviii.  18.  ^^ 
 In  Luke  vii.  48,  our  Lord  pronounces,  con- 
 cerning the  ^vonlan  who  washed  and  perfumed 
 his  feet,  '*  Tiiy  sins  arc  forgiven,"  "  th}^  faith 
 bath  saved  tlice."  This  woujan  was  probably 
 a  Gentile  :  and,  as  it  is  said  "  her  sins  \\ere 
 many,"  it  is  probable  that  she  had  been  re- 
 markably addicted  to  idolatrous  superstitions ; 
 but  that  by  our  Lord's  preaching  and  miracles 
 yhe  had  been  convinced  of  his  divine  mis- 
 sion, and  converted  to  the  worship  of  the  true 
 
 ^'  Upon  tlii.-.  principle,  t!)at  sin  and  ciiscMbc  arr,  accordin;^  to 
 <lic  theory  of  t!io  .Fev.s,  almost  reciprocal  tiirins,  the  ic\t  I  John 
 V.  IG,  may  perhaps  admit  the  easiest  cxpdatution  :  '  'J'he  sin 
 uot  unto  death'  iiiay  mean  a  curable  disorder,  for  recovery  froiis 
 uhich  it  may  not  be  luue.is  unable  io  pray.  '  The  sin  uuto  death' 
 liiay  bean  incurable  malady;  in  which  cise  prayer  for  recover)- 
 would  be  useless  and  inij^roper.     Comjiare  Jaiu'-s  v.  I  j,  h"). 
 
Sect.  10.]      r.ilh  his  simple  llumanitij.       ,S3l 
 
 God.  By  this  syniholical  action  she  declared 
 her  conver«:ion,  wliicli  our  Lord  jTraciously  ac- 
 cented; and  by  b.is  kind  address  to  her  he  pub- 
 \k'\v  tc*stjfied  that  she  was  now  translatoil  from 
 the  community  of  sinners,  /.  e.  heathen  idola- 
 ters, into  the  community  of  saints  or  holy  ones, 
 i,  e.  the  true  worshipers  of  God:  her  faith  in 
 him  had  obtained  this  privilege  for  her.  There 
 is  no  reason  to  believe,  that,  antecedently  to 
 her  conversion,  she  had  been  immoral  in  her 
 conduct  :  nor  is  it  to  bo  supposed  that  a  wo- 
 man of  infamous  character  would  have  been 
 admitted  into  our  Lord's  presence,  or  even  into 
 the  Pharisee's  house.  It  is  well  known  to  all 
 vho  have  attended  to  Scripture  phraseology, 
 that  the  word  sinner  often  signifies  nothing  more 
 than  heathen  ;  and  i<ai}it  exprcses  only  a 
 professed  worshiper  of  the  true  God  :  and  that 
 a  conversion  from  heatlienism,  and  admission 
 into  the  community  of  true  worshipers,  is  some- 
 limes  expressed  by  the  terms  '  repentance,  and 
 forgiveness  of  sins'  ,'  and  that  without  any  im- 
 mediate   re^"ard   to    personal    character.       The 
 
 ^*  Sec  this  fact  cstdblishc'l  by  ^Ir.  Lorkc,  in  his  Coininontary 
 on  Rom.  V.  S,  note  (q)  ;  and  in  Dr.  Tayloi'i  Key  to  the  Apos- 
 tulic  WrJtiiigSj  chap,  vi,  vii. 
 
532     Exaltation  of  Christ  compatible  [Part  I. 
 
 Gospel  dispensation  is  represented  in  the  New 
 Testament,  and  particularly  by  the  apostle  Paul 
 in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  as  a  scheme  for 
 obtaining  remission  of  sins  both  lor  Jews  and 
 Gentiles ;  that  is,  for  recovering  them  from 
 error  and  superstition,  to  the  knowledge  and 
 worship  of  the  true  God.  Thus  the  apostle 
 Peter  speaks  of  Christ  as  exalted  to  be  a  prince 
 and  a  saviour,  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and 
 remission  of  sins.  Acts  v.  31. — It  cannot  ])e 
 doubted  that  the  Gospel  teaches  the  free  for- 
 giveness of  moral  offences  to  the  sincere  peni- 
 tent :  but  this  could  not  with  pi'opriety  be  re- 
 presented as  the  distinguishing  peculiarity  of 
 the  Christian  dispensation,  because  the  promises 
 of  forgiveness  in  the  Old  Testament  are  as  nu- 
 merous, as  clear,  as  full,  and  as  decisive,  as  any 
 that  are  to  be  found  in  the  New.  See  Exod. 
 xxxiv.  6,  7-  Psalm  li.  I?.  Isaiah  Iv.  7.  Micali 
 vii.  18. 
 
 III.  Jesus  Christ  /.•>  appointed  to  raise  the 
 Dead. 
 1.  John  V.  28,  '2.9-  "  The  hour  is  com- 
 ing, in  which  all  that  are  in  their  gra\es  shall 
 hear  his  ^■oice,  and  shall  come  forth  :  they  that 
 have  done  good,  to  the  resurrection  of  hfe;  and 
 
Sect.  10.]      zi'dh  his  simple  Jlumajiiii/.       33.j 
 
 they  that  have  done  evil,  to  the  resurrection  of 
 condemnation." 
 
 2.  John  vi.  40.  "  1  m  ill  raise  him  up  at 
 the  last  day." 
 
 3.  John  xi.  25.  "  I  am  the  resurrection 
 and  the  life." 
 
 4.  1  Cor.  XV.  21,  22.  "  For  since  by 
 man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  the  resur- 
 rection of  the  dead.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die, 
 so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  ahve." 
 
 "  The  apostle  in  these  words,"  sa3's  Mr.  Tyr- 
 "whitt, "  suggests  a  remarkable  analogy  between 
 the  two  dispensations  of  death  and  life,  with 
 respect  to  the  nature  of  the  persons  by  whom 
 they  were  introduced. — The  foundation  of 
 which  analogy  seems  to  be  no  other  than  this*; 
 that  Christ,  as  to  his  nature,  was  in  no  respect 
 materially  different  from  Adam;  that  he  was  it 
 man  in  the  same  sense  of  the  word  in  which  it 
 was  applied  by  St.  Paul  to  Adam,  and  in  which 
 it  is  commonly  applied  to  all  the  sons  of  Adam. 
 We  may  reasonably  presume  that  the  apostle, 
 in  speaking  of  Adam  and  Christ,  with  respect 
 to  their  natures,  if  he  had  known  of  any  mate- 
 rial distinction  between  them,  would  have  been 
 no  less  attentive  to  the  circumstances  of  oppo- 
 sition than  to  those  of  resemblance.  That  in- 
 stead of  saying,  '  As  by  man  came  death,   bv 
 
534     Exaltation  of  Christ  compatible  [Part  I. 
 
 man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead/ 
 he  would  have  said,  '  Altliough  hy  man  came" 
 death,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  came  by  a 
 person  of  a  nature  far  superior  to  that  of 
 tiian  '^."'' 
 
 5.  Philip,  iii.  20,  21.  "  —the  Lord 
 Je'sus  Christ,  Alho  shall  chant^-e  our  vile  body, 
 that  it  may  be  fashioned  hke  to  his  own  glo- 
 rious bod}',  according  to  the  working  whereby 
 he  is  able  even  to  subdue  all  things  untc 
 himself.'^ 
 
 6.  1  Thess.  iv.  16.  "  For  the  Lord 
 himself  shall  descend  with  a  shout,  with  the 
 voice  of  th.e  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of 
 God  :  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first." 
 
 7.  2  Cor.  iv.  14.  "  Knowing  that  he 
 who  raised  up  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  raise  up  u.s' 
 also  by  Jesus,  and  shall  present  us  with  you." 
 See  also  John  v.  21.  1  Cor.  xv.  14—26.  Rev.  i. 
 17,  18.     Rom.  xiv.  9. 
 
 Dr.  Price  observes,  Senn.  }).  147,  that  the 
 power  which  the  Scriptures  teach  us  that  Christ 
 possesses,  of  raising  to  life  all  who  have  died, 
 and  all  who  will  die,  is  equivalent  to  the  power 
 of  creatinfT  a  world.     How  inconsistent  is  it  to 
 
 "  Sco  Mr.  Tyrvv 'liffs  aduiirablc  Disscrfutioa  on  this  it\i,  iif 
 Caiunioiilafies  .uiJ  Essays,  vol.  Ij,  ]).  1,^ 
 
Sect.  10.]      tiitfi  /lis  si/npk  Uunuuiify.       :jJ.j^ 
 
 allow  to  lilni  one  of  tlio^e  powers,  and  at  the 
 same  time  to  question  wliether  li<?  could  have 
 possessed  the  other! 
 
 Dr.  Pviestley  replies,  Letters,  p.  142,  that 
 Dr.  Price  acknowledges  that  the  power  by  which 
 Christ  raised  the  dead  when  he  was  on  earth 
 "  was  not  properly  his  own,  but  that  oF  his 
 Father,  who  was  in  him,  or  acted  by  him."  It 
 mav  also  be  added,  that  the  Scriptures  teach 
 that  Clirist  is  to  raise  the  dead,  but  not  that  he 
 made  the  world. 
 
 IV.     Je.s/i'.v  Christ  is  appointed  to  the  Office  of 
 iniircr.sat  Jti(Iisc,and  to  dispense  the  Kezcdrds 
 and.  Punisluueutsof  a  future  Life :  on  Office 
 to  'ichictt^  as  nianii  think,  it  is  incredible  that 
 a  mere  human.  Being  should  fje  advanced. 
 The  ])assages  wliich  are  usually  understood 
 to  assert  this  doctrine  are  very  numerous,  and 
 many  of  them  arc  perhaps  principally  applicable 
 fo  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.     1  shall    pro- 
 liuce  some  which  appear  to  be  most  decisive, 
 and  refer  to  the  rest.     The  fact  itself  is  not  dis- 
 puted,  that  the  Srriptnres,  taken  in   a   literal 
 sense,  teach  that  Christ  is  to  judge  the  world. 
 'J'he  difficulty  to  be  considered  is,  whether  his 
 rlevation  to  this  olllce  can  be  reconciled  to  the 
 doctrine  of  his  simple  and  proper  humanitv. 
 
336     ExaUation  of  Chrht  compaiiblc  [Part  L 
 
 1.  IMatt.  XXV.  .31,  to  the  end.  "  When 
 tb.e  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all 
 his  holy  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon 
 the  throne  of  his  glory.  And  before  him  shall 
 be  gathered  all  nations ;  and  he  shall  separate 
 them  one  from  another,  as  a  shepherd  divideth 
 his  sheep  from  the  goats,"  &c. 
 
 This  passage,  in  connexion  with  the  prece- 
 ding discourse,  is  interpreted  by  some  as  a 
 sccnical  representation  of  the  calamities  which 
 were  shortly  to  overtake  the  Jewish  nation,  and 
 of  the  escape  of  the  Christians  from  the  general 
 desolation  ^'\  But  it  is  commonly  understood  as 
 a  figurative  description  of  tlie  final  appearance 
 of  Christ  to  judge  the  world.  Other  texts  to 
 the  same  purpose  in  this  evangelist  are.  Chap, 
 vii.  22;  xiii.  40,  41  ;  xvi.  27;  xxvi.  64.  Sec 
 also  Mark  xhi.  26;  xiv.  62.     Luke  xxii.  70. 
 
 2.  Luke  ix.  26.  "  For  whosoever  shall  be 
 ashamed  of  me  and  of  my  words,  of  him  shall 
 the  Son  of  Man  be  ashamed  ^vhen  he  shall 
 come  in  his  own  glory,  and  in  his  Father's,  and 
 of  the  holy  angels."  Matt.  x.  33.  Luke  xii.  8; 
 xxi.  '36.     Also  Luke  iii.  ]()',  17. 
 
 S.    John  V.  26,  27.  "  For  as  the  Father 
 
 ^^  See   Bishop  Pearcc's   ("onim.    ia  luc.   and  rsisbctt  on   the 
 CoHiing  of  tiic  MfSbiali,  p.   140. 
 
Sect.  10.]      7iith  his  simple  Humanity.       33? 
 
 hath  Hfe  in  himself,  so  liath  he  given  to  the  Son 
 to  have  hte  in  himself;  and  hath  given  him  au- 
 thority to  execute  judgement  also,  because  he 
 is  the  Son  of  Man.     Marvel  not  at  this:''  &;c. 
 
 "  Because,''  says  Archbishop  Newcome,  "  he 
 hath  assumed  human  nature."  But  the  text 
 gives  no  countenance  to  this  gloss.  The  words 
 are  '  because  he  is,'  not  '  because  he  chose  to 
 be,  the  Son  of  Man.' 
 
 A  few  manuscripts  of  no  great  account,  the 
 Syriac  and  Armenian  versions,  and  some  of  the 
 Fathers,  join  the  last  clause  of  the  27th  verse 
 to  the  beginning  of  the  28th.  </.  d.  "  Marvel 
 not  at  this,  that  he  is  the  Son  of  Man."  And 
 Theophylact  accuses  Paul  of  Samosata  of  in- 
 troducing this  punctuation  in  order  to  counte- 
 nance his  Unitarian  opinions.  But  the  charge 
 is  unproved,  and  the  motive  improbable.  The 
 best  authorities  favour  the  received  punctua- 
 tion :  and  the  text  implies  that  there  is  a  pe- 
 culiar propriety  in  delegating  this  office  to  a 
 human  being.     Compare  John  v.  22. 
 
 Grotius  supposes  an  allusion  to  Daniel  vii, 
 13,  14,  and  interprets  the  text  of  the  advent 
 of  Christ  for  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
 
 4.  Acts  i.  11.  "  — This  same  Jesus,  who 
 is  taken  up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come 
 z 
 
338     Exaltation  of  Christ  compatible  [Part  I. 
 
 in  like  manner  as  ye  have   seen  him   o^o  into 
 heaven/' 
 
 This  declaration  is  thought  to  assert  in  the 
 most  explicit  lanouage  the  visible" personal  re- 
 turn of  Christ.    See  Dr.  Priestley's  Not.  in  loc. 
 
 5.  Acts  xvn.  31.  "  Because  he  hath 
 appointed  a  day,  in  which  he  will  judge  the 
 world  in  righteousness,  by  that  AIan  whom 
 he  hath  ordained,  whereof"  he  hath  given  assu- 
 rance to  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him 
 from  the  dead." 
 
 6.  Acts  X.  40,  42.  "  Peter  said  to  Cor- 
 nelius, Him  God  raised  up,  and  showed  him 
 openly ; — and  he  conmianded  us  to  preach  to 
 the  people,  and  to  testify  that  it  is  he  who  was 
 ordained  by  God  to  be  the  judge  of  the  living 
 and  the  dead/' 
 
 7.  Rom.  ii.  16.  "  —in  the  day  when 
 God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus 
 Christ,  according  to  my  gospel."  Compare 
 chap.  xiv.  JO. 
 
 8.  1  Cor.  i.  8.  "  — that  ye  may  be 
 blameless  in  the  day  of  the  Lprd  Jesus."  Se^; 
 chap.  v.  5.     2  Cor.  i.  14. 
 
 0.  2  Cor.  v.  10.  "  For  we  must  all  ap- 
 pear before  the  judgement-scat  of  Christ,  that 
 rvery  one   may  receive  the   things  done  in  die 
 
Sect.  10.]     icltli  /lis  simple  JIumanitij.       339 
 
 body,  accordini;-  to  that  he  luitli  done,  whether 
 it  hv.  good  or  bad." 
 
 10.  1  Thess.  ii.  19-  "  For  what  is  our 
 hope,  our  jo}',  our  (M'ou  n  of  rejoicing  ?  Are 
 jiot  even  ye  in  the  j^resence  ot*  our  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ  at  his  coming?"     Conip.  chap.  iv.  16. 
 
 11.  2  Thess.  i.  0'— 10.  "—when  the 
 Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  revealed  from  hea- 
 ven with  his  mighty  angels  in  flaming  fire, 
 taking  vengeance  on  them  \vho  know  not 
 God, — \\ho  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting 
 destruction — when  he  shall  come  to  be  alori- 
 Tied  in  his  saints,  and  to  be  admired  in  all  them 
 that  believe." 
 
 12.  2  Tim.  iv.  1.  "  I  charge  thee  be- 
 
 o 
 
 fore  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall 
 judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  at  his  appear- 
 ance, and  his  kingdom." 
 
 i:>.  1  Pet.  i.  7.  "  — that  the  trial  of 
 your  faith  may  be  found  unto  praise,  and  ho- 
 nour, and  glory,  at  the  appearing  of  Jesus 
 Christ."     See  chap.  v.  4. 
 
 14.  Kev.  i.  7.  "  Behold,  he  cometh  with 
 clouds,  and  every  eye  shall  see  him,"  &c. 
 
 1.5.  ]{ev.  ii.  7-  "  To  him  that  over- 
 comf'th  will  I  gi^e  to  eat  of  ihe  Iree  of  li4e." 
 z  2 
 
540     Exaltation  of  Christ  compatible  [Part  I- 
 
 —See  ver.  10.  17;  chap.  iii.  5.  12.  21  ;  chap, 
 xxii.  12,  13. 
 
 From  these  declarations  it  is  concluded  that 
 Jesus  is  appointed  to  appear  in  person  to  raisfe 
 the  dead,  to  judge  the  world,  and  to  award  to 
 every  individual  of  the  human  race  his  final 
 sentence  of  reward  or  punishment.  This  is  an 
 office  of  such  transcendant  dignity  and  impor- 
 tance, and  requires  powers  so  far  superior  to 
 any  thing  which  we  can  conceive  to  belong  to 
 a  mere  human  being,  however  meritorious  and 
 exalted,  that  to  many  it  appears  utterly  incre- 
 dible that  such  an  office  should  be  assigned  to 
 one  who  was  himself  at  one  time  a  peccable 
 and  fallible  man,  and,  as  such,  liable  to  ap- 
 pear at  the  tribunal  of  eternal  justice.  The 
 nghteous  judge  of  the  whole  earth,  the  un- 
 errins:  arbiter  of  the  destinies  of  all  the  in- 
 numerable  generations  of  mankind,  must  surely 
 be  himself  a  personage  of  rank  far  superior 
 to  any  who  shall  then  be  summoi»ed  to  his 
 tribunal.  This  argument  has  appeared  so  for- 
 cible to  some  persons  of  much  learning  and 
 reflection,  that  this  consideration  alone  has 
 prevented  them  from  acceding  to  the  Unitarian 
 hypothesis,   though    they   have    acknowledo;«d 
 
Seel.  10.]      tcith  his  simple  Humanity.       341 
 
 that  particular  texts  might  admit  of  a  satisfac- 
 tory exphcation  upon  Unitarian  principles. — 
 That  this  is  a  great  difficulty  cannot  be  denied  ; 
 but  possibly  it  may  be  alleviated  by  attentioii 
 to  the  follo\vni<r  considerations  : 
 
 o 
 
 1.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  Jesus  Christ 
 is  appointed  to  judge  the  world.  The  same 
 Scriptures,  in  connexion  with  this  very  appoint- 
 ment, expressly  represent  Jesus  as  a  Man  de- 
 legated to  this  high  ofiico:  Acts  xvii.  31.  What- 
 ever, therefore,  our  prejudices  may  suggest  to 
 the  contrary,  it  is  in  fact  not  inconsistent  with 
 divine  wisdom,  nor  with  the  reason  and  order  of 
 things,  that  a  human  being  should  be  appointed 
 to  the  office  of  universal  judge.  It  is  even  im- 
 plied, John  V.  27,  that  the  proper  humanity  of 
 Christ  is  an  essential  qualification  for  the  office. 
 And  it  is  certain  that  wherever  Jesus  is  men- 
 tioned under  the  character  of  a  judge,  he  is 
 never  in  that  connexion  represented  as  a  being 
 of  an  order  different  from,  and  superior  to, 
 mankind.  Nor  is  this  qualification  ever  hinted 
 at  as  necessary  for  executing  this  solemn  office. 
 
 2.  Jesus  and  his  apostles  do  not  appear 
 to  have  felt  any  difficulty  in  the  appointment 
 of  a  human  being  to  the  office  of  universal 
 judge.      They  simply  state   the    tact   in    the 
 
542     Exaltaiion  of  Clirist  compatible  [Part  I. 
 
 clearest  and  most  unequivocal  manner,  that 
 God  will  judge  the  world  by  the  Man  whom 
 he  hath  ordained.  Tliej  give  no  explanation, 
 they  make  no  comment,  they  ob^iate  no  ob- 
 jections. This  is  a  strong  presumption  that, 
 according  to  their  ideas,  the  office  required  no 
 qualifications  which  a  man  appointed  and  as- 
 sisted by  God  might  not  possess. 
 
 3.  If  to  judge  the  world  be  an  office 
 which  Jesus  is  to  execute  in  person,  and  if  it 
 requn'cs  powers  and  qualifications  superior  to 
 those  which  he  possessed  on  earth,  these  may 
 be  attained  either  hy  the  regular  and  progres- 
 sive improvement  of  his  powers,  in  the  long  in- 
 terval between  his  ascension  and  the  day  of 
 judgement '',  or  they  may  be  imparted  to  him 
 for  the  occasion  by  God  himself,  whose  organ 
 and  delegate  he  will  be  on  that  grand  occasion; 
 and  who  could  as  easily  qualify  a  man,  as  an 
 angel,  or  a  logos,  for  this  nnportant  purpose. 
 
 4.  Whatever  ma)^  be  intended   b}-  tiic 
 
 "  "  Christ  i?  also  said  to  judge  (lie  norld.  But  m  liatever  may 
 be  requisite  to  his  doing  this  may  be  as  easily  imparted  by  CJod, 
 as  the  poHOf  of  raising  the  dead.  Thoiigii  when  you  my  that  his 
 qnalilications  for  dischar^niig  this  o(Tuc  were  acquired  suddenly^ 
 you  overlook  the  long  interval  between  his  ascension  and  his  se- 
 cond coming,  in  which  you  cannot  suppose  (hat  he  is  doing  and 
 learning  nytliing."    J.)r.  l^riestlc}  's  Letters  to  JJr.  Price,  p.  140, 
 
Sect.  10.]       icilli  Ills  .simple  Ilumanifi/.      343 
 
 expression  '  jiKliiing"  the  world/  tlie  apostles  of 
 Christ,  and  bt^liovers  in  i^rneral,  arc  to  share  in 
 that  honour  and  office  with  their  Master. — 
 Matt.  xix.  28,  "  When  the  Son  of  Man  shall 
 sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit 
 on  twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twehe  tribes  of 
 Israel." — 1  Cor.  vi.  '2,  "  Do  ye  not  know  that 
 the  saints  shall  judge  the  world  ? "—Ver,  ,i, 
 "  Know  ye  not  that  we  shall  judge  angels?" 
 It  is  in<leed  alleged  that  christians  are  said  to 
 judge -the  world  oniy  m  a  figurative  and  im- 
 proper sense ;  but  that  this  ofiice  is  attributed 
 to  Christ  really,  properly,  and  without  a  figure. 
 But  this  distniction  is  (juite  gratuitous  and  un- 
 aalhorized.  For  any  thing  that  apj)eai's  to  the 
 contrary,  the  apostles  and  other  christians  wiil 
 be  constituted  judges  of  the  world  in  the  very 
 same  sense  with  Christ,  though  probably  ni  an 
 inferior  degree.  For  he,  in  this,  as  in  all  other 
 things,  must  have  the  pre-eminence  ''^. 
 
 5.  The  sense  in    whleh   a   j)rophecy  is 
 fulfilled  is  often  very  different  from  that  which 
 
 "  "  Judging  tlio  world  is  no  [)roof  of  u  luitiire  siipt-rior  (o 
 niiiii.  Our  Saviour  says,  Joliii  v.  27,  '  and  has  given  him  au- 
 thority to  execute  judgement,  hocaiisc  he  is  tlie  Son  of  Man.' 
 Not  so,  the  Ariau  will  say;  but  because  he  was  flu;  Sou  of  God, 
 and  \vas  before  all  worlds.  Miit  (his  is  being  uise  above  whiK  U 
 \yriUeii."     Dr.  IVieslIey's  Letters  to  Dr.  Frire,  o.  1  10 
 
344     Exaltation  of  Christ  compatible  [Part  I. 
 
 the  literal  interpretation  would  lead  us  to  ex- 
 pect. It  is  therefore  highly  probable  that  the 
 mode  in  which  Christ  will  eventually  execute 
 the  ofiice  of  judging  the  world,  will  bear  little 
 or  no  resemblance  to  that  which  the  expressions 
 naturally  suggest :  and  in  their  true  sense  they 
 may  mean  nothing  more  than  what  a  human 
 being,  exalted  and  endowed  as  Jesus  is,  may 
 be  qualified  to  perform.  God  declares  to  the 
 prophet  Jeremiah,  chap.  i.  10,  "  See,  I  have  set 
 thee  this  day  over  all  nations,  to  root  out,  and 
 to  pull  down,  and  to  destroy,  and  to  build,  and 
 to  plant;"  when  nothing  more  was  intended  than 
 to  authorize  the  prophet  to  declare  the  divine 
 purpose.  And  the  promise  to  Peter,  Matt.  xvi. 
 Ipj  that  whatsoever  he  bound  or  loosed  on 
 earth,  should  be  bound  or  loosed  in  heaven,  is 
 usually  understood  in  a  similar  sense.  The 
 prophecy  concerning  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem is  expressed  in  language  as  strong,  and 
 in  figures  as  av/ful,  as  those  which  relate  to  the 
 last  judgement ;  and  the  personal  appearance  of 
 Christ  hmiself,  with  his  angels,  is  as  expressly 
 asserted;  see  Matt.  xxiv.  2.9.  Luke  xxi.  25,  &c.: 
 yet,  for  any  thing  that  appears,  these  calamitous 
 events  were  brought  to  pass  by  natural  means, 
 and  probably  without  any  personal,  certainly 
 
Sect.  10.]      with  his  simple  Humanity.       343 
 
 without  any  visible,  interference  of  Christ.  He 
 was  only  so  far  concerned  in  it,  as,  in  the  sym- 
 bolical language  of  prophecy,  to  declare  autho- 
 ritatively that  the  event  would  happen. 
 
 6.  May  we  not  then  be  permitted  to 
 conjecture,  that  when  Christ  is  represented  as 
 appointed  by  God  to  judge  the  world,  nothing 
 more  may  be  intended  by  this  language,  but  that 
 the  final  states  of  all  and  every  individual  of  man- 
 kind shall  be  awarded  agreeably  to  the  declara- 
 tions of  the  Gospel  ?  This  supposition  is  per- 
 fectly analogous  to  those  cases  which  are  cited 
 under  the  preceding  head,  especially  to  the 
 strong  expressions  which  are  used  concerning 
 our  Lord's  advent  for  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem ;  the  accomplishment  of  v,  hich  in  a 
 figurative,  and  not  a  literal  sense,  seems  in- 
 tended to  direct  our  minds  to  the  interpretation 
 of  those  symbols  which  typifv,  and  of  that  lan- 
 guage which  announces,  the  personal  agency  of 
 Christ  and  his  disciples  in  the  awful  solemnities 
 of  the  final  judgement.  This  explanation  affords 
 a  very  easy  solution  of  the  language  of  Paul 
 concerning  the  saints  judging  the  world.  The 
 apostles  and  christians  in  general  may  fitly  be 
 represented  as  assessors  with  Christ  on  the  tri- 
 bunal of  judgement,  as  by  the  very  profession 
 
S46     Exaltation  of  Chrht  compatible  [Parti. 
 
 of  Christianity  they  bear  their  solemn  testimony, 
 to  the  unbeheving  world,  of  the  divine  declara- 
 tion by  Jesus  Christ,  that  there  is  a  life  to 
 come,  in  which  men  shall  be  rewarded  accord- 
 ing to  their  works. 
 
 In  perfect  analogy  to  this  interprclalion, 
 Christ  is  figurativel}'  represented  as  a  lawgiver, 
 because  the  prcce])ts  of  his  Gospel  are  laws  to 
 govern  the  conduct  of  his  disciples: — he  is  figu- 
 ratively a  priest,  because  he  voluntarily  deliver- 
 ed himself  up  as  a  victim;  and  sacriliced  his 
 life  in  the  cause  of  truth,  and  in  obedience  to 
 the  will  of  God. — He  is  figuratively  a  conque- 
 ror and  a  king,  and  umver.sal  dominion  is 
 ascribed  to  him,  because  his  Gospel  and  rcl'gion 
 will  gradually  prevail  through  the  world,  and 
 all  nations  will  eventually  submit  to  its  autho- 
 rity.— In  like  manner,  Christ  is  figuratively  a 
 judge,  because  the  final  states  of  all  mankind 
 will  be  awaixled  in  a  future  life  agreeably  to  the 
 solenm,  repeated,  and  explicit  declarations  of 
 his  Gospel 
 
 Our  Lord  himself  appears  to  give  some  coun- 
 tenance to  this  iiiterpretation,  by  the  language 
 which  he  uses,  John  xii.  47,  48,  "  If  any  man 
 hear  my  words  and  believe  not,  I  judge  him 
 not,  for  I  came  not  to  judge  the  world,   but  to 
 
Sect.  10.]       7iil]i  his  simple  JJumanity,       347 
 
 gave  the  world.  He  that  njeeteth  nie,  and  re- 
 ceiveth  not  my  words,  hath  one  that  judi;eth 
 him.     The   avord   tha'J'   I    havk    si'okkn, 
 
 THE  SAMi:  SHALL  Jl.DGE  Ill.M  AT  THE 
 LAST   DAY." 
 
 It  is  a  consideration  of  some  weight,  lint  tliis 
 uiterpretation  relieves  the  doctrine  ot'  tlie  pro- 
 per humanity  of  Jesus  Christ  from  that  great 
 ditliculty  which  has  been  stated  above,  viz. 
 that  a  mere  man  should  be  appointed  to  judge 
 the  characters,  and  to  assign  the  final  states  of 
 all  the  human  race  ;  and  obviates  an  objection 
 which,  to  some  inquisitive  and  reflecting  minds, 
 has  appeared  insurmountable  '!\ 
 
 It  is  obvious  that  the  same  arguments  will 
 apply  to  the  personal  agency  of  Christ  in  the 
 resurrection  of  the  dead,  though  the  difficulty 
 in  this  case  may  not  ])erhaps  be  quite  so  great 
 as  in  the  other.     And  if  any  should  object  that 
 
 *"  \n  tliis  light  it  lias  been  said  that  this  o!)joc(i;)n  apju'Trcd  to 
 (lie  late  rovoieiul  and  Icanud  Hugh  Karnu-r  ui  Walthaiustow, 
 vho  thought  that  <liHiciilties  from  particular  texts  might  be  over- 
 conic.  To  the  writer  of  thi>  note  this  eminent  divine,  Avhose 
 name  would  do  credit  to  any  cause,  distinctly  acUnowled;jid  that 
 'J'ertullian's  celebrated  testimony  to  the  unitarianism  of  the  pri- 
 mitive christians,  u])on  \\hi«h  great  stress  is  justly  laid  by  Dr. 
 Priestley  in  hii  controvers)  with  Ciihop  Jlorsley,  had  never  been 
 answered. 
 
34S  Exaltation  of  Christ,  Sec.        [Part  I. 
 
 such  a  latitude  of  interpretation  would  make 
 the  plainest  language  unintelligible,  let  the  ob- 
 jector consider,  that  no  language  is  less  intel- 
 ligible than  that  of  unfulfilled  prophecy,  which 
 may  nevertheless  be  made  perfectly  intelligible 
 by  the  event.  The  personal  agency  of  Jesus  in 
 the  general  resurrection  of  mankind  is  not  more 
 distinctly  asserted,  than  his  visible  and  imme- 
 diate agency  in  the  dissolution  of  the  Jewish 
 polity.  But  as  the  event  proves  in  the  latter 
 case,  that  nothing  more  was  intended  than  a 
 solemn  and  authoritative  prediction  of  the  ca- 
 tastrophe, it  is  not  impossible  that  it  may  be 
 equally  so  in  the  former.  And  it  is  a  fact  cer- 
 tainly known,  and  universally  admitted,  that  in 
 the  language  of  prophecy  the  prophet  is  often 
 said  to  do  that  which  he  is  inspired  to  foretel. 
 See  Hos.  vi.  5.     Rev.  xi.  6.  "^ 
 
 *«  See  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters  to  Dr.  Price,  No.  IX. 
 
Sect.  11.]  34f) 
 
 SECTIOX    XL 
 
 foxcp.RNiyG  THE  WORSHIP  of  christ. 
 
 Kk  LIGIOU5  Worship  is  Iiomagc,  mental  or 
 verbal,  addressed  to  an  invisible  being,  who  is 
 supposed  to  be  capable  of  attending  lo  such 
 addresses,  and  to  possess  a  voluntary  power  of 
 doing  good  or  evil  to  the  worshiper. 
 
 Idolatry,  strictly  speaking,  is  the  worship  of 
 an  image,  or  of  a  being  of  whom  an  image  is 
 the  symbol.  In  a  more  general  sense,  it  is  ad- 
 dressing religious  worship  to  a  being  who  is  not 
 authorized  to  receive  it.  Hence  it  follows  thai 
 religious  worship  which  in  the  estimation  of 
 one  person  is  an  indispensable  duty,  is  by  an- 
 other regarded  as  idolatrous.  The  worship  cf 
 the  Virgin  Mary  and  other  saints,  as  they  are 
 called,  in  the  Roman  church,  is  by  Protestants 
 deemed  idolatry.  And  upon  the  same  prin- 
 ciple, the  worship  of  Christ  by  Trinitarians, 
 Arians,  and  Socinians,  is  idolatrous  in  the 
 judtjement  of  Unitdrians,  who  conceive  of  God 
 
350        Whether  Christ  is  the  Object     [Part  L 
 
 alone  as  the  proper  object  of  religious  worship. 
 A  conclusion  which  Trinitarians  readily  allow,  if 
 the  Unitarian  doctrine  is  true :  and  from  wliich 
 indeed  some  deduce  an  argument  for  the  pro- 
 per deity  of  Christ,  as  tluy  think  it  incredible 
 that  the  great  body  of  christians  should  ha\e 
 been  suiltered  for  so  many  centuries  to  aposta- 
 tize into  idolatry.  But  not  to  insist  upon  the 
 language  of  prophecy,  which  foretells  this  great 
 apostasy,  they  who  use  this  argument  forget 
 that  the  same  reasoning  would  also  establish 
 transubstantiation  itself.  Unitarians,  thouirh 
 they  regard  the  worship  of  Christ  as  idolatrous 
 and  unscriptural,  and  productive  of  many  hurt- 
 ful consequences  ',  and  though,  on  this  account, 
 they  think  it  their  thity  to  enter  their  public 
 protest  against  it,  are  very  far  from  presuming 
 to  criminate  their  fellow-christians  w  ho  fall  into 
 this  2;reat  and  common  error.  It  is  not  for 
 them  to  judge  of  the  means  and  opportunities 
 of  information  which  their  mistaken  brethren 
 may  possess,  or  of  the  motives  by  which  they 
 may  be  influenced.  Nor  do  they  pretend  that 
 the  worship  of  Christ  was  ever  alluded  to  in  the 
 cautions  and  warnings  of  the  iirst  teachers  of 
 cln'istianity,  nor  do  they  believe  that  this  spe- 
 cies of  idulatrv  was  ever  in  the  contemplation  of 
 
Sect.  11.]         of  Ixcliirious  Worship.  351 
 
 the  sacred  writers.  The  idolatry  which  they 
 continually  and  jnstly  held  np  to  intaniy  and 
 abhorrence,  was  heathen  idolatry,  which  was 
 not  only  in  the  highest  degree  absurd  in  the 
 iheory,  but  which  countenanced  and  even  re- 
 quired the  practice  of  the  most  odious  and 
 degr^'iding  vices. 
 
 The  old  Socinian  doctrine,  that  Christ,  after 
 his  ascension,  was  advanced  to  the  government 
 of  the  universe,  and  became  the  proper  ob- 
 ject of  a  secondary  religious  worship,  is  now 
 universally  exploded.  Even  the  modern  Arians, 
 who,  like  Dr.  Price,  acknowledge  Jesus  Christ 
 to  be  the  Maker  and  Governor  of  the  world, 
 and  to  be  the  Lord  their  Maker,  have,  however 
 inconsistently  with  their  principles,  and  with 
 the  examples  oF  their  predecessors,  generally 
 abcuuloned  tlic  worship  of  Christ.  And  upon 
 this  ground  the}'  lay  claim  to  the  honouraljle  dis- 
 tinction oF  Unitarians.  But  as  they  continue  to 
 ascribe  di'.ine  attributes  and  works  to  Christ, 
 though  thev  deny  him  divine  honours,  this  claim 
 is  partly  allowed  by  the  stricter  Unitarians. 
 At  any  rate,  these  Arians  cannot  avail  them- 
 ?;L'lves  of  the  argument  which  many  derive 
 iVom  the  supposed  authorized  worship  of 
 ('hrlst  to  prove  his  pro-existence  and   superior 
 
352        fVhether  Christ  is  tfie  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 dignity;  but  are  equally  concerned  with  the 
 proper  Unitarians,  to  explain  the  passages  al- 
 leged for  this  purpose  in  consistence  •  with  pure 
 Unitarian  principles. 
 
 It  is  proposed  to  state  the  principal  texts  in 
 which  the  worship  of  Christ  is  said  to  be  either 
 taught  or  exemplified  in  the  New  Testament, 
 from  which  it  "will  be  easy  to  collect  how  far 
 they  admit  of  being  reconciled  to  the  doctrine 
 of  his  proper  humanity. 
 
 Religious  worship  is  either  mental  or  ex- 
 ternal. 
 
 I.     Mental. —  Christ  is  said  to  be  represented 
 as  the  Object  of  Beligious  Regard. 
 
 1.     Of  Faith. 
 
 1.  Rom.  X.  9-  "  If  thou  shalt  confess 
 •>\'ith  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  be- 
 lieve with  thy  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him 
 from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved." 
 
 q.  d.  If  thou  shalt  sincerely  believe  in  the 
 resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  shalt  profess  thy  faith 
 in  him  as  the  true  Messiah,  thou  shalt  be  en- 
 titled to  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel.  See 
 Locke  in  loc. 
 
 2.  1  John  V.  1.  '*  Whosoever  beiieveth 
 that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God/' 
 
Sect.  11.]        of  Religmis  Worship.  353 
 
 q.  d.  E\  cry  one  who  believes  Jesus  to  be  the 
 true  Messiah,  becomes  by  his  profession  a  mem- 
 ber of  the  christian  church,  and  is  adopted 
 into  the  family  of  God. — See  also  John  iii.  36". 
 Actsxvi.  30,  31  :  xxvi.  18.  Gal.  iii.  26.  1  Pet. 
 ii.  6. 
 
 It  would  be  endless  and  useless  to  cite  all  the 
 passages  which  require  faith  in  Christ.  It  is 
 obvious  from  the  texts  above  cited,  that  Faith 
 has  no  mystical  meaning  annexed  to  it,  as  some 
 have  imagined.  Faith  in  Christ  is  either  spe- 
 culative or  practical.  Speculative  faith  is,  as 
 the  apostle  defines  it  above,  assent  to  the  pro- 
 position that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  and  that  he 
 rose  from  the  dead.  This  constitutes  a  person 
 a  christian,  and  entitles  him  to  the  external  pri- 
 vileges of  the  Gospel.  In  the  language  of  the 
 New  Testament,  he  is  '  regenerated,'  '  called,' 
 '  forgiven,'  '  justified,'  '  adopted,'  '  sanctified,' 
 and  '  saved :'  he  is  '  a  son  and  heir,'  he  is  *  chosen, 
 and  holy:'  that  is,  he  is  separated  from  the  un- 
 believing and  idolatrous  world,  he  is  translated 
 out  of  the  *  kingdom  of  darkness'  and  of'  Satan' 
 into  the  '  kingdom  of '  light'  and  of  '  God's  dear 
 Son.'  He  is  admitted  into  the  new  covenant, 
 and  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  God  as  the 
 3  A 
 
354        Whether  Christ  is  the  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 descendants  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  for- 
 merly did. 
 
 Practical  Faith  is  acting  up  to  the  conviction 
 of  the  understanding  ;  and  this  is  indispensably 
 necessary  to  the  future  reward.  He  that  heareth 
 the  sayings  of  Christ,  and  doeth  them,  is  the 
 wise  man  who  buildeth  his  house  upon  a  rock. 
 
 2.     Christ  is  the  Object  of  Love. 
 
 1.  John  xiv.  21.  "He  that  hath  my 
 commandments,  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that 
 loveth  me;  and  he  that  loveth  me  shall  be 
 loved  of  my  Father,  and  I  will  love  him,  and 
 will  manifest  myself  unto  him.'' 
 
 2.  1  Cor.  xvi.  22.  "  If  any  man  love 
 not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let  him  be  Ana- 
 thema, Maran-atha.'' 
 
 q.  d.  Let  him  be  excluded  from  the  christian 
 connnunity.  "  The  Lord  is  coming,''  who  will 
 animadvert  upon  him  as  he  deserves.  The 
 apostle  alludes  to  the  solemn  form  of  excom- 
 munication among  the  Jews,  after  they  had 
 been  deprived  by  the  Romans  of  the  power  of 
 inflicting  capital  punishments.  They  thus  ex- 
 pressed their  fnm  expectation,  that  God  would 
 interpose  in  some  way  or  other  to  carry  into 
 
Sect.  11.]        of  Religions  Worship,  355 
 
 effect  the  sentence  Avhich  they  were  not  per- 
 mitted to  execute. 
 
 3.  1  Pet.  i.  8.  "  Whom,  havmg  not 
 seen,  ye  love.''  See  also  Matt.  x.  37-  John 
 xvi.  27;  xxi.  15,  16,  17.     Eph.  vi.  24. 
 
 Our  Lord  has  so  explicitly  and  repeatedly 
 declared,  that  all  the  love  which  he  requires 
 of  his  disciples  is,  to  obey  the  precepts  of  his 
 Gospel,  that  it  seems  surprising  that  personal 
 affection  to  Christ  should  be  so  often  repre- 
 sented and  insisted  upon  as  a  christian  duty  of 
 the  highest  importance.  The  apostles  and  other 
 immediate  followers  of  Christ,  who  knew  him 
 personally,  and  had  derived  personal  benefits 
 from  him,  in  addition  to  the  greatest  veneration 
 for  his  character,  could  not  but  feel  the  most 
 affectionate  attachment  to  his  person.  But  it 
 is  impossible  that  christians  of  later  times,  who 
 have  had  no  personal  intercourse  with  Christ, 
 and  who  have  received  no  personal  benefits  from 
 him,  can  love  him  in  the  same  sense  in  which 
 the  apostles  and  his  other  companions  did.  They 
 may  indeed  figure  to  their  imaginations  an  ideal 
 person ;  they  may  ascribe  to  this  person  the  most 
 amiable  attributes;  they  may  fancy  that  they  are 
 under  orreater  obH^ations  to  him  than  to  the  Fa- 
 ther  himself;  in  the  warmth  of  their  imagina- 
 2  A  2 
 
5o6        Whether-  Christ  is  the  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 tions,  thej  may  conceive  of  themselves  as  hold- 
 ing converse  \\\\\\  him,  and  their  affections 
 may  be  drawn  out  to  this  ideal  benefactor  to 
 a  very  great  extent ;  their  faith  and  hope,  and 
 love  and  joy,  may  swell  even  to  ecstasy ; — 
 but  this  is  not  love  to  Christ :  it  is  nothing 
 but  a  fond  and  groundless  affection  to  a  mere 
 phantom  of  the  imagination.  Our  Lord's  decla- 
 ration remains  unaltered  :  "  He  that  hath 
 
 MY  COMMANDMENTS,  AND  KEEPETH  THEM, 
 
 HE  IT  IS  THAT  LOVETH  me/'  This  doctrine 
 must  necessarily  appear  Yery  cold  and  spiritless 
 to  those  who  delight  in  high  flights  of  fancy  and 
 of  feeling  in  the  concerns  of  religion.  They 
 may  perhaps  represent  it  as  the  \evy  frigid  zone 
 of  Christianity.  But  it  is  the  Christianity  which 
 their  Master  taught,  and  from  which  they  who 
 are  content  to  learn  of  him  only,  will  not  feel 
 themselves  authorized  to  depart. 
 
 It  is  indeed  impossible  for  any  person  of  re- 
 flection and  sensibihty  to  read  the  interesting 
 account  of  Christ  in  the  artless  narrative  of  the 
 evangelists,  without  being  deeply  impressed  witli 
 the  wisdom  and  majesty  of  his  doctrine,  and 
 with  the  simplicity  and  purity,  the  humility, 
 the  meekness  and  fortitude,  tlie  habitual  un- 
 affected piety,  the  enlarged  active  benevolence, 
 
Sect.  11.]         of  Religions  Worship.  3jT 
 
 and  the  mild  but  conscious  dignity  of  his 
 exalted  character.  But  this  is  no  more  than  an 
 unbehever  might  experience,  and  what  many 
 have  expressed  :  and  cannot  with  any  propriety 
 be  called  Love  to  Christ,  in  the  sense  in  which 
 that  phrase  is  commonly  understood.  Also,  no 
 one  can  truly  appreciate  the  blessings  of  the 
 Gospel,  without  great  thankfulness  to  God  for 
 the  gift  of  his  Son  to  be  the  saviour  of  the 
 world.  Any  thing  beyond  this  appears  to  be 
 incomprehensible,  irrational,  and  unscriptural. 
 That  our  Lord  himself  did  not  challenge  per- 
 sonal affection  as  a  christian  duty,  is  further 
 evident  from  his  declaration,  Mark  iii.  35, 
 "  Whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  God,  the 
 same  is  my  brother,  or  sister,  or  mother/' 
 q.  d.  The  man  who  performs  his  duty  to  God, 
 is  he  who  bears  the  truest  aflection  to  me. 
 And  though,  while  on  earth,  our  Lord  culti- 
 vated personal  friendships,  and  the  apostles 
 must  all  have  felt  the  most  ardent  personal 
 affection  to  their  revered  Master;  and  Paul  in 
 particular,  having  been  under  peculiar  obliga- 
 tions to  Christ,  often  labours  for  words  to  ex- 
 press the  warmth  of  his  attachm«int;  yet  even 
 this  apostle  explicitly  renounces  the  personal 
 friendship  of  Christ  himself;  if  it  should  prove, 
 
358        Whether  Christ  is  the  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 which  he  states  as  possible,  an  impediment  to 
 him  in  the  exercise  of  his  ministry  :  2  Cor. 
 V.  16,  "  Henceforth  know  we  no  man  after  the 
 flesh :  yea,  even  though  we  have  known  Christ 
 after  the  flesh,  yet  now,  henceforth,  know  we 
 him  no  more."  q.  d.  If  I  had  been  the  inti- 
 mate friend  of  Christ,  and  in  the  habit  of  daily 
 personal  intercourse  with  him,  I  must  forego 
 all  the  delight  and  advantage  of  his  society, 
 in  order  to  fulfill  the  purposes  of  the  mission  to 
 which  I  am  appointed ;  namely,  to  live  to  him 
 Avho  died  for  him  and  rose  again :  that  is,  to 
 promote  the  great  cause  for  which  Jesus  lived 
 and  died. 
 
 3.  The  Care  of  the  Soul  to  be  committed  to 
 Christ. 
 In  support  of  this  strange  position,  which 
 some  represent  as  the  most  important  of  chris- 
 tian duties,  only  one  text  is  produced,  and  that 
 most  evidently  misapplied. 
 
 2  Tim.  i.  11,  12.  "  — The  Gospel,  where- 
 unto  I  am  appointed  a  preacher,  and  an  apostle, 
 and  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles.  For  which  cause 
 I  also  suffer  these  things :  nevertheless  I  am 
 not  ashamed  ;  for  I  know  in  whom  I  have 
 believed,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able 
 
Sect.  11.]        of  Religious  Worship.  359 
 
 to  keep  that  ^vluch  I  have  committed  to  him," 
 rriv  'rccoc!.9-/iy.riv  y^a,  my  deposit,  "  against  that 
 day." 
 
 "  That  is,"  says  Dr.  Doddridge,  *'  I  know  to 
 whom  I  have  trusted  all  my  most  important 
 concerns  ;  and  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  he  is 
 well  ahle  to  keep  that  precious  and  immortal 
 soul  which  I  have  deposited  with  him,  unto  that 
 great  and  important  day,  when  the  promised 
 salvation  shall  be  completed." 
 
 But  certainly  this  is  not  the  true  meaning  of 
 the  apostle.  The  word  -Trapa&riKn  occurs  only  in 
 two  other  places  in  the  New  Testament.  See 
 Griesbach  in  loc.  In  this  chapter  it  is  repeat- 
 ed, ver.  14,  where  it  is  rendered,  "  that  which 
 was  committed  to  thee;"  and  again,  1  Tim. 
 vi.  20,  "  that  which  is  committed  to  thy 
 trust."  In  both  passages  it  means  the  Gospel, 
 the  doctrine  of  Christ.  And  this  is  undoubt- 
 edly the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  used  here  : 
 "  I  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  keep  that 
 which  he  has  intrusted  to  me  unto  that  day." 
 The  holy  and  generous  apostle  triumphs  in  the 
 thought,  that,  whatever  becomes  of  himself,  the 
 great  cause  in  which  he  is  embarked  shall  never 
 faik  The  doctrine  of  Christ,  the  interest  of 
 truth    and    rigliteousness,    shall    survive    and 
 
360        Whether  Christ  h  the  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 prosper,  and  shall  endure  and  advance  to  the 
 end  of  time'. 
 
 4.  Christians  are  to  devote  themselves  to  the 
 Service  of  Christ. 
 2  Cor.  V.  14.  "  For  the  love  of  Christ 
 constraineth  us  while  we  thus  judge,  that  if  one 
 died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead  ;  and  he  died  for 
 all,  that  they  who  live  should  not  henceforth 
 live  unto  themselves,  but  to  him  who  died  for 
 them,  and  rose  again."  See  also  Rom.  xiv.  8,  9. 
 Philip,  i.  20,21. 
 
 They  live  to  Christ,  whose  lives  are  devoted 
 to  promote  that  cause  for  which  he  lived  and 
 died,  and  rose  again ;  and  to  this  end  he  died 
 and  rose,  that  all  being  now  raised  by  him  to 
 the  hope  of  life  may  consecrate  their  existence 
 to  his  service. 
 
 11.    External  Homage  required  or  exemplified 
 
 to  Christ. 
 1.     Christ  was  worshiped  during  his  Residence 
 
 on  Earth. 
 1.    Matt,  xxviii.  9-  "  Jesus  met  them, 
 
 *  See  Griesbach,  Grotius,  and  Benson  in  loc.  The  case  of 
 Stephen,  Acts  vii,  59,  is  brought  as  an  instance  of  committing 
 the  soiilj  i.  e,  the  departing  spirit,  to  the  care  of  Christ.  See 
 Doddridge  in  loc.     This  passage  is  considered  p.  373. 
 
Sect.  11.]        of  Religious  JVorship.  36*1 
 
 paying,  All  ball !  and  they  came  and  held  him 
 by  his  feet,  and  worshiped  him/' — Ver.  17, 
 "  When  they  saw  him,  they  worshiped  him/* 
 
 2.  Luke  xxiv.  51,  52.  "  While  he  bless- 
 ed them  he  was  parted  from  them,  and  carried 
 up  into  heaven  :  and  they  worshiped  him."  See 
 also  Matt.  Ix.  18;  xv.  25.     John  ix.  38. 
 
 The  worship  in  these  instances  offered  to 
 Christ  was  civil  respect,  not  religious  homage. 
 The  word  rrooa-Kwio)  is  often  used  in  this  sense, 
 as  well  as  the  English  word  worship,  Dan.  h. 
 48,  "  Nebuchadnezzar  fell  upon  IjIs  face,  and 
 worshiped  Daniel." — Acts  x.  25,  "  Cornelius 
 fell  at  Peter's  feet,  and  worshiped  him.'"  These 
 were  indications  of  high  respect  to  persons  vi- 
 sibly present,  who  were  supposed  to  be  messen- 
 gers from  God,  but  who  were  not  believed  to 
 be  themselves  g  "ds.  But  the  question  is  con- 
 cerning the  lawfulness  of  addressing  worship  to 
 Christ,  now  that  he  is  no  longer  sensibly  present. 
 
 2.     Christ  is  said  to  challeno;c  the  same  Ho- 
 es 
 
 nours  which  are  due  to  the  Father. 
 John  V.  23.  "  That  all  men  may  honour 
 the  Son,  even  as  (xa^o/g)  they  honour  the   Fa- 
 ther. He  that  honoureth  not  the  Son  honoureth 
 not  the  Father  who  sent  him." 
 
S62        Whether  Christ  is  the  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 The  obvious  meaning  is,  that  Christ,  being 
 the  messenger  of  God,  the  very  same  regard  is 
 due  to  his  message  which  would  be  due  to 
 an  oracle  delivered  by  God  himself;  and  that 
 to  disregard  Christ  under  this  character  is  the 
 same  affront  to  the  Supreme  Being,  as  it  would 
 be  to  disregard  the  voice  of  God  himself-. 
 
 3.  Baptism  is  to  be  administered  into  the 
 Name  of  Christ,  together  with  those  of  the 
 Father  and  the  Spirit. 
 
 Matt,  xxviii.  I9.  "  — teach  all  nations, 
 baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
 and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'' 
 
 Hence  many  have  inferred  the  proper  deity 
 of  Christ,  and  that  he  is  the  object  of  religious 
 
 '  "  So  far  is  this  much-cited  text  from  proving  that  divine 
 worship  is  to  be  paid  to  Christ  eqcally  with  the  Father,  that  it 
 does  not  relate  to  worship  at  all."  Lindsey's  Seq.  p.  110,  &c. — 
 See  also  Clarke  on  the  'J'riiiity,  No.  689.  It  is  surprising  that 
 learned  Trinitarians,  and  still  more  so  that  the  Polish  Socinians, 
 should  argue  from  this  text,  (hat  the  same  honours  which  are  due 
 to  God,  are  also  to  be  paid  to  Christ.  See  Whitby,  Doddridge, 
 and  Wolzogenius  in  loc.  "  Socinians,"'  says  Dr.  Price,  "  choose 
 to  be  called  Unitarians;  but  they  have  no  exclusive  right  to  this 
 title,  and  former  Socinians  had  no  right  at  all ;  for  they  con- 
 curred with  Trinitarians  in  worshiping  a  deified  man."  Price's 
 Serm.  p.  143,  note. 
 
Sect.  11.]        of  Religious  Worship.  363 
 
 worship  \  If  there  be  any  force  in  this  conclu- 
 sion, it  must  arise  eiiher  from  the  name  of 
 Christ  being  introduced  into  the  rite  of  bap- 
 tism, or  from  its  being  connected  in  the  same 
 fornmlary  with  those  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
 Ho]}^  Spirit. 
 
 That  baptism  into  the  name  of  any  person 
 si2:nifies  nolhinor  more  than  the  ac  know  led  ofe- 
 ment  of  his  authority,  and  expresses  no  belief 
 in  his  proper  deity,  is  evident  from  what  the 
 apostle  says  of  the  Israelites,  1  Cor.  x.  2,  that 
 they  were  "  baptized  into  Moses."  /\nd  when 
 the  same  apostle  expresses  his  apprehensions, 
 1  Cor.  i.  15,  "  lest  any  should  say  that  he  had 
 baptized  into  his  own  name,"  he  could  not  sus- 
 pect that  they  would  represent  him  as  claiming 
 divine  honours,  but  merely,  as  assuming  to  be 
 the  head  and  leader  of  the  christian  sect.    ' 
 
 Nor  does  the  unitino;  the  name  of  the  Son 
 with  that  of  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
 
 '  "  The  christian  church  in  succeeding  ages  has  acted  a  wise 
 and  safe  part  in  retaining  these  words:  and  they  contain  so 
 strong  an  intiDiation  that  each  of  these  persons  is  properly  God, 
 and  that  worship  is  to  be  paid,  and  glory  to  be  ascribed,  to  each, 
 that  I  cannot  but  hope  they  will  be  the  means  of  niaitUaiiiing  (ho 
 belief  of  the  one,  ai\d  the  practice  of  the  other,  among  the  gene- 
 rality of  christians  to  the  end  of  time."  Doddridge  in  loc. — Se« 
 Groliiis  in  loc.  ;  and  Lindscy's  Apology,  p.  117,  &c. 
 
564        Whether  Christ  is  the  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 the  administration  of  baptism,  prove  the  deity 
 of  Christ,  or  that  he  is  any  thing  more  than  an 
 exalted  human  being :  much  less  does  it  prove 
 that  he  is  the  proper  object  of  religious  Avorship. 
 For,  waving  the  consideration  whether  the  text 
 be  genuine,  whether  it  was  intended  as  a  for- 
 mulary of  the  rite,  whether  the  names  of  the 
 Father  and  Spirit  were  ever  used  in  primitive 
 baptism,  whether  the  precedents  in  the  New 
 Testament  are  not  all  into  the  name  of  Christ 
 only;  and  finally,  whether  a  positive  institution, 
 which  contains  no  direct  address  to  an  invisible 
 being,  can  with  any  propriety  be  regarded  as  an 
 •act  of  religious  worship  ;  it  is  certain  that  no 
 inference  of  equality  in  rank  or  homage  can  be 
 drawn  from  the  association  of  different  names 
 in  the  same  sentence.  See  1  Chron.  xxix.  20, 
 *'  All  the  congregation  bowed  down  their  heads, 
 and  worshiped  the  Lord  and  the  king/' — 1  Sam. 
 xii.  18,  "  The  people  feared  the  Lord  and  the 
 king." — 1  Tim.  v.  21,  "I  charge  thee  before 
 God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  elect  angels, 
 that  thou  observe  these  things.'' 
 
 4.    Angels  are  required  to  worship  Christ. 
 Heb.  i.  6.  "  Let  all  the  angels  of  God 
 worship  him  :"    /.  e.    Let  all  former   prophets 
 
Sect.  1 1 .]        of  Religious  Worship,  S65 
 
 and  messeno^ers  acknowleclire  him  as  their  su- 
 perior.     Sec  p.  206. 
 
 5.   Every  Knee  is  to  bow  at  the  Name  oF  Jesus. 
 
 Phihp.  ii.  9,  10.  "  Wherefore  God  also 
 iiath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name 
 which  is  above  every  name ;  that  at  the  name," 
 iv  ovof^art,  in  the  name,  "  of  Jesus  every  knee 
 sliould  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in 
 earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,"  &c. 
 
 The  learned  Peirce,  whose  system  counte- 
 nanced the  worship  of  Christ,  explains  this  text 
 in  his  paraphrase  as  not  bearing  upon  that  ques- 
 tion. *'  Upon  this  account  God  has  advanced 
 him  higher  than  before,  and  'freely  bestowed  on 
 him  an  authority  that  is  superior  to  whatever 
 he  granted  to  any  other :  that  bij  virtue  of  the 
 aufhoriti/  of  Jesus  all  sliould  be  constrained  to 
 submit  to  God." 
 
 G.    Adjuration  by  Christ. 
 
 1  Thess.  V.  27.  "  I  charge,"  o^xt^&i,  I 
 adjure,  "  you  by  the  Lord,  that  this  epistle  be 
 read  to  all  the  holy  brethren." 
 
 Dr.  Clarke  observes,  that  the  expression  is 
 ambiguous.    God  may  be  the  person  intended. 
 
366        Whether  Christ  is  the  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 It  seems  indeed  to  be  nothing  more  than  a  so- 
 lemn request  and  charge. 
 
 7.     Christ  is  appealed  to  as  a  Witness. 
 
 Rom.  ix.  1.  "  I  speak  the  truth  in  Christ, 
 I  lie  not.'' 
 
 i.  e.  "  Christ  being  my  witness/'  says  Dr. 
 Clarke,  No.  6*97-  But  the  words  admit  of  a 
 different  interpretation.  Mr.  Locke's  explana- 
 tion is,  "  As  a  christian  I  speak  the  truth  :" 
 and  with  him  agree  Crelhus,  Dr.  Taylor,  and 
 many  others.   See  2  Cor.  xii.  IQ.     1  Tim.  ii.  7. 
 
 8.    Christians   are  described  as   invoking   the 
 
 Name  of  Christ. 
 
 1.    Acts  ix.   14.    "  Ananias  answered, 
 
 Lord-^he  hath  authority  here  from   the  chief 
 
 priests  .  to    bind  all  that   call  on  thy  name  ^." 
 
 ■*  "  £Triy.aX8^svs5  to  ovo^a  0-3,  all  that  call  themselves  by  thy 
 name."'  Wakefield. —  ETrwaAso/xaj  is  used  both  in  the  active 
 and  the  middle  or  reciprocal  sense,  a  ^xovov,  tt^os  /SoijSsiav  riva, 
 ifa.§a.xaX(v,  aXXa,  xai,  ZTtO'^oij.cc^o^xi,  Phavorinus  apud  Schleus- 
 ner. — Acts  vii,  69,  "  They  stoned  Stephen,  eidxa.XBit^svov,  in- 
 voking and  saying,"  &c.  See  1  Pet.  i.  17.  Calling  upon,  or 
 calling  one's  self  by,  the  name  of  the  Lord  is  no  uncommon  pe- 
 riphrasis for  being  truly  religious.  Deut.  xxviii,  10.  Joel  ii.  32. 
 Psalm  Ixxix.  6.  James  ii.  7.  See  Wakefield  on  Acts  ii.  21. — 
 "  Hinc  factum  est,  ut  formula  stiKaKsiaboci  ovoi^a,  rivos  signifi- 
 caret  in  universum,  prnfileri  religionem  aUcujus."     Schleusner. 
 
Sect.  11.]        of  Religions  Worship.  367 
 
 That  Jesus  was  the  person  to  whom  this  answer 
 was  addressed,  is  evident  from  ver.  17.  But 
 these  words  may  be  rendered,  '  who  are  called,' 
 or  '  who  call  themselves,  afte?'  thij  name,'  i.  e. 
 who  profess  themselves  thy  disciples.  See  Acts 
 ix.  21 ;  xxii.  l6.     Rom.  .x.  13,  14. 
 
 2.  1  Cor.  i.  2.  "  — with  all  that  in 
 every  place  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord 
 Jesus  Christ.'' 
 
 Or,  rather,  as  Mr.  Wakefield  renders  it,  to  all 
 in  every  place  "  that  take  upon  themselves  the 
 name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ''." 
 
 9.  Dependence  upon  Christ  for  Direction  and 
 Success. 
 Phihp.  ii.  19.  "  I  trust  in  the  Lord  Je- 
 sus to  send  Timothy  to  you  shortly .'* — Ver.  24, 
 *'  I  trust  in  ilie  Lord  that  I  also  myself  shall 
 come  shortly." 
 
 •  Dr.  Doddridge,  in  liis  note,  remarks,  "  This  strongly  implies 
 that  it  miglit  well  be  taken  for  granted  that  every  true  christiaa 
 would  often  pray  to  Christ,  as  well  as  address  the  Father  in  his 
 name."  More  to  the  purpose  is  the  observation  of  INlr.  Locke, 
 "  '  Called  by  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.'  These  words  arc  a  peri- 
 phrasis for  christians,  as  is  plain  from  the  design  of  this  verse."— 
 *'  E7rr/.aAt-»(r9a<  sigiiilicat  cognominari,  Matt.  x.  3.  Luc.  x.vii.  3, 
 Act.  i.  23  j  \v.  36.;  aliisqjic  in  locis,  in  quibus  est  passiva?,  non 
 actiTae  significationis.  Igitur  eriKaAeiySa*  ovou.x  est  vocari  nomine 
 
36s        Whether  Christ  is  the  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 The  apostle  in  his  journeys,  and  in  the  general 
 execution  of  his  mission,  appears  to  have  been 
 under  the  special  direction  of  Christ.  See  Acts 
 xiii.  1,  2;  xvi.  6,  7-  9,  10. 
 
 10.    Doxologies  alleged  to  be  addressed  to 
 Christ. 
 
 1.  2  Tim.  iv.  17,  18.  "  —the  Lord 
 shall  deliver  me  from  every  evil  v^ork,  and  will 
 preserve  me  unto  his  heavenly  kingdom,  to 
 whom  be  glory  for  ever  and  ever." 
 
 Dr.  Clarke,  No.  710,  remarks,  that  "  it  is 
 somewhat  ambiguous  whether  this  be  spoken  of 
 Christ,  or  of  God  the  Father,  but  that  it  seems 
 rather  to  be  meant  of  Christ.''  And  where 
 Christ  is  mentioned  under  the  character  of  a 
 king,  glory  or  honour  may  fitly  be  ascribed  to 
 him  ;  meaning  thereby  to  express  a  wish  that 
 the  glory  of  his  kingdom  may  be  everlasting,  or 
 that  the  great  founder  and  ruler  of  this  spiritual 
 empire  may  be  held  in  everlasting  honour  by 
 his  admiring  and  grateful  subjects. 
 
 Jesu  Christi  quasi  agnoniiiie,  quod  notat  singukrerti  conjunctio- 
 ncm  quEe  nobis  cum  Christo  intercedif,  qualis  est  sponsae  cum 
 viro,  vel  qualis  servi  cum  hero,  qui  do  nomine  heri  etiam  appel- 
 latur.  Itaquc  iirr/.aX.  k.  r.  A.  est  hie  tantum  periphrasis  Chris- 
 tianoruni,"     Hammond  io  loc. 
 
Sect.  11.]        of  Religious  Worship.  S69 
 
 2.  Hcl).  xiii.  iO,  21.  "  Kow  the  God 
 of  pL'iic-c  nitike  you  piM-fecl, — \vorkln2i;  in  you 
 ihat  wliicli  is  wull-ploa.siiii;-  in  his  sight,  through 
 Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  glory  tor  ever  and 
 ever. 
 
 Dr.  Chirke  observes,  ibid.  No.  7^4,  that  "  it 
 is  ambiguous  in  the  construction,  whether  this 
 refers  to  Christ  or  to  the  ]\ither."  He  apphes 
 tli(^  sani(3  remark,  No.  740,  to  J  Pet.  iv.  11, 
 Avhere  the  relative  may  also  refer  to  tiie  remoter 
 antecedent.  And  it  is  more  consonant  to  the 
 usual  practice  of  the  sacred  writers  to  address 
 doxologies  to  God. 
 
 3.  2  Pet.  iii.  IS.  "  But  grow  in  grace, 
 and  in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
 Jesus  Christ;  to  him  be  glory  both  now  and  for 
 ever.    Amen." 
 
 Three  manuscripts  and  the  Syriac  version  add 
 the  words  "  and  of  God  the  Father."  It  is  also 
 to  he  remend)ered  that  the  epistle  itself  is  of 
 doubtful  aulhoritv. 
 
 4.  Rev.  i.  .5,  (i.  "  Unto  hini  who  loved 
 us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  ui  his  own 
 blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  ])riests  unto 
 (iod  and  i»is  leather,  t;)  liim  l)e  gloj'y  and  do- 
 nnnion  lor  e\  cr  and  t\('i. ' 
 
 One  manuscri[)t  cited  by  Mill  and  Griesbach 
 2  c 
 
570        Uiicthcr  Christ  is  the  0!)jcct     [Part  I. 
 
 reads  thus  :  "  Grace  and  peace  from  Jesus 
 Clirist, — even  from  him  who  loved  us  {m  ayu- 
 'xria-ocvTogj)  and  made  us  kings  and  priests  to  God 
 ■ — to  him,"  (i.  e.  God,)  "  be  glory/'  The  very 
 ditlerent  readings  of  this  disturbed  passage,  says 
 Mr.  Lindsey,  Apol.  p.  144,  ''  show  that  it  has 
 suffered  by  the  negligence  of  transcribers,  and 
 therefore  no  certain  conclusion  can  be  drawn 
 from  it." 
 
 11.    Thanksgiving  addressed  to  Christ. 
 
 1.  Epb.  V.  19,  20.  "  Singing  and  ma- 
 king melody  in  your  heart  unto  the  Lord : 
 giving  thanks  to  God  even  the  Father  in  the 
 name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
 
 "  The  connexion  seems  to  determine  the 
 word  '  Lord  '  to  be  meant  of  God."  Dr.  Clarke, 
 ibid.  No.  713. — And  in  the  parallel  passage, 
 Col.  iii.  l6,  "  singing  with  grace  in  your  hearts 
 unto  the  Lord ;"  the  best  manuscripts  and 
 Griesbach's  text  read  "  God." 
 
 2.  1  Tim.  i.  12.  "  I  thank  Christ  Jesus 
 my  Lord,  who  hath  enabled  me,  for  that  he 
 counted  me  faithful,  putting  me  into  the  mi- 
 nistry." 
 
 The  Clermont  copy  and  TEthiopic  version 
 read,  "  I  thank  him  who  enabled  me.  sv  Xoto-Tif. 
 
vSccL.  11.]        of  Religious  Worship.  371 
 
 h//  Christ  Jesus."  But  the  Received  Text  is  the 
 best  su[)portecl,  and  is  ii  very  proper  expression 
 of  the  apostle's  gratitude  for  the  great  personal 
 obhjrations  he  was  under  to  Christ. 
 
 3.  Rev.  V.  8—14.  "  And  when  he  had 
 taken  the  book,  the  four  beasts  and  the  four- 
 aud-twenty  elders  fell  down  before  the  Lamb, 
 — and  they  sang  a  new  song,  saying,  Tiiou  art 
 worthy  to  take  the  book, — for  tliou  w^ast  slain, 
 and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  l)y  thy  })lood. — 
 And  I  heard  the  voice  of  many  angels  round 
 about  the  throne, — saying  with  a  loud  voice, 
 Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  to  receive 
 power,  and  glory,  and  blessing.  And  every 
 creature  which  is  in  heaven,  and  on  the  earth, 
 and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the  sea, 
 and  all  that  are  in  them,  heard  I  saying,  Bless- 
 ing and  honour,  and  glory  and  power,  be  unto 
 him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the 
 Lamb  for  ever  and  ever." 
 
 Upon  this  splendid  description  of  the  whole 
 creation,  as  united  in  ascribing  honour  and 
 thanksgiving  to  Ciod  and  the  Lamb,  v.e  may 
 remark, 
 
 1.  That  the  authenticity  of  the  book  i:i 
 d()id)tful.  No  doctrine  therefon;  is  to  be  ad- 
 mittcMl   upon   this  evidence,  which  is  clearly  to 
 
.li?^        Whether  Christ  is  the  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 be  proved  from  other  undisputed  Scriptures. — ■ 
 2.  The  whole  scene  is  visionary,  and,  in  a  literal 
 sense,    impossible  :  and   it   is  unreasonable  to 
 argue  from  visions  to  realities. — 3.  The  founda- 
 tion of  the  liomage  paid  to  the  Lamb  is,  that 
 he  was  slain  r  therefore  he  is  liot  God,  nor  en- 
 titled to  divine  honours. — 4.  The  homage  paid 
 is  addressed   to  a  person  sensibly  and  visibly 
 present ;  it  cannot  therefore  authorize  religious 
 addresses  to  the  same  being,  uhen  he  is  not 
 sensibly  present. — 5.  It  has  been  already  proved 
 (page  36ii),  that  the  association  of  the  name  of 
 God  with  that  of  some  other  person,  even  in  an 
 act  of  worship,  by  no  means  proves  equality  of 
 nature,  rank,  or   homage. — 6".  Admitting   the 
 genuineness  and  inspiration  of  the  Apocalypse, 
 the  lofty  and  symbolical  language  of  prophecy 
 may  possibly  mean  nothing  more  than  to  ex- 
 press the  joy  and  gratitude  of  the  whole  human 
 race  at  the  triumphs  of  the  Gospel  ^\ 
 
 *  '*  The  blessing  and  lionour  is  tendered  to  the  object  present 
 and  visible; — (he  reason  assigned  shows  that  he  cannot  be  God, 
 vix.  his  being  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,  i.  e.  spotless  innocence, 
 perfect  virtue  and  goodness  tried  and  confirmed  by  snlferings. 
 Ascribing  glory  and  honour  to  Christ  docs  in  no  degree  authorize 
 the  worship  of  him,  or  pra^  or  to  him.  It  is  no  more  than  a  de. 
 claration  of  reverence  and  Iiigli  esteem  of  his  most  perfect  moral 
 I'haracter  and  goodness."     Linds,  Apol.  p.  U5. ;  Seq.  p.  86. 
 
Sect.  11.]        of  neligioits  Worship.  373 
 
 12.     Christ  involved  in  Prayer. 
 1.  "  They  stoned  Steplien,  invoking  and 
 saying,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit." 
 
 The  example  of  Stephen  is  regarded  by^ 
 many  as  decisive  in  ia\  our  of  the  practice  of 
 addressing  prayer  to  Christ.  He  was  full  of 
 the  holy  spirit,  chap.  vi.  5  ;  and  in  the  very 
 article  of  death,  he  prays  to  Christ  in  language 
 exactly  similar  to  that  which,  in  the  same  cir- 
 cumstances, Jesus  used  to  his  heavenly  Father : 
 Luke  xxiii.  46. 
 
 But  to  wave  the  remark,  that  the  solitary 
 unauthorized  example  of  this  good  man  would 
 of  itself  be  no  sufficient  warrant  for  a  practice 
 contrary  to  the  precepts  of  Christ,  and  the  doc- 
 trine of  his  apostles,  which  are  the  only  proper 
 directory  of  christian  worship,  it  may  be  ob- 
 served, that  this  holy  proto-martyr  hafl  just 
 been  favoured  with  an  actual  vision  of  our  Lord, 
 ver.  55,  and  that  the  vivid  impression  of  it,  if 
 not  the  vision  itself,  must  have  continued  on  his 
 mind,  so  that  he  had  u  certain  knowledge,  if  not 
 a  visible  perception,  of  ihe  real  presence  of 
 Christ.  The  example  of  this  primitive  martyr, 
 therefore,  does  not  fall  within  the  limit  of  reli- 
 gious worship,  nor  in  the  least  degree  authorize 
 
374         Whether  Christ  is  the  Object     [Part  I. 
 
 addresses   to  Christ  when  he   is  not  sensibly 
 
 present  7. 
 
 2.  2  Cor.  xii.  8,  9-  "  — there  was  given 
 me  a  thorn  in  the  flesh.  For  this  thino;  I  be- 
 sought  the  Lord  thrice,  that  it  might  depart 
 from  me. — And  he  said  unto  me,  My  strength,'' 
 ^vvocf^tg,  "  is  made  perfect  in  weakness, — gladly 
 therefore  will  I  glory  in  my  infirmities,  that  the 
 power,'"  hvccf^ig,  the  strength,  "  of  Christ  may 
 rest  upon  me." 
 
 Mr.  Lindsey,  Apol.  p.  147,  with  Hammond, 
 Beausobre,  and  others,  conceives  that  the  apo- 
 stle's prayer  was  addressed  to  the  Father.  But 
 the  context  plainly  indicates  the  contrary.  The 
 person  to  whom  he  prayed  was  Christ,  who  had 
 promised  to  remain  with  the  apostles  to  the  end 
 of  the  age,  who  had  repeatedly  appeared  to 
 Paul  in  person  and  in  vision,  and  to  whom  the 
 apostle  applied  upon  some  occasion,  when  it  is 
 evident  that  his  Master  was  sensibly  present 
 with  him,  for  he  cites  the  very  words  of  our 
 Lord's  reply.  But  tliis  is  no  warrant  to  others 
 who  are  not  indulged  with  the  same  privilege. 
 
 '  See  Mr.  Liudscy's  Soquci,  p.  6 — 71.     Ilaync*  on  the  Attri, 
 butcs,  p.  162,     Liiulscy's  Exam,  of  Robinson's  Pica,  Sect.  VI. 
 
Sect  II.]        of  Religious  Worsliip.  37 it 
 
 13.    De\oiit  Wishes  of  Blessiiifrs  from  Christ 
 supposed  to  be  equivalent  to  Prayers. 
 
 Wishes  and  prayers  are  very  far  from  being 
 terms  of  the  same  import.  A  wish  is  merely 
 the  expression  of  desire.  Prayer  is  that  ex- 
 pression addressed  to  one  who  is  supposed  to  be 
 present,  and  able  to  aeeomplish  it.  And  if  this 
 person,  though  not  sensibly,  is  believed  to  be 
 really  present,  prayer  is  an  act  of  religious  wor- 
 ship. To  wish  may  be  innocent  and  proper  in 
 some  cases  in  which  prayer  would  be  unreason- 
 able and  idolatrous.  I  may  innocently  wish 
 that  a  person  in  power  may  grant  an  otlice  to  a 
 friend,  to  ask  for  which,  if  the  person  were  pre- 
 sent, might  or  might  not  be  j)roper  according  to 
 circumstances ;  but  to  pray  to  him  for  it  when 
 he  is  absent,  with  an  expectation  that  he  will 
 hear  and  grant  the  request,  would  be  downright 
 idolatry. 
 
 Paul  and  the  other  sacred  writers  commonly 
 begin  and  end  their  epistles  with  devout  wishes 
 for  evangelical  blessings  from  God  and  Christ, 
 upon  those  to  whom  their  epistles  are  addressed. 
 These  have  been  regarded  by  many  as  equiva- 
 lent to  prayers  and  acts  of  religious  worship  of 
 Christ  equally  with  Goil,  iVom  v.hich  they  have 
 
376         Whether  Chrht  is  the  Oljject     [Part  I. 
 
 inferred  that  Christ  is  truly  God,  and  the  pro- 
 per object  of  di\  ine  worship  ^.  But  this  con- 
 clusion is  certainly  erroneous.  Otherwise  it 
 would  follow  from  the  benediction,  Rev.  i.  4, 
 "  Grace  be  to  you,  and  peace  from  him  who  is, 
 and  who  was,  and  who  is  to  come,  and  fi'om  the 
 seven  spirits  who  are  before  his  throne,''  that 
 these  seven  spirits  also  are  proper  objects  of  di- 
 vine worship. 
 
 The  Gospel  is  often  called  '  grace  or  favour,' 
 because  it  is  a  Wee,  unmerited,  unsolicited,  un- 
 purchased gift.  Sonietimes  it  is  called  the 
 '  grace  or  favour,'  or  '  free  gift  of  God,'  be- 
 cause it  comes  originally  from  C-od, — some- 
 times, as  Philip,  iv.  23,  it  is  called  '  the  favour 
 of  Christ,'  because  Christ  Vias  the  authorized 
 publisher  of  these  glad  tidings.  And  the  pur- 
 port of  the   benevolent  wish  so  often  repeated 
 
 ^  Mclanctlion,  in  a  Ictfcr  to  Canieraiiiis,  in  ]b32,  af(cr  pre- 
 dicting the  (iispiites  and  disturbances  which  woiilil  some  time  or 
 otficr  arise  about  the  Trinity,  adds,  •'  I  take  refuge  in  those 
 plain  declarations  of  vScripture,  winch  enjoin  prayer  tu  Christ, 
 v/hich  is  to  ascribe  the  proj)cr  honour  of  divinity  to  him,  and  is 
 full  of  consolation." — See  ]\lr.  J/iiidse^s  Apol.  p.  IriO.  So 
 Crclliiis  argues  in  his  \ote  upon  1  Thess.  iii.  II,  ''  In>ij,nc  nt 
 cura;  et  providcutiu:  circa  nos  Domini  Jc.su  argumentun),  ita  in- 
 Tocati  ipsius  cxemplum.  Votum  cnim  ejusniodi,  quod  cum  a  quo 
 aliquid  voYco  audire  sum  jicrsiiasii.s,  precafionis  rim  Iiubet^  afqug 
 adeo  ipsa,  licet  intlirecta,  piccalio  est." 
 
Sect.  1].]        of  Religious  Worship.  377 
 
 in  the  apostolic  writings,  is,  that  those  who  are 
 the  object  oF  it  may  enjoy  all  the  blessings  ot* 
 the  Gospel  dispensation,  which  is  the  free  gift 
 of  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  these 
 glad  tidings  were  communicated  to  the  world. 
 
 1.  Rom.  i.  7-  "  Grace  be  to  you,  and 
 peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  from  the  Lord 
 Jesus  Christ."  q.  (J.  May  that  peace  be  yours* 
 \\hich  is  the  fruit  of  the  Gospel,  the  free  gift  of 
 God  by  Jesus  Christ.  See  chap.  xvi.  20.  1  Cor. 
 i.  3;  xvi. '23.     2  Cor.  i.  2. 
 
 2.  2  Cor.  xiii.  ]4.  "  The  grace  of  our 
 Lord  Jesus  Chri>t,  the  love  of  God,  and  the  com- 
 munion" or  participation  "  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
 be  with  you  all."  q.  d.  May  you  all  enjoy  the 
 inestimable  blessings  of  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
 the  favour  of  God,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 3.  2  Thess.  ii.  l6,  17.  "  Now  our  Lord 
 Jesus  Christ  himself,  and  God  even  our  Father, 
 \vho  hath  loved  us,  and  given  us  everlasting 
 consolation  and  good  hope  through  grace,  com- 
 fort your  hearts."  q.  d.  May  your  hearts  be 
 comforted  by  the  love  of  God  revealed  in  the 
 gospel  of  Ciirist. 
 
 4.  1  Tim.  i.  2.  "  Grace,  mercy,  and 
 peace  from   God  our   Father,   and  from  Jesus 
 
378    Whether  Christ  is  the  Object,  &c.  [Part  I. 
 
 Christ  our  Lord/'  q,  d.  May  you  obtain  for- 
 giveness of  sill  and  reconciliation  with  God, 
 which  are  the  privileges  of  the  Gospel  dispen- 
 sation. Here,  grace,  mercy,  and  peace  are  put 
 for  the  mercy  and  peace  of  the  Gospel,  as  the 
 way,  the  truth,  and  the  life  are  put,  John  xiv. 
 16,  for  the  true  way  to  life. 
 
 In  the  same  manner  other  similar  expressions 
 of  devout  and  benevolent  vvishes  meiy  be  ex- 
 plained. And  upon  the  whole,  we  have  abun- 
 dant reason  to  conclude,  that  there  is  neither 
 precept  nor  example  in  the  New  Testament  to 
 warrant  the  addressing  of  prayers  or  an}^  other 
 kind  of  religious  worship  to  Christ.  To  one 
 who  forms  his  judgement  from  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, the  Father  only  is  God,  and  the  proper 
 and  sole  object  of  religious  v»orship. 
 
Sect,  le.]  379 
 
 SECTION     XII. 
 
 ARGUMENTS  TO  PROVE  THE   PROPER   HUMA- 
 NITY OF  JESUS   CHRIST. 
 
 It  Is  not  necessary  to  the  establishment  of  the 
 proper  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ  to  produce 
 specific  arguments  for  this  purpose.  For  who 
 would  require  proof  that  one  who  appears  in  all 
 respects  as  a  man,  is  in  fact  a  proper  human 
 being?  If  Christ  had,  as  is  universally  allowed, 
 all  the  external  appearance  of  a  man,  he  must 
 in  all  reason  be  considered  as  a  man,  in  no  other 
 way  distinguished  from  his  brethren  than  as 
 being  invested  with  an  extraordinary  divine 
 commission.  Whoever  maintains  that  Christ 
 is  a  being  of  superior  order,  an  angel,  a  super- 
 angelic  Logos,  or  a  God,  it  is  incumbent  upon 
 him  to  substantiate  his  assertion  by  clear  and 
 satisfactory  evidence.  If  these  arguments,  after 
 being  carefully  examined,  are  found  to  be  in- 
 sufficient, it  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  produce 
 proof  that  Christ  is  a  mere  man.     The  conclu- 
 
380  Arguments  to  prove  the         [Part  I. 
 
 sion  follows  irresistibly,  and  of  course.  In  the 
 preceding  sections,  all  the  evidence  in  favour  of 
 the  pre-existence  and  superior  nature  of  Christ 
 has  been  produced  and  investigated  ;  and  if  we 
 are  satisfied  that  these  texts,  neither  sino-ly  nor 
 collectively,  contain  any  valid  proof  of  this  im- 
 portant point,  the  assumption  falls  to  the  ground, 
 and  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ  remains  as 
 a  plain  indisputable  fact.  As,  however,  the 
 contrary  opinion  has  for  many  ages  been  the 
 prevailing  belief  of  the  christian  world,  it  may  be 
 of  use  to  annex  a  concise  view  of  the  arguments 
 which  tend  more  immediately  to  establish  and 
 confirm  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a 
 man  in  all  respects  like  other  men,  except  in 
 having  been  selected  by  divine  wisdom  to  be 
 the  messenger  of  truth  and  mercy  to  mankind. 
 
 I.  The  total  silence  of  the  evangelists  Mat- 
 thew, Mark,  and  Luke  concerning  our  Lord's 
 pre-existence  and  divinity  is  utterly  unaccount- 
 able, if  these  stupendous  facts  are  true,  and 
 were  known  to  those  writers.  This  plain  and  un- 
 answerable argument  has  been  stated  before  '. 
 
 '  Sec  above,  Sccf.  III.  p.  15.  Also,  Letters  upon  Ariauisni, 
 in  Reply  to  Mr.  B.  Ciiipcuter,  Lett.  8.  ^Modern  theologians  pay 
 little  attention  to  i\n&  difficulty,  which  appears  to  have  created. 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  JIumanitij  of  Christ.     381 
 
 IL  The  pre-existencc  and  divinity  of  Christ 
 are  no  ^vherc  taught  as  doctrines  of  revelation, 
 but  are  left  to  be  inferred  from  indirect  argu- 
 
 as  it  well  niiglit,  very  considerable  embarrassment  to  (ho  ancient 
 occlo-siastical  writers,  who  ascribe  the  silence  of  the  evangelist* 
 to  their  great  prudence  in  avoiding  to  shock  the  prejudices  of 
 their  hearers,  by  divulging  the  obnoxious  doctrine  of  Christ's  di- 
 vinity. Aihanasius  says,  "  the  Jews  of  that  age  thought  ihat 
 Christ  was  a  mere  man,  resembling  other  descendants  of  David, 
 and  did  not  believe  citlicr  that  he  was  God,  or  that  the  Word  was 
 made  flesh.  On  this  account  the  blessed  apostles,  with  great  pru- 
 dence, in  tiic  first  place  taught  what  related  to  the  humanity  of 
 our  Saviour  to  the  Jews,  that  they  might  afterwards  bring  them 
 to  the  belief  of  his  divinity."  Athanas.  Opp.  vol.i.  p.  bbZ.— 
 l>f.  Priestley's  Early  Opinions,  vol.  iii.  p.  89. 
 
 Chrysobtom  says,  "  '  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word.'  This 
 doctrine  was  not  published  at  first,  for  the  world  would  not  re- 
 ceive it.  Wherefore  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Ltike  began  at  a  di- 
 stance:— they  did  jiot  immcdiateij'  say  what  was  bticoming  hit 
 dignity,  but  what  would  suit  the  hearers.  John,  the  son  of 
 thunder,  advanced  to  the  doctrine  of  (he  divinity.  As  the  light- 
 ening precedes  the  thunder,  they  flashed  the  occonomy  {i.  e.  the 
 liumanity)  of  Christ :  but  he  thundered  put  the  divinity."  Chry- 
 sost,  de  Sig.  Opp,  vol.  vi.  \).  171 — Priestley,  ibid,  p.  130.  This 
 writer  also  represents  the  apostle  John  as  holding  a  soliloquy 
 widi  himself  when  he  was  about  to  write  his  history.  "  Why  do 
 I  delay  ?  Why  do  I  nut  publish  what  angels  arf  ignorant  of  ?  Why 
 do  I  not  write  what  ^latthcw,  and  Mark,  and  l^uke,  through 
 a  wise  and  praiseworthy  timidity  passed  over  in  silerK:o,  accord- 
 ing to  the  orders  which  vvere  given  them?  I  will  write  a  book 
 which  will  stop  the  mouths  of  all  wlio  speak  unjustly  of  God, 
 licaving  all  tilings  (hat  come  (o  pass  frojii  time,  and  in  time,  I 
 will  sprak  of  that  wliirh  is  wKhotit  all  (imp,  and  is  uncreated,  the 
 
382  Arguments  to  prove  the         [Part  I. 
 
 merits,  obscure    phraseology,    and   ambiguous 
 hints. 
 
 The  doctrine  of  a  future  hfe,  which  is  truly  a 
 
 Logos  of  God."  Chrys.  ibid.  voJ.  vi.  p,  606.  Dr.  Priestley,  ibid. 
 p.  134. 
 
 Epiphaniiis  says,  "  the  blessed  John,  coming  and  finding  men 
 employed  abont  the  humanity  of  Christ,  and  the  Ebionites  in  an 
 error  about  the  genealogy,  and  the  Cerinthians  and  Merinthiaus 
 maintaining  that  he  was  a  mere  man,  descended  of  human  pa- 
 rents, as  coming  last  he  began  to  call  back  the  wanderers,  and 
 those  who  were  employed  about  tlie  humanity  of  ('hrist."  Epi- 
 phan.  0pp.  Tol.  i.  p.  747.     Dr.  Priestley,  ibid.  p.  140. 
 
 Jerome  says,  "  John  the  apostle,  whom  Jesus  loved,  wrote  his 
 gospel  last  of  all,  at  the  intreaty  of  the  bishops  of  Asia,  against 
 Cerinthus  and  other  heretics,  and  especially  against  the  doctrine 
 of  the  f^bionites,  then  gaining  ground,  who  said  that  Christ  had 
 no  existence  before  he  was  born  of  JNIary."  llicronym.  0pp. 
 Tol.  i.  p.  273.     Dr.  Priestley,  ibid.  p.  142. 
 
 The  prudent  timidity  and  reserve  which,  by  these  early  writers, 
 is  ascribed  to  the  evangelists,  is  utterly  unworthy  of  their  cha- 
 racter, and  has  no  foundation  in  fact.  Nor  would  it  be  admitted 
 by  modern  advocates  of  the  prc-cxistcnce  and  divinity  of  Christ. 
 The  truth  is,  that  the  sacred  writers  never  mention  these  extra- 
 ordinary facts,  because  they  had  never  heard  of  them.  Other- 
 wise silence  would  have  been  impossible.  To  write  the  life  of 
 Caesar,  and  forget  the  battle  of  Pharsalia,  or  to  jiublish  the  his- 
 tory of  Nelson,  and  to  omit  the  victories  of  tlie  Nile  and  of  Tra- 
 falgar, would  be  nothing  in  comparison  with  three  historians  un- 
 dertaking to  write  the  life  of  Christ,  and  one  of  them  carrying 
 on  the  history  of  the  promulgation  of  Christianity  to  thirty  years 
 after  our  Lord's  ascension,  without  giving  one  single  hint  that  (he 
 subject  of  their  narrative  was  the  Maker  of  the  world  himself  in 
 aa  incarnate  form,  if  they  had  known  this  extraordinary  fact. 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  ILimanihj  of  Christ.     383 
 
 doctrine  of  revelation,  is  tuuglit  in  the  most  ex- 
 plicit language,  so  that  no  lH'li(.'ver  in  the  mis- 
 sion of  Christ  can  possibly  entertain  a  doubt  of 
 it.  And  if  Christ  were  God,  or  the  ]\Iaker  and 
 Supporter  of  the  world  under  God,  this  doctrine 
 being  of  such  high  importance  would,  no  doid)t, 
 have  been  taught  with  equal  clearness  and  pre- 
 cision. That  it  is  not  so  taught  is  abundantly 
 evident  from  the  numerous  controversies  which 
 have  subsisted,  and  which  continue  to  subsist 
 upon  that  subject,  and  that  not  only  among  the 
 ignorant  and  prejudiced,  but  among  persons 
 equally  honest,  and  learned,  and  inquisitive,  and 
 fuuallv  desirous  of  knowing  the  truth. 
 
 III.  The  apostles  either  did  or  did  not  know 
 of  the  pre-cxistent  state  and  dignity  of  Christ 
 during  his  personal  ministry,  and  while  they 
 were  personally  conversant  with  him. 
 
 If  it  is  maintained  that  they  were  informed 
 of  this  amazing  fact,  it  may  justly  be  asked, 
 when  did  thev  first  come  to  the  knowledjie  of 
 it?  What  marks  are  there  of  that  astonishment 
 and  terror  with  which  their  minds  must  have 
 been  o\erwhelmed  when  this  extraordinary  se- 
 cret was  first  divulged  to  th<,'m  ?  Flow  could 
 thev  c\(M-  recover  them'^elves  from  this  const&r- 
 
S84  ylrgiuncuts  to  prove  tlic         [Parti. 
 
 nation  so  far  as  to  be  able  afterwards  to  asso- 
 ciate and  converse  freely  and  familiarly  with 
 their  Maker  and  their  God,  to  put  questions  to 
 him,  and  occasionally  e\en  to  contradict  and 
 rebuke  him  ;  and  finally,  to  desert  hnn  when  he 
 ^vas  arrested,  judged,  and  crucilled  ? — It  is  in- 
 deed alleged,  that  tlils  impression  of  astonish- 
 ment and  dismay  would  gradually  wear  oif. 
 But  the  fact  is,  that  it  does  not  appear  to  ha\  e 
 been  ever  excited.  TIn-ough  the  whole  course  of 
 his  ministry,  our  Lord  was  uniformly  treated  by 
 his  associates  and  disciples  as  a  man,  highly  di- 
 stinguished, indeed,  by  divine  communications 
 and  powers :  but  in  no  other  respect  different 
 from  his  brethren.  Their  whole  conduct  to 
 Christ  is  utterly  unaccountable  upon  any  other 
 supposition.  To  affirm  that  the  impression  of 
 his  infinite  superiority,  if  revealed,  would  have 
 Avorn  off,  is  gratuitous  and  improbable,  nav, 
 impossible,  in  the  few  short  months  or  years  in 
 which  he  lived  amongst  them.  Did  Abraham  or 
 Moses  ever  approach  to  that  familiarity  in  then' 
 intercourse  with  God,  which  the  apostles  con- 
 tinually used,  even  to  the  very  last,  in  conversing 
 with  Jesus  ?  Let  us  for  a  moment  make  the  case 
 our  own.  If  the  discovery  should  unexpectedly 
 be* made,  that  a  person  with  whom  wc  have  for 
 
S'jct.  l*?.]    proper  llumanitij  of  Christ.      385 
 
 some  time  associated  as  a  companion,  whom  we 
 have  loved  as  a  friend,  have  revered  as  an  instruc- 
 tor, and  have  venerated  as  a  saint, — is  not  what 
 we  have  always  presumed  him  to  be,  a  man  like 
 ourselves,  but  an  angel  in  human  form ;  is  it  pos- 
 sible that  we  could  ever  recover  from  the  asto- 
 nishment which  this  discovery  would  occasion, 
 so  as  to  converse  with  him  again  upon  the  same 
 terms  of  familiarity  and    ease  ?    What,  then^ 
 would  be  the  effect  produced,  if  it  were  ascer- 
 tained that  this  person  was  our  Maker  and  our 
 God? — Nothing  could  be  so  disturbing  to  the 
 nnnd,  or  so  oftensive  to  the  prejudices  of  a  Jew, 
 as  the  novel  and  strange  doctrines  of  subordinate 
 Jehovahs,  of  delegated  Creators,  and  of  trini- 
 ties of  equal  persons  in  a  unity  of  the  divine 
 essence:  and  yet,  as  some  think,  all  this  was  re- 
 vealed to  the  apostles  during  the  personal  mi- 
 nistry of  our  Saviour,  without  giving  birth  to 
 one  single  expression  of  surprise,  or  calling  forth 
 a  sinirle  comment. 
 
 o 
 
 The  difliculties  upon  the  supposition  that  thi$ 
 information  was  communicated  to  the  apostles 
 fluring  the  personal  ministry  of  our  Saviour  are 
 indeed  so  great,  that  it  has  been  a  prevailing 
 opinion  with  many,  that  the  doctrines  of  our 
 '2  C 
 
S$8  Arguments  to  prove  the         [Part  L 
 
 Lord's  pre^existence  and  divinity  were  not 
 completely  divulged  till  after  his  ascension-. 
 But  this  concession  creates  an  equal  difficulty 
 On  the  other  side.  For,  if  the  pre-existence  and 
 divinity  of  Christ  were  not  known  to  his  dis- 
 ciples during  his  personal  ministry,  it  is  plain 
 that  many  passages,  which  are  now  alleged  as 
 clear  and  unequivocal  assertions  of  those  doc- 
 trines, must  have  been  understood  by  the  per- 
 sons to  whom  they  were  immediately  addressed 
 in  a  sense  compatible  with  our  Lord's  proper 
 humanity.  And  the  Unitarians  are  no  longer 
 to  be    arraigned   as  perverting  the  plain  lan- 
 
 "  This  question  is  not  yet  complete!)  settled  by  the  believers  in 
 these  doctrines  ;  nor  has  it  indeed  been  attended  to  as  its  impor- 
 tance deserves.  For  I  will  Tentiire  to  say,  it  can  never  be  solved 
 upon  the  hypothesis  of  Arianisni  or  Triuitarianism,  so  as  to  sa- 
 tisfy a  judicious  and  impartial  inquirer.  The  late  ingenious  and 
 pious  Mr.  Gilpin,  vicar  of  Boldre,  in  his  Exposition  of  the  New 
 Testament,  explains  John  xiv.  7,  as  a  declaration  of  the  divinity 
 of  Christ,  q.  d.  "  They  who  know  me  know  the  Father  also." 
 To  which  the  apostle  Philip  very  coolly  replies,  "  If  that  be  the 
 case,  give  us  some  extraordinary  sign,  that  we  may  know  your 
 EQUALITY  WITH  TUE  FATHER."  And  ouf  Lord  having  given  his  dis- 
 ciple satisfaction  in  this  point,  the  conversation  goes  on  as  usual. 
 The  learned  commentator,  to  confirm  his  exposition,  adds  in  a 
 note,  "  Philip  did  not  want  proof  of  the  Father,  in  whom  he 
 already  believed ;  but  he  wanted  proof  of  that  equality  ^\  hich  Je- 
 sus asserted  he  had  with  the  Father."     Can  any  tiling  be  more 
 
Sect.  12.]    ijroper  Jrlumanitij  of  Christ.      587 
 
 guagc  of  Scripture,  when  they  interpret  such 
 phrases  as  "  ascending  into  and  descending 
 from  lieaven,"  "  ejiistint];  before  Abraham/' 
 "  bavin"-  glory  vvilh  the  Father  before  the  world 
 was/'  and  the  hke,  as  referring,  not  to  local  si- 
 tuation and  actual  pre-existence,  but  to  a  divine 
 commission,  and  to  existence  in  the  divine  pur- 
 pose. 
 
 \y.  The  Jews  in  the  apostolic  age  never 
 charged  the  Christians  with  polytheism  or  ido- 
 latry. 
 
 Tlie  apostles  and  their  followers  were  loudly 
 impeached  by  the  Jews  as  '  pestilent  fellows,'  as 
 '  movers  of  sedition/  as  '  men  that  turned  the 
 
 extraordinary  and  incredible,  than  that  such  an  astonishing  dis- 
 covery should  have  passed  without  any  particular  notice,  as  a  mere 
 ordinary  topic  of  conversation  ?  In  any  similar  case,  »f  such  a 
 case  could  be  imagined,  Mr.  Gilpin  wOuId  have  been  one  of  the 
 first  to  see  and  remark  the  absurdity,  for  he  was  a  man  of  sense, 
 and  taste,  and  feeling.  But  such  is  the  power  of  prejudice  to 
 fascinate  even  the  wise.  How  very  ditferently,  and  how  much 
 more  naturally,  did  the  people  of  Lystra  act,  when,  from  the 
 miraculous  cure  of  the  lame  man,  they  concluded  that  Paul  and 
 Barnabas  were  fjods,  who  had  descended  from  hsaveu  in  human 
 shape!  The  whole  city  was  in  commotion,  and  it  v.as  with  great 
 diflicuUy  that  ilu-y  were  restrained  from  otfering  sacrifices  to  the 
 apostles:  Acts  xiv.  11.  Analogous  to  these  would  have  been  the 
 feelings  and  the  conduct  of  the  disci|)les  of  Jesus,  if  they  had  be- 
 lieved hitn  to  be  the  Lord  their  Maker.  See  Pjiestiey.  Early 
 Upin.  vol.  i.  p.  23. 
 
 2  C  ^ 
 
388  Arguments  to  prove  the         [Part  L 
 
 world  upside  down,'  as  ^  blasphemers  of  the  law/ 
 as  *  profaners  of  the  temple/  bat  never  as  ido- 
 laters, as  the  worshipers  of  false  gods,  as  men  that 
 introduced  new  objects  of  religious  worship,  or 
 who  violated  the  great  and  fundamental  doctrine 
 of  the  unity  of  God.  But  this  charge  has  been 
 uniformly  and  vehemently  urged  by  the  Jews 
 against  the  christian  religion  ever  since  the  doc- 
 trines of  the  pre-existence  and  divinity  of  Christ 
 have  been  received  as  articles  of  faith. 
 
 Chrysostom  says,  "  As  to  the  Jews,  who  had 
 daily  heard  and  been  taught  out  of  the  law, 
 *  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  one  Lord, 
 and  beside  him  there  is  no  other/  having  seen 
 Jesus  nailed  to  a  cross  ;  yea,  having  killed  and 
 buried  him  thems^elves,  and  not  having  seen 
 him  risen  again ;  if  they  had  heard  that  this 
 very  person  was  God,  and  equal  to  the  Father, 
 would  they  not  have  rejected  it,  and  spurned  at 
 it  with  the  utmost  indignation  ?  On  this  account 
 the  apostles  brought  them  forward  gently,  and. 
 by  slow  degrees,  ^nd  used  great  art  in  conde- 
 scending to  their  weakness  ^Z' 
 
 V.    Christ    is    reperitcdly   and   emphatically 
 
 ^  Chrysostom.  0pp.  toI,  viii,  p,  417.     rriestley,  Hist.  Early 
 Opin.Tol.  iii.  p.  10 J. 
 
Sect.  12.]    proper  Humanitij  of  Christ.      3.89 
 
 called  a  Max  even  after  his  resurrection  and 
 ascension;  and  that  without  any  qualification  or 
 reser\e,  e\ en  where  the  case  seemed  to  require 
 it,  and  where  the  writer  would  not  have  failed 
 to  introduce  some  qualifying  expression  had  he 
 conceived  of  Christ  as  a  being  different  from, 
 and  superior  to,  the  rest  of  mankind. 
 
 Acts  ii.  22,  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  Man  ap- 
 proved of  God  among  you  by  miracles,''  &c. — 
 xvii.  31,  "  He  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which 
 he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by 
 that  Man  whom  he  hath  ordained." — 1  Cor. 
 XV.  21,  "  For  since  by  Man  came  death,  by 
 :\Iax  also  came  the  resurrection  of  the  dead." 
 —  i  Tim.  ii.  5,  "  There  is  one  God,  and  one 
 Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  Man 
 Christ  Jesus'^." 
 
 Dr.  Price,  Serm.  p.  140,  says,  "  that  accord- 
 ing to  all  opinions  Christ  was  truly  a  man,  and 
 is  properly  so  called.     Had  the  Scriptures  called 
 
 ■*  "  Ihcre  is  one  and  the  same,  mid  only  one  mediator  between 
 Clod  and  men  of  all  nations,  even  the  great  and  glorious,  yea,  di- 
 \ine  man  Jesus  Christ,  who  assumed  human  nature  into  personal 
 union  with  himself  as  the  Son  of  Clod,  and  so  was  truly  mati  as 
 well  as  God."  Dr.  CJuyse  in  loc— Such  is  the  addition  which 
 orthodoxy  makes  to  evangelical  simplicity.  Paul's  language 
 would  hare  been  as  guardinJ  as  that  of  his  commentator,  had  his 
 ideas  been  tfn-  same. 
 
390  Argummts  io  prove  the         [Part  L 
 
 him  a  man,  and  added  that  he  was  no  more  than 
 man,  this  question  would  have  been  decided." 
 And  Mr.  H.  Taylor,  Ben  Mordecai,  Lett.  No.  2, 
 observes,  "  that  Christ  is  a  man  in  the  common 
 sense  of  the  word  ;  that  is,  a  spiritual  being  in- 
 habiting a  human  body  ;  in  which  sense  the 
 word  may  include  the  highest  spiritual  being  in 
 heaven  capable  of  incarnation,  as  well  as  the 
 lowest  upon  earth.  The  angel  with  whom  Jacob 
 wrestled  is  called  '  a  man/  Gen.  xxxii.  24,  and 
 '  God,'  ver.  30." 
 
 Mr.  Lindsey,  Seq.  p.  392,  replies,  "  that 
 though  it  cannot  be  denied  that  spiritual  beings 
 personating  men  are  sometimes  so  called,  it  is 
 only  by  the  sacred  historians,  who  describe  iheir 
 outward  appearance,  or  by  the  persons  to  whom 
 they  appeared  while  they  were  under  a  decep- 
 tion concerning  them.  To  call  an  angelic  being 
 shut  up  in  a  human  body,  as  in  a  box  or  case, 
 and  animating  it,  to  call  this  compound  being 
 a  man,  is  uncountenanced  \iy  Scripture,  or  any 
 true  philosophy.  If  indeed  you  suppose  a  sus- 
 pension  or  quiescence  of  the  powers  of  this  pre- 
 sumed great  pre-existent  spirit  of  Christ,  during 
 its  confinement  in  a  human  body,  he  might  then 
 properly  enough  have  been  called  a  man,  while 
 in  such  a  state.     But  then  if  he  lost  all  consci- 
 
Sect.  IC]    proper  Humanity  of  Christ.      391 
 
 ousness  of  what  he  was  before,  and  all  use  of 
 former  powers  and  knowledge,  it  was  to  all  in- 
 tents the  same  as  if  he  had  never  been  possessed 
 of  them.  He  mii^ht  as  well  have  been  a  mere 
 man.  In  the  Scripture  there  is  no  intimation 
 of  Christ's  forgetfulness  of  what  he  had  for- 
 merly been  ;  no  account  of  any  abridgement  of 
 the  talents  and  abilities  enjoyed  by  him  in  a 
 former  state  ;  or  of  any  abasement  or  degra- 
 ding of  himself  in  leaving  it,  and  entering 
 upon  this." 
 
 VI.  Jesus  calls  himself  the  Son  of  Man. 
 Matt.  xvi.  13.  "  Who  do  men  say  that  I  the 
 Son  of  Man  am?"  Concerning;  this  title  it  is 
 observable,  1.  That  it  is  applied  by  Jesus  to 
 himself  upwards  of  forty  times  in  the  New  Tesr 
 tament :  it  occurs  in  all  the  evangelists. — 2.  This 
 title  is  never  used  by  any  person  in  addressing 
 our  Lord  himself,  nor  by  any  one  in  writing  or 
 speaking  of  him,  except  by  Stephen,  Acts  vii. 
 56",  "  I  see  the  Son  of  Alan  standing  at  the  right 
 hand  of  God ; "  and  by  Jolm  in  Rev.  i.  13,  and 
 perhaps  xiv.  14. — 3.  The  expression  '  son  of 
 man'  is  a  common  periphrasis  for  a  man  him- 
 selif;  and  in  this  sense  it  occurs  frequently 
 in  the  Old  Testament,  and  sometimes  in  th^ 
 
*S9^2  Arguments  to  prove  the         [Part  L 
 
 New.  See  Ps.  viii.  4.  Prov.  viii.  31.  Eccles, 
 ii.  8.  Mark  iii.  28.  Eph.  hi.  5.-4.  This  title 
 occurs  continually  in  the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel, 
 whhre  jt  seems  commonly  to  express  a  person 
 invested  with  a  prophetical  character.  Ezek. 
 xxxih.  7j  "  O  son  of  man,  I  have  set  thee  as  a 
 watchman  to  the  house  of  Israel." — 5.  This 
 phrase  occurs,  Dan.  vii.  13,  in  a  connexion  in 
 which  it  has  been  understood  both  by  Jews  and 
 Christians  to  signify  the  Messiah.  ''  I  savi^  in 
 the  night-visions,  and  behold,  one  like  the  Son 
 of  Man  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  : — and 
 there  was  given  him  dominion  and  glory,  and  a 
 kingdom."  The  expres5»ion,  however,  may  pos- 
 sibly signify  nothing  more  than  a  person  in 
 human  form ;  and  it  is  observable,  that  as  in 
 the  interpretation  of  the  vision  the  other  sym- 
 bols are  explained,  not  of  persons  but  of  em- 
 pires, so  this  symbol  of  a  human  figure  is  ex- 
 plained not  of  an  individual,  but  of  the  king- 
 dom of  the  saints,  of  the  Most  High.  See  ver. 
 18.  22.  27.-6.  Christ  speaks  of  himself  em- 
 phatically as  THE  Son  of  Man;  by  which  form 
 of  expression  it  is  probable  that  he  not  only 
 means  to  describe  himself  as  a  proper  human 
 being,  but  to  insinuate  that  he  was  himself  that 
 Messiah  whom  they  understood  to  be  foretol(| 
 
Sect.  12.]    proper  }iumanit If  of  Chrht.      393 
 
 by  the  prophet  Daniel.  That  the  plirase  '  Son 
 of  Man'  wah-  regarded  as  nearly  e(jiuvalent  to 
 that  of  jVIessiah,  is  apparent  from  J.)hn  \ii.  34, 
 "  We  have  heard  from  the  Law  that  Christ 
 abideth  for  ever ;  and  how  sayest  thou  then 
 that  the  Son  of  Man  must  be  lifted  iip.^  Who 
 is  this  Son  of  Man  V  The  expression,  however, 
 is  ambiguous;  and  our  Lord  perhaps  ehose  to 
 adopt  it  when  speaking  of  himself  in  public,  in 
 order  to  excite  attention  to  his  claim,  and  at 
 the  same  time  to  avoid  an  explicit  declaration 
 that  he  was  the  Messiah,  which  he  generally  de- 
 clined during  his  personal  ministry. 
 
 VIL  Christ  appeared  as  a  man,  with  all  the 
 attributes  and  feelings  of  a  human  being ;  and 
 he  was  universally  regarded  as  such  by  those 
 who  saw  and  conversed  with  him. 
 
 L  Jesus  was  born  into  the  world  like  other 
 men.  John  xviii.  37, "To  this  end  was  I  bom." 
 — 2.  He  had  a  mean  education,  and  probably 
 followed  the  occupation  of  a  carpenter.  Mark 
 VI.  3,  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter?''  John  vii. 
 15,  "  How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  having 
 never  learned?" — 3.  He  felt,  conversed,  and 
 acted  as  a  human  being.  1.)  Filial  duty  and 
 affection  :  John  xix.  20",  27,  while  suspended 
 
3.94  Argumejits  to  prove  the         [Part  I^ 
 
 on  the  croRs,  he  committed  his  mother  to  the 
 care  of  the  beloved  disciple. — 2.)  Joy :  Luke 
 X.  21,  "In  that  hour,  Jesus  rejoiced/' — 3.)  Sor- 
 row and  tears :  John  xi.  35,  "  Jesus  wept/' — 
 4.)  Indignation  :  Mark  iii.  5,  "  And  when  he 
 had  looked  around  on  them  with  anger,  being 
 grieved  for  the  hardness  of  their  heart/' — 5.) 
 Friendship  :  John  xxi.  20,  "  The  disciple  whom 
 Jesus  loved/' — 6.)  Human  actions  are  attributed 
 to  him  :  Aets  x.  28,  "  He  went  about  doing 
 good/' — 7-)  He  conversed  as  a  human  being : 
 Luke  xxiv.  32,  "  Did  not  our  heart  burn  within 
 us  while  he  talked  with  us  by  the  way?" 
 
 4.  Our  Lord  sustained  the  infirmities  of  hu- 
 man nature,  and  suffered  and  died  like  other 
 men.  1.)  He  suffered  hunger  and  thirst :  Luke 
 iv.  2,  "  And  when  the  days  were  ended,  he 
 was  afterwards  hungry/' — John  xix.  28,  "  He 
 saith,  I  thirst/'— 2.)  Weariness  and  fainting: 
 John  iv.  6,  "  Jesus  being  wearied  with  his  jour- 
 ney, sat  thus  on  the  well." — 3.)  Want  of  the 
 necessaries  of  life  :  Luke  ix.  58,  "  The  foxes 
 have  holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  air  have  nests, 
 but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his 
 head." — 4.)  Agony  and  death:  Luke  xxii.  44, 
 "  And  being  in  an  agony,  he  prayed  more  ear- 
 nestly."    xxiii.  46,  "  He  said,  Father,  into  thy 
 
Sect.  12.]    proper  Humanity  of  Clirist .      395 
 
 hands  I  comnicnd  my  spirit.  And  having  said 
 this,  he  expired." 
 
 5.  He  was  regarded  and  treated  as  a  humari 
 being  by  those  who  associated  and  conversed 
 with  him.  Matt.  xiii.  54,  "  Whence  hath  this 
 man  this  wisdom  and  these  mighty  works  ?  Is 
 not  this  th.e  carpenter's  son  ?  Is  not  his  niother 
 called  Alary  ;  and  his  brethren,  James,  and 
 Joses,  and  Simon,  and  Judas;  and  his  sisters, 
 are  they  not  all  with  us?  Whence,  then,  hath 
 this  man  all  these  things?  And  they  were  of- 
 fended in  him/'  Luke  xxiii.  47,  "  Now,  when 
 the  centurion  saw  what  was  done,  he  glorified 
 God,  saying,  Certainly  this  was  a  righteous 
 man." 
 
 These  facts  constitute  the  strongest  possible 
 presumption  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  a  pro- 
 per human  being,  a  man  like  other  men.  Nor 
 IS  it  at  all  necessary  for  the  establishment  of 
 this  fact  that  the  Scriptures  should,  as  Dr.  Price 
 suggests,  declare  that  Jesus  was  a  man,  and 
 nothing  more  than  a  man;  any  more  than  it 
 would  be  necessary  in  order  to  prove  the  huma- 
 nity of  AIoscs  or  Elijah,  to  say  of  those  great 
 prophets,  that  they  were  men,  and  no  more 
 than  men.  The  fact  establishes  itself  by  its  own 
 notoriety  and  the  common  sense  of  mankind, 
 
596  Arguments  to  prove  the        [Part  L 
 
 unless  rebutted  by  evidence  far  more  clear  and 
 unequivocal  than  any  which  ever  has  been,  or, 
 I  will  venture  to  say,  ever  can  be  produced  to 
 the  contrary. 
 
 VIII.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
 brews directly  asserts,  and  from  the  necessity  of 
 the  case  argues,  that  Christ,  in  order  to  accom- 
 plish the  purposes  of  his  mission,  should  be  a 
 man,  and  not  a  being  of  an  order  superior  to  the 
 human  race.     Heb.  ii.  .5—18. 
 
 The  word  mi^cl  being  ambiguous,  and  the 
 writer  having  used  it,  in  the  course  of  his  argu- 
 ment, (chap,  i.)  to  establish  the  superiority  of  the 
 founder  of  the  new  dispensation  to  all  former 
 prophets  and  messengers  of  God;  in  order  to 
 guard  his  readers  against  a  conclusion  into 
 which  they  might  be  led  by  the  ambiguity  of 
 the  language,  he  sets  himself  directly  to  prove 
 that  this  distinguished  teacher  was  not,  and 
 could  not  be,  an  angelic  being,  but  was  a  real 
 suffering  man.  It  is  no  objection  to  this  inter- 
 pretation that  he  now  uses  the  word  *  angel'  in 
 a  different  sense  from  what  he  had  before  done, 
 ■without  giving  notice  of  the  change.  Such  in- 
 accuracies of  style  are  not  uncommon  in  the 
 Sacred  Writinfrs  :  and  this  author   had  before 
 
Sect.  12.]    proper  Humanity  of  Clirht.      397 
 
 availed  himself  of  the  equivocal  sense  of  the 
 
 word  '  angel/  chap.  i.  7. 
 
 Ver.  o,  ''  God  hath  not  subjected  to  angeh 
 
 the  succeeding  age  of  which  we  speak."     And 
 
 bavin n^  shown  that  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  man 
 o 
 
 is  described  as  a  being  a  httle  inferior  to  angels, 
 he  adds,  ver.  9,  "  We  see  Jesus  who  kcis"  (not 
 '  who  was  made^  but '  who  was,'  i.  e.  by  nature,) 
 "  a  litde  inferior  to  angels;"  or,  in  other  words, 
 a  human  being.  He  then  proceeds  to  state  the 
 expedience  that  the  deliverer  of  mankind  from 
 death  should  himself  be  a  suffering  man  ;  after 
 which  he  draws  the  conclusion,  ver.  14,  lo, 
 "  Since,  therefore,  the  children  arc  partakers  of 
 flesh  and  blood,  he  also,  himself  likewise,"  or, 
 completely,  in  perfect  conformity,  cra^a7r?w;;c-<w?, 
 see  Peirce,  "  was  partaker  of  the  same,"  /.  e.  he 
 was  as  truly,  properU%  and  completely  a  human 
 being,  as  any  of  those  whom  he  came  tp  rescue 
 fjom  the  fear  of  death.  "  Which  fear,"  as  he 
 goes  on  to  observe,  ver.  l6,  "  did  not  lay  hold 
 on,"  could  not  extend  to,  "  angels,  but  did  lay 
 hold  on,"  did  extend  to,  and  seize,  "  the  seed  of 
 Abraham-."  It  was  rii^htfor  him  therefore  "in 
 
 '  See  Theolog,  Repos,  vol.  f.  p.  ICA:  an<l  Im;r<jTpd  Vorsiuu 
 •  n  lo'-. 
 
3$S  Arguments  fS  prove  the         [Part  L 
 
 all  things/'  ;«ara  Txiirtt,,  in  every  respect  without 
 exception,  "  to  be,"  not  to  be  7nade,  see  Wake- 
 field, "  like  unto  his  brethren."  q.  d.  Had  angels 
 been  subject  to  the  fear  of  death,  an  angel 
 miaht  have  been  sent  to  save  them :  but  as 
 men  alone  are  subject  to  this  terror,  it  was  ex- 
 pedient that  one  who  was  properly  a  human 
 being  should  be  commissioned  to  deliver  them 
 from  it^. 
 
 Thus  it  appears,  not  only  that  the  Christian 
 Scriptures  do  not  teach  the  pre-existence  and 
 divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  that  the  writer  of 
 the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  though  he  had 
 foreseen  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  later  times, 
 argues  expressly  against  it,  and  proves  that  it 
 would  have  been  inexpedient  that  the  Saviour 
 of  the  world  should  have  been  any  other  than 
 a  suffering  human  being. 
 
 IX.  The  great  body  of  primitive  christianSi 
 both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  for  the  two  first  centu- 
 
 *  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  the  gross  DMStranslation 
 of  this  text  in  the  public  version  ;  viz.  "  he  took  not  on  him  the 
 nature  of  angels."  Every  intelligent  reader  knows  that  the  words 
 will  not  admit  of  this  construction.  Archbishop  Newcome's 
 translation  is,  "  Christ  hclpeth  not  angels."  See  Doddridge, 
 Peirco,  and  Svkcsin  loc,     Itdo.  Version  and  uofes. 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  Humanity  of  Christ.      399 
 
 ries  and  upwards,  were  Unitarians,  and  believers 
 in  the  simple  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ'. 
 
 This  is  an  argument  of  great  weight  in  the 
 controversy  concerning  the  person  of  Christ: 
 for  the  doctrine  which  the  first  christians  held 
 must  have  been  that  which  the  first  preachers 
 taught. 
 
 The  first  impression  of  the  first  believers,  of 
 those  who  were  personal  witnesses  to  the  facts 
 related  in  the  gospels,  must  have  been,  that 
 Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  one  of  the  human  race, 
 selected  from  the  rest  of  mankind  as  a  prophet 
 of  God,  distinguished  from  all  other  prophets 
 by  the  importance  of  his  doctrine,  the  frequenc}^ 
 and  splendour  of  his  miraculous  works,  and, 
 above  all,  by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
 This  is  the  opinion  which  all  would  naturally 
 entertain  concerning  Christ,  till  they  were  fur- 
 ther instructed  in  the  sublime  doctrines  of  his 
 pre-existence  and  divinity. 
 
 To  modern  christians,  who,  from  habit  and 
 
 '  This  is  a  fact  whidi  Dr.  Priestley  has,  I  think,  established 
 beyond  all  dispute  in  his  History  of  the  Corruptions  of  Chris- 
 tianity, in  his  Controversies  with  Ba'lcock  and  15ishop  Ilorsley, 
 and,  above  all,  in  his  learned,  laborious,  and  invaluable  work, 
 The  History  of  Karly  Opinions  concerning  the  Person  of 
 Christ. 
 
400  Arguments  lo  prove  the         [Part  t. 
 
 association,  read  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment as  if  they  had  been  composed  by  one 
 person,  or  by  a  few  persons  writing  in  concert, 
 the  difficulty  seldom  occurs  of  accounting  for 
 the  omission  of  the  doctrines  of  the  pre-exist- 
 ence  and  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  by  the  majo- 
 rity of  the  writers,  and  particularly  by  three 
 out  of  four  of  the  historians  of  his  life.  But 
 to  the  ancients,  who  were  more  familiar  with 
 the  idea  that  these  books  were  written  at  diffe- 
 rent times,  in  different  places,  with  different 
 views,  by  different  autiiors,  and  for  different 
 churches,  the  objection  occurred  in  its  full 
 force ;  and  they  could  find  no  better  solution 
 of  the  difliculty  than  by  ascribing  this  extra- 
 ordinary omission  to  "  the  prudent  caution,'* 
 and  "  praiseworthy  timidity'%"  of  the  apostles 
 and  evantrelists,  in  not  divuloino;  a  doctrine  so 
 offensive  to  the  Jews,  and  so  danijerous  to  the 
 Gentiles^.-     These  reasons,  though  perhaps  the 
 
 •  "  p.era  TroAAi;^  rijj  (ruvEcrsa;^."  Alhaiiasius. —  "  ^»'  iircciva. 
 jttgvryv  ^£<Xjav."     Chrysostoni. 
 
 "  See  p.  380,  note;  also  p.  383.  Origcn  says,  "  John  alone 
 introduced  the  knowledge  of  the  eternity  of  Christ."  0pp.  vol.  ii. 
 p.  4'28. — Eiisebiussays,  "  John  hegan  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity 
 of  Christ."  Hist,  lib.iii.  c.  2  1, — See  Dr.  Priestley.  Flist.  Eiirly  Op. 
 vol.  iii.  p.  V2.b.  127. — "  The  apostle  docs  not  speak,  plainly  con- 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  Humanity  of  Christ.      401 
 
 best  that  coulil  be  offered,  will  not  satisfy  a  mo- 
 dern inqinr^^r:  but  the  fact  remains  the  same. 
 The  doctrine  of  Christ's  pre-existence  and  di- 
 vinity was  not  taught  plainly  till  the  apostle 
 John  wrote  his  gospel,  which  Lardner  places 
 A.  D.  68,  and  Jones  and  others  later  than 
 A.  D.  90.  '"  But  what  the  apostles  did  not 
 teach,  the  first  christians  did  not  believe.  The 
 christian  church  therefore  must  have  been  Uni- 
 tarian, at  least  till  the  apostle  John  wrote  his 
 gospel. 
 
 But  there  is  no  evidence  that  any  change 
 took  place  in  the  sentiments  of  the  great  body 
 of  christians  in  consequence  of  the  publication 
 of  St.  John's  gospel.  He  is  said  by  Irenasus  to 
 have  written  against  the  Gnostics,  and  by  Ori- 
 gen,  and  others  who  came  after  him,  to  have 
 written  againt  the  Ebionites  also''.  That  the 
 apostle  wrote  with  much  indignation  and  aspe- 
 rity against  ths  former  is  manifest.  Against 
 the  Docetap,  a  sect  of  Gnostics  who  taught 
 that  Jesus  was  indeed  the  Christ,  but  that  he 
 
 cerning  thu  deity  of  Cluisf,  because  polytht-ism  abounded,  and  lest 
 he  should  be  thought  to  introduce  many  gods."  Theonhylact  in 
 1  Tim.  ii.  5. — Sec  Priestley,  ibid,  book  iii.  chap.  vi. 
 
 '"  Lardner's  [list,  of  P^vang.  toI.  i.  p.  387.  389.  ed.'i. 
 
 "  Sec  Priestley,  ibid,  book  i.  chap.  iii.  sect.  5,  fJ :  also  toI.  Ui, 
 p.  124. 
 
 2  D 
 
402  Arguments  to proie  tJie         [Part  L 
 
 was  a  man  in  appearance  only,  and  not  in 
 reality,  the  apostle  writes,  1  John  iv.  3,  "  Every 
 spirit  that  confesses  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
 in  the  flesh,"  /.  e.  who  confesses  that  Jesus  is  the 
 Christ,  but  who  denies  that  he  is  a  real  man, 
 "  is  not  of  God.  It  is  the  spirit  of  antichrist/' 
 And  ao-ainst  those  Gnostics  who  acknowledo-ed 
 Jesus  to  be  a  real  man,  but  who  denied  him  to 
 be  tlie  Christ,  maintaining  that  Christ  was  one 
 of  the  celestial  ^Eons  or  emanations,  who  de- 
 scended into  Jesus  at  his  baptism,  but  deserted 
 him  at  his  crucifixion,  the  apostle  writes,  1  John 
 ii.  22,  "  Who  is  a  liar^  but  he  who  denieth  that 
 Jesus  is  the  Christ?"  No  such  language  as  this 
 is  to  })e  found  in  tlie  writings  of  this  apostle 
 conGerning  the  Unitarians.  And  the  supposi- 
 tion that  John  wrote  the  introduction  to  his 
 gospel  against  the  Ebionites,  or  Unitarians,  is 
 clearly  confuted  hy  the  fact  that  the  expression 
 **■  in  the  beginning,"  which  introduces  the  go- 
 spel of  John,  signiiies  almost  uniformly  in  the 
 apostle's  writings,  not  the  beginning  of  time, 
 but  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  dispensation. 
 But  as  it  is  conceded  that  Unitarians  abounded 
 in  the  apostolic  age  ;  if  John  did  not  write 
 against  them,  it  is  highly  probable  that  he 
 •dirreed    with    them  :    lor  few    Trinitarians  will 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  IJumanity  of  Chi-i^t,      403 
 
 now  deny  that  the  heresy  of  the  Ebionitcs  was 
 at  least  as  dans^erous,  and  as  deserving  of  ani- 
 madversion, as  that  of  the  Gnostics.  And  so, 
 no  doubt,  would  the  apostl^  have  thought,  had 
 he  beheved  the  present  popular  doctrine  con- 
 cerning the  person  of  Christ. 
 
 The  ancient  Unitarians  always  maintained 
 that  theirs  was  the  prevailing  doctrine  in  the 
 church  till  the  time  of  Victor  bishop  of  Rome, 
 about  A.  D.  200,  who  excommunicated  Theo- 
 dotus  of  Byzantium,  a  learned  Unitarian.  This 
 assertion  of  the  Unitarians  is  contradicted,  but 
 not  disproved,  by  Eusebius  and  others '-. 
 
 The  early  Unitarians  being  the  mass  of  be- 
 lievers, few  of  whom  were  philosophers  and  spe- 
 culative men,  had  not  many  writers  among 
 them,  and  few  of  their  works  are  now  extant'^. 
 All  that  we  know  of  them  is  from  the  writings 
 of  their  adversaries.  It  is  however  certain  that 
 they  abounded  in  the  apostolic  age  ;  and  that 
 they  long  constituted  a  very  large  proportion, 
 
 '*  Kuscb.  His(.  lib.  V.  cap,  '28.  Prioslley,  ibid.  lib.  iii.  chap. 
 XV.  ^  1. 
 
 '^  The  Clementine  Homilies,  .supposed  to  be  ^vrittcn  about  <ho 
 time  of  Justin  Martyr,  are  the  production  of  an  Unitarian,  and 
 is  almost  the  only  Unitarian  Treatise  of  Ecclesiastical  Antiquity 
 now  extant.     Sec  Piicstley,  ibid.  toI.  i.  p.  11 '.], 
 
 2  D  2 
 
404  Argu?ne?ifs  to  prove  the         [Part  I- 
 
 and  probably  even  the  majority,  of  believers, 
 may  be  reasonably  inferred  from  their  having 
 no  appropriate  name  ;  also  from  their  not 
 having  been  excommunicated  like  the  Gnostics, 
 and  branded  as  heretics,  which  they  certainly 
 would  have  been  if  Arians  or  Trinitarians  had 
 at  that  time  possessed  the  ascendancy.  The  re- 
 spect with  which  they  are  mentioned  by  Justin 
 Martyr,  the  first  who  taught  the  divinity  of 
 the  Logos,  plainly  indicates  that  their  numbers 
 were  not  to  be  despised.  In  his  Dialogue  with 
 Trypho  the  Jev.',  his  opponent  says  :  "  This  doc- 
 trine,—that  Christ  was  a  God  existing  before  the 
 ages,  and  then  born  a  man, — is  not  only  extraor- 
 dinary, but  ridiculous.''  Justin  replies:  "  I  know 
 that  this  doctrine  appears  strange,  and  espe- 
 cially to  those  of  your  race  (Jews) :  but  it  will 
 not  follow  that  he  is  not  the  Christ,  though  I 
 should  not  be  able  to  prove  that  he  pre-existed 
 as  God,  and  that  he  became  a  man  by  the  Vir- 
 gin. It  will  be  right  to  say  that  in  this  only  I 
 have  been  mistaken;  and  not  that  he  is  not  the 
 Christ,  though  he  should  appear  to  be  u  man 
 born  as  other  men  are,  and  to  be  made  Christ 
 hy  election.  For  there  arc  some  of  our  race 
 {Goiillea)  who  acknowledge  him  to  be  Christ, 
 but  hold   that  he  was  a  man   born  like  other 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  Tlumanitii  of  Chrht.      405 
 
 men.  With  them  I  do  not  tigree,  nor  should  I 
 do  so,  though  ever  so  many  being  of  the  same 
 opinion  should  urge  it  upon  me  ''* ;  because  we 
 are  commanded  bv  Christ  liimself  not  to  obev 
 
 '  *•'  0;V,  8  (TvvT'i'isy.xi,  aJ'  av  ttKciS'Oijfix.-jra.  ^xsj  ^o^xtravrss,  ei- 
 tfO(*v.  Qiiibiis  ego  lion  assentior,  ncque,  etiamsi  niulto  pliires 
 cssent,  assentirer."  Tliirlby,  p.  ^35,  not. — "  To  wlioin  I  coi^Id 
 not  yield  my  assent;  no,  not  even  if  the  majority  of  christians 
 should  think  the  same:"  Badcock,  in  the  Monthly  Rev.  for 
 June  1783,  who  considers  it  as  a  declaration  that  the  majority 
 of  christians  coincided  in  opinion  with  Justin  himself. — "  To 
 wJiom  1  (\o  not  assent,  though  the  majority  may  have  told  me 
 that  they  had  been  of  the  same  o])inion :"  Mr.  Cappe,  who  in 
 his  vindication  of  Dr.  Priestley  contends,  that  the  words  pro- 
 perly express  that  the  majority  of  christians  held  opinions  con- 
 trary to  those  of  the  writer. — At  any  rate,  and  whatever  be  the 
 meaning  of  Justin,  how  different  the  language  of  this  virtuous 
 and  candid,  though  mistaken  writer,  from  that  of  the  angry  op- 
 ponents of  the  same  doctrine  in  modern  times  !  "  If  your  opi- 
 nion is  true,"  said  one  of  Dr.  Priestley's  early  and  zealous  anta- 
 gonists, "  1  will  throiv  my  Bible  into  the  fire."  But  what  says 
 the  venerable  martyr  in  a  similar  case?  "  If  your  doctrine  be 
 true,  it  only  follows  that  I  am  mistaken  as  to  the  pre-cxistence 
 and  deity  of  Jesus  ;  but  he  is  still  the  Christ,  though  he  became 
 so  only  by  election."  ^V hat  occasions  this  remarkable  dilference 
 between  ilr,  V^cnn  and  Justin  Martyr?  The  true  reason  is  this: 
 Mr.  Venn  wrote  in  an  age  when  Triiiitarianiiim  was  triumj)hant, 
 and  Unitarianism  in  disgrace:  Justin  .Martyr  wrote  at  a  time 
 •when  Unitarianism  was  held  in  honour,  and  the  pre-existence  and 
 divinity  of  Christ  were  novel  and  obnoxious  opinions.  After  all, 
 I  must  confess  that  I  am  not  iiiiitc  satisfied  with  any  one  of  the 
 translations  of  these  learned  writers.  The  true  version  of  this 
 celebrated  passage  aj)pears  to  oe  to  be  the  following:   "  With 
 
406  Argnments  to  prove  the         [Parti, 
 
 the  teachings  of  men,  but  what  was  taught  by 
 the  holy  prophets  and  himself."  This  is  plainly 
 the  language  of  one  who  wishes  to  conciliate  re^ 
 gard  to  a  novel  and  offensive  opinion,  which 
 might  possibly  be  erroneous ;  and  not  of  one 
 who -advocates  the  cause  of  a  triumphant  ma- 
 jority. 
 
 'The  testimony  of  Origen,  who  wrote  in  the 
 beginning  of  the  third  century,  to  the  proper 
 Unitarianism  of  the  body  of  Jewish  chris- 
 tians in  his  time,  is  direct  and  full.  "  The 
 word  Ebicn"  says  he,  "  in  the  Jewish  language 
 signifies  pooj- :  and  those  of  the  Jews  who  be- 
 lieve Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  are  called  Ehio- 
 nites."  And  in  his  Commentary  upon  ]\'Iat- 
 thew,  he  introdaces  a  distinction  among  the 
 Jews  who  believed  in  Christ ;  "  some  thinking 
 
 whom  I  do  not  agree  :  nor  sliould  I,  even  though  the  majority, 
 ■who  are  of  the  same  opinion  with  m<»,  Tavra.  jj.oi  $o^x<ra.vr£s,  had 
 affirmed  it." — •'■  Tavra.  Jo^a^sfv  aAAvjAoJ^,  candem  habere  opinio- 
 uem."  Xc'iioph.  a,i.  Coiistantin.  Lex.  in  Vcrb.-r— It  is  probable 
 tliat  Justin  here  particularly  alludes  to  the  fact  of  the  miraculous 
 conccptioii,  which  was  at  that  time  pretty  generally  credited  by 
 the  Gentije  christians.  And  this  was  the  subject  last  mentioned, 
 that  Chrjst  ivas  a  man  born  as  oilier  men.  He  can  hardly  bo 
 supposed  to  refer  to  the  pre-existence  and  divinity  of  the  Logos, 
 which  he  had  just  acknowledged  to  be  a  strange  doctriiuv  7rac«- 
 Jo^Of  0  Aoyoj,  bolh  to  Jewish  ami  Gentile  believers,  though  prin.. 
 fcjpally  to  the  former. 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  Huinamt}j  of  Christ.      407 
 
 hlni  to  be  the  Son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and 
 others  of  Mary  only  and  the  divine  Spirit,  but 
 not  beUevinir  liis  divinity."  And  in  another 
 passage  he  speaks  ot'  the  Ebionites  of  both  sorts, 
 as  not  recei\ ing  the  Epistles  of  Paul  ^'. 
 
 Eusebius,  who  wrote  a  century  afterwards, 
 confirms  the  testimony  of  Origen  concerning 
 the  Ebionit-es.  "  Those  by  the  ancients  called 
 Ebionites,  think  meanly,"  says  he,  "  concerning 
 Christ :  for  they  think  him  to  be  merely  a 
 man  like  other  men,  but  approved  on  account 
 of  his  virtue,  being  tlie  son  of  jMary's  husband. 
 Others,  called  by  the  same  name,  do  not  deny 
 that  the  Lord  was  born  of  a  virgin  and  of  the 
 Hoi}^  Spirit ;  but,  disallowing  that  he  pre-existed 
 as  God,  the  logos,  and  wisdom,  they  were  per- 
 verted to  the  impiety  of  the  former."  He  adds, 
 that  "  they  observed  the  Jewish  Law,  and  used 
 only  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews'^'." 
 
 To  this  argument  it  has  been  objected,  that 
 the  Ebionites  were  merely  a  sect  of  Hebrew 
 christians;  that  they  coincided  with  the  Naza- 
 
 '■*  Origon  in  Ctls.  lib  ii.  p.  5fj.  (,'onun.  in  ]\la(t.  vol.  i.  p. 427. 
 Kdif.  Iliu't.  iii  ClIs.  iilj.  Vi.  |).  '27  J.   Pri(S(lL'y,il)i(l.  vol.  iii.  p.  166. 
 
 '«  Euseb.  I/i^f.  Vax\.  \\h.  iii.  .-.  '27.  rricstley,  ibid.  p.  16H 
 I  have  a  little  allcrrd  Dr.  I'ricstloj'h  traii.slution,  to  whatappoaroii 
 lo  bo  boih  more  literal  and  move  pcilincut. 
 
408  Argumtnis  to  prove  the         [Parti, 
 
 renes  in  their  adherence  to  the  Law,  for  which 
 both  sects  were  deemed  heretical  by  the  Gen- 
 tile christians ;  but  that  the  orthodoxy  of  the 
 Nazarenes  in  other  points,  and  particularly  con- 
 cernins;  the  person  of  Christ,  was  unimpeached. 
 Also,  that  both  the  sects  united  constituted  but 
 a  small*  part  of  the  body  of  Jewish  christians'''. 
 It  is  alleged  in  reply,  that  a  church  of  ortho- 
 dox Jewish  christians,  distinct  both  from  Naza- 
 renes and  Ebionites,  is  a  thing  unknown  to  ec- 
 clesiastical antiquity ;  that  Nazarenes  was  a  title 
 of  contempt  applied  by  unbelieving  Jews  to 
 christians  in  general,  and  to  those  of  their  own 
 nation  in  particular  '^  ;  that  Ebionites  was  the 
 
 "  See  Huct.  in  Origen.  Comment,  not.  p.  74,  ]Mosheim  dc  Rcb. 
 Christ,  ante  Constant.  Sasc,  ii.  §  39.  Uorsicy  against  Priestley, 
 Lett.  6.  Grotius  and  Vossius  thought  that  the  Nazarenes  coin- 
 cided with  that  sect  of  liibionites  which  acknowledged  the  mira- 
 culous  conception.  Grot,  on  Matt.  i.  8,  See  Hiiet.  ibid.  Dr. 
 Horsley,  however,  is  constrained  to  admit,  upon  the  authority  of 
 a  passage  cited  by  Dr.  Priestley  in  his  second  set  of  Letters,  that 
 lipiphanins  charges  the  iVazareues  as  erring  with  the  Ebionites 
 in  their  opinion  ponccrning  the  i)erson  of  Christ.  But  as  Jo- 
 annes Damascenus,  in  his  book  De  lla3r.  expressly  sa)  s,  that 
 the  Nazarenes  confessed  Jesus  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  the  learned 
 •writer  still  charitably  pleads  for  the  orthodoxy  of  the  sect.  Dr. 
 Borsley's  Tracts,  p.  144,  note. 
 
 '•  "  Ipso  nomine  nos  Judaai  Nazarenos  appoliant  per  eum." 
 Tertull.  adv.  Marcion.  p.  418. — See  also  .Agobardi,  Opp.  p.  03^ 
 This  seems  to  be  Jerome's  mcaniiig  in  the  expression  "  qiios 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  Hiunaniti)  of  Christ.      409 
 
 title  by  which  the  body  of  Jewish  behevers  was 
 distino^ui^hed  by  Gentile  christians  till  the  time 
 of  Epiph'.mius,  who  is  the  first  writer  that  at- 
 tempts, though  unsuccessfully,  to  make  a  di- 
 stinction between  the  Ebionites  and  the  Naza- 
 renes  '^ ;  and  that  from  the  similarity,  or  even 
 identity,  of  their  doctrine  concerning  the  per- 
 son of  Christ ;  from  their  mutual  adherence  to 
 the  rites  of  Moses  ;  and,  above  all,  from  their 
 agreement  in  using  the  Hebrew  gospel  of  Mat- 
 thew only,  it  is  highly  probable,  and  with  very 
 few  exceptions  only  it  is  agreed  among  the 
 learned,  that  the  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes  w^ere 
 the  same  sect,  or  that  they  varied  with  very  few 
 and  slight  shades  of  difference'-^. 
 
 Tulgo  Nazarseos  niuicupant,"  cifed  by  Dr.  Priestley,  vol.  iii. 
 p.  171  ;  and  in  his  contruvcrsy  with  Dr.  Horsley.  (j.d.  What  we 
 call  Ebionites  are  the  same  with  those  Minoi,  or  sectaries,  among 
 the  Jews,  whom  they  commonly  call  Nazai'eni'S. 
 
 '*  This  c■orltro^er!^J  oMccriimg  tlie  testimony  of  Epipbanius 
 was  carried  on  with  grrat  animation  between  Dr.  iiorslcy  and 
 Dr.  Priestley,  till  the  former  was  constrained  to  conrede  (he 
 point,  thongli  with  a  very  ill  grace,  in  tiu-  manner  stated  in  the 
 last  note  but  one. 
 
 *•  See  Jones  on  the  Canon,  vol.  i.  p.  385—387.  This  learned 
 writer  without  hesitation  affirms  the  Nazarenes  and  ICbionites 
 to  have  been  the  .same.  Huet,  and  after  him  Dr.  Horsley,  con- 
 tend that  they  were  different,  because  Epiphanins,  llscr,  \xiv, 
 §  7,  says,  "  I  do  not  know  whether,  like  Cerinthus  and  Merin- 
 thiis,  they  believe  Chriit  to  be  a  mcie.  man,  or  wbethe.",  as  the 
 
410  Arguments  io  prove  the         [Parti. 
 
 As  a  further  objeclion  to  ih?  testiniony  of 
 Origen,  it  has  been  stated  by  Alosheim,  and 
 after  liini  by  Dr.  Horslc_y,  that  after  the  destruc- 
 tion of  Jerusalem  by  Adrian,  who  forbad  the 
 Jews  from  coming  within  sight  of  the  place,  and 
 who  founded  a  colony  in  the  vicinity,  to  which 
 he  gave  the  name  of  iElia,  the  great  body  of 
 orthodox  Jewish  believers,  who  had  hitherto 
 observed  the  rites  of  Moses,  at  once  abandoned 
 these  rites,  and  resorted  in  great  numbers  to  the 
 new  city,  in  order  to  participate  in  the  privileges 
 of  the  iElian  colony  ;  that  they  joined  the 
 church  of  Gentile  christians  which  \vas  formed 
 there  ;  that  Orio-en  could  not  have  been  iirno- 
 rant  of  this  circumstance  ;  and  consequently 
 that  his  account  of  the  Hebrew  christians  must 
 have  been  a  wilful  falsehood. 
 
 This  strange  hypothesis  of  the  sudden  defec- 
 tion  of  a  great  body  of  people,  and  those  people 
 
 truth  fT>,  tlicy  nKiInialii  lliU  lie  \\a.s  bojii  of  (lie  holy  spirit  and 
 Mary."  Soo  Hiiet.  Not.  in  Ox'xs,.  p.  7  1.  'I'his  hesitation  of  V.\n. 
 j)hiu.ii:s  amounts,  in  Dr.  florsley's  csliiiiatioM,  "  to  the  iinwill.. 
 ing  coiifossio'.i  of  a  Imsc  accuser,"  (Ikil  the  iN'azari'iifs  were  L)e- 
 Jicvors  in  the  divinify  of  Christ.  Sec  liorhhy's  Tracts,  p.  26, 
 and  144.  The  learned  prelate,  iiowevcr,  in  the  very  same  pap;c, 
 is  obliged  to  make  an  "  nnvvilling  confession"  of  his  own  error. 
 Dr.  Priestley  has  stated  the  argument  at  length,  and  very  saMs- 
 I'actorily,  in  Hist,  of  L'arly  Opinions,  boo]j  iii.  chap.  8. 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  Humanity  of  Chrhd,      411 
 
 Jews,  from  the  customs  of  their  ancestors, 
 which  had  been  held  sacred  for  more  than  six- 
 teen centuries,  and  of  their  instantaneous  inti- 
 mate union  with  a  community  of  people  whom 
 they  had  always  been  accustomed  to  shun  with 
 liorror,  and  to  whose  language  they  must  have 
 been  entire  strangers-',  is  so  incredible  in  itself, 
 so  contradictory  to  every  known  principle  of  the 
 human  mind,  so  unsupported  by  authority  from 
 ecclesiastical  writers,  so  repugnant  to  historic 
 evidence,  and  involves  so  unjust  and  cruel  an 
 aspersion  upon  one  of  the  most  unblemished 
 characters  of  chiistian  antiquit^',  that  it  will 
 not  bear  a  moment's  exammation  ;  and  the 
 very  statement  of  the  case  carries  its  own  con- 
 futation --. 
 
 It  being  thus  established  by  competent  evi- 
 
 '•  Adrian's  colony  probably  consisted  of  Greeks  ;  and  Sulpi- 
 tius  Severus  says  "  tliat  Mark,  a  Gentile,  was  then  ap[)ointcd 
 bishop  at  Jeriisalcm."     Ilist.  p.  245. 
 
 "  1  Ills  curious  fabric  of  a  church  at  /Elia  of  orthodox  He- 
 brew christians,  «ho  had  abandoned  the  ceremonies  of  tlic  Law, 
 rests  solely  upon  th--  affirmation  of  Mosheim,  supported  by  that 
 of  Dr.  Ilorsley,  but  destitute  of  every  shadow  of  support  from 
 christian  anticpiity.  This,  howcTer,  being  the  principal,  and  al- 
 most the  o\\\y  impurtaat  topic  of  discussion  between  Dr.  Hors- 
 ley  and  Dr.  Priestley,  a  brief  review  of  this  fa:'i.>us  controversy 
 Hill  be  given  in  the  Appendix  to  this  Section. 
 
412  Arguments  to  prove  the         [PartL 
 
 dence,  that  the  great  body  of  Jewish  christians 
 at  the  end  of  the  second  century  were  beUevers 
 in  the  proper  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  this 
 testimony  remaining  wholly  uncontradicted, 
 there  being  no  proof  whatever  that  any  church  of 
 orthodox  Jews  ever  existed;  it  follows  by  direct 
 consequence  that  the  Jewish  church  must  ha\e 
 been  Unitarian  from  the  very  beginning  :  for 
 a  change  so  great  as  that  from  believing  the 
 deity  of  Christ  to  the  belief  that  he  was  a  mere 
 man,  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  could  not 
 have  taken  place  in  so  short  a  time ;  and  if  it 
 had  happened,  it  must  have  occasioned  much 
 violent  controvers}',  of  which  some  notice  could 
 not  but  have  been  taken  by  the  historians  of 
 the  church.  But  no  such  controversy  is  upon 
 record,  therefore  it  never  existed.  The  infe- 
 rence clearly  follows,  that  the  first  Jewish  con- 
 verts believed,  and  consequently  that  the  first 
 christian  missionaries  taught,  that  the  Father 
 was  the  only  true  God,  and  the  proper  object 
 of  worship,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  mere 
 human  being,  the  faithful  ser\ant  and  honoured 
 messenger  of  God  '-'•\ 
 
 •»  Dr.  Priestley,  ibid.  p.  210.  Dr.  Priestley  says,   tliat  in  the 
 whole  course  of  his  reading  he  never  met  \\ith  the  iiicnlio!'.  of 
 
Sect.  ri.J    proper  lliimanity  of  Clivist.      415 
 
 The  direct  evidence  of  the  Unitarianisni  of 
 the  great  body  of  Gentile  christians,  even  as 
 iow  down  as  the  Council  of  Nice,  is,  if  possible, 
 «tlll  more  clear  and  satisfactory  than  that  of  the 
 Jewish  believers.     In  the  first  rank  is  Oriiren. 
 
 o 
 
 '•  There  are  some,''  says  this  learned  writer  in 
 his  Commentary  upon  John,  "  who  participate 
 of  '  the  Word  that  was  in  the  beginning,  the 
 Word  that  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  that 
 was  God;' — but  there  are  others  who  '  know 
 nothing  but  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified :' 
 '  the  Word  that  was  flesh/  Thinking  that  it  is 
 the  whole  doctrine  of  the  ^Vord,  they  only 
 know  Christ  according  to  the  flesh.     Such  is 
 
 THE  MULTITUDE  OF  THOSE  W^IIO  ARE  RE- 
 PUTED AS  BELIEVERS  2^"  And  again,  "The 
 multitudes,  ra  ^X;j^jj,  of  believers  are  instruct- 
 ed in  the  sliadow  of  the  Word,  and  not  in  the 
 true  Word  of  God  ~^/' 
 
 TertuHian's  testimony  is    most  explicit  and 
 
 more  than  ono  orthodox  Jewish  christian  ;  his  name  was  Joseph. 
 Ejjiphanius  says,  he  met  with  him  at  Scythopolij,  where  all  the 
 rest  of  the  inhabitants  were  Arians.     Page  189. 
 
 84  ii  Tfjxo  Ss  sri  to  TTArj^o;  TOL'v  irsTnr£<JKsva,i  voKi^o^c>v.v."  Com- 
 ment, in  Joh.  T.  2.  p.  49. 
 
 •*  Comment,  ibid.  p.  5'2.  See  also  p.  9;  and  Priestley,  ibid, 
 p.  'ISt. 
 
414  Arguments  to  prove  the         [Parti. 
 
 unequivocal.  "  The  simple,  or  rather  the  well- 
 meaning,  not  to  say  the  unwise  and  unlearned, 
 
 WHO  ALWAYS  FORM  THE  MAJORITY  OF  BE- 
 LIEVERS, since  the  very  rule  of  faith  transfers 
 them  from  the  many  "'ods  of  the  world  to  the  one 
 true  God,  not  understanding  that  the  one  God  is 
 mdeed  to  be  believed,  but  with  his  own  oeco- 
 iiomv,  (i.  e.  dlstributicii  into  three  persons.)  are 
 startled  at  the  CEConom}^  They  presume  that 
 the  number  and  arrangement  of  the  trinity  is  a 
 division  of  the  unity.  They  therefore  hold  out 
 that  two,  or  even  three  gods  are  taught  by  us : 
 but  they  assume  that  they  are  the  worshipers  of 
 one  God.  We,  say  they,  hold  the  mon- 
 arch V.  Even  the  Latin  clowns  shout  so  loudly 
 for  the  MONARCHY,  that  you  would  suppose 
 they  understood  it  as  well  as  they  pronounce  it. 
 But  the  Latins  learn  to  shout  for  the  monarch}^ 
 and  even  the  Greeks  themselves  are  unwilling'  to 
 understand  the  oeconomy'^'''." 
 
 *^  "  Siinpliccs  ciiiin  quij)pi>,  lie,  dixcrini  impnitjcntos  ct  idiote, 
 QUiE  MAJOR  sEMPKii  cREDENTiuM  PARS  EST,  qiioiiiam  ct  I'psa  rc- 
 gulii  lidei  a  pliiribus  diis  icculi,  ad  uniciim  ct  deum  vcrum  trans- 
 it'rt :  non  iiitclllgeiites  unicum  qiiideni  scd  cum  sua  ccconouiia 
 esse  ciTdcndum,  cxpavesciint  ad  cecononiiam.  Numcruin  ct  dis- 
 positionein  trinitatis,  divisioncni  pra'sunuint  iMu(atis...Ita{pie  duos 
 \c\  ties  jactitant  a  nobis  praidicari,  se  vero  uniirs  Dei  cultoies 
 praL'sunuuit.,.Monarchiamj  inquiunt,  tcneinus.     Et  ita  sunum  vo- 
 
Sect.  I'J.]     proper  Ilumanitij  of  Chrisl.      41.3 
 
 This  remarkable  tesliniony  of  Tertullian  to 
 tlie  zealous  Unltarianisin  of  the  nnijoritj  of  be- 
 lievers, never  has  been  invaliclaLed,  and  never 
 can.  It  is  the  reluctant  testimony  of  an  unwill- 
 ing witness,  extorted  from  him  by  the  notoriety 
 of  the  fact,  the  force  of  which  he  is  anxious  to 
 diminish  as  tar  as  in  his  power,  not  by  denying 
 the  numbers,  but  by  disparaging  the  under- 
 standings of  the  Unitarians.  With  this  the  ar- 
 o'ument  has  nothinir  to  do.  The  fact  is,  that 
 in  the  time  of  Tertullian,  at  the  end  of  the 
 second  centuiy,  as  far  as  that  learned  writer's 
 knowledge  extended,  the  major  pars  credcfi- 
 itiun, '  the  majority  of  believers,'  shuddered  (ex- 
 pavescunt)  at  the  doctrme  of  the  trinity,  as  an 
 infringement  of  the  apostolic  faith,  and  as  intro- 
 ducing the  worship  of  three  Gods.  And  to  ex- 
 press their  abhorrence  of  the  new  philosophic 
 doctrines,  both  Greeks  and  Latins  zealously 
 and  loudly  proclaimed  their  attachment  to  the 
 great  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity,  or,  as  they 
 very  properh^  expressed   it,  of  the  Monarchy, 
 
 (■allter  cxpiimiint  etiam  Latini,  ctiam  opici;  ut  putcs  illos  (am 
 bene  intelligcrc  inunaroliiam,  quain  cniincianf.  Sccl  nioiuirciiiam 
 sonare  student  Laliiii,  (tcoiiomiam  iiitflligero  iioliiut  otiain 
 Gra-'ci."  Tcrtiiil.  ad  Trax,  srrt.  iii.  p.  Ki'>.  Prii-sdoy,  ibid. 
 p.  2t)5. 
 
4I6  ArgwUents  to  prove  the         [Part  I. 
 
 the  sole,  undivided,  unrivalled  government  of 
 God.  All  this  Tertullian  tells  us,  and  all  this 
 Tcrtullian  knew.  His  expressions  plainly  indi- 
 cate that  he  must  have  been  not  unfrequently 
 the  distressed  and  mortified  witness  of  the  un« 
 popularity  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine,  and  of 
 the  clamorous  and  triumphant  zeal  of  the  Uni- 
 tarian crowd. 
 
 The  manner  in  which  Dr.  Horsley  attempts 
 to  evade  this  clear  and  decisive  testimony  of 
 Tertullian  is  pitiable  in  the  extreme.  He  trans- 
 lates the  passage  thus :  "  Simple  persons  (not 
 to  call  them  ignorant  and  idiots),  who  ahvays 
 make  the  majority  of  believers,  because  the 
 rule  of  faith  carries  us  away  from  the  many 
 gods  of  the  heathen  to  the  one  true  God, — > 
 startle  at  the  oeconomjs"  &c.  The  impropriety 
 of  rendering  "  idiota^,"  idiots,  the  Archdeacon 
 certainly  knew,  nor,  to  s^y  the  truth,  does  he 
 lay  much  stress  upon  the  word.  But  his  re- 
 marks and  comment  upon  the  passage  are  most 
 extraordinary.  He  first  observes,  in  direct 
 contradiction  to  the  plainest  fact,  "  tliat  Ter- 
 tullian alleges  that  what  credit  the  Unitarian 
 doctrine  obtained  vvas  on/tj  with  the  illiterate, 
 nor  with  alt  the  illiterate,  but  with  those  on/j/, 
 who  were  ignorant  and  stupid  in  the  extreme/* 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  Hnmanihj  of  Christ.      417 
 
 The  learned  writer  must  surely  have  supposed 
 his  readers  to  be  bereft  of  common  understand- 
 ing^; especially  when  he  presumes  to  add  the 
 following  most  extraordinary  observation:  "  To 
 
 PRECLUDE    THE     FLEA    OF    X  UMBERS,"    SayS 
 
 he,  "  Tertullian  remarks  that  the  illiterate  will 
 alwa3's  make  tlie  majority  of  believers."  How 
 being  the  majoritif  can  preclude  tlie  pica  of 
 numbers,  is  beyond  a  plain  man's  understand- 
 ing to  comprehend.  The  learned  writer  tben 
 proceeds  to  exhibit  an  exposition  of  Tertul- 
 lian's  very  clear  and  intelligible  language.  Ter- 
 tullian says,  "  Simple  persons,  not  to  say  ig- 
 norant and  idiots,  who  always  make  the  ma- 
 jority of  believers,"  &c.  This  is  the  archdea- 
 con's own  translation.  His  exposition  follows.. 
 "  Some  simple  people  take  alarm  at  the  notion 
 of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  unity  of  the 
 (lodhead.  Simple  people  did  I  say  .^  I  should 
 have  said  ignorant  and  dull.  When  it  is  con- 
 sidered that  persons  of  mean  endowments 
 must  always  be  the  majority  of  a  body  col* 
 lected  as  the  church  is,  from  all  ranks  of  men, 
 it  were  no  wonder  that  the  followers  of  the 
 Unitarian  preachers  were  more  numerous  than 
 tbey  really  are."  "  It  is  no  testimony,"  adds 
 the  learned  dignitary,  "  to  the  popularity  of 
 '}  T. 
 
118  Argumenis  to  prove  the         [Part  L 
 
 your  tkvourite  opinions.  It  is  a  charge  of 
 ignorance  against  your  party  ;  of  such  igno- 
 rance as  woiikl  invahdate  the  plea  of  num- 
 bers if  it  were  set  up."  That  a  person  of 
 talents  and  learning,  who  had  a  character  to 
 lose,  should  hazard  such  an  assertion  as  this  in 
 the  teeth  of  his  own  translation  of  Tertuliian'.'i 
 words  is  truly  extraordin:H-y.  But  what  must 
 that  cause  be  which  needs  such  a  method  of 
 defence-^? 
 
 Athanasius,  in  his  Treatise  against  Paul  of 
 Saniosat-ci,  a  celebrated  Unitarian,  says,  "  It 
 o-rieves  even  now  those  who  stand  up  for  the 
 holy  faith,  that  the  midtitude,  rag  oroXXoyj,  and 
 especially  those  of  low  understanding,  should 
 
 *7  See  IIorslc>\s  Tracts,  Lett  ix.  p.  175.  Dr.  Priestley,  in  Ins 
 Reply,  cxprt'Saes  his  astonishment  at  the  unwarrantable  liberty 
 which  Dr.  Horsloy  haci  taken  in  the  limitation  which  he  gives  to 
 the  indefinite  langu:ige  of  Tertullian.  This  he  justly  calls  "  a 
 gross  niisrei)rescn(ation,"  and  adds,  "  I  really  wonder  at  your 
 lissurance  in  this."  He  afterwards  accuKes  his  learned  advvrsiiry 
 of  ignorance  or  inlsrepreseutation  in  translating  "  idiotrR,"  ii/o/i'^ 
 ■and  asks  him  "  in  what  lexicon,  ordinary  or  extraordinary,  he 
 finds  this  sen.'-.e  of  the  word,"  See  Dr.  Priestley's  Second  Letters, 
 p.  i)%  03.  U;u)n  this  verbal  error,  which  did  not  materially  af- 
 fect tl;e  argunient,  it  was  nct.'aiej.s  for  Dr.  Priestley  to  have  di- 
 lated so  iniich.  Dr.  Horsley  saw  his  advantage;  and  he  was  too 
 ilcxterous  a  di>^p'itant  not  to  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity 
 which  Dr.  Priestley  gave  him  by  his  loud  and  reiterated  com- 
 tlaints  upon  this  subject,  of  direiting  llie  attention  of  the  reader 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  11  umanily  of  Christ.      419 
 
 be  infected  with  these  blasphemies.''  "  This," 
 Dr.  Priestley  observes,  "  is,  like  that  of  Tertul- 
 lian,  the  language  of  complaint :  and  it  is  not 
 the  doctrine  of  Arius,  but  that  of  Paulus  Samo- 
 satensis,  that  is  here  complained  of  **^.'' 
 
 From  this  induction  it  appears  that  the  great 
 body  of  unlearned  christians  continued  to  hold 
 Unitarian  principles  not  only  to  the  time  of 
 Origen  and  Tertullian,  but  even  to  that  of 
 Athanasius  and  Jerome,  after  the  Council 
 of  Nice.  But  if  this  fact  be  proved,  it  is  a 
 strong  presumption  that  Unitarianism  was  the 
 doctrine  of  the  first  christians,  and  also,  of  the 
 apostles  and  first  teachers  of  Christianity.  For 
 what  they  taught   all    would  at   first  believe, 
 
 from  the  main  question,  bis  gross  misrepresentation  of  Tertul- 
 lian, by  a  laboured  defence  of  himself  from  this  trifling  charge  ; 
 and  to  this  end  he  takes  the  pains  to  write  a  long  dissertation  at 
 the  end  of  his  volume  of  Tracts  to  prove  tl)at  *•  idiota"  may  be 
 rendered  idiot.  And  in  this  way  he  contrives  to  leave  an  impres- 
 sion upon  the  riiinds  of  superficial  readers  that  he  has  gained  an 
 advantage  over  Dr.  Priestley  even  in  tiiis  clear  and  uneiiuivocal 
 passage  from  Tertullian. 
 
 *^  See  Athanasii  0])p.  vol.  1.  p.  591.  Dr.  Priestley,  ibid. 
 p.  2fi9,  Jerome  is  also  supposed  to  allude  to  the  Unitarians 
 when  he  says  that  "  simple  believers,  simpUces  credentium,  did 
 not  understand  the  Scriptures  according  to  their  majesty.  And 
 that  to  them  the  ground  of  the  people  of  God  brought  forth  hay, 
 as  to  the  heretics  it  produced  thorns."  liicron.  0pp.  vol.  iv, 
 p.  118.     Priestley,  ibid.  p.  ■■170. 
 
 O     £      O 
 
420  Arguments  to  prove  the         [Part  I- 
 
 and  the  unlearned  would  be  the  last  to  chana;e. 
 Speculative  persons  are  always  the  first  to  beghi 
 an  alteration  in  public  opinion.  If  the  public 
 opinion  is  right,  speculative  men  are  the  first 
 who  introduce  error:  if  it  be  wrong;,  the}^  are 
 the  first  to  reform  and  correct  it.  The  change 
 m  the  mass  of  the  unlearned  is  gradual  and 
 slow:  but  generally,  in  process  of  time,  it  fol- 
 lows the  direction  of  the  learned.  What  is  now 
 the  popular  doctrine  wxrs  once  confined  to  the 
 philosophers,  and  made  its  way  by  very  slow 
 degrees,  and  with  great  difficult}^,  among  the 
 common  people.  Tlie  corruptions  of  Chris- 
 tianity were  introdneed  by  the  learned  and  in- 
 quisitive. And  by  the  learned  and  mquisitive 
 the  reformation  was  begun.  By  persons  of 
 this  description  it  is  still  carried  on,  and  is 
 visibl}^  though  slowly,  advancing  in  opposition 
 to  the  clamours  of  the  ignorant,  and  to  the 
 artifice  or  violence  of  the  interested.  That 
 truth  by  its  native  energy,  aided  by  time,  will 
 eventually  prevail,  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
 doubt :  and  when  it  has  once  re-established  its 
 glorious  empire,  there  is  no  ground  to  appre- 
 hend that  the  age  of  darkness  will  return  again. 
 The  prejudices  which  now  obstruct  its  progress 
 ->vill  then  all  operate  in  its  fa-\our:  while  the  uni* 
 
Sect.  12.]     proper  IT umnnifi/  of  Chri.-it.      42  i 
 
 versal  diftiision  oi"  knowledge,  and  the  continu- 
 allv  acct'lcrated  progress  of  human  improve- 
 iiicnl,  will  oppose  an  insurmountabl^ii  and  eter- 
 nal bar  to  the  return  of  those  gross  errors  and 
 aboniinatlons  which  have  for  so  many  centuries 
 been  the  disgrace  of  reason,  and  the  bane  of 
 ehristianitv. 
 
422  Review  of  the  Coiitroversy  between 
 
 APPENDIX    TO    SECT.  XII. 
 
 BSTRACT  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN  I)U.  PRIESTLEY 
 AND  DR.  IIOBSLEY  CONCERNING  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  AN 
 ORTHODOX  CHURCH  OF  HEBREW  CHRISTIANS  AT  jELIA, 
 WHO  HAD  DEPARTED  FROM  THE  JEWISH  RITUAL. 
 
 Dr.  Priestley  having-  asserted  upon  the  autliorlly  of 
 Origcn,  that  "  the  Jews  who  believed  in  Jesus  wore  called 
 Ehioni<es ;  tliat  tliese  Ebionitcs  were  of  two  sorts,  one  of 
 them  believing  the  miraculous  conception,  the  oilier  not, 
 but  all  of  thrm  coiisidcring  Christ  as  a  mere  man'", — 
 
 Dr.  Ilorsley  in  reply,  after  endeavouring  to  show  that 
 Origen's  words  might  be  interpreted  differently,  proceeds  in 
 a  very  <riiimphant  tone  to  remark,  "  Let  his  words  be  taken 
 
 as  you  understand  them. 1  shall  take  what  you  may 
 
 think  a  Ijoli  step.  I  shall  tax  the  veracity  of  your  Avilness 
 — of  this  Origcn.  I  shall  tell  you  that  whatever  may  be 
 the  general  credit  of  his  character,  yet  in  this  business  the 
 particulars  of  his  deposition  are  to  be  little  regarded,  when 
 he  sets  out  with  the  allegation  of  a  notorious  fahehood.  lie 
 alleges  of  the  Hebrew  christians  in  general,  that  they  had 
 not  renotmced  the  Mosaic  law.  The  assertion  served  him 
 for  an  ausM  er  to  the  invective  which  Celsus  had  put  in  the 
 mouih  of  a  Jew  agaiiist  tlie  converted  Jews,  as  deserters  of 
 the  laws  and  customs  of  their  ancestors.  The  answer  was 
 not  the  worte  for  wanting  truth,  if  his  heathen  antagonist 
 
 '   Priestley's  Lett,  to  H'jr.-loy,  p.  19. 
 
Dr.  Ilordcy  and  Dr.  Priest Uy.  42" 
 
 was  not  sufliciently  in!bi;ut'cl  in  tlio  true  dislitictiuiii  of 
 christian  sects,  fo  dctoct  the  falsehood.... Tin:  fact  is,  that 
 aflcrthe  dcinoUtioii  of  .femsalcni  by  Adrian,  the  majoriiyof 
 tht;  Hebrew  christians,  who  must  have  pissed  for  Jews  with 
 tho  Roman  magistrates,  had  they  continued  to  adhere  to  the 
 Mosaic  law,  whicli  to  this  time  they  had  observed  more  from 
 habit  than  from  any  principle  of  conscience,  made  no  scruple 
 to  renounce  it,  that  they  might  be  qualitiecl  to  partake  in 
 the  valuable  privileges  of  the  yElian  colony,  from  which 
 dews  were  excluded.  Having  thus  divested  themselves  of 
 J  he  form  of  Judaism,  which  to  tiiaL  time  they  had  borne, 
 they  removed  from  Pelia  and  other  towns  to  A\hich  they  had 
 retired,  and  settled  in  great  numbers  at  /Elia.  The  few  who 
 retained  a  su'ierstitious  veneration  for  their  law,  remained  in 
 the  north  of  Galilee,  where  they  were  joined  perhaps  by 
 new  fu<;itives  of  the  same  weak  character  from  Palestine. 
 And  this  was  the  beginning  of  the  bCct  of  the  Nazarencs. 
 But  from  this  time,  whatever  Origen  may  pretend  to  serve 
 a  purpose,  the  majority  of  the  He!)rew  christians  forsook 
 their  law,  and  lived  in  communion  with  the  Gentile  bishops 
 of  the  new-modelled  church  at  Jeruijalem.  All  this  I  nfHrm 
 with  the  less  hesitation,  being  supported  by  the  authority  of 
 Moshcim.  From  whom  indeed  1  lirst  learned  to  rate  the  tes- 
 limony  of  Origcii  in  tins  particular  question  at  its  true 
 value  ^" 
 
 One  would  conclude  from  the  manner  in  which  Dr.  Hors- 
 ley  aj)pcals  to  the  testimony  of  niosiieim,  that,  having  first, 
 from  his  own  exttMisive  rescarch'^s  into  ecclesiastical  history, 
 made  tliis  notable  discovi-ry  of  a  Jewish  church  at  -l{!lia,  he 
 was  confirmed  in  his  jvulgement  by  findinu"  tha«  JMo.diJ^iui 
 had  also  made  the  same  discovtrv.     But  tlic  tratli  is,  that 
 
 '  Horslcy's  Tracts,  j-.  156.     1  quote  from  the  Collection  of  Tracts  p-.h 
 iislicd  by  the  IJisliop  of  St,  David'i,  1789. 
 
424  Hernew  of  the  Controversy  between 
 
 the  learned  dignitary,  placing  implicit  conlidcnce  in  Mo- 
 sheim's  <ettiniony,  having  borrowed  all  tlie  circumstances 
 lelated  by  that  celebrated  historian,  and  mixed  up  a  little  of 
 his  own,  has  stated  with  <^reat  parade,  and  as  incontro- 
 vertible fact,  a  narrative  most  improbable  in  itself,  and  utterly 
 destitute  of  foundation  in  ecclesiastical  antiquity. 
 
 Dr.  Priestley,  astonislied  beyond  measure  at  a  discover}-  so 
 perfectly  new  to  him,  and  so  contrary  to  ever}'  thing  which 
 he  had  himself  met  ^\itIl  in  his  laborions  researches,  indig- 
 nant likewise  at  the  ontrag(  oiis  attack  upon  the  unsullied 
 Ciiaracter  of  the  ilhistiious  Origen,  immediately,  with  his 
 accustomed  ardonr,  sets  himself  to  examine  the  evidence  of 
 this  extraordinary  narrative.  The  only  anthority  referre<l 
 to  by  the  learned  archdeacon  was  a  book  not  very  commonly 
 TO  be  met  with  in  England,  Mosheim  de  l»eb.  Christiano- 
 rnm  ante  Coiistantinum.  This  book  not  being  at  tliat 
 time  in  Dr.  Priestley's  possession,  he  looked  into  Mo- 
 sheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  in  which  it  appears  that 
 the  learned  author  expresses  himself  with  much  greater 
 caution  than  in  his  former  work,  being  probably  aware 
 that  his  authorities  would  not  bear  him  out  in  the 
 facts,  or  rather,  the  conclusions  wliich  he  had  formerly 
 stated  ^     Dr.  Priestley,  not  being  apprized  of  this  ditference 
 
 3  The  acro-.iiif  £;ivcn  by  Mosliciin  in  liis  luilrsiasdcal  History,  (cent.  2. 
 part  ii.  ch.  v.)  is  as  follo'.vs:  "  Wlien  the  Ivnipcror  Adri;in  had  razed  Jeru- 
 salorn,  entirely  destroyed  even  its  very  foundations,  and  enacted  laws  of  the 
 hrviTOHt  kind  ajCiinGt  the  w)iole  body  of  (he  Je\vi.>h  people,  tiic:  greatest  part 
 of  the  Christians  who  lived  in  Palesstiiio,  to  prevent  their  being  eonfonnded 
 with  the  Je\rs,  abandonejl  enlirrly  tiie  Mosaic  rites,  and  chose  a  bishop 
 named  Mark,  a  foreigner  by  nation,  and  consequently  an  alien  from  the 
 (  ommonwealth  of  Israel.  Tliis  step  was  highly  shocking  to  those  whose  at- 
 tachment to  the  Mosaif  rites  was  violent  and  invincible :  and  such  was  the 
 <-ase  of  many.  These,  (lierefore,  separated  themselves  from  their  brethren, 
 and  founded  ;»t  Per,!  an<l  in  i!ie  ncighhoiiringparts  particular  assemblies,  in 
 which  (he  law  of  Moses  inaiMtaiiieil  ifs  primitive  dignity,  authority,  and 
 lustre."'     See  Dr.  Mar'.aiiie*:  Tr<i!:»lal:on,  vol.  i.  p.  21.'. 
 
Dr.  llorsley  and  Dr.  Priest  I  fi/.  4*33 
 
 in  tlie  two  \vorks  of  Mosheim,  concluded  rather  liastily, 
 that  the  ad.Utiotial  circumstances  orig'inated  in  the  exube- 
 rant invciiuou  of  llie  archdeacon. 
 
 "  Struck,"  says  he,  "  with  this  extrn ordinary  narration 
 of  a  transaction  of  ancient  times,  for  \vhich  you  refer  to  no 
 authority  besides  that  of  Moslicim,  I  looked  into  him :  but. 
 even  there  1  do  not  find  all  th(.'  particulars  that  you  mention. 
 lie  says  nothing  of  the  Jewish  christians  biiTinf^  observed 
 their  laws  more  from  habit  tha?)  fioin  any  principle  of  con- 
 science; 7?o//imo- of  their  making  no  scruple  to  renounce 
 their  law  in  order  to  partake  in  the  privileges  of  the  /Elian 
 colony;  nothing  of  anj-  Jewisii  christians  removing  from 
 Pclla,  and  settliuir  at  /Eiia ;  notldug  of  the  retiring-  of  the 
 rest  to  the  north  of  Galilee  :  or  of  diis  new  origin  of  the 
 Xazarcnes  there.  For  all  these  particulars  tlierelbre,  learned 
 Sir,  you  must  liave  some  other  authority,  in  petto,  besides 
 (hat  of  Moaheim,  and  you  ought  to  have  produced  it." 
 He  then  proceeds  to  state  how  imprcbable  it  was  that  any 
 great  body  of  men,  much  less  Jews,  should  suddenly  change 
 their  opinions,  customs,  and  habits.  *'  You  might  just  as 
 well  sup])ose,"  says  Dr.  P.  "  that  all  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem 
 began  to  speak  Greek,  as  well  as  abandoned  their  ancient 
 customs,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  ^'Elian  co- 
 lony. And  3'ou  would  liave  this  to  allege  in  your  favour, 
 that  from  that  time  the  bishops  of  Jerusalem  were  all  Greeks, 
 and  the  public  ollices  were  no  doubt  performed  in  the  Cireet 
 language  ■»." 
 
 Dr.  Priestley  proceeds  to  observe,  that  tlie  \so\Cls  of  Siil- 
 pitiiis  Severus,  a  writer  of  the  fourtJi  century,  to  which 
 jMosheim  refers,  by  no  means  support  his  or  Dr.  llorsley 's 
 niirialiYe.  i'e  only  says,  that  "  because  the  christians  wore 
 thought  to  consist  chiefly  of  Jews,  Adiian  ordered  a  cohort 
 
 <  Letter-  (0  the  ArcLdcacon  of  St.  Alban'-,  Lt-U.  1. 
 
425  Rcvitw  of  the  Controversy  hcttveen 
 
 of  soldiers  to  keep  constant  guard,  an;l  drive  all  Jews  frorrj 
 any  access  lo  Jcnisaiem  :  which  was  of  service  to  the  chris- 
 tian failh  :  for  at  that  time  they  ahnost  all  believed  Christ 
 lo  be  God,  hilt  witli  tlie  observance  of  the  law  :  the  Lord  so 
 disposing  it,  that  the  servitude  of  the  law  should  be  removed 
 from  the  liberty  of  the  faith  and  thecliurch.  Then  was 
 Mark  the  first  bishop  of  the  Gentiles  at  Jerusalem  '."  The 
 authority  cited  by  Moshcim  being  so  little  relevant  to  his 
 purpose,  Dr.  Priestley  afterwards  consulted  Eusebius  and 
 other  ancient  wrifers,  who,  though  tliey  give  an  account  of 
 the  expulsion  of  the  Jews,  say  not  one  word  of  the  Jewish 
 christians  abandoning  the  Mosaic  ritual.  And  he  concludes 
 w  ith  Tiilemont  and  Fleury,  that  the  christian  Jcavs  were  ex- 
 pelled equally  with  tlie  rest,  and  that  the  church  which  was 
 formed  atiElia  consisted  wholly  of  Gentiles,  lie  expresses 
 great  indignation  at  the  unfounded  charge  against  Origen's 
 character;  and  ends  his  letter  with  the  severe  remark,  "  un- 
 less you  can  make  a  better  apology  for  yourself  than  I  am 
 able  to  suggest,  you  will  be  considered  by  impartial  persons 
 as  a  falsifier  of  history,  and  a  defamer  of  the  character  of 
 the  dead,  in  order  to  serve  your  purpose." 
 
 The  learned  dignitary,  who,  to  say  the  truth,  was  inno- 
 cent of  tlie  charge  alleged,  wiio  was  misled  by  the  great 
 authority  of  IMosheim,  and  who  really  meant  nolhing  more 
 than  tlie  common  ruse  de  guerre  of  passing  off  Mosheim"s 
 discoveries  for  his  own,  probably  presuming  upon  security 
 from  detection  by  \\\c  scarcity  of  tl^.e  book,  deeply  resented 
 and  vehemently  repelled  Dr.  Priest  ley's  unfounded  accusa- 
 tion. In  the  second  chapter  of  his  Remarivs  upon  Dr.  Priest- 
 ley's Second  Letters,  after  laying  in  the  prudce>t  precau- 
 tion, that  "  whoever  attempts  to  make  out  a  consistent  story 
 from  ancient  writers,  will  iind  himself  under  a  necessity  of 
 
 5  Stiliiit.  Sever.  Hist.  Bac.  lib.ii.  c.  ;}1.     Dr.  Tiiotlcv,  ibit!.  \-.  IK 
 
Dr.  Horsley  and  Dr.  Priestley.  4?7 
 
 helping  out  their  broken  accounts  by  his  own  conjectures  "  lie 
 proceeds  (o  the  hum.;lc  confession,  that  he  h:i;l  in  fact  nd- 
 vauf  c'd  notliinu-  but  \vhat  he  had  borrowed  from  Moshciin. 
 And  not  knowing  at,  the  time  that  his  opponent  had  con- 
 snlted  the  wrong  n  fercnce,  fir,  in  tru'h,  Dr.  Priestley  had 
 not  acknowledircd  it,  Dr.  Horsley,  with  much  jjlausibility, 
 retali;t(es  the  charge  of  wilful  niibrepresentalion  upon  liisad- 
 %-ersary.  '•'  If  lie  opened  ^rosheini  in  the  place  to  which  I 
 referred,"  says  our  indignant  respondent,  "  he  must  know 
 that  I  have  added  no  circumstances  lo  Mosheim's  account 
 but  what  every  one  must  add  in  his  own  imagination.  He 
 must  know  that  these  circumstances  in  particular,  which  he 
 is  pleased  to  mention  among  my  additions,  are  affirmed  by 
 Mosheim.  The  contiux  of  Hebrew  christians  to  /Elia  ;  the 
 motive  uhicli  induced  the  majority  to  give  up  their  ancient 
 customs,  nami  ly,  the  d;  sire  of  sharing  in  the  privilege's  of 
 the  /Elian  colony  ;  and  the  retreat  of  those  who  could  not 
 give  their  ancient  customs  up  to  remote  corners  of  the  coun- 
 try :  these  were  Moshcim's  assertions  before  they  were 
 mine:  and  Dr.  Priestley  either  knows  this,  or  preten  ling 
 to  separate  Musheim's  account  from  )ny  additions,  he  hath 
 not  taken  the  trouble  to  examine  wh.at  is  mine  and  \^hat  is 
 ^rosheim's." 
 
 So  it  is  iliat  the  truth  comes  out  betwci-n  these  learned 
 polemics.  Dr.  Horsley,  after  having  peremi^torily  stated 
 th\t  "  THE  TACT  IS  so,  whicli  I  aflirm  with  the  less  hesita- 
 tion, I'cing  suFPOiiTED  by  the  author'ty  of  Mo.sheim,"  is 
 now  reduci'd  to  the  huniiliatmg  aclvnowledgement  that  he 
 had  advanced  nothing  but  .vhat  he  liad  borrowed  from  I\Io- 
 sheiin.  And  Dr.  Priesrley  having  consulted  a  wrong  refe- 
 rence, unjustly  taxes  the  venerable  arclulcacon  with  being  a 
 bold  falsifier  of  history,  and  definer  <  f  the  dead,  when  he 
 nas  in  fact  notiiing  more  than  the  humble,  and  we  may  cha- 
 
42S  Utikw  of  the  Coiitrorersy  between 
 
 ntably  hopr,  the  iixnorant  plagiary  of  tlie  falsehood  and  At- 
 lamation  of  anotlur. 
 
 The  arcli(l(.'acoti,  however,  v/as  snnicu!n(ly  sensible  that 
 in  the  estimation  even  of  wiilijig-  judg^- s,  his  justification  of 
 hip.ivself  from  tiie  charge  of  Dr.  Piiestloy  would  not  entirely 
 acquit  him  from  that  of  adopting  i;iip!ici(ly  the  errors  of 
 MoMieim:  Or,  as  lu- himself  correctly  expasscs  it,  p.-jGl, 
 liaving  "  related  upon  the  juithorily  o'i  Mo.>keim,  \\\i,\t  Mo- 
 sheim  relates  iiy)()n  none.'*  lie  very  properly,  therefore,  pro- 
 ceeds to  study  ecclesiastical  hittory  fv)r  himself;  and  aHcr 
 eighteen  months'  hard  labour,  (p.  410.)  he  at  leiigtii  pro- 
 duces the  following  new  and  most  salisfactorij  demonstr.'.'tioii 
 of  the  existence  of  this  famous  church  of  orihodox  Hvbrew 
 christians  at  yElia,  Avhohad  abuji;i(j]K'd  the  Mosaic  ritual. 
 
 First,  the  lennied  dignitary  stales  iu  form  six  distinct 
 ])ropositions  (p.5()4);  tlic  fn-st  throe  of  which  are  undis- 
 puted tacts,  and  the  three  hist,  gratuitous  assumptions. 
 The  first  asserts  the  existence  of  a  Hebrew  church  of  the 
 circumcision  at  .lerus.alem  or  Pella,  '■'-  till  the  dispersion 
 of  the  .5ev/s  by  Adrian." — 2.  That,  "  upon  this  event  a 
 christian  church,  arose  at  .E!ia." — '3.  "  'J'his  was  a  (ireek 
 church  governed  by  bishops  of  the  uucircumcision."  All 
 tiiese  were  allov.ed  fads. —  \.  Tin;  fourdi  projioshiun  as- 
 siiin£S,  that  "  the  observation  of  the  Mosaic  law  by  the  pri- 
 nritive  church  of  Jeuisalem  was  a  matter  of  mere  habit  and 
 national  prcjudicf,  not  of  C()nscience.  A  matter  of  consci- 
 ence it  could  not  be,  because  of  the  decree  of  the  apostolical 
 college,  and  th(?  writings  of  J^iid  "..,."  and  the  notion  that 
 Paul  could  be  mistaken  in  this  point,  is  an  impiety  which  i 
 cannot  im[;u(e  to  our  holy  breihicn,  the  saints  of  the  primi- 
 live  ciiurch  of  Jerusah'm."  It  did  no!,  it  seems,  occur  to 
 the  venera!)!(;  urchdciicon  that  the  a[)ostolic  decree  related 
 "rt  holly  to  the  converted  (ientiles ;  that  ^t.  Paul  Ix-ars  hjs 
 
Dr.  llursbij  and  Dr.  Priesthy.  i^\^ 
 
 testimony  only  asiuiiist  tlic  imposition  of  llio  iMosaic  ritual 
 upon  proi,cly(es  from  hoatJunism  ;  ami  (hat  at  any  ratr, 
 "  our  holy  bretlircn,  the  saints  of  .fciiisaletu,"  are  known  to 
 have  disregarded  tlie  writings  of  Paul,  because  lie  spoke 
 slif^litin<:^ly  of  the  ohlisjation  y^i  tlie  law. — 5.  That  in  these 
 *•'  trood  christians,  motives  of  worldly  interest,  which  -would 
 not  overcome  conscience,  would  overcome  mere  habit."' 
 — And' 6.  "  that  a  desire  of  partakino^  in  the  privileges  of 
 the  /Elian  colony  wonltl  be  a  prevailing  motive  Avith  the 
 Hebrew  ciiristiar.s  io  lay  aside  their  ancient  castoms." 
 *'  These  things,"  says  the  learned  aicinJeacon,  *'  I  takl; 
 FOR  GRANTi;))."  And  these  things  the  German  professor 
 had  taken  for  granh-d  Lcfore  him  in  that  long  note  to  his 
 Ante-Constantine  history,  which  is  the  grand  store-house 
 from  whence  the  English  Theologian  derives  all  his  know- 
 ledge of  the  /Elian  church. 
 
 But  as  the  profound  Editor  of  the  Works  of  Ncwtou 
 was  well  apprized  that  taking  tilings  for  granted,  though 
 the  most  easy,  is  not  always  the  most  satisfactory  mode  of 
 proof,  he  now  proceeds  to  state  his  direct  evidence  of  the 
 origin  of  his  favourite  church.  And  judicipusly  passing 
 over  with  very  slight  notice  the  fore-cited  passage  of  Sulpi- 
 tins  Severus,  which  ptissngc,  however,  is  the  principal  mine 
 from  which  Moshcim  draws  his  prrciotis  discoveries,  {hv 
 archdv-acon  hints  at  tlu?  testimony  of  Orosius,  a  historian  itf 
 the  fifth  century,  Vi\\o  s:iys  that  "  tlie  Jews  were  forbidden 
 to  enter  Jerusalem,  the  freedom  of  the  city  being  granted  to 
 Christians  only."  This  testimony,  however,  is  very  pro- 
 perly dismissed,  as  little  more  than  ''  a  feather  in  the  scalc,^' 
 p.  SG7  ;  and  the  learned  writer  advances  to  his  Seventh  pro- 
 position, p.  373,  which  aflirms, 
 
 7.  "That  a  body  of  orthodox  christians  of  tlie  Hebrew .s 
 were  actually  ex'sting  in  the  woild  mu<h  la^er  than  the  time 
 of  Addan." 
 
430  Hsiiew  of  the  Controversy  betucen 
 
 Passing  by  the  testimony  of  Origen,  Avliom  he  had  be- 
 fore denoujiced  as  tho  assertcr  of  a  notorious  falsehood,  the 
 venerable  dignitary  rests  the  Avholc  proof  of  his  proposition 
 upon  the  authority  of  Jerome.  This  learned  father,  in  his 
 commentary  upon  Isaiah,  relates  two  expositions  of  chap. 
 ix.  1  ;  of  Avhich  expositions  he  ascribes  the  one  to  the  He- 
 Irews  believing  in  Christy  the  other  to  the  Nazarenes.  A 
 critic  of  Jess  acumen  than  the  Archdeacon  of  St.  Alban's 
 would  liave  been  at  a  loss  to  disioa^r  any  proof  of  Iiis  se- 
 venth proposition,  and  much  more  of  (he  marvellous  account 
 of  the  sudden  revolution  in  the  Hebrew  church  in  the  reign 
 of  Adrian,  and  of  their  s;  ttlcmcnt  at  ^'Eiia,  in  tliese  few 
 \^orcls  from  the  Commentary  of  Jerome.  But  Dr.  Horslcy 
 v/as  not  a  scholar  of  the  vulgar  class.  He  strenuously  ar- 
 gues, p.  S74,  that  the  Hebrews  described  by  Jerome  as  be- 
 lieving- in  Christ,  must  have  l)een  orthodox  believers.  "  For 
 this  descii|;tion  of  tlicm,"  says  he,  "  without  any  thing  to 
 distinguish  tlieir  belief  from  the  common  belief  of  the 
 church,  without  any  note  of  its  error  or  imperfection,  is  a 
 plain  character  of  complete  orthodoxy."  Also,  "  the  di- 
 stinction of  tliem  fiom  the  Nazarenes,  made  by  St.  Jerome^ 
 is  a  plain  proof  that  they  AV(Te  not  observers  of  tlic  Mo- 
 saic law." 
 
 Dr.  Priestley  in  his  reply,  (Ihird  T/etl<rs,  p.  2.5,)  produ- 
 cing the  whole  passage  from  Jerome,  has  made  it  appear 
 probable  that  the  Nazarenes,  and  the  Hebrews  believing  in 
 Christ,  were  the  same  persons  ;  that  Jerome  only  meant  to 
 diversify  his  phraseology,  and  that  the  interpretations  a> hie h 
 the  archdeacon  represents  asditlerent,  are  in  effect  fhe  same. 
 But  let  this  pass.  1V&  give  him  Jerome'\  We  will  admit, 
 even  upon  this  slender  evidence,  and  the  archdeacon's  avbi- 
 
 *  "  I  gue  him  OrT<:cn."     Hur.-ley"!:  Tvact?,  p.  Tti. 
 
Dr.  llorsleij  and  Dr.  Priestley.  431 
 
 irxxy  interpretation,  in  tlefiuncc  of  all  probability,  and  in 
 contnidiction  to  tlie  wliole  tenor  of  history,  that  in  the  age 
 of  Jerome,  placed  by  Lardner  in  A.  D.  ^92,  there  existed  a 
 cc.n;i(lerable  body  of  oithodox  Hebrew  christians,  who  had 
 i;banJoiied  the  customs  of  llieir  forefathers.  But  how  does 
 t!jis  prove  that  i?50  years  belbre,  the  majority  of  Hebrew 
 christians  had  suddenly,  and  at  once,  deserted  the  ritual  of 
 Mo^es  in  order  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  Ai^lian  colony  ? 
 Tills  great  diiliculty  did  not  escape  the  notice  of  the  shrewd 
 polemic.  And  the  solution  of  it  is  so  i^ppropriatc,  and  so 
 truly  characieristic  of  the  learned  Mriter's  manner,  that  i 
 will  give  it  in  his  own  words,  p.  375.  "  If  the  orthodox 
 christians  of  the  Hebrews,  actually  existing  somewhere  in 
 the  world,  from  the  reign  of  Adrian  to  the  days  of  St.  Je- 
 ron:e,  were  not  members  of  the  church  of  iEiia,  dwelling 
 at  .'Elia,  and  in  tlie  adjacent  parts  of  Palestine,  Dk. 
 Priestley,  if  he  be  so  pleased,  may  seek  their  set- 
 tlement," 
 
 Dr.  Priestley,  however,  nctwithstanding  this  most  clear 
 and  satisfactory  account  of  the  origin  of  the  orthodox  church 
 at.^lia,  returns  the  bill  with  an  indorsement  of  ignoramics : 
 "  Before  you  can  show,"  says  he,  p.  28,  "that  this  passage  in 
 Jerome  is  at  all  to  your  purpose,  you  must  prove  tlie  three 
 following  tilings  :  First,  that  the  Hebrews  believing  in  Christ 
 were  ditlerent  from  the  Nazarenes :  secondly,  that  I  lie  former 
 -were  completely  orthodox  :  and  thirdly,  that  those  orthodox 
 Jewish  christians  resided  at  Jerusalem.  And  it  appears  to 
 me  that  not  one  of  these  suppositions  is  at  all  probable." 
 
 Tiie  venerable  archdeacon,  then  advanced  for  his  great 
 merits  to  the  bishoprick  of  St .  David's,  in  condescension  either 
 to  the  infirmity,  or  to  the  arginnent  of  his  opi'Onent,  in  his 
 lieply,  abates  a  little  of  his  lofty  languaire  ;  and  in  the  last  of 
 the  Disquisitions,  annexed  to  the  republicrdion  of  his  Tracts, 
 ]).  dPO,  he  admits  '■•  that  St.  Jerome's  evidence  goes  larehj 
 
Ai^.  Review  of  the  Controversy  letwecn 
 
 to  llie  proot"  of  his  sevontli  proposilioiij  namely,  '  that  a 
 body  of  orthodox  oliristians  of  tiie  Hebrews  was  actually 
 I'xisting  in  the" world  much  later  than  the  time  of  Adrian.' 
 8t.  Jerome's  evidence,"  says  his  Lordship,  "  is  brought 
 for  the  proof  of  this  proposition  singly.  A  ud  the  existesice 
 of  these  orthodox  Hebrew  btiicvcis  in  the  time  of  St.  .Jerome 
 being  thus  j)roved  by  St.  Jerome's  evidence,  the  probability 
 of  the  fact  that  they  resided  at  yElia,  ai;d  that  such  a  body 
 J'.ud  been  sellled  at  ^Elia  IVora  the  time  of  Adi  iaji  dow  awards, 
 rests  upon  my  six  foumeii  rusi  rioxs." 
 
 These  positions  have  been  a!rc;idy  itated,  aiul  the  atten- 
 tive reader  may  perliaps  recollect,  though  his  Lordship  has 
 not  reminded  him  of  it,  tiiat  these  six  propositions  are  in- 
 troduced, p.  3(i4,  with  the  following  remarkahle  words  : 
 
 '•  I  TA5CE    FOU  GRANTED    TJIESB    THINGS."       And    in    Ordcr 
 
 to  impress  the  circumstance  more  strongly  upon  the  reader's 
 Hiind,  after  having  stated  the  three  jir:<t  propositions,  con- 
 cerning wliich  tiiere  was  no  dispute,  lie  inlroduces  the  three 
 following  Avilh  a  repetition  of  the  same  reiuark.  For  again, 
 
 i    TAKE  FOR   CHANTED. 
 
 The  whole  iabrick,  then,  of  (his  famous  church  of  ortho- 
 dox liebrew  christians  at  ^Elia,  Avho  abandoned  at  oncctlie 
 institutions  of  Moses  in  order  to  enjoy  the  ])rivileges  of  the 
 >Elian  colony,  rests  solely  upon  the  testimony  of  Jerome, 
 Qiore  tlian  ^;30  years  afterwards,  to  this  siugh;  fact,  tliat  in 
 his  time  there  v/ere  "  Hebrews  who  believed  in  Christ." 
 And  by  the  learned  writer's  own  frank  and  libcial  conces- 
 sion, ail  the  rest  is  TAKEN  FOR  GRAN  lED. 
 
 The  venerable  champion  of  the  uncircumcised  Hebrew 
 church,  having  thus  arranged  his  liivincihie  arguments,  pro- 
 ceeds, p.  olQ,  with  a  most  edifying  and  imposing  gravity, 
 and  the  most  intrepid  assurance,  to  state  his  grand  con- 
 clusion. "  Upon  these  foundations,  which  a  stronger  arm 
 than  D"-.  Ptieslley's  shall  not;  be  able  to  tear  up,  stands  the 
 
 J 
 
Dr.  Horsley  and  Dr.  Priestley.  433 
 
 church  of  orthodox  Jewish  christians  at  Jerusalem." — Upon 
 these  foundations,  Avould  I  say,  let  it  stand.  No  force  of  arm 
 can  be  necessary  to  overturn  an  edifice  which  the  first  pass- 
 ing breeze  w  ill  sweep  from  the  surface  of  the  earth. 
 
 The  difficulties  of  the  learned  dignitary  do  not  however 
 rnd  here.     Dr.  Priestley's  unfortunate  mistake,  in  consult- 
 ing the  wrong  book,  involved  his  antagonist  in  another  em- 
 barrassment, from  which  all  his  ingenuity  in  helping  out  a 
 Iroken  story  has  not  been  able  to  extricate  him  with  credit. 
 Among  otlier  indisputable  facts,  and  wliich  the  arclidca- 
 con  alleges,  p.  157,  in  order  to  confirm  his  charge  against 
 Origen,  this  is  one ;  "  that  the  majority  of  Hebrew  chris- 
 tians," having  renounced  the  Mosaic  law,  "  t!iat  they  might 
 be  qualified  to  partake  in  the  valuable  privileges  of  the 
 /Elian  colony,"  they  "  removed  from  Pella  and  othertowns, 
 to  which  thoy  had  retired,  and  settled  in  great  numbers  at 
 IFAvA."     This   migration  of  the  Hebrew  christians  from 
 Fella  to  jElia  is  stated  by  Mooheim  in  his  ante-Constantine 
 history;  but  upon  more  mature  reflection  and  better  infor- 
 mation, it  had  been  omitted  in  the  general  Ecclesiastical 
 History,  which  alone  Dr.  Priestley  had  consulted.     This, 
 therefore,  is  one  of  the  facts  which  he  suspects  his  reverend 
 opponent  to  have  forged,  and  of  which  he  challenges  him 
 to  produce  a  proof;  which  challenge  gave  rise  to  the  above- 
 mentioned  mortifying  confession,  this  was  "  Mosheim's  as- 
 sertion before  it  was  mine."     But  as  Mosheim's  bare  asser- 
 tion, though  re-echoed  in  the  pompous  language  of  the  arch- 
 deacon of  St.  Albans,  would  not  be  generally  deemed  suffi- 
 cient, independently  of  evidence  from  antiquity,  to  impeach 
 the  hitherto  spotless  character  of  the  great  Origen,  the 
 archdeacon  proceeds  to  cite  the  testimony  of  Epiphanius, 
 referred  to  by  Mosheim  :    a  reference  which  if   he  had 
 had  the  prudence  or  the  good  fortune  to  have  consulted 
 btffore  he  had  published  his  affirmation,  he  would  at  least 
 2f 
 
434 
 
 Review  of  the  Controversy  letween 
 
 have  expressed  himself  with  greater  caution.  "  The 
 Hebrew  christians,"  sajs  the  learned  dignitary,  Tracts, 
 p.  370,  "  Ai'TCR  Adrian's  settlement  of  the  ^Elian 
 COLONY,  returned  from  Pella,  Avhither  they  liad  retired  from 
 Hie  distresses  of  the  Avar,  to  yElia.  It  happens  that  thb 
 fact,  of  which  Dr.  Priestley  does  me  the  honour  to  male? 
 me  the  inventor,  is  asserted  by  Epiphanius."  And  in  truth, 
 Epiphanius,  in  the  passage  cited  by  tlie  archdeacon,  uses 
 fhese  very  words :  "  The  disciples  of  the  disciples  of  the 
 apostles  had  returned  from  Pella  to  Jerusalem,  and  taught 
 there.  For  when  the  city  was  about  to  be  taken  by  the  Ro- 
 mans, all  the  disciples  had  been  forewarned  by  an  angel  to 
 leave  the  city.  These  went  and  dwelt  in  ihe  above-men- 
 tioned Pella,  beyond  Jordan;  but  returning  after  tue 
 DESOLATION  OF  JERUSALEM,  workcd  miraclcs." 
 
 This  is  a  plahi,  and,  leaving  the  miracles  out  of  the  ques- 
 tion, not  an  improbable  narrative.  What  can  be  alleged 
 m  contradiction  to  this  explicit  testimony  of  Epiphanius? 
 Nothing  that  I  know  of,  save  one  or  two  little  difficuUies 
 relating  to  the  chronology  of  the  event.  These,  indeed,  the 
 learned  dignitary  foresaw;  and  with  wise  precaution  he 
 earnestly  depiecales  "  any  cavils  which  ignorance  or 
 fraud  (he  might  have  added,  or  truth)  may  raise  about 
 the  chronology  of  the  return."  The  fact  is,  and  the 
 archdeacon  does  not  deny  it,  that  the  desolation  of  Jeru- 
 salem, of  which  Epiphanius  speaks,  was  that  by  Titus, 
 
 A.   D.  70,  MORE  THAN  SIXTY  YEARS  BEFORE  THE  COLONY 
 
 OF  tElia  lxisted''.  *'  But  tilis,"  says  the  learned  digni- 
 (ar3-,  p.  371,  "  is  a  matter  of  no  importance.     It  is  suf- 
 
 '  The  Emperor  Adrian  bcj^an  liib  r<  i^n  in  Aiisuft,  A.  D.  117,  and  died  in 
 .luly,  A.  D.  1?S.  The  Jewish  -war  broke  ont  in  the  fourti  enth  year,  and 
 was  finished  in  thi-  rjg;h(eenlh.  It  was  in  this  period  that  Jerusalem  was 
 totiilly  demolished,  and  (he  colony  of  ALVvd  was  founded,  jElia  was  !)egua 
 in  A.  D.  132.     Sec  Fasnage. 
 
Dr.  Horsley  and  Dr.  Priestley.  455 
 
 ^cient  for  my  purpose  that  these  relnrneil  christians  were 
 rcsidini^  at  Jerusalem,  or  more  properly  at  JElh,  at  the 
 same  time  that  Aquila  resided  there  as  overseer  of  the  empe- 
 ror's works."     So  tluMi,  we  are  now  to  believe,  that  these 
 Hebrew  cliristiaiis,  who  "  returned  in  great  numbers  to^Elia 
 alter  Adrian's  settlement  of  the  jElian  colony,"  who  aban- 
 doned the  rites  of  Moses,  and  placed  themselves  under  a 
 Greek  bisliop,  and  worshiped  in  an  unknown  tongue,  that 
 they  might  be  qualified  to  partake  of  the  valuable  privileges 
 of  the  yElian  colony,  were  the  very  same  persons  who  had 
 quitted  Jerusalem  to  avoid  the  calamities  of  tlie  siege  by 
 Titus  SIXTY  YEARS  before  !     Now  if  we  allow  that  at  the 
 time  of  their  retreat  tliey  were  upon  an  average  twenty 
 years  of  age,  they  must  have  been  fourscore  at  the  time  of 
 their  return.     And  it  is  really  quite  edifying  to  figure  to 
 one's  self  these  illustrious  Octogcnaries,  "  our  holy  brethren, 
 the  saints  of  the  primitive  church  of  Jerusalem,"  upon  the 
 first   intelligence  of  the  good  news,  hasting  away  from 
 Pella  and  thenortliof  Galilee,  where  they  had  been  passing' 
 threescore  years  in  obscurity  and  tranquillity,  and  in  lieroic 
 defiance  of  the  most  inveterate  attachments  and  of  the  habits 
 and  prejudices  of  fourscore,  abandoning  at  once  the  rites  of 
 their  forefathers,  and  the  forms,  and  even  the  language,  of 
 the  devotions  to  wliich  they  had  been  ever  accustomed,  in 
 order  to  obtain.  What  ? — the  valuable  privileges  and  immu- 
 nities of  the  iElian  colony !  And  how  gratifying  must  it  be  to 
 every  pious  mind  to  learn,  upon  the  high  authority  of  Epi-' 
 phanius,  that  after  all  the  fatigues  and  liazards  of  their  jour- 
 ney, they  were  still  in  a  nourishing  state,  teaching  and  work- 
 ing miracles  with  great  eifect,  at  the  time  when  Aquila,  who 
 was  converted  by  them,  was  superintcudant  of  Adrian's 
 works  ^! 
 
 Avfuvras    rr,  ■riirrti,  kki  cti/itiec  fitfytiXa  t^yy.Zoftitui    lafflnf   *«;   a>.?,&'»    9«i/- 
 ^KT*.».     Epiph.  de  Pond,  et  Mens. 
 
1^36  Ravieiv  of  the  Controversy  letwcen 
 
 But  here  again,  there  is  another  little  clironological 
 slumblin-j-block,  which  it  is  necessary  either  to  remove  or 
 to  step  ovef.  Taking  tlie  account  as  il  stands  in  Epipha- 
 uius,  the  only  authority,  snch  as  it. is,  for  the  fact  in  ques- 
 tion, this  A(]uihT,  ^vho  Mas  converted  by  the  miracles  of 
 the  orthotlox  Hebn-v»'  christians,  >vas  employed  by  Adrian 
 as  ovcrscGr  of  the  works  at  Jerusalem  in  the  thirteenth 
 ycw.1  of  his  reign.  But  the  Je\vi>!v  mir  did  not  break 
 out  till  the  fourteenth  year,  and  was  terminated  in  the 
 eighteenth  ;  so  that  the  Hebrew  christians,  with  whom 
 Aquila  conversed,  were  lluise  who  were  resident  at  Jerusa- 
 lem before  its  desolation  by  Adrian,  not  tho^e  who,  "  after 
 Adrian's  settlement  of  the  iElian  colony,  returned  from 
 Pella,"  and  abandoned  \hv  rites  of  Moses  to  enjoy  the  pri- 
 vileges of /Elia.  His  Lordsliip,  however,  when  pressed  with 
 this  objection  by  his  acute  opponent,  after  piteously  com- 
 plaining of  the  uncivil  attempt  to  embarrass  the  argument 
 \Aith  chronological  dilHculties,  against  A\hich  he  had  entered 
 so  earnest  and  necessary  a  caveat'^  proceeds  in  his  usual 
 Nvay  to  hell)  out  the  broken  story  by  his  own  conjectures. 
 '^^  1  maintain,"  says  he,  p.  i»7  J,  note,  "ihat  there  is  no  rea- 
 son to  believe  that  the  Hebrew  christians  quietly  settled  at 
 ^-Elia  before  the  Jewish  rebellion  were  included  in  Adrian's 
 edict  for  the  banishment  of  the  Jews/'  From  this  it  should 
 seem,  that  ''our  holy  brethren"  never  moved  from  the 
 place  of  their  abode  during  the  war  of  Adrian  ;  but  pru- 
 dently embracing  the  first  opportunity  of  discarding  the 
 
 9  "  Dr.  Pricstli'v  has  tn^ated  this  testimony  of  Kpiiiliamus  just  as  I  ex- 
 pected, and  indeed  predicted the  caution  which  I  {;ave  Vm  j);ibtic  not  to 
 
 t>p  abused  by  cavils  about  chronology  is  but  too  much  Justified  by  the  event." 
 Bishop  Horsley's  Tracts,  p.  ;37'i,  note.— A  less  sa);acious  disputant  than  the 
 IJishop  of  St.  Davids  mi;;ht  naturally  expect  from  so  acute  an  opponent  as 
 Dr.  IViestley,  an  attack  in  that  quarter  which  he  was  conscious  that  he  had 
 (eft  so  much  exposed. 
 
Dr.  Horsley  and  Dr.  Priestley.  437 
 
 ■Mosaic  liliial,  tliej  were  at  oiico  lulmitted  to  tlie  priviloi^ps 
 of  the /Kliaii  colony.  His  Lordship  for<^els,  or  at  least  he 
 presumes  fhat  his  readers  will  forijet,  that,  upon  theauthority 
 of  Mosheim,  he  had  Ix'lbre  sent  liieni  all  to  Pella,  and  to  the 
 north  of  G;>!i[ee,  till  after  the  doniolit ion  of  Jerusalem  by 
 Adrian  ;  and  that  this  is  stated,  p.  I5(i,  157,  as  one  of  the 
 indi\putabie  facis  in  confirms  (ion  of  the  charge  a£rain-st 
 Origen.  Upori  second  thoughts,  tiie  learned  prelate  kindly 
 consents  to  keep  these  aged  and  j^ioiis  brelliren  at  home,  and 
 only  re<^nires  that,  lest  they  should  "  pass  for  Jews  with  the 
 Roman  magistrates,  they  should  renounce  the  Mosaic  law." 
 Whether  the  easj'  simplicity  of  the  Roman  magistrates  was 
 really  imposed  upon  by  the  specious  artifice  of  "  onr  holy 
 brethren,"  or  A\hether  their  good  nature,  at  the  hazard  of 
 incurring  the  emperor's  displeasun*,  winked  at  the  pious 
 fraud ;  or  finally,  since,  by  the  testimony  of  the  bishop's 
 great  authority,  St.  Epiphanius,  miracles  had  not  yet  ceased 
 in  the  Jerusalem  church,  whether  their  eyes  might  not  be 
 holden  so  ihat  they  did  not  know  them,  does  not  appear"'. 
 Tim  bishop  acknowledges,  p.  S6'G,  that  "  no  promise  of  any 
 particular  immunities  Avas  raad(^  to  Jewish  christians  upon 
 condition  that  they  renounced  the  Jewish  law."  But 
 presuming,  which  is  not  improbable,  that  ihti  Hebrew 
 christians  had  taken  no  part  in  the  rebellion,  he  sup- 
 poses that  the  emperor  might  distinguish  between  rebels 
 and  good  sul)jects.  He  then  takes  for  granted,  that  the  em- 
 peror i/i(i  make  this  distinction;  and  a^sujues^  without  a 
 
 "  It  might  have  been  deemed  oflieiDHs  in  Dr.  Priestley  (o  have  put  the 
 question,  How  were  these  holy  and  prudent  brethn  n  disposed  ot'diiring  the 
 interval  when  "  Jeriii^aUMn  was  np  more,"  and  while  .iilia  was  building 
 at  another  place  ?  But,  no  doubt,  his  Lordship  would  have  referred  him 
 to  his  former  most  ingenious  and  satisfaefory  reply,  p. 875:  "  If  they  were 
 riot  dwHHiig  at  .Wia,  Dr,  Pncsticy,  if  he  be  so  pleased,  may  seek  their  let- 
 tlement."' 
 
43S  Review  of  the  Controversy  between 
 
 tittle  of  authority  from  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  that  thry 
 abandoned  the  Mosaic  institute,  because,  "  if  they  had  not 
 discarded  the  Jewish  rites,  they  might  have  been  mistaken 
 for  Jews,"  and  been  debarred  the  immunities  of  the  ^-Elian 
 colony.  In  this  forlorn  and  deplorable  condition,  resting 
 wholly  upon  gratuitous  assumption,  unsupported  by  his- 
 toYy,  and  contradicted  by  chronology,  is  this  learned  pre- 
 late constrained  finally  to  leave  this  his  favourite  church. 
 Still,  however,  he  is  unwilling  absolutely  to  give  it  up. 
 *'  The  disturbed  foundations  of  the  church  of  ^lia  are," 
 says  he,  p.  499,  "  again  settled.  I  could  wish  to  trust  them 
 to  their  own  solidity  to  withstand  any  future  attacks." 
 
 But  though  the  right  reverend  polemic  thus  sued  for 
 peace,  his  active  and  determined  adversary  would  neither 
 desist  from  the  contest,  nor  grant  him  quarter.  After  hav- 
 ing stated  in  his  Letters  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  St.  Davids, 
 p.  53,  "  that  all  the  accounts  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
 by  Adrian  are  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  of 
 any  such  church ;"  that,  "  they  all  say  that  no  Jew,  without 
 making  any  exception  in  favour  of  christian  Jew s,  was  al- 
 lowed to  remain  in  the  place,  and  they  expressly  speak  of  the 
 new  church  as  consisting  wholly  of  Gentiles,  who  made  use 
 of  the  Greek  language;"  and  appealing  once  more  to  the 
 concurring  opinion  of  Fleury  and  Tillemont,  he  adds,  "  to 
 this  mass  of  evidence  from  the  clearest  facts  and  the 
 strongest  probabilities,  your  Lordship  opposes  a  mere  idle 
 story  picked  up  by  Epiphanius,  of  Aquila  being  appointed 
 by  Adrian  to  superintend  the  works  at  Jerusalem,  and 
 being  converted  to  Christianity ;"  and  he  reminds  the  bishop 
 that,  '^  according  to  Epiphanius,  this  must  have  happened 
 before  the  war  begun."  "  Your  Lordship,"  he  concludes, 
 *'  may  well  say  that  I  have  embarrassed  your  argument  w  ith 
 chronological  diiliculties;  and  when  chronology  is  against 
 a  man,  he  is  naturally  against  chronology." 
 
£r.  Ihnhy  and  Dr.  Priestley.  439 
 
 In  reply  to  the  bishop's  conclii  Hug-  remark,  Dr.  Pricstlej- 
 says,  p.  57,  "  My  Lord,  in  humble  imitation  of  your  Lord- 
 •ship's  stylo,  I  will  say,  the  foundations  otyour  church  of  Tri- 
 nitarian Jews  at  Jerusalem,  afier  the  time  of  Adrian,  are 
 again,  and  I  will  venture  to  say  for  ever,  overturned  :  and  a 
 church,  the  foundations  of  which  were  att(?mpted  to  be  laid 
 on  the  grossest  calumny,  and  on  the  ruins  of  the  fairest  cha- 
 racter that  christian  history  has  to  exhibit,  would  not  expect 
 any  better  f  ite.  And  it  has  fallen  ^^hereiiou!iht  to  have  done, 
 on  the  head  of  Ihe  architect."  He  adds,  "  If  your  Lord- 
 ship should  make  a  fresii  attempt  to  rebuild  this  favourite 
 church,  I  hope  you  will  lay  its  foundations  deeper  than  on 
 an  idle  story  of  Epiplvaniiis. — Also  condescend  to  give  some 
 small  degree  of  attention  to  the  humble  subject  of  chrono- 
 logy. Otherwise,  how  pom})onsly  and  magisterially  soever 
 your  Lordsliip  may  write,  a  plain  tale  will  be  sufficient  to 
 put  you  dovvn.^'  Dr.  Priestley  concludes  with  a  spi- 
 rited challenge  to  the  newly-created  bisiiop  to  resume  the 
 ■controversy.  ^"^  Come  forth  then  again,  my  Lord,  and  to 
 all  your  powers  of  language  be  pleased  to  add  those  of  ar^ 
 gument.  To  use  your  own  high  platonic  language,  Come 
 forth  with  the  full  projection  of  all  your  energies,  aud,  if 
 possible,  overwhelm  me  at  once." 
 
 To  this  animated  challenge  the  right  reverend  adversary 
 made  no  reply.  The  oracle  was  silent.  The  warfare  was 
 accomplished.  The  prize  was  won.  And  -both  the  cou- 
 tending  parties  retired  from  the  field  equally  well  satisfied 
 with  the  result  of  the  couf'iiet;  Dr.  Priestley,  with  his 
 yiCTORli',  and  Dr.  Horsley,  with  his  MITRE. 
 
410  Review  of  the  Controversy  letweeii 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 The  other  questions  which  were  agitated  by  these  keen  an(J 
 learned  polemics  were  of  very  subordinate  importance.  The  ve^ 
 nerable  archdeacon  having  pledged  himself  to  prove  that  the  di, 
 Tinity  of  our  Lord  was  the  belief  of  the  very  first  christians, 
 appeals  in  his  Eighth  Letter,  Tracts,  p,  164,  to  a  work  of  great 
 antiquity,  under  the  title  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  which, 
 though  it  is  admitted  not  to  have  been  written  by  the  companion 
 of  Paul,  the  learned  writer  contends  to  h^ve  been  a  production 
 of  the  apostolic  age,  and  addressed  by  a  Hebrew  christian  to  his 
 Jewish  brethren.  From  this  epistle  he  cites  the  following  pas- 
 sage :  "  The  Lord  submitted  to  sulFer  for  our  souls,  although  he 
 be  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth,  unto  whom  he  said  the  day  be- 
 fore the  world  was  finished,  Let  us  make  man  after  our  image 
 and  likeness."  He  adds  two  or  three  other  passages  of  the  same 
 import.  He  then  remarks,  that  the  writer  mentions  this  doctrine 
 *'as  an  article  of  their  common  faith ;  he  brings  no  arguments  to 
 prove  it ;  he  mentions  it  as  occasion  occurs,  without  showing  any 
 anxiety  to  inculcate  it,  or  any  apprehension  that  it  would  be  de- 
 nied or  doubted,"  And  he  triumphantly  concludes,  "  This,  Sir, 
 is  the  proof  which  1  had  to  produce,  It  is  so  direct  and  full, 
 that  if  this  be  laid  in  ope  scale,  and  your  whole  mass  of  evidence 
 drawn  from  incidental  and  ambiguous  allusions  in  the  other,  the 
 latter  will  fly  up  and  kick  the  beam." 
 
 To  this  argument  Dr.  Priestley  replies  in  the  second  of  his 
 second  series  of  Letters  to  Dr.  Horsley,  by  reminding  his  anta- 
 gonist of  the  doubts  eritcrtained  by  many  learned  men  of  the 
 genuineness  of  this  epistle,  and  of  the  certainty  of  numerous  in- 
 terpolations, and  those  such  as  respect  the  very  subject  in  ques- 
 tion. Adding,  *'  I  must  see  other  evidence  than  this  from  Bar- 
 Babas,  before  I  can  admit  that  the  divinity  or  pre-existencc  of 
 Christ  was  the  belief  of  the  apostolic  age." 
 
 This  reply  sufficiently  impeaches  the  testimony  of  the  pseudo- 
 Barnabas.  But  an  answer  still  more  satisfactory  is  supplied  by 
 the  learned  Jeremiah  Jones,  who  was  not,  as  Dr.  Horsley  states. 
 
Dr.  Horsley  and  Br.  Priestley.  411 
 
 Tracts,  p.  127,  "  tlie  tutor  of  the  renerablc  Lardner,"  but  the 
 relation  aud  pupil  of  the  very  learned  Samuel  Joiios  of  Tewkes- 
 bury, who  was  also  the  tutor  of  JNIaddox  bishop  of  Worcester, 
 Butler  bishop  of  Durham,  and  Seeker  arclibishop  of  Canter- 
 bury; io  which  catalogue  we  may  add  (he  name  of  a  person  who 
 ■was  fully  their  ecjual  in  literary  celebrity,  and,  if  not  restrained 
 by  principles  of  conscience,  had  been  ecpial  in  ecclcsiaslical  dig- 
 nity, the  learned  and  pious  Dr.  Samuel  Chandler,  many  years  the 
 able  and  admired  pastor  of  the  highly  respectable  presbyterian 
 congregation  of  the  Old  Jewry.  Jeremiah  Jones,  who,  to  the. 
 great  loss  of  theological  literature,  died  young,  in  the  second 
 volume  of  his  admirable  Treatise  on  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  re- 
 published a  few  years  ago  by  the  University  of  Oxford,  pan  iii. 
 ch.  37,  after  a  very  full  and  impartial  inquiry  into  the  subject, 
 states  it  as  his  opinion,  which  he  substantiates  by  abundant  evi- 
 dence, "  that  the  epistle  was  written  not  by  Barnabas,  nor  by 
 any  other  Jew,  but  by  some  person  M'ho  was  originally  a  Pagan 
 idolater;  that  it  is  an  apocryphal  book,  and  was  never  read  in 
 the  churches  till  the  time  of  Jerome;  that  it  contains  many  as- 
 sertions which  are  absolutely  false,  and  a  great  number  of  tri- 
 fling, silly,  and  idle  things."  And  upon  the  whole  he  concludes, 
 from  its  having  been  cited  "  only  by  Clemens  Alexandriniis  and 
 Origen,  that  it  was  forged  at  Alexandria ;  and  because  there  are 
 so  many  pious  frauds  in  it,  that  it  was  the  forgery  of  some  such 
 person  as  corrupted  the  books  of  the  Sybils,  and  that  it  was  writ- 
 ten about  the  middle  of  the  second  century."  Such  is  the  direct, 
 Jiill,  and  decisive  evidence  derived  by  the  archdeacon  from  the 
 testimony  of  Harnabas  to  the  orthodoxy  of  the  primitive  Hebrew 
 church.     We  give  him  this  Barnabas  '. 
 
 I  cannot  conclude  this  long  note  without  adding  a  word 
 or  two  upon  the  subject  of  Origen's  much-injured  character. 
 The  archdeacon  had  charged  this  venerable  man  with  "  the 
 allegation  of  a  notorious  falsehood,"  in  asserting  that  the  He- 
 brew  christians    in    his  time   had    not    abandoned    the    law    of 
 
 '  "  I  shall  tax  the  veracity  of  \our  witness— of  t/di  Origen."     Horsley, 
 \ 
 
442  Revleiv  of  the  Controversy  hetiveen 
 
 their  ancestors:  Tracfs,  p.  156.  Of  this  \\cd.vy  charge  he  aJ- 
 duced  the  existence  of  his  far-famed  church  at  iElia  as  a  proof. 
 But  soon  discovering  that  the  foundations  of 'this  church  were 
 too  weak  even  for  its  own  support,  and  much  more  to  bear 
 the  weight  of  this  new  and  unprecedented  attack  upon  the  ve- 
 racity of  Origen,  and  being  anxious  to  repel  the  severe  retort  of 
 Dr.  Priestley,  that  he  was  "  a  defamer  of  the  dead,"  the  learned 
 dignitary  applied  himself  with  great  industry  to  look  out  for 
 some  plausible  conlirmatioa  of  his  criminatory  allegation.  And 
 the  SKOcess  of  his  researches  was  worthy  of  the  cause.  Two 
 passages  only  are  produced  by  the  archdeacon,  Tracts,  p.  350, 
 to  state  which,  in  the  reverend  accuser's  own  translation,  is  to 
 demonstrate  the  futility  of  the  charge. 
 
 "  In  the  second  book  of  the  Answer  to  Celsus,  Origen  says, 
 It  is  my  present  purpose  io  evince  Celsus's  ignorance  ;  who  has 
 made  a  Jew  say  to  his  countrymen,  to  Israeliti  s  believing  in 
 Christ,  Upon  what  motive  have  you  deserted  the  law  of  your 
 anceslors  ?....Aud  how  confusedly  does  Celsus's  3c\\  speak,  upon 
 this  subject,  when  he  might  have  said  more  plausibly,  TTiSavw- 
 •fspov  Some  of  you  have  relinquished  the  old  customs  upon  pre- 
 tence of  expositions  and  allegories.  Some  again  expounding,  as 
 you  call  it,  spiritually,  nevertheless  observe  the  institutions  of 
 our  ancestors.  But  some,  not  admitting  these  expositions,  are 
 ■willing  to  receive  Jesus  as  the  person  foretold  by  the  prophets, 
 and  to  observe  the  law  of  Moses  according  to  the  ancient  cus- 
 toms." "  In  these  words,"  continues  the  archdeacon,  "  Origea 
 confesses  all  tliat  I  have  alleged  of  him.  He  confesses,  in  con- 
 tradiction to  his  former  assertion,  that  he  knew  of  three  sorts  of 
 Jews  professing  Christianity. ...one  of  whom  had  relinquished  the 
 observance  of  the  literal  precept." 
 
 But  where  is  this  self-contradiction  to  be  found  ?  Celsus  igno- 
 rantly  charged  all  the  Hebrew  christians  with  having  deserted 
 the  customs  of  their  ancestors.  Origen,  who  knew  that  (cw  or 
 none  of  them  had  done  so,  rej>lies,  that  Celsus's  Jew  would  have 
 talked  not  more  truly,  but  uiore  I'lausibly,  more  consistently 
 with  his  assumed  character,  and  more  like  the  truth,  if  he  had 
 only  said  that  some  had  relinquished  their  old  customs,  while  the 
 
 / 
 
Dr.  Horsley  and  Dr.  Priest It-ij.  41.^ 
 
 Biajorlty  adhered  to  tliem.  But  the  bishop  says  in  his  laboured 
 reply  to  Dr.  Priestley's  Defence  of  Origeii,  Tracts,  Disq.  v. 
 *'  Plausibility  aud  truth  in  (his  use  of  the  word  plausibility,  are 
 the  very  same  thing."  They  might  be  so  in  his  Lordship's  voca, 
 bulary,  but  they  arc  not  so  in  common  acceptation.  To  say  tliat 
 his  Lordship's  assertions  are  plausible,  is  very  different  from  al- 
 lowing that  those  assertions  are  true.  Dr.  Priestley,  in  the  first 
 of  his  third  Series  of  Letters,  supposes  that  Origen  might  alluda 
 to  a  few  who  had  relinquished  their  ancient  customs,  though 
 the  majority  had  not.  But  this  supposition,  though  not  im- 
 probable, is  by  no  means  necessary  to  justify  the  character  of 
 Origen. 
 
 Another  passage,  upon  which  the  archdeacon  j^laccs  his  finger, 
 ibid.  p.  353,  as  substantiating  his  charge  against  Origen,  is  in  the 
 first  book  of  the  Reply  to  Celsus.  Origen,  defending  the  trans- 
 lation of  Isa.  vii.  14,  "  Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive,"  alleges 
 that  the  word  Alma,  which  the  LXX.  translate  '  virgin,'  and 
 others  '  a  young  woman,'  is  put  too,  as  they  say,  in  Deutero- 
 nomy, xxii.  23,  24,  for  '  a  virgin.' " 
 
 The  fact  is,  that  in  all  our  present  copies  tlie  word  Alma, 
 iTD^i>,  does  not  occur  in  Deuteronomy,  but  another  word  nVin2, 
 which  always  signifies  '  a  virgin.'  And  the  archdeacon  charges 
 Origen  with  prevarication  for  citing  the  text  in  tliis doubtful  man- 
 ner. "  Was  it  unknown  to  the  compiler  of  the  llexapla  what 
 the  reading  of  the  Hebrew  text  in  his  own  times  Avas  ?  If  he 
 knew  that  it  wias  what  he  would  have  it  thought  to  be,  why  docs 
 he  seem  to  assert  it  upon  hearsay  only?  If  he  knew  not,  why 
 did  he  not  inform  himself  ? " 
 
 In  truth,  it  is  difiicult  to  say  why  Origen  uses  this  indefuiitc 
 phrase.  His  copy  might  differ  from  the  modern  ones,  or  his 
 judgement  might  be  doubtful,  or  he  might  possibly  have  forgot- 
 ten at  the  instant  what  the  exact  reading  was,  and  his  copy  might 
 not  be  at  hand  for  him  to  consult;  but  whether  any  or  none  of 
 these  suppositions  be  correct,  surely  no  human  being  but  the 
 Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans  would  have  ventured  upon  such  feeble 
 grounds  to  have  taxed  the  character  of  the  great  and  venerable 
 
-414  Review  of  the  Controversy  hetween 
 
 Ori^en  with  notorious  falsehood*.  "  What  an  appetite,"  says 
 Dr.  Priestley,  "  must  a  man  have  forcalumn) ,  who  can  seize  upon 
 such  a  circumstance  as  this  to  gratify  it !  "  Third  Scries  of  Let- 
 ters, p.  1.^. 
 
 In  the  fifth  Disquisition  annexed  to  his  Collection  of  Tracts, 
 Dr.  Ilorsley,  then  Bishop  of  St.  Davids,  labours,  but  with- 
 out success,  to  establish  his  impeachment  of  Origcn's  cha- 
 racter upon  the  ground  of  these  two  passages,  from  his  an- 
 swer to  Cclsus ;  asid  having  convicted  Dr.  Priestley  of  two  or 
 
 ^  Nor  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  archdeacon  himself  would  have  pre- 
 ferred so  serious  a  charge  upon  such  frivolous  pretexts,  had  he  not  been 
 completely  misled  by  tlie  visions  of  Mosheim.  For  had  the  fable  of  the 
 Hebrew  orthodox  cluirch  at  yElia  been  true',  Origen  ratist  have  known  it,  as 
 he  resided  for  some  time  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem,  and  he  would  in  that 
 case  have  merited  the  imputation  of  a  want  of  veracity.  But  this  j^round 
 heing  untenable,  and  the  learned  dignitary  havircj^  alleged  his  accusation  of 
 the  venerable  Father  in  such  broad  and  unqualified  jterms,  he  probably 
 thought  it  necessary  in  vindication  of  his  own  character  to  searcli  for 
 other  proofs  of  his  charge  against  that  of  Origen  :  w  ith  what  success  the 
 reader  is  now  competent  to  judge. 
 
 The  reader  may  now  likcwiBC  form  a  just  estimate  of  the  truth  of  a  cu- 
 rious observation  in  a  late  Quarterly  Review,  that  "  Ur,  Priestley  was  re- 
 garded a*  a  giant  in  theological  controversy,  till  he  was  vanquished  by  a 
 giant  greater  than  himself  "  How  far  Bishop  Ilorsley,  conscious  as  he  evi- 
 dently was  of  the  infirmity  of  his  argument,  which  he  in  vain  endeavoured 
 to  conceal  under  the  pomp  and  colouring  of  his  language,  would  have  re- 
 lished the  equivocal  compliment  of  the  same  Reviewers  in  tlieir  critique 
 upon  his  posthumous  sermons,  that  his  i)rincipal  forte  was  Theology,  may  not 
 be  so  easily  ascertained. 
 
 To  the  liberal  and  enlightened  author  of  the  masterly  "  Dissertation  upon 
 the  Evangelical  Sects,"  in  the  last  Number  of  this  Literary  Journal,  the  Uni- 
 tirians,  in  common  with  the  r^st  of  thi'ir  non-conformist  brethren,  are  un- 
 der great  obligation,  for  his  manly  and  uneipiivocal  avowal  of  the  grand 
 principles  of  religious  liberty,  and  his  indignant  reprobation  of  persecution 
 in  every  form.  While  the  Unitarians  can  boast  of  their  Lardners,  Lind- 
 seys,  Jebbs,  AVakeflclds,  and  Tyrwhits,  and  many  other  names  living  and 
 dead,  wiios,"  cfaini  to  literary  celebrity  would  not  have  been  deemed  equi- 
 voral  h.id  they  imbibed  their  learning  in  royal  colleges  or  national  insti 
 tntions,  they  can  forgive  the  sarcasm  of  the  worthy  Reviewer  that  their 
 doctrine  "  apprali  to  the  vanity  of  the  half-learned,  and  the   pride  of  th* 
 
Dr.  Ilorslcy  and  Dr.  Priestley.  445 
 
 three  trifling  inaccuracies,  he  concludos  with  (he  following  illi- 
 beral reflection  :  "  This  art,  which  Dr.  Priestley  is  so  apt  to  cm- 
 ploy,  of  reducing  an  argument,  by  well-managed  abridgements, 
 to  a  form  in  which  it  may  be  ca|);)bie  <jf  refutation,  indicates  so 
 near  a  resemblance  between  the  characters  of  Origenand  his  Ily- 
 peraspistes,  in  the  worst  part  of  Origen's,  that  perhajjs  1  might 
 not  be  altogether  unjustifiable,  wt*re  1  to  apply  to  the  Squire  the 
 words  which  Mosheini  so  freely  uses  of  the  Knight;  '  Ego  huic 
 testi,  etiamsi  jurato,  qui  tam  manifesto  fumos  vcndit,  mc-non 
 crediturum  esse  confirmo.'  " 
 
 half-rensonin^."  But  they  cannot  suppress  fheir  astonisliment  that  tliis  able 
 critii-,  who  does  not  appear  to  be  an  enemy  to  revelation,  should,  in  reply 
 to  a  most  judicious  and  important  observation  of  the  Barrister,"  itiat  Christ 
 never  required  faith  in  his  disciples,  without  first  furnishing  sufficient  evi- 
 dence to  justify  it,"  have  ventured  to  affirm  tliat  the  Barrister  "  makes 
 this  assertion  in  direct  contradiction  of  many  plain  texts,  and  of  the  whole 
 spirit  of  the  whole  gospels.''     We  indeed  have  not  so  learned  Christ. 
 
 The  candid  writer,  allow infj  that  Unitariaiiism  is  "  the  most  harmless  of 
 all  heresies,"  declares  his  opinion  that"  it  never  can  become  a  popular  doc- 
 trine." The  writer  of  this  note  once  entertained  the  same  opinion;  and' 
 that  at  a  time  when,  from  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  Unitarian  doc- 
 trine, he  thoujrht  it  his  duly  to  make  an  open  profession  of  it.  He  has 
 since  learned  from  experiejicc  to  place  more  confidence  in  the  energy 
 of  Truth  when  proposed  in  a  plain  and  nndiso;uiscd  form.  If  the  critique 
 was  written  by  the  re^pcctable  author  to  whom  it  is  attributed  by  com- 
 mon rumour,  he  will  permit  the  writer  of  this  Note  to  lay  claim  to  a  more 
 convenient  station  for  observing  the  progress  of  Uiiitariani'^m,  than  the 
 Reviewer,  with  all  his  acknowledged  talents  and  resources,  can  possess  in  the 
 '•  antres  vast  and  desarts  idle"  of  the  North.  The  Unitarians  do  not  com- 
 plain of  decreasing  numbers  and  empty  chapels.  Their  want  is  that  of  po- 
 pular, enlightened,  and  faithful  ministers  to  large  and  crowded  auditories. 
 And  the  philosophic  Reviewer  may,  if  he  pleast  s,  smile  at  the  fund  credu- 
 lity of  the  writer  while  he  avows  his  tirm  conviction,  that  the  only  eti'cctual 
 check  which  can  be  .;iven  to  that  torrent  of  absurdity  and  entlnisiasni  which 
 threatens  to  overwhelm  the  country,  and  which  excites  just  alarm  in  every 
 considerate  mind,  is,  not  by  opposing  nonsense  to  nonsense,  and  fanaticism 
 to  fanaticism,  but  by  the  calm,  dignified,  and  irresistil)lc  jirogress  of  reaiion, 
 truth,  and  virtue;  by  the  prevalence  of  Unitarian  principles,  of  the  Lan- 
 cajterian  system  of  education,  ami  of  a  firm,  tciiip'-raic,  &i.d  ti  ul y  primitive 
 dociplin-. 
 
HG  Review  of  the  Controversy,  Sec. 
 
 Dr.  Priestley,  disdaining  to  enter  any  further  into  the  defence 
 of  Origen's  character,  in  reply  to  the  above  calumnious  insinua- 
 tions of  the  bishop  against  himself,  says,  Fourth  Series,  p.  85, 
 *'  To  this  conjunction  of  myself  with  Origcn  I  heartily  say, 
 Amen,  May  my  character  be  that  of  this  great  man  \f  ith  all  its 
 faults,  and  then  it  will  be  as  far  removed  as  I  wish  it  to  be  from 
 that  of  the  present  Bishop  of  St.  Davids,  whom  I  scriijile  not 
 once  more  to  call,  as  I  have  abundantly  proved  tlic  truth  of  the 
 accusation,  a  falsifier,  though  I  believe  not  a  wilful  falsi&e:-,  of 
 history,  and  a  dcfamer  of  the  ciiaracfer  of  tlu'  dead.'' 
 
PART  THE  SECOND 
 
 A  SUMMARY  VIEW  OF  THE  VARIOUS  OPINIONS 
 WHICH  HAVE  BEEN  ENTERTAINED  CONCERN- 
 ING THE  PEllSON  OF  CHRIST,  AND  OF  THE 
 ARGUMENTS  FOR  AND  OBJECTIONS  AGAINST 
 EACH. 
 
 .    SECTION    I. 
 
 THE   PROPER   UNITARIAN   SCHEME,  OR  THE 
 DOCTRINE     OP    THE     SIMPLE     HUMANITY 
 
 OF  JESUS   CHRIST. 
 
 The  Unitarian  doctrine  is,  that  Jesus  of  Na- 
 zareth was  a  man  constituted  in  all  respects, 
 like  other  men,  subject  to  the  same  infa-mities, 
 the  same  ignorance,  prejudices,  and  frailties 
 — descended  from  the  family  of  David,  the 
 son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  though  some  indeed 
 still    adhere    to    the   popular    opinion    of  the 
 
448  VnitQrian  Doctrhie  Part  IL 
 
 miraculous  conception — that  he  was  born  in 
 low  circumstances,  having  no  peculiar  advan- 
 tages of  education  or  learning,  but  that  he  was 
 a  man  of  exemplary  character, — and  that  in 
 conformity  to  ancient  prophecy,  he  was  chosen 
 and  appointed  by  God  to  introduce  a  new 
 moral  dispensation  into  the  world,  the  design 
 of  which  was  to  abolish  the  Jewish  oeconomy, 
 and  to  place  beheving  Gentiles  upon  an  equal 
 ground  of  privilege  and  favour  with  the  poste- 
 rity of  Abraham  :  in  other  words,  he  was  au- 
 thorized to  reveal  to  all  mankind,  without  di- 
 stinction, the  great  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  in 
 which  men  shall  be  rewarded  according  to 
 their  works. 
 
 It  does  not  appear  that  Jesus  was  at  all  con- 
 scious of  the  honour  and  dignity  for  which  he 
 was  intended  till  after  his  baptism,  when  the 
 Holy  Spirit  was  communicated  to  him  in  a 
 visible  symbol,  and  when  he  was  miraculously 
 announced  as  the  beloved  Son  of  God,  that  is, 
 as  the  great  prophet  or  Messiah  whom  the  Jews 
 had  been  taught  to  expect ;  after  which,  in  the 
 course  of  his  public  ministry,  he  occasionally 
 spoke  of  himself  as  the  Son  of  Man  and  the 
 Son  of  God. 
 
 After  his  baptism,  it  is  generally  believed  by 
 
Sect.  1.]         stated  and  explained,  449 
 
 the  Unitarians,  that  he  spent  some  time  in  the 
 wilderness,  where  he  was  full}'  instructed  in  the 
 nature  of  his  mission,  and  invested  with  volun- 
 tary miraculous  powers,  which,  b}^  the  visionary 
 scene  of  his  temptation,  he  was  instructed  to 
 exercise,  not  for  any  personal  advantage,  but 
 solely  for  the  purposes  of  his  mission.  Many, 
 however,  conceive  that  Jesus  never  performed  a 
 miracle  but  when  he  was  prompted  to  it  by  a 
 divine  impulse.  It  has  been  maintained  by 
 some  learned  men,  that  during  the  period  of 
 his  residence  in  the  wilderness  Jesus  was  fa- 
 voured, with  divine  visions,  in  which,  like  the 
 apostle  Paul,  (2  Cor.  xii.)  he  apprehended  him- 
 self to  be  transported  into  heaven  ;  and  that 
 the  language  which  he  uses  concerning  his  de- 
 scent from  heaven  is  to  be  explained  by  this 
 hypothesis :  but  the  generality  of  Unitarians 
 interpret  these  expressions  of  his  divine  com- 
 mission only,  and  the  perfect  knowledge  with 
 which  he  was  favoured,  above  all  other  pro- 
 phets, of  the  will  of  God  concerning  the  moral 
 state  of  men,  and  the  new  disperisation  which 
 he  was  appointed  to  introduce. 
 
 The  Unitarians  generally  believe  that  Jesus, 
 having   exercised   his   pubhc   ministry  for   the 
 space  of  a  year,  and  perhaps  a  little  more,  suf- 
 2  G 
 
450  Unitarian  Doctrine  [Part  IL 
 
 lered  death  publicly  upon  the  cross,  not  to  ap- 
 pease the  wrath  of  God,  not  as  a  satisfaction  to 
 divine  justice,  not  to  exhibit  the  evil  of  sin^ 
 nor  in  any  sense  v.hatexer  to  make  an  atone- 
 ment to  God  for  it ;  for  this  doctrine  in  every 
 sense,  and  according  to  every  explanation,  they 
 explode  as  irrational,  unscriptural,  and  deroga- 
 tory from  the  divine  perfections  ;  but  as  a  mar- 
 tyr  to  the  truth,  and  as  a  necessary  preliminary 
 to  his  resurrection.  And  they  hold  that  it  waa 
 wisely  ordered,  to  preclude  cavils,  that  his  death 
 should  be  an  event  of  great  pubhc  notoriety, 
 and  inflicted  by  his  enf-mies. 
 .  The  Unitarians  also  believe  that  Jesus  was 
 raised  to  life  by  the  power  of  God,  agreeably 
 to  his  own  prechction>^',  on  the  third  day,  and 
 that  by  this  event  he  not  only  confirmed  the 
 truth  and  divinity  of  his  mission,  but  exhibited 
 in  his  own  person  a  pattern  and  a  pledge  of  a 
 resurrection  to  immortal  life  ;  for  which  reason 
 he  is  called  the  first-born  of  the  whole  nezv  cre- 
 ation, and  the  first-begotten  from  the  dead. 
 
 ']  he  Unitarians  furtiier  believe,  that  after 
 having  given  sufiicient  proofs  to  his  disciples^ 
 for  forty  days,  of  the  truth  of  his  resurrection,, 
 he  was  in  a  miraculous  manner  withdrawn  from 
 their  society,  a  circumstance  which  is  described 
 
Sect.  1.]         stnted  and  explained.  451 
 
 as  an  ascension  into  heaven ;  and  that  in  a  few 
 days  after  this  event,  the  holy  spirit  was  com- 
 municated to  his  apostles  in  a  visible  symbol 
 on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  by  which  they  were 
 endued  with  the  gift  of  speaking  various  lan- 
 guages which  they  had  never  learned,  and  were 
 furnished  with  many  other  gifts  and  powers  by 
 which  they  were  qualified  to  propagate  the  Go- 
 spel in  the  world,  and  to  exhibit  a  most  satis- 
 factory and  public  proof  of  the  resurrection  of 
 their  master  from  the  dead. 
 
 The  Unitarians  maintain,  that  Jesus  and  his 
 apostles  were  supernaturally  instructed  as  far 
 as  was  necessary  for  the  execution  of  their 
 commission,  that  is,  for  the  revelation  and 
 proof  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  life,  and  that  the 
 favour  of  God  extended  to  the  Gentiles  equally 
 with  the  Jews ;  and  that  Jesus  and  his  apo- 
 stles, and  others  of  the  primitive  believers,  were 
 occasionally  inspired  to  foretel  future  events. 
 But  they  believe  that  supernatural  inspiration 
 M'as  limited  to  these  cases  alone  ;  and  that  when 
 Jesus  or  his  apostles  deliver  opinions  upon 
 subjects  unconnected  with  the  object  of  their 
 mission,  such  opinions,  and  their  reasonings 
 upon  them,  are  to  be  received  with  the  same 
 attention  and  caution  with  those  of  other  per- 
 <■)  f    o 
 
452  Unitarian  Doctrine  [Part  II, 
 
 sons  in  similar  circumstances,  of  similar  educa- 
 tion, and  with  similar  habits  of  thinkino;. 
 
 The  Unitarians  admit,  that  the  Scriptures  of 
 the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and  especially  the 
 latter,  contain  authentic  records  of  facts,  and  of 
 divine  interpositions;  but  they  utterly  deny  the 
 universal  inspiration  of  the  writers  of  those 
 comjx)sitions,  as  a  qualification  to  which  indeed 
 they  make  no  pretension,  and  of  which  they 
 offer  no  proof;  and  the  assertion  of  which  tends 
 only  to  embarrass  the  evidences  of  revelation, 
 and  to  give  advantage  to  its  enemies.  And 
 they  judge  of  the  genuineness,  of  the  meaning, 
 and  of  the  credibility  of  these  works,  exactly 
 in  the  same  way  as  they  judge  of  any  other  an- 
 
 cient writnigs. 
 
 Many  of  the  Unitarians  believe  that  Jesus 
 continued  to  maintain,  occasionally  at  least, 
 some  personal  and  sensible  connexion  with  the 
 church  during  the  apostolic  age,  which  he  ex- 
 pressly promised  to  do  (Matt,  xxviii.  20) ;  and 
 in  this  way  they  account  for  the  continuance  of 
 those  miraculous  gifts  and  powers  which  were 
 exercised  in  his  name  while  the  apostles  hved, 
 and  also  for  occasional  personal  appearances- 
 and  interpositions  which  have  never  occurred 
 since :  but  it  is  believed  that  he  is  now  with- 
 
Sect.  ].]         stated  and  explained.  453 
 
 drawn  from  all  sensible  intercourse  ^vitll  this 
 world,  though  some  have  conjectured  that  he 
 may  still  be  actually  present  in  it,  and  attentive 
 to  its  concerns. 
 
 The  Unitarians  believe,  that  Christ  is  ap- 
 pointed to  raise  the  dead  and  to  judge  the 
 world.  With  regard  to  the  former,  it  is  be- 
 lieved that  he  ^\ill  be  tlie  instrument  of  his 
 Father's  power.  With  respect  to  the  latter, 
 ■whether  the  declarations  concerning  it  nre  te 
 be  understood  literally  or  figuratively,  wliether 
 Jesus  will  be  personally  invested  with  some 
 high  official  character,  or  whether  nothing  more 
 is  intended  than  that  the  final  states  of  men 
 shall  be  awarded  agreeably  to  the  declarations 
 of  his  Gospel,  cannot,  they  think,  at  present  be 
 ascertained.  Probably,  as  is  usual  with  pro- 
 phetic language,  the  event  will  be  very  diffe- 
 rent from  what  the  literal  sense  of  the  words 
 would  lead  us  to  expect.  But  whatever  be  the 
 meaning  of  the  declaration,  the  part  which  Je- 
 $us  will  bear  in  it  will,  they  are  confident,  be 
 no  more  than  what  may  properly  be  allotted  X.Q 
 a  human  being,  (John  v.  27  ;)  and  in  the  exe- 
 cution of  which  his  apostles  and  disciples  will, 
 it  is  said,  be  associated  with  him..  Matt.  xix.  '28, 
 1  Cor.  vi.  2,  3. 
 
454  Unitarian  Doctrine  [Part  11. 
 
 The  Unitarians,  while  they  bow  to  the  au- 
 thority of  Jesus  as  the  great  Prophet .  of  the 
 Most  High,  and  receive  with  imphcit  submis- 
 sion whatever  appears  to  them  to  have  the 
 sanction  of  divine  authority;  while  they  regard 
 the  character  of  Christ  as  the  most  complete 
 and  the  most  interesting  that  was  ever  exhi- 
 bited  to  the  world  ;  while  they  feel  themselves 
 under  indispensable  obligation  to  obey  the  pre- 
 cepts of  his  Gospel,  and,  after' his  example,  to 
 diffuse  to  the  utmost  of  their  ability  the  know- 
 ledge of  truth  and  the  practice  of  virtue  ;  dis- 
 avow all  those  personal  regards  to  Christ,  and 
 direct  addresses  to  him,  either  of  prayer  or 
 praise,  which  properly  fall  under  the  definition 
 of  religious  worship,  as  unfounded  in  reason, 
 unauthorized  by  Scripture,  derogatory  from  the 
 honour  of  the  Supreme  Being,  the  only  proper 
 object  of  religious  homage,  and  as  in  a  strict 
 and  proper  sense  polytheistical  and  idolatrous. 
 And  in  this  case,  the  Unitarians,  so  far  from 
 being  conscious  of  any  wilful  derogation  from 
 the  honour  due  to  Christ,  whom  they  acknow- 
 ledge and  venerate  as  their  Lord  and  Master, 
 are  fully  persuaded  that  the}^  act  in  perfect 
 conformity  to  \\\s  authority  and  example,  and 
 in  a  manner  of  which  he  would  himself  testify 
 
Sect.  1.]         stated  and  explained.  455 
 
 the  most  entire  approbcition  if  he  were  to  ap- 
 pear in  person  upon  carlli. 
 
 Thcr  who  believe  in  the  proper  liumanity  of 
 Jesus  Christ  claim  the  title  of  Unitarians,  not  only 
 because  custom,  the  arbiter  of  language,  has 
 ever  since  the  Reformation  annexed,  and  till 
 very  lately  limited,  the  appellation  to  that  deno- 
 mination of  christians,  but  more  especially^  be- 
 cause they  conceive  that  tliey  are  ahiiost  the 
 only  body  of  christians  wlio  [)ractically  main- 
 tain the  important  doctrine  of  the  divine  Unity 
 in  its  full  and  just  extent,  and  who  exclude 
 every  creature,  without  exception,  from  every 
 degree  of  participation  in  those  attiiibutes, 
 WORKS,  and  honours,  which  reason  and  re- 
 velation ascribe  and  appropriate  to  the  oxL>: 
 God. 
 
 The  Unitarians  think  it  superfluous  to  pro- 
 duce any  arguments  to  prove  that  a  person  who 
 is  repeatedly  called  a  man,  who  had  every  ap- 
 pearance of  a  human  being,  who  was  born,  who 
 grew,  who  lived,  who  conversed,  who  felt,  who 
 acted,  who  suffered,  and  v.ho  died  like  other 
 men,  wh6  was  universally  believed  to  be  a  man 
 by  all  who  saw  and  conversed  v.ith  him,  and 
 
456  Arguments  in  favour  of      [Part  IL 
 
 was  addressed  and  spoken  of  as  a  human  being 
 by  all  his  contemporaries,  whether  friends  or 
 enemies,  was  really  what  he  appeared  and  af- 
 firmed himself  to  be,  truly  and  properly  a  man, 
 and  nothing  more  than  a  man.  This  is  a  fact 
 which  must  be  admitted  without  hesitation,  un- 
 less the  most  unequivocal  and  decisive  evidence 
 can  be  produced  to  the  contrary.  And  they 
 think  that  a  fact  so  astonishing,  and  so  con-p 
 trary  to  experience  and  analogy,  as  the  incar- 
 nation of  a  superior  spirit,  is  not  to  be  received 
 upon  the  authority  of  oblique  hints,  or  of  ob- 
 scure, figurative,  and  ambiguous  phraseology, 
 but  that  It  is  reasonable  to  expect  that  the  evi- 
 dence of  such  a  fact  should  be  clear  and  deci-. 
 sivein  proportion  to  its  antecedent  improbability. 
 Now  the  Unitarians  profess,  that  after  having 
 carefully  consulted  and  examined  the  Scrips 
 tures,  the}^  can  find  no  such  clear  and  satisfac- 
 tory e\idence.  They  observe,  that  there  is  no 
 allusion  at  all  to  the  supposed  pre-existent  state 
 and  superior  nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  three  of 
 the  evangelists,  or  in  the  history  of  the  Apostles' 
 preaching,  and  of  the  first  plantation  of  the 
 Gospel  contained  in  the  Acts  of  the  apostles  ; 
 and  that  John  is  a  very  mystical  writer;  abounds 
 ing  in  harsh  metaphors  and  symbolical  phrase* 
 
Sect.  1.]        the  Unitarian  Doctrine,  457 
 
 ology,  very  difFereiit  from  the  simplicity  which 
 characterizes  the  other  evangehsts.  Nor  can 
 they  discern  any  traces  of  that  surprise  and 
 astonishment  which  must  have  seized  the  minds 
 of  the  disciples  and  companions  of  Jesus  when 
 it  was  first  revealed  to  them  that  the  master 
 with  whom '  they  had  so  frequently  and  fami- 
 liarly conversed,  was  the  Lord  their  Maker,  or 
 at  least  a  great  celestial  spirit  in  a  human  shape. 
 
 The  Unitarians  also  plead,  that  by  a  diligent 
 investigation  of  the  Scripture  language,  by 
 examining  the  connexion  in  which  particular 
 phrases  occur,  by  a  careful  comparison  of  dif- 
 ferent passages,  and  by  making  Scripture  its 
 own  interpreter,  it  is  not  difficult  to  show  that 
 the  few  phrases  which,  in  contradiction  to  the 
 general  current  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  are 
 supposed  to  teach  the  superior  nature  and  pre- 
 existent  state  of  Christ,  if  such  texts  are  ge- 
 nuine, may  justly  be  understood,  and,  by  the 
 established  rules  of  fair  and  liberal  criticism, 
 ought  to  be  interpreted  in  a  sense  consistent 
 with  his  proper  humanity. 
 
 Particularly,  they  profess  to  prove  that  those 
 passages  in  which  Jesus  represents  himself  as 
 having  descended  from  heaven,  signify  nothing 
 piore  than  the  divine  original  of  his  doctrine : 
 
45S  ylrgu/}i€nts  in  favour  of      [Part  II. 
 
 that  where  he  is  represented  as  the  maker  of 
 all  things,  the  new  creation  only  is  intended, 
 that  is,  the  new  state  of  things  which  he  was 
 commissioned  to  introduce  into  the  moral  world; 
 and  that  the  creation  of  natural  objects  is  no 
 where  attributed  to  Christ.  Also,  that  if  the 
 title  God  be  ever  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New 
 Testament  (which  som.e  deny),  it  is  only  in  the 
 sense  in  which  Moses  is  said  to  have  been  a  god 
 to  Pharaoh,  that  is,  as  being  invested  with  a  di- 
 vine commission,  and  a  power  of  working  mi- 
 racles in  proof  of  it.  They  also  observe,  that 
 the  same,  or  even  stronger  expressions  are  ap- 
 plied to  christians  in  general  than  those  from 
 which  the  deity  of  Christ  is  usually  inferred. 
 They  maintain  that  the  creation  and  support 
 of  the  natural  world  and  its  inhabitants  is  uni- 
 formly ascribed  to  God ;  and  that  there  is  no 
 evidence  whatever  to  prove  that  Christ  was  per- 
 sonally coneerned  in  any  of  the  former  dispen- 
 sations of  God  to  mankind,  eitlier  to  the  pa- 
 triarchs or  to  the  Jevvs,  but  that  the  contrary 
 is  explicitly  and  repeatedly  asserted  in  the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 The  Unitarians  maintain  that  those  peculiar 
 expressions,  from  which,  what  is  called  the  doc^ 
 trine  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  is  in^ 
 
Sect.  L]         tlic  Uniiavian  Doctrine.  45.9 
 
 ferred,  may  be  clearly  proved  to  signify  no- 
 thing more  than  the  superior  dignity  of  \\\^ 
 prophetical  character  as  the  promised  Messiah, 
 and  the  chief  of  the  prophets  of  God. 
 
 They  also  remark,  that  the  apostles,  when 
 speaking  of  Christ  after  his  resurrection  and 
 ascension,  use  a  kind  of  unqualified  language 
 concerning  his  person,  which  no  Arian  or  Tri- 
 nitarian would  now  adopt  without  much  ex- 
 planation and  caution :  such  as,  no  doubt,  the 
 apostles  themselves  uould  have  used,  had 
 they  believed  in  the  pre-cxistence  or  deity  of 
 Christ. 
 
 Lastly,  it  has  been  stated  by  Dr.  Priestley 
 with  irresistible  evidence,  that  the  Jewish  chris- 
 tians almost  universally,  and  a  very  great  ma- 
 jority of  the  Gentile  christians  in  the  two  first 
 centuries,  were  believers  in  the  proper  humanity 
 of  Jesus  Christ ;  some  admitting  and  others  re- 
 jecting the  circumstance  of  his  miraculous  con- 
 ception :  and  these  primitive  believers,  having 
 received  the  christian  doctrine  from  the  apostles 
 and  their  immediate  successors,  must  have  had 
 the  best  means  of  interpreting  that  obscure 
 phraseology  which  in  later  ages  has  been  ap- 
 plied to  the  support  of  those  unscripiurai  opi^ 
 nions  with  which  the  vanity  of  heatlien  phiio- 
 
460  Objections  yrgcd  against       [Part  11- 
 
 sopliy  has  corrupted  and  debased  the  purity  and 
 simpHcity  of  the  christian  faith  '. 
 
 Against  the  Unitarian  doctrine  it  is  objected 
 that  our  inquiries  are  to  be  directed  not  nito  the 
 opinions  of  the  early  christians,  whether  con- 
 verts from  Judaism  or  heathenism,  for  they  were 
 men  falHble  and  prejudiced  hke  ourselves,  but 
 into  the  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  the 
 Scriptures;— that  the  Scriptures  were  written 
 for  the  use  of  plain  illiterate  men,  and  are 
 therefore  to  be  understood  in  their  most  ob- 
 vious and  popular  sense; — that,  although  it 
 might  not  fall  in  with  the  design  of  every  one 
 of  the  sacred  writers  to  discourse  upon  the  pre- 
 existence  or  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  neverthe- 
 less, this  doctrine  is  taught  in  various  passages 
 
 '  Sec,  upon  this  subject,  Haynes  on  the  Attributes  of  God. 
 Lardner  on  th.e  Logos.  Cardale's  True  Doctrine  concerning 
 Christ.  Lindsey's  Apology  and  Sequel.  Conversations  on  Chris- 
 tian Idolatry.  Dr.  I'riestley's  History  of  Corruptions  of  Chris- 
 tianity, History  of  Early  Opinions,  and  Defences  of  Unita- 
 Tianism.  Cappe's  Criticaji  Remarks  on  Scripture,  2  vols.  Simp- 
 son's Kssays  on  the  Language  of  Scripture,  Belsham's  Reply 
 to  Wilberforce,  and  Letters  on  Arianism.  Dt:  Carpenter's 
 Unitariauisin  the  Doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  The  Notes  to  the 
 Improved  V^crsion  of  the  New  Testament  are  intended  chiefly  to 
 cxliibit  the  most  aj^proved  interpretations  of  the  Unitarian  eX:- 
 positors. 
 
Sect.  1.]        the  Unitarian  Doctrine.  4^1 
 
 of  the  New  Testament  in  the  clearest  and  most 
 unamhigiious  hinguage,  such  as  cannot  be 
 wrested  to  any  other  meaning  but  by  a  mode 
 of  interpretation  which  would  reduce  every 
 thing  to  uncertainty,  and  make  all  language 
 useless ; — that  this  great  doctrine  is  taught  not 
 in  one  or  two  passages  only,  or  left  to  be  in- 
 ferred from  an  equivocal  expression  here  and 
 there,  but  that  it  is  expressly  asserted  in  a  great 
 number  of  texts  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in 
 a  great  variety  of  phraseology,  and  that  it  is 
 frequently  alluded  to  and  reasoned  upon  as  an 
 unquestionable  fact ; — that,  one  positive  asser- 
 tion of  Jesus,  or  of  his  apostles  inspired,  or  in- 
 formed by  him,  is  sufficient  to  overthrow  e\'Grj 
 objection  which  may  be  urged  from  the  ante- 
 cedent improbability  of  the  fact,  or  from  its 
 contrariety  to  the  general  analogy  of  nature 
 and  course  of  events,  an  objection  which  is 
 equally  applicable  to  all  other  miracles ; — that, 
 it  is  gratuitous  assumption  to  affirm  that  the 
 only  object  of  the  mission  of  Christ  was  to 
 teach  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  a  doctrine 
 which  was  so  generally  acknowledged,  and 
 which  is  so  easily  proved  by  rational  deduction, 
 as  almost  to  super>ede  the  necessity  of  divine 
 revelation  fc»r   this    purpose   alone ; — that,  the 
 
4(j2  Ohjections  urged  against       [Part  It. 
 
 mind  revolts  at  the  idea  of  a  human  creature 
 being  appointed  to  the  high  office  of  raising  the 
 dead  and  judging  the  world,  while  the  obvious 
 propriety  of  assigning  the  offices  of  redeemer 
 and  judge  to  him  who  was  the  maker  of  the 
 world,  who  supports  and  governs  it,  and  who 
 was  the  medium  of  all  the  moral  dispensations 
 of  God  to  mankind,  forms  a  strong  presump- 
 tive argument  in  favour  of  the  pre-existent  state 
 and  dignity,  and  of  the  superior  nature  of  Jesus 
 Christ; — and  finally,  that  this  doctrine  is  so 
 plainly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  that  although 
 it  may  have  been  called  in  question  by  a  few 
 speculative  or  interested  men  at  different  pe- 
 riods, from  very  early  times,  it  has  nevertheless 
 conmianded  the  belief  of  the  great  body  of 
 professing  christians  from  the  first  promulgation 
 of  the  christian  religion  to  the  present  day. 
 
 It  is  further  objected,  that  it  is  very  arbitrary 
 and  unwarrantable  in  the  Unitarians  to  strike 
 out  of  the  Scriptures  whatever  they  find  in  it 
 which  is  inconsistent  with  their  own  principles 
 and  hypotheses,  and  which  they  cannot  explain 
 away,  and  particularly  the  history  of  the  mira- 
 culous conception  in  Matthew  and  Luke ; — » 
 that  it  is  very  derogatory  from  the  respect  and 
 veneration  which  is  due  to  Christ  to  represent 
 
Sect.  I.J        tlie  Umlnrian  Docinne.  4u3 
 
 his  character  as  lialjlc  to  frailly  and  infirmity, 
 to  restrict  his  inspiration,  and  to  charge  him 
 uith  prejudice  and  error; — tiiat  to  deny  the 
 })lenary  inspiration  of  the  apostles,  and  of  the 
 other  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  is  to  make 
 revelation  useless,  by  irnolving  it  in  ambiguity 
 and  uncertainty  ;— and  that  as  to  the  circum- 
 stance of  saints  being  assessors  with  Christ  in 
 the  high  office  of  judging  the  world,  both  men 
 and  angels,  whatever  may  be  intended  by  thsse 
 declarations,  it  is  very  e\ident  from  the  shght 
 and  incidental  manner  in  which  one  of  these 
 events  is  mentioned,  and  from  the  great  solem- 
 nity and  frequency  with  which  the  other  is  an- 
 nounced, that  they  are  to  be  understood  in  dif- 
 ferent senses ;  and  that  in  one  case  the  expres- 
 sions are  to  be  taken  literally,  and  in  the  other 
 iiguratively. 
 
 It  is  also  represented  as  great  arrogance  in 
 the  advocates  for  the  simple  humanity  of  Jesus 
 Christ  to  appropriate  to  themselves  the  title  of 
 Unitarians,  an  honourable  name,  to  which  it  is 
 contended  that  all  christians  have  a  just  claim, 
 the  Trinitarians  asserting  a  unit}'  of  essence  in 
 a  trinity  of  persons ;  the  highest  Arians  plead- 
 ing that  they  contend  for  the  existence  of  one 
 God  alone,  from  whom  the  Logos,  wlio  created 
 and  supports  the  universe,  derives  all  his  altri- 
 
464  ileplies  to  Objections         [Part  It. 
 
 butes  and  powers,  and  in  whom  all  the  respect 
 and  homage  which  is  paid  to  this  divine  person 
 ultimately  terminates ;  and  the  lower  Arians 
 vindicating  their  claim  to  the  title  of  Unitarians, 
 because  though  they  admit  that  the  world  is 
 made  and  governed  by  Christ,  who  was  invest- 
 ed with  power  and  authority  for  this  purpose 
 by  the  Father,  yet  they  regard  the  Father  as 
 the  sole  object  of  all  religious  worship  and  ho- 
 mage. 
 
 The  Unitarians  reply,  that  though  they  do 
 not  contend  for  the  infallibility  of  the  primitive 
 christians,  they  nevertheless  think,  that  as  it  has 
 been  proved  that  a  majority  of  the  unlearned 
 christians  in  the  two  first  centuries  were  be- 
 lievers in  the  proper  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 this  fact  forms  a  very  strong  presumption  that 
 such  was  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  apostles. 
 The  believers  in  the  christian  religion  could  be 
 under  no  temptation  to  derogate  from  the  ho- 
 nour of  their  master,  and  we  know  that  they 
 had  very  strong  inducements  to  magnify  his 
 rank  and  dignity  beyond  the  limits  of  truth, 
 the  disciples  of  Christ  having  from  the  begin- 
 ning been  exposed  to  disgrace  and  ridicule,  as 
 the  followers  of  a  crucified  Nazarene.  It  is  also 
 much  more  probable  that  learned  and  philoso- 
 
Sect.  l.J     against  Unitarian  Doctrine.       465 
 
 phizing  christians  would  introduce  new  cui.l  re- 
 fined speculations  concerning  the  person  of 
 Clirist,  than  unlettered  men  in  low  circum- 
 .stances,  who  commonly  content  themselves 
 with  plain  facts,  and  adhere  stiiily  to  old  opi- 
 nions. 
 
 That  they  reject  with  indignation  the  charge 
 so  often  and  so  unjustly  alleged,  of  mutilating 
 or  corrupting  the  Sacred  Text  in  order  to  ren- 
 der it  suhservient  to  their  views  and  principles: 
 they  ailirm  that  their  only  aim  is  to  distinguish 
 the  genuine  text  from  apocryphal  interpolation; 
 and  that  whenever  they  mark  a  passage  as  spu- 
 rious or  doubtful,  the  grounds  of  their  objec- 
 tion to  it  are  fairl}'  stated :  and  they  arc  willing 
 to  rest  the  validity  of  their  conclusion  upon  the 
 evidence  produced. 
 
 That  they  acknowledge  that  the  Scriptures 
 were  written  for  the  instruction  of  the  illiterate 
 as  well  as  of  the  learned;  and  they  believe  that 
 all  which  is  essential  either  to  doctrine  or  prac- 
 tice is  sufficiently  intelligible  even  to  the  meanest, 
 capacity : 
 
 Tiiat,  nevertheless,  there  is  a  degree  of  ob- 
 scurity necessarily  attached  to  ancient  writ- 
 ings, and  that  a  phraseology  which  is  fami^ 
 liar  and  perfectly  intelligible  in  one  age  and 
 
 1   M 
 
466  Reply  to  Objections  [Part  II, 
 
 country,  may  be  extremely  ambiguous  and 
 obscure  in  another,  where  the  habits  of  think- 
 ing and  modes  of  expression  may  be  very  dif- 
 ferent : 
 
 That  many  of  those  passages  upon  which  the 
 doctrine  of  the  prc-existence  of  Christ,  of  his 
 superior  nature,  and  of  his  voluntary  incarna- 
 tion, as  it  is  called,  is  founded,  were  not  in- 
 tended to  be  readily  understood  even  by  the 
 persons  to  whom  they  were  immediately  ad- 
 dressed ;  our  Lord  himself  upon  various  occa- 
 sions in  his  public  discourses,  and  particularly 
 rji  those  recorded  by  John,  adopting  a  mystical 
 language  in  order  to  conceal  his  true  meaning 
 from  the  Jews,  who  accompanied  him  from  se- 
 cular and  unworthy  motives,  to  disgust  them 
 with  his  doctrine,  and  to  drive  them  from  his 
 presence :  and  it  is  highly  probable  that  the 
 language  of  Jesus  upon  these  occasions  was  un- 
 derstood by  his  disciples  in  a  sense  perfectly 
 consistent  with  his  proper  humanity.  The  apo- 
 stle Paul  likewise,  in  his  Epistles,  frequently 
 makes  use  of  a  highly  figurative  phraseology  in 
 order  to  insinuate  a  doctrine,  viz.  the  rejection 
 of  the  Jews  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles, 
 which  he  did  not  always  think  it  prudent  to 
 mention  in  direct  and  unequivocal  terms,  lest 
 
Sect.  1.]     against  Vuifarian  Doctrine.       467 
 
 he  should  give  unnecessary  offence.  The  truth 
 of  this  observation  is  well  known  to  all  who  are 
 conversant  with  that  apostle's  writings  : 
 
 That  to  object  to  an  interpretation  as  unna- 
 tural and  far-fetched,  is  only,  hi  other  words,  to 
 say  that  to  the  objectors  the  interpretation  i4 
 «nusual :  for  the  meaning  of  language  being 
 pertecLly  arbitrary,  a  sense  which  may  be  very 
 iamiiiar,  and  appear  perfectly  natural,  to  one, 
 may  to  another  seem  harsh  and  forced : 
 
 Tliat  the  Unitarians  deny  that  they  are  justly 
 chargeable  ^ith  attempting  to  wrest  and  to  dis- 
 tort the  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  in  order  to  adapt 
 ihem  to  their  own  system  ;  but  on  the  contrary 
 fhey  contend,  and  thpy  produce  evidence  to 
 prove,  that,  according  to  the  rules  of  fair  and 
 liberal  criticism,  tlie  sense  in  which  they  explain 
 obscure  and  disputed  texts  is  the  true  sense  of 
 the  sacred  writers.  And  though  they  readily 
 admit  that  one  positive  unequivocal  declaration 
 either  of  Christ  or  his  apostles  authorized  and 
 instructed  by  him,  would  be  sufficient  to  set 
 aside  all  the  presumptions  arising  from  the  an- 
 tecedent improbability  of  the  fict,  that,  never- 
 theless,  this  improbability  is  to  them  a  reason 
 why  they  are  very  slow  in  yielding  assent  to 
 dny  evidence  short  of  the  most  express  and  un- 
 2  H  2 
 
468  Reply  to  Objections  [Part  II. 
 
 questionable  testimony,  and  why  they  are  dis- 
 posed to  examine  with  the  utmost  rigour  what- 
 ever is  advanced  in  proof  of  a  fact  so  unhkely, 
 so  unusual,  so  contrary  to  all  analogy,  and  in 
 their  estimation  of  so  little  use.  And  they  so- 
 lemnly profess,  that,  after  the  most  diligent  and 
 impartial  inquiry,  they  can  find  no  such  explicit 
 and  unequivocal  assertions  of  the  pre-existence 
 and  deity  of  Christ,  nor  indeed  any  evidence 
 whatsoever  of  these  extraordinary  doctrines  : 
 
 That,  notwithstanding  all  that  may  have  been 
 advanced  by  ancient  or  by  modern  writers  to 
 solve  the  difficulty,  it  still  appears  to  the  Unitari- 
 ans utterly  unaccountable  that  Matthew,  Mark, 
 and  Luke,  who  undertook  to  write  every  thing 
 concerning  the  history  and  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
 of  which  it  was  needful  that  his  disciples  should 
 be  informed,  and  the  latter  of  whom  has  also 
 written  an  account  of  tlic  mission  and  doctrine 
 of  the  apostles  after  their  master's  ascension 
 and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  they 
 were  fully  instructed  in  the  objects  of  their  mis- 
 sion, should  have  omitted  a  fact  so  material,  and 
 so  honourable  to  their  master,  as  that  of  his 
 superior  nature  and  pre-existent  state,  if  they 
 had  been  acquainted  with  it ;  nor  is  it  to  be 
 supposed  that  they  would  have  concealed  this. 
 
Suet.  1.]     against  Unitarian  Doclrlnc.       46.9 
 
 fact,  iVoni  that  iinvvorlhy  timidity  and  disgrace- 
 ful caution  which  the  early  ecclesiastical  writers 
 ha\e  imputed  to  them  : 
 
 That  the  di\  inity,  or  even  the  pre-existence 
 of  Jesus  Christ  was   the  prevailing  doctrine  of 
 the  majority  of  christians  for  the  first  and  se- 
 cond centuries,   the  Unitarians  do  not  allow  ; 
 and  exidencc  oFthe  contrary  has  been  produced, 
 which  has  not  been,  and  w  hich  cannot  be,  inva- 
 lidated.     Bat  they  admit  that  these  doctrines, 
 together  w  ith  other  corruptions  oF  the  christian 
 religion,  were  earl}^  taught  b}^  philosophic  chris- 
 tians, who  were  ashamed  of  a  crucified  leader, 
 and  of  the  simple  doctrine  of  Christianity  ;  and 
 that  they  were  gradually  introduced,  and  have 
 long  prevailed  in  the  church,  and  that  they  are 
 now  professed  by  a  very  great  majority  oF  chris- 
 tians.    This  fact,  however,  no  more  proves  the 
 truth    oF  these    doctrines,    than   it    ()ro\es   the 
 truth  oF  the  real  presence  oF  Christ  in  the  sa- 
 crament, which  is  to  this  day  the  creed  of  the 
 majorilv  oF  christians.     And   they  ho[)e    that, 
 as.  the  christian  religion  has   hy  the  energy  of 
 truth  purified  itself  from  the  gross  corruptions 
 oF  Poperv,    it  will  go   on    to  clear  itself  from 
 all  renuiining  errors,  till  it  is  gradually  bro  ight 
 back  to   ti.at  pm'iiy  and  simplicity  with  which 
 
470  "Reply  ta  Objections  [Part  II. 
 
 it  first  appeared  in  the  world  :  and  they 
 regard  it  as  the  indispensable  duty  of  every 
 friend  to  christian  truth  and  to  human  happi- 
 ness, to  contribute  to  the  utmost  of  his  power, 
 by  all  prudent,  just,  and  honourable  means,  to 
 the  removal  of  that  rubbish  by  which  the  prO" 
 gress  of  the  Gospel  is  so  much  impeded. 
 
 The  Unitarians  do  not  presume  to  say  that 
 God  might  not,  if  he  had  pleased,  hare  revealed 
 other  doctrines  to  mankind  by  Jesus  Christ  be-? 
 sides  that  most  important  one  of  a  future  life. 
 But  they  profess,  that,  after  reading  the  New 
 Testament  with  the  greatest  attention,  this  doc- 
 trine appears  to  be  the  one  great  object  of  the 
 christian  revelation,  which  is  in  this  view  most 
 worthy  of  God,  and  most  beneficial  to  men. 
 
 For  how  lightly  soever  some  may  regard  the 
 revelation  of  this  doctrine,  and  how  clearly  so- 
 ever they  may  imagine  it  to  be  inferred  from 
 the  appearances  of  nature,  it  is  well  known  tha^ 
 antecedently  to  the  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ 
 the  fashionable  philosophy  of  the  heathen  work^ 
 had  rejected  it  altogether :  that  the  few  v,  ho 
 professed  to  expect  a  future  life  supported  their 
 opinion  by  evidence  the  most  irrelevant  and 
 unsatisfactory;  that  the  vulgar,  who  were  the 
 firmest  believers,  entertained  notions  concern- 
 
Sect.  1.]     against  Unitarian  Doctrine.       471 
 
 ing  it  the  most  gross  and  absurd;  that  the  doc- 
 trine was  seldom  or  never  applied  to  any  valu- 
 able moral  purpose  ;  and  that  even  the  Jews 
 themselves  formed  very  contused  and  contract- 
 ed opinions  concerning  the  rewards  and  puiiish- 
 ments  of  a  future  life.  Nor  could  this  slate  of 
 opinion  well  have  been  otherwise,  considering 
 that  the  future  existence  of  man  depends  upon 
 his  resurrection  from  the  dead ;  and  conse- 
 fjuently,  that  whatever  arguments  the  phaino- 
 mena  of  the  moral  world  might  suggest,  upon 
 which  however  the  heathen  philosophers  laid 
 little  stress,  they  would  be  in  a  great  measure 
 counterbalanced  by  the  improbability  of  a  fact 
 so  contrary  to  experience  and  analogy  as  a  re- 
 surrection from  the  grave.  This  is  the  objec- 
 tion which  Christianity  is  calculated  to  remove, 
 and  which  it  has  in  fact  so  completely  obviated, 
 that,  whatever  doubts  or  diifert'nces  may  have 
 subsisted  amongst  christians  concerning  other 
 articles  of  faith,  none  have  e\er  called  in  ques- 
 tion the  doctrine  of  a  future  life. 
 
 The  Unitarians,  who  regard  Jesus  Christ  as 
 the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  do  not  consider 
 this  circumstance  as  in  the  least  degree  deroga- 
 tory from  his  prophetical  character,  any  more 
 than  it  derogates  iVom  the  character  and  mis- 
 
47'2  Rephj  to  Objections-  [Part  IL 
 
 sion  of  Moses,  of  Elijah,  or  of  Isaiah,  that  these 
 prophets  were  born  in  the  natural  way.  Nor  is 
 the  doctrine  of  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ 
 at  all  implicated  in  the  question  concerning  the 
 miraculous  conception. 
 
 -  They  maintain  that  it  no  more  derogates  from 
 the  authority  of  Christ,  than  it  does  from  that  of 
 Moses,  that  his  inspiration  should  not  extend  be- 
 yond the  proper  objects  of  his  mission,  and  that 
 in  other  cases  he  should  entertain  the  same  opi- 
 nions, and  be  liable  to  the  same  misconceptions, 
 as  his  countrymen  and  those  amongst  whom  he 
 was  educated.  Also,  that  the  character  of  Jesus 
 should  have  been  gradually  formed  to  that  high 
 des-ree  of  dioiiity  and  excellence  which  is  exhi^ 
 bited  in  his  history,  by  the  practice  of  virtue  and 
 by  the  discipline  of  his  sufferings,  is  far  more  pro- 
 bable in  itself,  more  ao-reeable  to  the  lanouaji'e  of 
 the  Scriptures,  more  honourable  to  Christ,  and 
 more  useful  as  an  example  to  his  followers,  than 
 if  he  were  by  nature  and  necessity  a  perfectly 
 holy  and  impeccable  being,  incapable  of  being 
 influenced  by  temptation  of  any  kind,  and  con- 
 sequently in  no  respect  similar  to  his  followers, 
 or  capable  of  exhibiting  to  them  a  proper  ex- 
 ample of  virtue  in  a  state  of  probation. 
 
 With  respect  to  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
 
Sect.  1.]     against  Unitarian  Doctrine.       473 
 
 apostles  and  of  the  writers  of  the  Old  and  New 
 Testamcnt,  the  Unitarians  contend  that  it  is  a 
 privilege  to  which  they  themselves  never  made 
 any  pretensions  ;  that  it  is  a  fact  which  can' 
 never  be  proved  ;  that  to  maintain  this  point 
 is  to  derogate  from  tlie  cnulihility  of  the  sacred 
 books,  and  to  involve  the  defendei's  of  it  in  in- 
 extricable difficulties,  and  even  in  palpable  ab- 
 surdities. And  to  the  trite  and  frivolous  ob- 
 jection,— that  if  all  be  not  inspired  it  would  be 
 impossible  to  distinguish  what  is  of  divine  au- 
 thority from  what  is  merely  human, — it  is  sufh- 
 cient  to  reply,  that  the  difficulty  is  no  greater 
 than  that  of  distinguishing  out  of  a  number  of 
 books  equally  pretending  to  divine  authoritj^, 
 those  which  are  inspired  from  those  which  are 
 not  so,  which,  nevertheless,  the  advocates  for 
 plenary  inspiration  profess  themselves  able  to 
 do  by  the  exercise  of  their  understanding  in 
 judging  of  evidence. 
 
 Further;  to  maintain  that  the  office  of  judg- 
 ing the  world  is  to  be  understood  literally  when 
 attributed  to  Christ,  and  figuratively  when  at- 
 tributed to  his  apostles  and  disciples,  is  a  mere 
 gratuitous  distinction,  unsupported  by  argument, 
 and  advanced,  without  any  authority,  solely  for 
 the  purpose  of  getting  rid  of  a  difficulty. 
 
474  Proper  AppUcaiion  [Part  II. 
 
 In  reply  to  the  outcry  which  has  of  late  years 
 been  raised  against  the  advocates  for  the  proper 
 humanity  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  having  appropri- 
 ated to  themselves  the  honourable  tide  of  Uni- 
 tarians, to  the  exclusion  not  only  of  Trinita- 
 rians, but  even  of  the  great  body  of  the  Arians, 
 it  may  be  observed,  That  the  controversy  is 
 only  about  a  name,  and  therefore  not  deserving 
 of  that  warmth  with  which  it  has  of  late  been 
 conducted. — -That  the  title  was  first  given  to  the 
 Socinians,  when  it  was  not  regarded  in  so  ho- 
 nourable a  light  as  at  present,  and  that  custom 
 has  limited  it  almost  universalh'  to  those  who 
 believe  m  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ. — That 
 it  is  defined  by  modern  Unitarians  to  signify 
 those  christians  who  do  not  ascribe  to  a  created 
 being  attributes,  works,  or  worship,  which  rea- 
 son and  revelation  ap{)ropriate  to  God  alone. — 
 The  Unitarians  re^;ard  creation  and  providence 
 as  works  of  God,  performed  by  his  immediate 
 act,  without  the  interAcntion  of  any  second  or 
 instrumental  cause  :  This  they  believe  to  be  the 
 doctrine  both  of  reason  and  of  revelation. — 
 They  cannot  tlierefore,  consistently  with  these 
 principles,  apply  the  title  of  Unitarians  to  those 
 christians  vvho  ascribe  these  divine  works  to  Je- 
 sus Christ,  though  such  persons  may  at  the  same 
 
Sect.  1.]       of  iht  TcrmUmtarlcuu  475 
 
 time,  however  inconsistently,  decline  addressing 
 reliL!;ious  homage  to  the  I^ord  their  Maker. 
 
 Their  Arian  brctliren  ou^ht  not  to  be  offend- 
 ed at  this  limitation  of  the  litle  of  Unitarian, 
 For  It  is  upon  similar  ground  that  the  middle 
 class  of  Arians  deny  it  to  the  high  Arians,  who 
 are  worshipers  of"  Christ,  but  who  nevertheless 
 contend  tor  the  proper  unity  of  God  :  and  these 
 agam  deny  it  to  the  Trinitarians,  who  zealously 
 maintain  the  unity  of  the  Godhead,  though  di- 
 stinguished by  a  trinity  of  persons  ", 
 
 3ECTI0N    II. 
 
 THE    SOCINIAN    SCHEME. 
 
 X  HE  Socinians  maintained  that  Jes\is  was  a 
 human  being,  at  least  that  he  had  no  existence 
 previous  to  his  miraculous  conception.  But  they 
 
 "  That  Arians  were  not  always  so  ambitious  of  passing  muster 
 with  the  Unitarians  as  they  secMii  to  be  at  present,  will  appear 
 from  the  following  extract  of  a  letter,  now  in  my  possession, 
 from  a  learned  Arian,  William  VVhiston,  to  another  learned 
 Arian,  .Tames  Peirce,  dated  Cambridge,  July  IC,  1708:  "  Yonr 
 ktter  a  little  surprised  nic,  to  find  myself  snpposed  to  be  a  Soci- 
 nian  or  Unitarian.  I  never  wa«,  nor  am  now,  under  the  least 
 temptation  of  such  doctrines.— I  I'lope  yon  will  do  me  the  favour 
 tq  be  one  of  the  examiners  of  my  papers.  Til!  which  time  you 
 will  do  kindly  to  stop  so  false  a  report." 
 
476  Tlie  Socinian  Scheme         [Part  II. 
 
 appear  to  have  believed  that  his  bod}^  was 
 made  of  a  substance  superior  to  that  of  other 
 men,  that  he  might  be  capable  of  sustainmg  the 
 glory  of  that  state  to  which  he  was  advanced 
 after  his  resurrection. 
 
 They  maintained,  that  after  having  been  de- 
 clared at  his  baptism  to  be  the  ]\Iessiah,  he  re- 
 tired into  the  wilderness,  where  he  was  admit- 
 ted to  some  peculiar  intercourse  with  the  Su- 
 preme Being,  and  was  occasionally  taken  up 
 into  heaven,  to  be  instructed  m  the  nature  and 
 purposes  of  his  mission,  and  in  all  that  he  was 
 to  do  and  to  suffer  m  the  discharge  of.it.  And 
 it  is  by  this  hypothesis  that  they  explain  all 
 those  texts  in  which  mention  is  made  of  ascend- 
 ing into,  or  of  descending  from,  lieaven. 
 
 After  having  fulMUed  his  ministry,  he  was 
 publicly  crucified.  The  Socinians  dvny  that 
 the  death  of  Chri:-:t  is  in  any  degree  a  satisfac- 
 tion for  sin  ;  but  they  allow  that  he  is  said  to 
 expiate  sin,  inasmuch  as  by  his  death  he  ac- 
 quired that  universal  empire  which  authorizes 
 and  enables  him  to  deliver  his  faithful  disci])les 
 from  the  punishment  of  sin.  But  every  idea 
 of  compensation  to  divine  justice  they  reject, 
 as  unworthy  of  the  perfections  of  God,  and  con- 
 tradictory to  the  plainest  declarations  of  Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
Sect.  2.]         stated  and  explained.  477 
 
 The  Socinians  believed,  that  Jesus  Christ  after 
 his  resurrection  and  ascension  into  lieaveii,  was 
 invested  with  universal  and  unhmited  autho- 
 rity :  that  all  mankind,  the  righteous  and  the 
 wicked,  the  lining  and  the  dead,  were  niad« 
 subject  to  his  government:  and  that  he  was 
 advanced  to  rule  over  angels  of  every  order 
 and  degree,  whether  good  or  evil,  and  indeed 
 over  the  whole  created  universe. 
 
 In  consequence  of  this  exaltation,  and  by  the 
 appointment  of  the  Father,  he  is  now  become 
 the  proper  object  of  religious  worship  and  in- 
 vocation, even  of  the  very  same  kind  of  wor- 
 ship which  is  addressed  to  God  himself;  and 
 that  for  this  reason,  as  well  as  on  account  of  the 
 dignity  and  authority  to  which  he  was  exalted, 
 he  is  called  God  by  tlie  sacred  w  riters. 
 
 The  Socinians  further  taught,  that  at  the 
 final  consummation  of  all  things  Jesus  Christ 
 would  again  return  to  raise  the  dead,  to  iudo-e 
 the  world,  to  reward  the  virtuous  with  eternal 
 life  and  happiness,  and  to  con^agn  the  wicked 
 to  adequate  punishment. 
 
 This  denomination  of  christians  flourished  in 
 Poland  in  the  sixteenth  century.  They  took 
 their  name  from  Lxdius  Socinus,  a  nobleman 
 of  Sienna  in  Italy,  and  from  Faustus  Socinus 
 
478  The  Socinian  Scheme         [Part  II. 
 
 his  nepliew,  \\bo  were  able  and  zealous  advo- 
 cates for  the  Socinian  doctrine,  and  who,  toge- 
 ther with  others  equally  zealous  and  enlighten- 
 ed, were  very  successful  in  spreading  these  te- 
 nets in  Poland  and  Transylvania. 
 
 There  was  a  great  difference  of  opinion 
 amongst  the  Socinians  concerning  the  propriety 
 of  praying  to  Christ.  Faustus  Socinus  strenu- 
 ously maintained  it,  and  declares  them  to  be 
 no  christians  who  refuse  to  worship  Christ, 
 whatever  profession  they  may  make  of  believ- 
 ing in  him.  Francis  David,  a  preacher  of  note 
 in  Transylvania,  taught  that  Jesus  was  put  to 
 death  by  the  Jews  contrary  to  the  intention  of 
 the  divine  Being,  who  meant  that  he  should  be 
 their  king;  and  that  since  his  resurrection  and 
 ascension  he  is  placed  in  a  state  in  which  he  is 
 totally  unacquainted  with  every  thing  that 
 passes  in  the  world,  and  consequently  that  he 
 cannot  be  the  proper  object  of  religious  wor^ 
 ship.  Socinus  was  sent  for  to  convince  Francis 
 David  of  his  error ;  "but,  not  being  able  to  ac- 
 complish his  purpose,  and  he  still  persisting  to 
 teach,  both  publicly  and  privately,  that  to  wor- 
 ship Jesus  Christ  was  exactly  the  same  thing  as 
 worshiping  the  Virgin  Mary  and  other  saints, 
 Mas  thrown  into  prison  hy  order  of  the  prince 
 
Sect.  2.]         stated  and  explained,  479 
 
 of  Transylvania,  where  he  died  soon  afterwards, 
 a  melancholy  proof  that  persecution  is  not  li- 
 mited to  any  party.  Socinus  himself,  though  a 
 great  and  good  man,  is  not  altogether  clear  from 
 the  suspicion  of  having  heen  accessary  to  the 
 sufferings  of  Francis  Da\  id. 
 
 It  was  the  uniform  opinion  of  the  Socinians, 
 that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  the  energy  of  God  ex- 
 erted in  the  miraculous  gifts  and  powers  com- 
 municated to  the  apostles  and  primitive  be- 
 lievers, and  not  a  conscious  intelligent  agent, 
 either  created  or  divine. 
 
 Against  the  doctrine  peculiar  to  the  Socinians 
 it  has  been  objected,  That  the  personal  ascent 
 of  Jesus  into  lieaven  is  not  in  itself  probable, 
 and  is  indeed  founded  ujion  the  puerile  suppo- 
 sition that  heaven  is  a  particular  district  of  the 
 imiverse  where  God  resides  and  manifests  his 
 glory  in  a  peculiar  and  sensible  manner; — that, 
 had  this  local  ascent  and  descent  been  a  literal 
 fact,  there  can  be  no  doiil)t  that  other  evange- 
 lists would  have  menfioned  it  besides  John,  as 
 they  have  related  his  temptation  and  his  trans- 
 figuration ; — that  such  a  local  ascent  could  be 
 of  no  use,  as  the  divine  Being  might  have  com- 
 municated the  knowledge  of  his  will  to  Jesus 
 Tft'hile  he  lived  in  this  world,  as  easilvvand  as 
 
480  The  Sodnian  Scheme          [Part  II. 
 
 dislincllj  as  if  he  had  begn  transported  to  the 
 remotest  regions  of  the  universe ; — that  the 
 phrases  '  ascending  to,'  and  '  descending  from, 
 heaven,'  as  apphed  to  Jesus,  are  pecuhar  to  St. 
 John,  and  that  there  is  no  great  difficulty  in 
 explaining  them  in  a  mystical  and  figurative 
 sense,  like  many  other  of  the  bold  and«  meta- 
 phorical expressions  which  occur  so  frequently 
 in  the  writings  of  that  evangelist. 
 
 Also,  that  the  advancement  of  a  human  being 
 to  the  government  of  the  whole  created  universe, 
 exalting  him  above  all  the  supposed  orders  of 
 ,the  celestial  hierarchy,  and  making  him  the 
 proper  object  of  religious  worship,  arid  this  for 
 doing  nothing  more  than  any  other  hum.an 
 being,  aided  l)y  the  same  power,  might  have 
 done,  is  a  fact,  in  its  own  nature,  barely  pos- 
 sible, and  in  its  circumstances  in  the  highest 
 degree  improbable,  contrary  to  all  experience 
 and  analogy,  not  to  be  admitted  but  upon  the 
 most  explicit  and  irresistible  evidence ;  and 
 though  not  involving  a  contradiction  so  pal- 
 pable as  the  Athanasian  doctrine,  it  is  ne\  er- 
 theless  almost  equally  incredible,  and  would,  i[ 
 it  were  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  constitute 
 one  of  the  strongest  objections  against  the  truth 
 and  divine  authority  of  the  christian  rerifrion. 
 
Sect.  2.]         stated  and  explained.  481 
 
 These  objections  are  so  obvious,  and  of  sucli 
 weight,  that  the  Socinian  doctrine  now  is  uni- 
 versally exploded,  at  least  in  this  country. 
 
 The  doctrines  of  the  old  Socinians  are  con- 
 tained in  the  Bibliotheca  Fratrum  Polonorum ; 
 including  the  works  of  Faustus  Socinus,  Crel- 
 lius,  Slichtingius,  and  Wolzogenius :,  also,  in 
 those  of  Przipcovius,  and  Brenius.  See  also  Dr. 
 Toulmin's  Life  of  Socinus. 
 
 SECTION     III. 
 
 THE   LOW   ARIAN   SCHEME, 
 
 A  HIS  hypothesis  maintains  that  the  soul  which 
 animated  the  body  of  Jesus  was  a  pre-existent 
 spirit,  but  of  what  order  or  degree  of  the  celes- 
 tial hierarchy  is  not  known.  It  is  however  de- 
 nied that  he  had  any  concern  in  the  formation 
 of  the  world,  or  in  the  administration  of  provi- 
 dence antecedent  to  his  supposed  incarnation. 
 It  is  maintained,  tliat  in  consequence  of  his 
 sufferings  and  deerth  he  is  now  advanced  to 
 2  I 
 
482  Low  Avian  Scheme  [Part  II. 
 
 great  personal  dignity  and  authority,  and  that 
 he  will  hereafter  appear  to  raise  the  dead  and 
 to  judge  the  world.  The  Low  Arians  in  general 
 deny  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  a  satisfaction 
 for  the  sins  of  men ;  and  some  of  them  maintain 
 that  he  died  only  as  a  martyr  and  an  example, 
 and  that  his  death  is  an  es-piation  for  sin  solely 
 as  beins:  a  means  of  virtue :  while  others  use 
 language  upon  this  subject  which  seems  to  im- 
 ply that  this  event  had  some  mysterious  design, 
 and  answered  some  purposes  under  the  divine 
 government  which  they  do  not,  or  cannot,  ex- 
 plain. 
 
 They  are  unanimous  in  rejecting  the  worship 
 of  Christ,  and  the  personal  existence  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit. 
 
 This  denomination  of  christians  is  in  the 
 strictest  sense  Unitarian :  they  ascribe  neither 
 attributes,  nor  works,  nor  honours  to  Christ, 
 which  reason  and  rev^elation  appropriate  to 
 God;  and  they  differ  from  other  Unitarians 
 solely,  or  chiefly,  in  assigning  an  earlier  date  to 
 the  existence  of  Jesus. 
 
 The  Low  Arian  hypothesis  is  founded  upon  a 
 literal  acceptation  of  those  texts  in  which  Jesus 
 is  said  to  have  descended  from  heaven,  while, 
 at  the  same  time,  a  figurative  sense  is  annexed 
 
Sect.  3.] '         stated  and  opposed.  483 
 
 to  those  passages  which  are  by  the  great  body 
 of  christians  understood  to  represent  him  as  the 
 creator,  or  former,  the  supporter  and  governor 
 of  the  world,  and  the  medium  of  all  the  moral 
 dispensations  of  God  to  mankind. 
 
 This  hypothesis  is  improperly  called  Arian, 
 having  no  affinity  with  the  true  Arian  scheme 
 in  any  article  but  the  comparatively  unimpor- 
 tant one,  of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ.  In 
 all  other  respects  it  coincides  with  proper  Uni- 
 tarianism.  And  to  the  title  of  Unitarians  the 
 advocates  of  simple  pre-existence,  however  er- 
 roneous in  this  particular,  have  an  unquestion- 
 able right. 
 
 This  hypothesis  has  been  embraced  by  many 
 learned  and  respectable  individuals ;  but  it  has 
 not  yet  found  a  learned  public  advocate.  The 
 following  are  the  principal  objections  against  it : 
 
 1.  That  this  doctrine  is  perfectly  novel  in 
 the  history  of  opinions  concerning  the  person 
 of  Christ ;  it  was  never  heard  of  before  the 
 eighteenth  century. 
 
 2.  The  hypothesis  itself  is  of  no  use,  and 
 therefore  it  is  in  theory  incredible.  A  pompous 
 miracle  is  supposed  to  be  performed  to  intro- 
 duce a  spirit  of  a  superior  order  into  the  world, 
 to  accomplish  no  purpose  but  what  might,  for 
 
 2  I   2 
 
484  Low  Arian  Scheme  [Part  II. 
 
 any  thing  that  appears,  have  been  equally  well 
 accomplished  by  a  human  being  acting  under  a 
 divine  commission. 
 
 S.  It  seems  very  arbitrary  and  unreasonable 
 to  take  those  texts  in  a  literal  sense  which  speak 
 ©f  the  descent  of  Jesus  from  heaven,  and  to  give 
 a  figurative  interpretation  to  those  passages 
 which,  in  language  equally  direct  and  explicit, 
 represent  him  as  the  maker  and  governor  of 
 all  things,  and  the  medium  of  divine  dispensa- 
 tions. 
 
 4.  The  phrase  '  descending  from  heaven'  was 
 certainly  in  use  at  the  time  when  the  New 
 Testament  was  written,  to  express  the  divine 
 authority  of  a  person  or  doctrine,  (see  Luke 
 XX.  4 ;)  and  that  the  disciples  of  Christ  under- 
 stood it  in  this  sense  is  evident  from  their  not 
 expressing  any  astonishment  at  the  discovery 
 of  so  extraordinary  and  unexpected  a  fact,  as 
 that  of  the  superior  nature  and  dignity  of  their 
 Master,  and  from  their  having  continued  to 
 converse  with  him  after  this  supposed  discovery 
 upon  the  same  terms  of  ease  and  famiharity  as 
 •before. 
 
 0.  The  expression  '  descending'  or  '  coming 
 down  from  heaven,'  even  if  it  were  to  be  under- 
 stood literally,  would  not  necessarily  prove  tha 
 
Sect.  3.]  stated  and  opposed.  485 
 
 pre-existence  of  Christ,  but  might  be  explained 
 either  upon  the  principles  of  the  Polish  Soci- 
 nians,  who  supposed  that  Christ  was  really 
 taken  up  to  heaven  to  be  instructed  in  the 
 duties  of  his  office,  or  upon  the  hypothesis  of 
 tome  modern  Unitarians,  who  have  thought  that 
 Christ,  like  Paul,  was  favoured  with  a.  visionary 
 scene,  in  which  he  imagined  himself  to  be  trans- 
 ported into  paradise. 
 
 SECTION     IV. 
 
 THE  PROPER  OR  HIGH  ARIAN  HYPOTHESIS. 
 
 This  hypothesis  maintains  that  the  Son  of 
 God,  who  is  also  called  the  Logos,  is  a  creature 
 made  out  of  nothing,  inferior  to  the  Father,  and 
 in  all  respects  dependent  upon  him  and  subject 
 to  him :  that  the  Logos  was  the  instrument  of 
 God,  some  say,  in  the  creation  of  all  things, 
 others  in  the  formation  of  this  world  from  mat- 
 ter already  created  by  God  ;  some  add,  of  this 
 planetary  system,  and  some,  of  all  worlds  and 
 systems ;  and   that  he  is  the  Maker  of  angels 
 
486  High  Avian  Scheme         [Part  IL 
 
 and  archangels,  and  of  the  whole  material  an(J 
 intellectual  universe. 
 
 But  whether  he  performed  these  works  by  his 
 own  power,  and  according  to  the  dictates  of  his 
 own  intellect  and  will,  or  whether  he  was  merely 
 the  passive  instrument  of  the  Supreme  Being, 
 acting  entirely  under  his  direction  in  all  things, 
 is  a  question  which  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
 thoroughly  examined  and  discussed,  and  con-- 
 cerning  which  no  determinate  opinion  has  been 
 formed. 
 
 It  is  likewise  maintained  that  to  this  great 
 Being  is  delegated  the  administration  of  provi- 
 dence, that  lie  upholds  all  things  by  the  word 
 of  his  power,  and  that  by  him  all  things  con- 
 sist, the  whole  created  universe  being  sustained 
 by  his  energy.  Also,  that  he  was  the  medium 
 of  the  divine  dispensations  to  the  patriarchs  and 
 to  the  Jews,  appearing,  as  most  of  the  support- 
 ers of  the  Arian  hypothesis  assert,  though  some 
 deny  it,  to  Abraham  and  to  his  chosen  de-^ 
 scendants  under  the  name  and  character  of 
 Jehovah,  the  angel  and  representative  of  the 
 Supreme. 
 
 This  glorious  spirit  is  supposed  to  have  ani- 
 mated the  body  of  Christ;  and  it  is  asserted, 
 that  during  his  incarnation  and  personal  resi- 
 
Sect  4.]         stated  and  explained.  487 
 
 dence  in  this  world,  his  attributes  were  in  a 
 considerable  degree  quiescent  or  suspended  : 
 but  it  is  not  positively  decided  whether  he  re- 
 tained the  consciousness  of  having  existed  in  a 
 former  and  more  exalted  state,  or  whether  he 
 performed  miracles  by  his  own  power,  or  at  the 
 suggestion  and  by  the  power  of  the  Father ;  the 
 advocates  for  this  system  being  commonly  in- 
 consistent not  only  with  each  other,  but  with 
 themselves,  upon  this  subject,  in  consequence  of 
 not  having  paid  sufficient  attention  to  it,  and  of 
 not  having  made  up  their  minds  about  it. 
 
 The  supporters  of  the  Arian  hypothesis  main- 
 tain that  Christ  is  with  propriety  called  a  man, 
 as  having  been  a  spirit  united  to  a  human 
 body;  perceiving  and  acting  by  the  medium 
 of  corporeal  organs,  agreeably  to  the  usual  de- 
 finition of  a  human  beinjr,  and  to  the  familiar 
 use  of  the  word  in  various  passages  both  of  the 
 Old  Testament  and  the  New. 
 
 This  glorious  spirit  is  represented  as  having 
 descended  into  this  world  not  solely  to  instruct 
 men  in  moral  and  religious  truth,  and  to  excite 
 them  to  vn'tuous  practice;  nor  merely  to  reveal 
 the  doctrine  of  eternal  life,  and  to  exhibit  a 
 proof  and  pattern  in  his  own  person  of  a  resur- 
 rection from  the  dead ;  but  to  accomplish  cer- 
 
488  High  Avian  Scheme  [Part  11. 
 
 tain  purposes  by  his  sufferings  and  death,  which 
 could  not  have  been  effected  by  the  humiha- 
 tion  and  sufferings  of  any  inferior  being.  In 
 this  view  the  death  of  Christ  is  sometimes  de- 
 scribed by  the  advocates  for  this  hypothesis  as 
 an  atonement  for  sin,  as  a  satisfaction  to  the 
 justice  of  God,  as  an  affecting  exhibition  of  the 
 evil  and  demerit  of  sin,  and  of  the  displeasure 
 of  God  against  it,  or  as  a  most  highly  meritori- 
 ous act  of  lilial  obedience. 
 
 The  Arians  further  maintain,  that  after  the 
 resurrection  and  ascension  of  Christ,  he  re- 
 sumed the  dignity  and  authority  of  which  he 
 had  divested  himself  during  the  period  of  his 
 incarnation,  was  reinstated  in  his  office  of  go- 
 vernor of  the  world,  and  invested  with  the  go- 
 vernment of  the  church  ;  that  he  now  sustains 
 the  character  of  high-priest  and  intercessor; 
 that  he  conducts  the  affairs  of  tlie  world  in  sub- 
 serviency to  the  interests  of  the  church ;  that 
 he  exercises  a  special  guardianship  over  every 
 individual  christian  ;  tjiat  he  reigns  over  the 
 living  and  the  dead  ;  that  at  the  appointed  sea- 
 son he  shall  return  to  raise  the  dead,  to  judge 
 the  world,  and  to  assign  to  the  righteous  and 
 to  the  wicked  their  respective  states  of  happi- 
 pess  or  misery  ;  and   hiially,   that,   after  this 
 
Sect.  3.]         stated  and  ea plained.  48.0 
 
 grand  transaction,  he  is  to  resign  the  mediato- 
 rial kingdom  to  the  Father. 
 
 Till  lately,  it  was  the  uniform  and,  indeed, 
 consistent  doctrine  of  those  who  held  tlie  Arian 
 hypothesis,  that  Christ  is  the  proper  object  of 
 adoration  and  invocation,  and  religious  addresses 
 to  Jesus  were  not  uncommon;  but  this  practice 
 seems  now  to  be  very  generally  abandoned. 
 
 Arian  divines  have  usually  been  advocates 
 for  the  proper  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
 who  is  commonly  represented  by  them  as  infe- 
 rior to  the  Son,  but  superior  to  all  other  crea- 
 tures, and  as  acting  in  subordination  to  the  Lo- 
 gos in  the  oeconomy  of  redemption.  But  this 
 doctrine  is  now  very  generally  given  up  ;  and 
 the  Holy  Spirit  is  regarded  by  almost  all  learn- 
 ed christians,  who  are  not  Trinitarians,  merely 
 as  a  divine  energy. 
 
 The  following  are  the  principal  arguments  in 
 favour  of  the  proper  Arian  hypothesis  : 
 
 That  it  is  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  analogy 
 of  nature  that  one  beiu";  should  be  made  the 
 instrument  of  communicating  existence  and  hap- 
 piness to  other  brings,  and  that  Ciod  usually 
 conducts  his  chspr'iisalions  towards  his  creature^ 
 by  the  intervention  of  subordinate  agents: 
 
490  Arguments  in  favour  of      [Part  IL 
 
 That  it  is  expressly  taught  in  the  christian 
 Scriptures  that  Christ  existed  with  the  Father 
 before  the  world  began;  and  particularly  that  it 
 is  affirmed  of  him,  and  of  no  other  prophet, 
 that  he  came  down  from  heaven  : 
 
 That  there  are  many  passages  in  the  New 
 Testament  v/hich  teach  that  the  Logos,  the 
 Son  of  God,  was  the  Maker,  the  Supporter, 
 the  Governor,  and  the  Redeemer  of  the  world ; 
 that  it  is  his  office  to  administer  the  affairs  of 
 the  church ;  and  that  he  is  appointed  to  raise 
 the  dead,  and  to  judge  all  mankind  according 
 to  their  works  : 
 
 That  these  great  works  and  this  high  autho- 
 rity do  not  necessarily  infer  the  supreme  divi- 
 nity of  the  author  or  possessor  of  them,  is  eri- 
 dcnt  from  the  express  declaration  of  Jesus,  that 
 his  Father  is  greater  than  he ;  that  he  is  infe- 
 rior to  the  Father  in  knowledge,  in  power,  and 
 in  goodness ;  also,  that  he  is  derived  from,  and 
 is  wholly  dependent  upon,  the  Supreme  Being 
 for  his  existence,  and  for  all  his  powers  : 
 
 That  the  doctrine  which  the  Arians  hold  con- 
 cerning the  important  design  of  the  death  oi 
 Christ,  is  confiimed  by  numerous  passages  in 
 the  Scriptures,  especially  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, in  which  that  event  is  represented  as  ful- 
 
Sect.  4.]       the  High  Avian  Schemt.  491 
 
 filling  purposes  under  the  divino  government 
 beyond  that  of  any  humar  being,  and  as  being 
 the  great  anti-type  of  the  expiatory  sacrifices 
 of  the  Levitical  law. 
 
 The  Arians  also  observe,  that  titles  and  chc^ 
 racters  are  ascribed  to  Christ ;  that  regards  are 
 claimed  by  him,  and  homage  is  paid  to  him, 
 which  would  be  highly  improper  and  unbe- 
 coming if  he  were  only  an  exalted  man : 
 
 That  there  was  a  peculiar  propriety  in  ap- 
 pointing the  same  glorious  person  to  be  the  re- 
 deemer of  the  world,  and  the  final  judge  of  all 
 mankind,  who  was  the  original  maker  and  go- 
 vernor of  the  world,  and  the  medium  of  all  the 
 former  dispensations  of  God  to  the  human  race. 
 This  supposed  harmony  of  the  divine  dispensa- 
 tions is  represented  by  the  friends  of  the  Arian 
 hypothesis  as  a  strong  presumptive  argument  in 
 its  favour. 
 
 Finally,  it  is  maintained,  that  the  great  dig- 
 nity and  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  on  the  one 
 hand,  and  his  derivation  from,  and  entire  de- 
 pendence upon,  the  Father  on  the  other,  Avas 
 the  prevailing  doctrine  of  the  first  and  purest 
 ages  of  the  christian  church. 
 
 The  Arian  hypothesis  is  opposed  by  the  fol- 
 lowing objections. 
 
492  Objections  against  [Part  II. 
 
 That  this  hypothesis  is  equally  inconsistent 
 with  the  proper  deity  and  the  proper  huma- 
 nity of  Jesus  Christ;  for  the  Maker  of  the 
 world  in  a  human  form  could  not  with  propriety 
 be  called  a  man : 
 
 That  if  the  Logos  be  the  maker,  supporter, 
 and  governor  of  the  world,  he  must  be  supreme 
 God;  for  there  is  but  one  former,  preserver,  and 
 director  of  all : 
 
 That  if  the  Logos  is  Jehovah,  he  must  be  the 
 supreme  Jehovah,  for  there  is  but  one  Jehovah  : 
 
 That  to  admit  two  objects  of  religious  wor- 
 ship, though  the  homage  paid  to  one  is  called 
 supreme,  and  that  to  the  other  subordinate,  is 
 Avholly  unauthorized  and  unscriptural,  and  is, 
 properly  speaking,  polytheism  and  idolatry : 
 
 That  it  is  more  probable  that  the  union  of 
 so  exalted  a  spirit  as  the  Logos  with  a  human 
 body  would  render  the  material  system  impas- 
 sible and  immortal,  than  that  the  attributes  of 
 the  Logos  would  by  such  an  union  be  degraded 
 to  a  level  with  the  faculties  of  other  human 
 beings : 
 
 That  the  Arian  hypothesis  excludes  the  di- 
 vine being  from  almost  all  concern  in  the  for- 
 mation and  government  of  the  universe,  and 
 weakens  the  regards  due  to  him  from  his  crea- 
 tures ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  tends  to  lill 
 
Sect.  4.]     the  High  Avian  Scheme.  493 
 
 the  mind  with  disquieting  apprehensions,  by 
 representing  the  administration  of  the  universe 
 as  in  ihe  hands  of  a  being  of  hmited  wisdom, 
 power,  and  benevolence : 
 
 That  the  Arian  doctrine  is  vague  and  ambi- 
 guous; it  being  a  matter  of  great  doubt  amongst 
 the  advocates  for  this  hypothesis,  whether  thd 
 Logos  made  and  governs  the  world  by  the  ex- 
 ertion of  his  own  uncontrolled  will  and  power, 
 or  whether  he  acted  by  direction  from,  and  in 
 immediate  subordination  to,  the  Divine  Being 
 who  supplied  him  with  power  for  the  occasion : 
 whether  in  his  incarnate  state  he  retained  any. 
 consciousness  of  his  pre-existent  glories ;  whe- 
 ther, and  in  what  sense,  and  to  what  degree, 
 his  attributes  were  quiescent ;  whether  he  per- 
 formed his  miracles  by  his  own  or  by  his  Fa- 
 ther's power ;  and  whether  he  raised  himself  to 
 life.  Also,  in  what  way  the  preservation  and 
 government  of  the  universe  was  conducted  while 
 its  proper  maker  and  governor  was  reduced  to 
 the  state  of  a  human  being,  and  even  of  an 
 infant : 
 
 That  the  doctrine  of  atonement  and  vicarious 
 suffering,  in  every  sense  of  it,  and  under  every 
 explanation,  is  irrational,  unscriptural,  and  re- 
 ])ugnant  to  the  perfections  of  God : 
 
494  Objections  agaimt  [Part  11. 
 
 That  the  Arian  hypothesis  is  absolutely  in- 
 consistent with  the  Scripture  account  of  the  ex- 
 altation of  Christ  as  the  reward  of  his  sufferings; 
 the  dignity  and  authority  to  which  he  is  now 
 advanced  being  no  greater  than  what  he  origi- 
 nally possessed  : 
 
 Moreover,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  created  Lo- 
 gos is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  two  first  centu- 
 ries: that  it  was  first  suggested  at  the  latter  end 
 of  the  third  or  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  cen- 
 tury ;  and  that,  when  first  published,  it  excited 
 general  attention  and  alarm,  and  gave  rise  to  a 
 very  long  and  vehement  controversy.  It  can- 
 not therefore  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures. 
 
 Against  the  hypothesis,  that  the  Logos  was 
 the  former  but  not  the  creator  of  the  world,  and 
 which  limits  his  energy  and  jurisdiction. to  this 
 planet,  or  to  the  solar  system  only,  and  which 
 denies  him  to  be  the  proper  object  of  religious 
 worship,  it  has  been  objected  : 
 
 That  there  is  no  foundation  either  in  reason 
 or  Scripture  for  maintaining  that  the  maker  and 
 governor  of  the  world  is  a  different  person  from 
 him  by  whom  matter  was  created  : 
 
 That  upon  this  hypothesis  it  may  justly  be 
 asked,  whether,  if  sphits  are  immaterial  beingS;, 
 
Sect.  4.]       the  High  Arian  Sclieme,  495 
 
 God  was  the  creator  of  immaterial  substance, 
 and  the  Logos  formed  it  into  spirit ; 
 
 That  there  is  no  appearance  in  nature  which 
 should  lead  us  to  conclude  that  the  being  who 
 made  this  system  is  different  from  the  being 
 who  made  other  systems ;  for  that  the  created 
 universe,  as  far  as  our  observation  extends,  ap- 
 pears to  be  one  grand,  connected,  harmonious 
 whole  ;  from  the  immense  extent  of  which,  and 
 from  the  mutual  relation  and  connexion  of  its 
 various  systems,  and  clusters  of  systems,  ac- 
 cording: to  the  latest  discoveries  of  Dr.  Her- 
 schel,  we  are  naturally  led  to  infer  the  existence 
 of  one  only  omnipresent,  intelligent,  omnipo- 
 tent, and  governing  will : 
 
 That  those  texts  which  are  understood  to 
 ascribe  to  Christ  the  formation  and  government 
 of  the  world,  if  they  are  to  be  interpreted  lite- 
 rally, and  as  relating  to  the  natural  world,  cannot 
 reasonably  be  limited  to  any  thing  short  of  the 
 whole  created  universe :  for  without  him,  it  is 
 said,  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was  made: 
 All  things  were  made  by  him  and  for  him : 
 
 And  lastly,  that  if  Christ  be  the  creator, 
 supporter,  and  governor  of  this  world  only, 
 continually  present  with  us,  acquainted  with 
 qm  wants,  hearino;  our  prayers,  and  able   to 
 
496'  Semi- Avian  Scheme  [Part  IL 
 
 help  us,  he  must  of  necessity  be  the  proper  ob- 
 ject of  our  rehgious  homage :  he  is  "  the  Lord 
 our  Maker,"  whom  we  are  required  to  worship; 
 nor  can  it  be  more  unreasonable  to  pray  to 
 Christ,  than  to  ask  a  favour  of  any  other  friend 
 \vho  is  present  with  us,  or  accessible  to  us  ^. 
 
 SECTION     V. 
 
 THE   SEMI-ARIAN   SCHEME. 
 
 iiiis  hypothesis  maintains  that  the  Son  of 
 God  is  the  eternal  voluntary  production  of  the 
 Father's  power ;  that  he  derived  his  "fexistence 
 from  the  Supreme  Being  in  an  incomprehensible 
 manner,  different  from  and  superior  to  all  cre- 
 ated existence  ;  that  he  possesses  all  communi- 
 cable attributes,  and  is  equal  to  the  Father 
 himself  in  all  things  excepting  necessary  exist- 
 ence ;  that  he  is  the  delegate  of  God  in  the 
 creation  and  government  of  the  universe,  and 
 the  medium  of  all  the  moral  dispensations  of 
 God  to  mankind ;  that  he  appeared  under  the 
 
 '  Winston.  Eml}n,  Peirce.  and  Dr.  Price  were  the  learned  and 
 able  advocates  of  Arianism  iu  the  last  century. 
 
Sect.  5.]         stated  and  explained,  497 
 
 name  and  character  of  Jehovah  to  the  patri- 
 archs, and  gave  out  the  law  to  Moses  at  mount 
 Sinai :  and  finally,  that  it  was  this  glorious 
 spirit  which  animated  the  body  of  Jesus. 
 
 In  favour  of  this  hypothesis  it  has  been  al- 
 leged, 
 
 That  the  Scriptures  ascribe  all  divine  attri- 
 butes to  the  Son,  excepting  self-existence,  which 
 is  necessarily  incommunicable. 
 
 That  eternity  itself  is  predicated  of  the  Son  ; 
 and  that  an  eternal  derivation  of  existence  in- 
 volves no  contradiction.  For  if  God  has  been 
 eternally  omnipotent,  he  might  from  eternity 
 exercise  the  power  he  possesses.  To  deny  this 
 would  be  a  contradiction  in  terms  : 
 
 That  the  Logos  is  repeatedly  and  expressly 
 called  God,  and  is  represented  as  the  creator, 
 preserver,  and  governor  of  all  derived  beings 
 without  exception.  "  Without  him  was  not 
 any  thing  made  which  was  made  :'' 
 
 That  he  is  every  where  represented  as  de- 
 riving his  existence  from,  and  acting  in  subor- 
 dination to,  the  Father :  That,  nevertheless,  he 
 is  never  expressly  called  a  creature,  nor  repre- 
 sented as  having  been  made  out  of  nothing ; 
 nor  is  it  any  where  said  that  there  was  a  time 
 2  K 
 
498  Semi-Anan  Scheme  [Part  II. 
 
 M'hen  the  Son  did  not  exist,  as  the  Arians  posi- 
 tively teach  : 
 
 It  is  particularly  insisted  upon,  that  he  is 
 called  '  only-begotten,'  which  implies  a  mode  of 
 derivation  peculiar  to  the  Son,  difierent-  from 
 and  far  superior  to  the  mode  in  which  creatures 
 in  general  are  brought  into  existence. 
 
 Finally,  it  is  strenuously  insisted  upon,  that 
 this  doctrine  was  held  by  all  the  Anti-nicene 
 fathers,  who,  while  they  earnestly  plead  for  the 
 pre-existence,  voluntary  derivation,  and  entire 
 subordination  of  the  Son,  peremptorily  deny 
 him  to  be  a  created  being,  nor  would  they  al- 
 low that  there  ever  was  a  time  when  he  did  not 
 exist.  And  indeed  the  great  alarm  which  was 
 universally  excited  when  this  doctrine  was  first 
 published  by  Arius,  proves  almost  to  demon- 
 stration that  the  hypothesis  of  a  Logos  created 
 out  of  nothing  was  perfectly  novel,  and  unheard 
 of  before. 
 
 The  principal  and  eminently  learned  advo- 
 cates of  this  hypothesis  of  an  eternally-derived 
 but  uncreated  Logos,  are  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  the 
 rector  of  St.  James's,  and  Dr.  Daniel  Scott. 
 
 It  is  obvious  to  remark  that  this  scheme  is. 
 open  to  all  the  objections  which  may  be  urged 
 
Sect.  5.]         stated  and  explained,  499 
 
 against  the  proper  Ariun  hypothesis:  besides  that 
 it  involves  many  difficulties  peculiar  to  itself. 
 
 The  distinction  between  generation  and  cre- 
 ation, as  acts  of  the  divine  power  and  will,  and 
 the  very  supposition  of  an  intermediate  mode 
 of  existence  between  a  self-existent  and  a  cre- 
 ated being,  is  arbitrary,  unintelligible,  and  un- 
 scriptural,  not  to  say  contradictory  and  absurd. 
 
 The  title  of  Son,  as  applied  to  Christ,  has  no 
 relation  to  the  metaphysical  mode  of  his  exist- 
 ence :  it  was  conferred  upon  him  at  his  bap- 
 tism, as  a  designation  of  his  official  character  of 
 Messiah. 
 
 The  expression  '  only-begotten"  is  pecuUar  to 
 the  evangelist  John,  who  uses  it  in  the  same 
 connexion,  and  no  doubt  in  the  same  sense, 
 in  which  the  other  evangeUsts  use  '  beloved ;' 
 which  means  nothino;  more  than  that  Jesus  was 
 the  chief  of  all  the  prophets  of  God,  and  highly 
 favoured  above  all  ethers  by  the  extent  of  his 
 authority  and  the  superiority  of  his  miraculous 
 gifts  and  powers. 
 
 Lastly,  the  advocates  of  this  hj^pothesis  mis- 
 take the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  ecclesiastical 
 writers,  who,  though  they  never  taught,  nor 
 even  thought  of,  the  creation  of  the  Logos,  did 
 not  regard  this  glorious  person  as  a  permanently 
 2  K  2 
 
500  The  Indwelling  Scheme.       [Part  11. 
 
 derived  intelligent  agent,  distinct  from  the  Fa- 
 ther, but  as  an  attribute  of  the  Supreme  Being, 
 first  occasionally,  and  afterwards  permanently 
 personified'. 
 
 SECTION     VI. 
 
 THE     INDWELLING    SCHEME. 
 
 Inis  hypothesis  represents  the  Logos  as  a 
 created  being.  Dr.  Watts  seems  to  have  re- 
 garded him  as  of  the  order  of  human  spirits, 
 but  as  having  existed  previously  to  the  forma- 
 tion of  the  world ;  coinciding  so  far  in  opinion 
 with  the  low  Arians.  Dr.  Thomas  Burnet  and 
 Dr.  Doddrid2:e  assiain  to  him  the  attributes  and 
 rank  of  the  high  Arian  Logos,  and  represent 
 him  as  the  maker  of  the  universe,  and  the  me- 
 dium of  all  divine  communications. 
 
 In  this  Logos  the  Father  is  supposed  to  dwell 
 by  an  intimate  union,  analogous  to  that  of  the 
 soul  and  body ;  and  in  consequence  of  this 
 union,  or  inhabitation  of  the  Father,  the  attri- 
 
 *  Priestley's  Early  Opinions,  book  ii.  chap.  2. 
 
Sect.  6.]        The  Indwelling  Scheme.  501 
 
 butes  and  works  of  God  may  be  predicated  of 
 the  Loijos,  and  divine  honours  are  due  to  him. 
 
 This  hypothesis  is  thought  by  its  advocates  to 
 reconcile  in  the  easiest  and  the  most  satisfactory 
 manner  the  proper  deity  of  Christ  with  the 
 proper  unity  of  God,  as  in  this  case  the  Son  is 
 God  only  by  the  Father's  godhead. 
 
 It  is  also  considered  as  the  best  means  of  re- 
 conciling the  inferiority  of  the  Son  with  his 
 proper  deity  ;  because,  upon  this  hypothesis, 
 he  possesses  a  created  as  well  as  a  divine  na- 
 ture. 
 
 The  IndweUing  Scheme,  as  it  is  called  by  its 
 advocates,  is  chiefly  supported  by  those  texts 
 in  which  the  miraculous  works  of  Christ  are 
 ascribed  to  the  power  of  the  Father  dwelling  in 
 him,  John  xiv.  9 — 11 '-  which  teach  that  he  and 
 the  Father  are  one,  John  x.  30.  But  the  prin- 
 cipal stress  is  laid  on  Col.  ii.  9,  "  In  him  dwell- 
 eth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  hodily ;" 
 that  is,  say  the  advocates  for  this  hypothesis, 
 fully,  really,  and  substantially ;  not  in  shadows 
 and  symbols,  like  the  Shechinah,  or  cloud  of 
 glory  upon  the  ark,  but  in  his  essence  and 
 person. 
 
 Of  the  advocates  for  this  hypothesis,  some, 
 as  Dr.  Watts,  deny  the  personality  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit ;  others,  with  Dr.  Doddridge,  believe  the 
 
502  The  Indwelling  Scheme.       [Part  II. 
 
 Holy  Spirit  to  be  a  created  being,  inferior  to 
 the  Logos,  but,  like  him,  inhabited  by  the  Deity, 
 and  therefore  one  with  God. 
 
 This  hypothesis  seems  to  have  been  first  ad- 
 vanced by  Dr.  Thomas  Burnet,  in  the  beginning 
 of  the  eighteenth  century  :  it  was  adopted  and 
 defended  by  Paul  Maty,  a  Dutch  divine,  A.  D. 
 1724  ;  but  it  made  little  progress  upon  the  con- 
 tinent. In  England  the  indwelling  scheme  was 
 supported  by  Dr.  Watts  and  Dr.  Doddridge, 
 and  was  a  favourite  hypothesis  with  the  dis- 
 ciples of  that  school :  at  present  it  has  not 
 many  advocates. 
 
 The  following  are  the  principal  objections 
 against  the  indwelling  scheme. 
 
 1.  That,  like  the  low  Arian  hypothesis,  it  is 
 perfectly  new,  and  was  never  heard  of  till  the 
 eighteenth  century. 
 
 2.  That  it  will  by  no  means  answer  the  pur- 
 pose for  which  it  is  proposed  and  supported ; 
 namely,  to  reconcile  the  proper  deity  with  the 
 inferiority  and  proper  humanity  of  Christ.  For 
 as  the  Son  and  Spirit  were  created  beings,  there 
 was  a  time  when  they  did  not  exist;  conse- 
 quently they  are  not  eternal,  therefore  they  are 
 not  divine. 
 
 3.  The  hypothesis  itself,  so  far  as  it  differs 
 from  Arianism,  is  reducible  to  an  absurdity. 
 
Sect.  6\]        The  Indicdling  Scheme.  503 
 
 If  by  the  indwellino;  deity  be  meant  tliat  the 
 niicreiited  snbstaiu-e  ol'  the  Supreme  Being  is  so 
 unit(?d  with  the  created  substance  of  the  Lo<ros, 
 as  to  form  one  compound  substance;  and  that 
 the  uncreated  consciousness  oi' deity  is  so  united 
 to  the  created  consciousness  of  the  Loi^os,  a-* 
 to  form  one  consciousness  oiilv  ;  so  tiiat  the 
 seh-existent  God  and  the  created  Logos  united 
 form  one  compound  person,  distinct  both  from 
 God  and  the  Logos ; — though  this  doctrine 
 does  indeed  secure  the  deity  of  the  Son,  it  at 
 the  same  time  involves  an  absurdity  too  i^ross 
 to  be  allowed  by  any  considerate  mind,  and 
 equal  to  any  thing  either  in  Athantisianism  or  in 
 transubstantiation.  But  if  by  the  inhabitation 
 of  deity  in  the  Logos,  nothing  more  be  intended 
 than  that  the  will  of  the  Son  in  all  respects  co- 
 incides with  the  will  of  the  Father,  that  the  doc- 
 trine which  he  taught  was  inspired  by  the  Fa- 
 ther, and  that  the  miracles  he  performed  were 
 wrought  by  the  power  of  the  Father  ;  or,  in 
 fine,  any  thing  short  of  a  personal  substantial 
 union  with  the  Favber; — this  kind  of  indwell- 
 ing is  perfectly  similar  to  that  which  all  Arians, 
 Socinians,  and  e\en  Unitarians  have  always 
 maintained,  and  is  in  fact  giving  up  the  deny 
 i.y'i  the  Son  and  the  Spirit. 
 
504  The  Saheltian  Scheme.       [Part  II. 
 
 SECTION     VII. 
 
 THE   SABELLIAN   SCHEME. 
 
 1  HIS  hypothesis  assumes  that  Father.  Son,  and 
 Spirit,  are  different  names  for  the  same  being, 
 the  only  Hving  and  true  God ;  who,  as  Maker 
 and  Governor  of  the  world,  is  called  Father ;  as 
 dwelling  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus  to  authenti- 
 cate his  mission,  to  impart  his  doctrine  and  to 
 perform  his  miracles,  takes  the  name  of  Son  ; 
 and  as  the  inspirer  of  the  apostles,  the  author 
 of  spiritual  gifts,  and  the  sanctifier  and  com- 
 forter of  christians,  is  called  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 
 This  is  said  to  have  been  the  doctrine  of  Sa- 
 bellius  bishop  of  Pentapolis  in  Africa,  also  of 
 Paul  of  Samosata  bishop  of  Antioch,  for  which 
 he  was  deposed  in  a  council  held  at  Antioch 
 A.  D.  ^69^ 
 
 The  epithet  Sabellian  being  obnoxious,  no 
 person  at  present  chooses  to  assume  it :  but  it 
 is  evident  that  this  doctrine  differs  only  in 
 words  from  proper  Unitarianism,  or  from  what 
 is  called  Nominal  Trinitarianism,  as  will  be 
 hereafter  explained. 
 
Sect.  8.]    The  Swedenhorgian  Doctrine.      505 
 
 The  Unitarians  allow  that  God  is  often  called 
 the  Father;  and  sometimes  the  Spirit  of  God 
 is  used  for  God  himself.  But  the  character  of 
 Son  is  never  applied  to  the  Supreme  Being :  it 
 belongs  eminently  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  the 
 first-begottnn  from  the  dead,  the  first  of  the 
 human  race  who,  in  consequence  of  a  resurrec- 
 tion from  the  grave,  has  been  put  into  posses- 
 sion of  the  promised  inheritance. 
 
 SECTION     VIII. 
 
 THE    SWEDENBORGIAN   DOCTRINE, 
 
 liiis  system  maintains  that  there  is  but  one 
 God  ;  that  he  existed  from  all  eternity  in  a  hu- 
 man form  ;  that  to  accomplish  the  redemption 
 of  men  and  angels  he  assumed  and  animated  a 
 human  body,  and  that  his  union  to  it  became 
 perfect  by  means  of  trials  and  conflicts  ;  that 
 the  trinity  commenced  at  the  incarnation,  God 
 himself  being  the  Father,  the  human  body  the 
 Son,  the  joint  operation  of  both  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 Christ  suffered  to  redeem  the  world  from  the 
 power  of  evil  angels.     The  Swedenborgians  be- 
 
506     The  Swcdenhorglan  Doctrine.    [Part  II. 
 
 lieve  that  the  last  judgement  took  place,  in  the 
 sph'itual  world,  A.  D.  11  d1,  and  that  the  spiri- 
 tual kingdom  of  Christ  commenced  on  the  19th 
 of  June  1770. 
 
 Thej  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
 in  its  literal  sense,  and  believe  that  men,  when 
 thev  die,  enter  upon  the  spiritual  world,  and 
 are  clothed  with  a  vehicle  which  they  call  sub- 
 .stantial,  in  opposition  to  material.  They  ima- 
 gine that  the  spiritual  world  so  nearly  resembles 
 the  present  state,  that  it  can  with  difficulty  be 
 distinguished  from  it.  The  inhabitants  eat  and 
 drink,  and  marrj^ ;  they  have  houses,  palaces, 
 and  cities  ;  they  carry  on  trade  and  commerce  ; 
 they  possess  gold,  silver  and  jewels,  books, 
 writings,  and  the  like :  but  every  thing  is  in  a 
 more  perfect  state  than  in  the  material  world. 
 
 They  also  maintain  that  the  whole  Scripture, 
 excepting  the  Book  of  Acts  and  the  Episiles, 
 have  a  twofold  meaning,  the  natural  and  the 
 spiritual :  this  they  call  the  doctrine  of  corre- 
 spondences :  and  they  believe  that  the  spiritual 
 meaning  was  never  understood  till  it  was  re- 
 vealed to  Emanuel  Swedenborg. 
 
 This  strange  doctrine  was  the  reverie  of  Ema- 
 nuel Swedenborg,  a  Swedish  baron,  who  was 
 borrr  A.  D.  lG89,  and  died  1772.     It  is  said  to 
 
Sect.  9.]  Trltheism.  .507 
 
 have  been  embraced  by  great  numbers  of  per- 
 sons upon  the  continent,  and  some  of  very  high 
 rank :  but  in  this  country,  where  freedom  of 
 discussion  is  allowed,  it  can  hardly  be  expected 
 to  make  many  proselytes.  The  Swedenborgians 
 call  themselves  the  New  Jerusalem  Church. 
 
 As  the  truth  of  this  system  depends  upon 
 the  inspiration  of  Emanuel  Swedenborg,  who 
 appears  to  have  been  an  honest  visionary,  who 
 fancied  that  he  was  indulged  with  occasional  in- 
 tercourse with  the  spiritual  world,  it  is  needless 
 to  enter  into  any  argument  upon  the  subject'. 
 
 SECTION     IX. 
 
 TRITHEISM. 
 
 JLhis  is  the  doctrine  of  three  equal  indepen- 
 dent infinite  beings,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
 Spirit.  It  is  so  diametrically  opposite  to  the 
 doctrine  of  the  divine  Unity  so  explicitly  taught 
 in  the  Jewish  and  Christian  ScriptureH/and  even 
 to  the  dictates  of  right  reason  upon  this  impor- 
 
 *  See  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters  to  the  New  Jeiuialem  Church; 
 and  Proud  and  Ilindmarsh's  Replies  to  Priestle/  :  also  Sweden- 
 butg's  Universal  Theology,  No.  734. 
 
508  Trinitarian  Doctrine         [Part  II. 
 
 tant  subject,  that  however  near  the  doctrine  of 
 the  Reahst  Trinitarians  may  be  thought  to  ap- 
 proximate to  it,  Tritheism  is  expressly  disavowed 
 by  ahuost  all  modern  writers  upon  the  subject. 
 It  is  said  to  have  been  maintained  by  John  As- 
 cunage  a  Syrian  philosopher  of  the  sixth  cen- 
 tury, and  to  have  been  supported  bv  John  Phi- 
 loponus  a  grammarian  of  high  reputation  in 
 Alexandria. 
 
 SECTION     X. 
 
 TRINITARIAN   DOCTRINE. 
 
 J.  HE  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  maintains  that  the 
 Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy 
 Ghost  is  God,  three  equal  persons  in  the  same 
 divine  substance,  and  yet  there  are  not  three 
 Gods  but  one  God  :  or,  in  other  words,  that 
 "  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the 
 father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these 
 three  are  one  God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal 
 in  power  and  glory/' 
 
 The  following  is  a  general  view  of  the  argu- 
 ments in  favour  of  this  doctrine. 
 
Sect.  10.]        stated  and  ilhistrcded.  509 
 
 1.  That  Christ  is  expressly  called  God  both 
 in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New. 
 
 2.  That  he  appeared  to  the  patriarchs  under 
 the  name  and  character  of"  Jehovah. 
 
 3.  TXvdt  titles  appropriated  to  the  Supreme 
 i3eing  are  applied  to  Christ,  viz.  Lord,  Lord  of 
 Hosts,  Lord  of  All,  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of 
 lords,  Alpha  and  Omega,  First  and  Last,  God 
 of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob. 
 
 4.  That  of  Christ  it  is  explicitly  declared 
 that  he  was  in  the  bepinnino;  with  God,  and  was 
 God  ;  that  in  him  all  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
 head dwells  bodily,  that  is,  substantially;  that 
 he  thought  it  no  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God, 
 or  as  God  ;  that  he  and  the  Father  are  one ; 
 and  that  he  is  in  a  peculiar  and  appropriate 
 sense  the  Son  of  God,  well-beloved,  and  only- 
 begotten. 
 
 5.  That  attributes  appropriate  to  the  Su- 
 preme Being  are  ascribed  to  Christ,  viz.  eter- 
 nity, omnipresence,  omniscience,  omnipotence, 
 and  immutability. 
 
 G.  That  divine  works  are  also  ascribed  to 
 Christ,  viz,  the  creation,  the  support,  and  go- 
 vernment of  the  world,  the  resurrection  of  the 
 dead,  [md  the  final  judgement  of  all  man- 
 kind. 
 
 7.  That  divine   lionours  arr'   challenged   by 
 
510  Trinif avian  Doctrine  [Part  lid 
 
 iiim,  and  divine  worship  addressed  to  him  ;  that 
 he  is  represented  as  the  proper  object  of  prayer, 
 of  thanksgiving,  of  obedience,  of  trust,  of  self- 
 dedication,  and  of  joy :  also,  that  he  is  joined 
 with  the  Father  in  acts  of  social  worship  and 
 invocation,  and  in  the  doxologies  of  the  hea- 
 I'cnly  world. 
 
 8.  That  the  apostles  uniformly  address  him, 
 and  speak  to  him,  and  of  him,  under  the  im- 
 pression of  his  proper  deity. 
 
 9.  That  the  true  and  proper  deity  of  Christ 
 has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  christian  church 
 from  the  earliest  age,  which,  with  the  exception 
 of  a  very  small  number  of  individuals,  has  been 
 uniform  and  unanimous  in  its  profession  of  this 
 faith. 
 
 Against  this  doctrine  it  has  been  objected. 
 
 1.  That  if  the  Son  and  Spirit  be  each  of 
 them  truly  and  properly  God,  there  must  be 
 more  Gods  than  one ;  for  it  is  a  contradiction 
 in  terms  to  say,  that  there  are  three  distinct, 
 intelligent,  conscious  agents,  each  of  which  is 
 truly  God,  and  yet  that  there  is  but  one  God. 
 
 2.  That  the  proper  deity  of  Christ  is  abso- 
 lutely inconsistent  with  his  proper  humanity. 
 It  is  impossible  that  God  should  become  incar- 
 nule,  and  suffer,  and  die  :  It  is  equally  impos- 
 
Sect.  10.]        stated  and  illustrated.  511 
 
 sible  that  he  should  so  unite  himself  to  a  human 
 soul,  as  to  become  one  conscious  person  or  in- 
 tellioent  a2;ent  with  it.  But  if  the  conscious- 
 ness  remains  distinct,  they  are,  properly  speak- 
 ing, two  distinct  persons  :  and  Jesus  Christ,  who 
 appeared  in  a  human  body  as  the  instructor  of 
 mankind,  who  suffered  and  died  upon  the  cross, 
 and  who  was  raised  again  to  life,  was  in  no  pro- 
 per sense  God,  but  a  mere  man  ;  so  that  this 
 doctrine,  so  far,  coincides  with  the  proper  Uni- 
 tarian scheme,  and  is  inconsistent  with  the  com- 
 monly-received opinion  concerning  the  atone- 
 ment of  Christ,  and  the  satisfaction  made  to 
 the  justice  of  God. 
 
 5.  That  to  maintain  concerning  propositions 
 which  relate  to  the  same  individual  person 
 Christ,  that  some  are  to  be  understood  of  his 
 human  nature  only,  some  of  his  divine  nature 
 alone,  and  some  of  his  complex  person  as  God- 
 man,  is  a  mode  of  interpretation  which  the 
 Scriptures  neither  teach  nor  warrant,  which  is 
 contrary  to  every  rule  of  sober  and  rational 
 criticism,  and  which  tends  to  convert  plain  lan- 
 guage into  unintelligible  jargon. 
 
 4.  If  Jesus  is  ever  spoken  of  as  God  either 
 
 in  the  Old  Testament  or  in  the   New,  wjsjich 
 
 ome  denv,  it  must  be  in  the  same  sense  in 
 
512  Trinitarian  Doctrine         [Part  11. 
 
 which  Moses  is  said  to  have  been  a  God  to 
 Pharaoh,  and  in  which  prophets  and  magistrates 
 are  also  called  gods,  that  is,  either  as  possessing 
 authority,  or  as  acting  under  a  divine  commis- 
 sion, or  as  working  miracles. 
 
 5.  That  Christ  is  in  no  instance  styled  Jeho- 
 vah :  that  all  arguments  in  proof  of  the  ascrip- 
 tion of  this  title  to  him  are  fallacious  in  the 
 extreme  :  and  that  there  is  but  one  Jehovah,  the 
 true  God,  the  only  proper  object  of  worship,  who 
 never  gave  his  name  or  his  glory  to  another. 
 
 6.  That  the  fev/  passages  in  which  the  crea- 
 tion of  all  things  is  ascribed  to  Christ,  are  to  be 
 interpreted  of  the  moral  world,  and  of  the  new 
 creation,  that  new  state  and  order  of  things 
 which  was  introduced  by  Christ. 
 
 7.  The  Unity,  or  equality  of  Christ  with  God, 
 is  inconsistent  with  his  exaltation  as  the  reward 
 of  his  obedience  and  sufferings. 
 
 8.  The  inferiority  of  Christ  to  the  Father, 
 the  limitation  of  his  attributes,  the  derivation 
 of  his  commission  and  of  all  his  miraculous 
 powers  from  him,  and  his  unlimited  subjection 
 to  him,  are  taught  in  the  most  direct  and  unqua- 
 lified terms  by  Christ  himself.  The  apostles  of 
 Christ  also  uniformly  teach  his  inferiority  to 
 the  Father;  and  even  after  his  resurrection  and 
 
Sect.  10.]         stated  and  illiist rated.  513 
 
 ascension  they  speak  of"  liim  as  a  man,  with- 
 out giving  the  least  intimation  that  he  also  pos- 
 sessed a  superior  and  divme  nature,  or  taking 
 the  least  pains  to  guard  against  being  mistaken, 
 thouo^h  it  is  acknovvledo-ed  that  the  mass  of  be- 
 lievers  at  that  time  were  strongly  prejudiced 
 against  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 9.  The  principal  arguments  of  the  Trinita- 
 rians are  founded  upon  mistranslations,  misin- 
 terpretations, or  corruptions  of  the  Scripture. 
 The  famous  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses, 
 1  John  V.  7}  is  a  palpable  forgery  ;  and  the  ex- 
 pression '  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,'  1  Tim. 
 iii.  16",  is  very  suspicious.  '  That  he  thought 
 it  no  robbery  to  be  equal  icitJi  God,'  Phil.  ii.  6', 
 is  a  gross  mistranslation :  and  the  unity  which 
 subsists  between  the  Father  and  him  is  explain- 
 ed by  himself  to  be  the  same  which  subsists 
 between  him  and  Ins  (hsciples,  John  xvii.  2^. 
 If  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwell  in  him,  his 
 disciples  and  believers  in  general  are  said  to  be 
 filled  with  the  fulness  of  Christ  and  of  God. — • 
 At  any  rate,  whatever  may  be  meant  by  the 
 fulness  of  Godhead  dwelling  in  Christ,  it  was 
 no    more   than    what  "  it  pleased    the  Father 
 
 should  dwell  in  him." 
 
 o    r 
 
514  Objections  against  [Part  II. 
 
 10.  If  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
 Spirit  are  the  same  being,  there  is  no  equahty  ; 
 if  they  are  distinct,  equal,  co-ordinate  persons, 
 there  is  no  proper  unity. 
 
 11.  The  conduct  of  the  apostles,  and  the 
 familiarity  of  the  behaviour  of  the  companions 
 of  Christ,  daring  his  personal  ministry,  plainly 
 prove  that  they  had  no  conception  of  the  di- 
 vinity of  his  nature  ;  nor  do  their  history  or 
 their  writings  contain  any  indication  of  the  as- 
 tonishment which  they  could  not  but  have  felt 
 when  this  amazing  fact  was  first  disclosed  to 
 them. 
 
 12.  The  Jews,  the  inveterate  enemies  of  Chris- 
 tianity, never  charge  the  apostles  or  their  im- 
 mediate successors  with  introducing  an  idola- 
 trous relio-ion,  thouo;h  it  is  well  known  that  this 
 charge  was  urged  with  great  -vehemence  by 
 them  as  soon  as  the  doctrine  of  the  deity  of 
 Christ  was  advanced  in  the  christian  church  ; 
 and  that  the  commonly-received  doctrine  of 
 the  Trinity  is  to  this  day  one  of  the  principal 
 sources  of  the  animosity,  hatred,  and  contempt 
 which  the  Jews,  the  zealous  advocates  of  the 
 divine  unity,  expit'ss  against  the  christian  re- 
 ligion. 
 
Sect.  10.]         Trinitarian  Doctrine.  515 
 
 13.  Christ-  is  not  represented  in  the  Scrip- 
 tures as  the  proper  object  of  rehgious  worship. 
 He  never  requires  it.  He  even  expressly  pro- 
 hibits religious  invocation  of  himself,  .John  xvi. 
 23.  Nor  is  there  any  proper  example  to  au- 
 thorize religious  addresses  to  him. 
 
 14.  It  is  strenuously  maintained  that  the 
 doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  was  not 
 known  in  the  apostolic  age  :  that  it  v;as  never 
 admitted  at  all  amongst  the  Jewish  christians ; 
 and  that  it  made  very  slow  progress  even 
 amongst  the  Gentile  believers ;  so  that  in  the 
 time  of  TertuUian,  and  even  of  Athanasnis,  a 
 great  majority  of  unlearned  christians  were  Uni- 
 tarians :  that  the  doctrine  of  the  personification 
 of  the  Logos  was  first  introduced  by  the  Pla- 
 tonic philosophers  uho  embraced  Christianity, 
 and  who  were  ashamed  of  the  simplicity  of  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  and  of  the  meanness 
 and  sufferings  of  its  author  ;  also,  that  the 
 equality  of  the  Son  was  not  generally  admitted 
 till  after  the  Council  of  Nice^  nor  the  perso- 
 nality and  equality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  till  the 
 fifth  century. 
 
 Finally  :  'i  he  same  mode  of  reasoning  v»  hich 
 IS  adopted  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
 2  L  2 
 
5l6  Trinitarian  Doctrine.         [Part  II. 
 
 is  equally  applicable  to  that  of  transubstantiu- 
 tion  ;  a  few  figurative  expressions,  literally  in- 
 terpreted, appearing  to  favour  the  doctrine,  and 
 the  majority  of  believers  having  for  many  cen- 
 turies received  it.  And  if  Trinitarians  plead 
 that  their  doctrine  is  a  sublime  mystery,  to  be 
 received  and  adored,  but  not  examined,  this  is 
 no  more  than  the  plea  of  the  Catholic  in  be- 
 half of  his  incomprehensible  mystery  of  transub- 
 stantiation'. 
 
 To  obviate  the  objections  against  the  popular 
 doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  various  hypotheses  have 
 been  advanced  by  tlie  advocates  for  that  doc- 
 trine, who  are  all  reputed  to  agree  in  the  same 
 fundamental  principle,  and  who  do  in  fact 
 agree  in  the  use  of  the  same  language  with  re- 
 spect to  the  person  of  Christ.  The  principal 
 of  these  hypotheses  are  those  of  the  Realists,  of 
 the  Nominahsts,  and  of  the  genuine  Athana- 
 sians ;  to  which  may  be  added,  the  case  of  those 
 
 '  "  II  y  a  bicn  de  lieu  de  s"ctonn(;r,  qiic  desgoiis  qui  roconiioli- 
 seut  les  mysteres  de  la  Triuite  ct  dc  I'Tiicanialion  rffuseiit  de 
 reconnoitre  la  presence  r6«lle,  ct  la  Transubstautiation,  piiis- 
 qu'on  pi'ut  fornit-r  de  plus  grandcs  difliciiltes  contre  les  premiers 
 que  conlre  le  dernier,  si  Ton  vent  suiv  re  les  sens  ct  la  raison 
 seulLMiient."     Lcth-cs  Choisies  dc  IM.  Simon,  p.  4-. 
 
Sect.  10.]  Doctrine  of  the  TleaJhts.  517 
 who,  professing  to  believe  the  doctrine  of  the 
 Trinity,  adhere  chiefly  to  the  language  of  Scrip- 
 ture, and  decline  all  explanation  upon  the 
 subject. 
 
 I.    The  EeaUsts. 
 
 These  writers  maintain  that  the  Father,  the 
 Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  three  distinct,  con- 
 scious, intelhgent  agents  or  persons ;  that  the 
 Son  and  the  Spirit  derive  their  existence  from 
 the  Father  bv  eternal  necessary  emanation, 
 called  generation  as  it  respects  the  Son,  and 
 })rocession  in  reference  to  the  Holy  Spnit ;  and 
 that  with  the  single  exception  of  self-existence, 
 in  regard  to  Vvhich  the  Father  is  called  the  Root 
 and  Fountain  of  Deitv,  and  is  superior  both  to 
 the  Son  and  the  Spirit  even  as  to  their  divine 
 natin-e,  they  are  in  all  respects  independent  of 
 him,  and  equal  to  him,  being  necessarily-ex- 
 istent, and  absolutely  perfect. 
 
 The  distinct  j)ersonality,  together  with  the 
 proper  equality,  and  (economical  subordination 
 of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  are  supposed  to  be  main- 
 tained with  peculiar  ad\antage  by  this  hypo- 
 thesis :  and  the  Unity  of  the  deity  is  thought 
 to  be  sufficiently  preser\ed  by  the  supremacy 
 of  the  Father,  and  the  derivation  of  the  Son 
 
ol8  Doctrine  of  [Part  II. 
 
 and  Spirit  from  the  substance  of  the  Father,  b}'- 
 connniinication  of  the  same  essence. 
 
 Some  of  the  principal  supporters  of  this  doc- 
 trine amongst  the  English  divines,  are,  Cad- 
 uorthjOwen,  Howe,  Bull,  Sherlock,  Vv^aterland, 
 and  Horsley. 
 
 To  this  hypothesis  it  is  objected, 
 
 1.  That  if  the  three  persons  are  in  all  respects 
 equal,  and  all  absolutely  perfect,  they  are  three 
 gods  ;  and  that  this  hypothesis  is  downright 
 Tritheism. 
 
 2.  That  if  one  be  supreme,  and  the  others 
 subordinate,  if  one  be  self-existent  and  the 
 others  derived,  the  Son  and  Spirit  cannot  be 
 absolute  in  all  perfections;  and  therefore,  in 
 this  view  of  the  hypothesis,  tliey  cannot  each 
 be  truly  God. 
 
 3.  Hence  it  follows  that  the  h3^pothesis  of  the 
 Realists,  beino-  in  one  view  inconsistent  w  ith  the 
 unity  of  God,  and  in  another  view  with  the  full 
 equality  and  proper  deity  of  the  persons,  is  in- 
 consistent with  itself  and  with  the  Scriptures, 
 and  therefore  cannot  be  true. 
 
 4.  Besides  the  absurdity  of  supposing  an  ab- 
 solutely perfect  being  to  have  been  in  any  sense 
 derived,  whether  by  necessity  or  by  a  voluntary 
 
Sect.  10.]  the  Numinti lists.  519 
 
 act,  tiie  very  notion  of  the  poculiar  and  distinct 
 modes  of  the  emanation  of  the  Son  and  Spirit, 
 the  former  by  generation,  the  hitter  by  proces- 
 sion or  spiration,  whether  from  the  Father  only, 
 as  is  taught  hy  the  Greek  church,  or  from  the 
 Father  and  the  Son,  as  the  Latin  church  incul- 
 cates, is  unmtelhgihle  and  unscripturaL 
 
 II.  77/e  NofiiinaUsts. 
 'ilicse  writers  maintain  that  the  Father,  the 
 Son,  and  the  Holy  iSpirit  are  three  distinctions 
 in  the  one  self-existent  Deity,  analogous  to  the 
 faculties  of  understanding,  will,  and  power  in 
 men:  to  wliich  three  distinctions  personal  terms 
 may  he  applied'-. 
 
 *  Dr.  Wallis,  Saviliaii  professor  of  rnathomalics  at  Oxford,  in 
 his  Considerations  on  the  Trinity,  p.7,  (  lG93,)si-,eaks  of  it  as ''a 
 silly  mistake,  that  a  divine  person  is  as  much  as  to  say  a  divi- 
 nity, or  a  God,  when  indeed  a  divine  person  is  only  a  mode,  or 
 respect,  or  relation  of  God  to  his  creatures,  lie  bears  to  his 
 crcciiures  these  tiiree  relations,  modes,  or  res  peel  s  ;  that  he  is 
 Iheir  Creator,  their  Redeemer,  their  Saiictifier;  this  is  what  wtj 
 nieiin,  and  all  that  we  mean,  when  we  say  God  is  three  persons. 
 He  hjth  thr)se  three  relations  to  his  creatures  ;  and  is  thereby  no 
 niore  three  Gods,  than  he  was  three  Gods  to  the  Jews  because 
 he  calls  himself  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the 
 God  of  Jacob." 
 
 This  truly  Unitarian  doctrine  received  (he  marked  approbation 
 of  the   University  of  Oxford,    while  Dr.  Sherlock's  hypothesis, 
 
520  Bcctrine  of  the  [Part  II. 
 
 The  principal  advantage  claimed  by  this  hy- 
 pothesis is,  that  it  preserves  the  proper  Unity  of 
 God,  while  it  maintains  the  divinity  and  equa- 
 lity of  each  of  the  three  persons. 
 
 Amongst  the  ancients,  Augustin,  the  cele- 
 brated bishop  of  Hippo  in  Africa,  was  an  advo- 
 cate for  this  hypothesis ;  and  amongst  the  mo- 
 derns, Calvin,  Hooker,  Burnet,  Wallis,  South, 
 Baxter,  and  others. 
 
 Against  this  hypothesis  it  is  objected, 
 
 1.  That  if  by  distinctions  or  persons  attri- 
 butes only  are  meant,  the  term  person  is  used 
 in  a  sense  very  different  from  that  which  cus- 
 tom has  estabUshed,  and  in  a  manner  which 
 must  necessarily  deceive  those  who  are  not 
 upon  their  guard  against  this  unprecedented 
 abuse  of  language. 
 
 2.  This  hypothesis,  in  fact,  annihilates  the 
 proper  personality,  and  thereby  the  real  exist- 
 ence of  the  Son  and  Spirit ;  and  though  the  ad- 
 vocates of  this  hypothesis  hold  the  language  of 
 proper  Trinitarians,  yet,  in  ideas,  they  coincide 
 
 "  ihat  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity  were  three  distinct  infi- 
 nite minds,"  underwent  a  public  censure.  With  this  modal  hy- 
 potiiesis  Mr.  Lindsey  satisfied  himself  to  remain  in  the  church 
 and  to  use  the  liturgy,  some  years  after  he  became  a  Unitarian. 
 Apol.  p.  ^23. 
 
Sect.  10.]  proper  Atluinasians.  52\ 
 
 alioo-cther  willi  the  SalicUiaiis,  or  even  wilii  the 
 proper  Unitarians. 
 
 3.  This  hypothesis  converts  a  great  part  of 
 the  language  of  the  New  Testament  into  unin- 
 telhgible  jargon.  Thus,  when  it  is  said  that  the 
 Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  tlie  Saviour  of  the 
 world,  It  IS  the  same  as  sa\ing  tlrat  one  al tri- 
 bute or  distinction  of  the  Deity  sent  anotijer 
 attribute  or  (hstinction  of  the  Deity  to  be  the 
 Saviour  of  the  world.  And  wlnjn  I  lie  Son 
 prayed  to  the  Father,  one  attribute  or  distinc- 
 tion of  the  divine  nature  prayed  to  another  at- 
 tribute or  distinction  of  the  divine  nature. 
 
 4.  If  it  should  be  maintained  that  the  three 
 persons  in  the  Godhead  are  three  distinctions, 
 or,  as  some  have  expressed  themselves,  three 
 somewhat s  that  are  not  to  be  imderstood  or 
 explained,  this  is  substituting  words  instead  of 
 ideas,  and  is  in  fact  little  better  than  gi^  ing  up 
 the  question. 
 
 III.     The  proper  Athananian  ScJicnic. 
 
 This    hypothesis    maintains    that    there    are 
 
 three  distinct  persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
 
 the   Holy   Spirit;  the    two    latter  eternal    and 
 
 necessary  envj nations  froni  the  Father;  the  Son 
 
522  Atluina^ian  Doctrine.         [Part  I|. 
 
 by  generation,  the  Holy  Spirit  by  procession  ; 
 that  tliey  are  in  all  ottier  respects  equal  to  each 
 other,  but  united  together  by  a  mutual  pene- 
 tration of  each  other's  substance,  which  is  called 
 Eniperichoresis,  or  Circmnincession.  See  Ben 
 Mordecai's  Letters,  p.  9^9- 
 
 This  was  the  doctrine  of  Atlianasius  himself, 
 and  of  the  Nicene  fathers  amongst  the  ancients, 
 and  of  Bishop  Bull  amongst  the  moderns.  It 
 is  supposed  by  its  advocates  to  possess  all  the 
 advantages  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Realists ; 
 while,  by  the  peculiar  hypothesis  of  the  Eni- 
 perichoresis, it  precludes  the  charge  of  Tri- 
 theism. 
 
 It  is  a  great  objection  against  this  scheme, 
 that  the  eniperichoresis,  or  mutual  penetration 
 of  the  divine  substances,  which  is  the  grand 
 peculiarity  of  it,  is  unfounded  both  in  reason 
 and  in  revelation,  and  is  absolutely  uninteU 
 li2:ible. 
 
 If  the  hypothesis  means  to  assert  the  exist- 
 ence of  three  absolutely  perfect  beings,  whose 
 knowledge,  power,  and  will  uniformly  coincide, 
 and  who  occupy  the  same  infinite  space,  it  is 
 open  to  the  celebrated  objection  of  Locke  and 
 Wollaston  against  a  plurality  of  infinite  beings  : 
 
Sect.  10.]  lUmcrr!:^.  523 
 
 for  two  or  more  such  beings  cannot  even  in  idea 
 be  S(M:)arated  or  distinguished  from  one  being. 
 Then'  existence  therefore  can  be  o['  no  use  :  it 
 can  account  lor  no  jdiivnor.iena,  and  is  uUerly 
 incredible  and  absurd. 
 
 It  is  well  known  that  what  is  called  the  Alha^ 
 nasian  creed  does  not  express  tiie  docltinT;  of 
 Athanasius  himself,  and  is  a  forgerv  of  much 
 later  date. 
 
 From  a  comparison  of  the  preceding  scheiiios 
 it  is  obvious  to  remark  : 
 
 1.  That  however  the  advocates  of  the  Real 
 and  Nominal  systems  may  agree  in  tiie  use  of 
 the  same  language,  their  ideas  are  in  fict  as 
 widely  distant  as  those  of  tlie  Unitarians  and 
 the  'IVitheists;  one  party  maintaining  that  there 
 is  butonti  God,  whose  three  attributes  are  called 
 by  diftert^nt  names,  or  who  himself  beaivs  diffe- 
 rent names  v.hen  acting  under  diflL-ient  nla- 
 tlon'^;  the  other  party  aflirming  the  exis!(Mice  of 
 three  distinct  infinite  minds,  participating  oi"  the 
 j>nme  nature  and  substance,  e([ual  in  power  and 
 glory. 
 
 ^.  Vlw  doctrine  ot'  the  Trinilv  in  everv  sha])e 
 and   under  every  e>;planal;on   is  utterly  incre- 
 
524  Ficmcwks  upon  the  [Part  11. 
 
 dible;  and  the  admission  of  it  among  christians 
 as  an  article  of  beUef,  and  a  revealed  truth,  is  to 
 rational  unbelievers  a  great  objection  against 
 the  divine  origin  of  Christianity,  and  one  of 
 the  greatest  impediments  to  its  progress  in  the 
 world. 
 
 The  Jews,  the  Mahometans,  and  all  serious 
 believers  in  the  Unity  of  God,  regard  the  doc- 
 trine of  the  Trinity  with  abhorrence,  as  an  in- 
 fringement upon  the  most  fundamental  article 
 of  natural  rehgion. 
 
 The  nice  distinctions,  the  metaphysical  sub- 
 tilties,  and  the  scholastic  jargon,  which  have 
 been  introduced  into  the  Trinitarian  contro- 
 versy, naturally  lead  unbelievers  to  conclude 
 that  Christianity  is  a  system  of  abstruse  spe- 
 culation rather  than  of  useful  practical  truth; 
 and  therefore  that  it  cannot  be  of  divine  ori- 
 ginal. 
 
 Further  :  InteUigent  unbelievers,  and  men  of 
 no  relio-ion,  when  thev  observe  that  persons, 
 whose  real  sentiments  are  so  directly  opposite 
 to  each  other,  as  those  of  the  Realists  and  No- 
 minahsts,  can  nevertheless  agree  in  the  use  of 
 the  same  ambiguous  language  to  impose  upon 
 the  simplicity  of  unlearned  christians,  are  easily 
 
Sect.  10.]         dJj/crent  lli/pothcses.  525 
 
 led  to  conclude  tliut  the  teachers  of  Christianity 
 are  not  themselves  believers  in  its  divine  autho- 
 rity, but  that  they  profess  it  as  a  craft  to  main- 
 tain themselves  at  the  expense  of  their  deluded 
 followers. 
 
 Hence  it  may  naturally  b(^  expected  that 
 nsere  statesmen,  who  are  indifferent  to  all  reli- 
 gions, will  conclude  that  Christianity,  like  other 
 superstitions,  may  be  usefully  employed  as  an 
 engine  of  state  ;  by  a  hypocritical  profession  of 
 which,  and  a  liberal  support  of  a  class  of  per- 
 sons who  shall  be  authorized  to  teach  the  creed 
 of  the  state,  they  may  maintain  a  great  political 
 ascendancy  over  the  minds  of  the  ignorant  and 
 superstitious  vulgar. 
 
 Hence  likewise,  regarding  all  teachers  of  re- 
 ligion as  hypocrites  or  enthusiasts,  they  are  dis- 
 posed to  oppress  and  persecute  those  who,  ani- 
 mated with  a  truly  christian  zeal  to  restore  the 
 religion  of  Jesus  to  its  primitive  purity,  enter 
 their  public  and  solemn  protest  against  prevail- 
 ing and  established  errors,  and  to  inflict  pains 
 and  penalties  upon  such  persons,  as  disturbers  of 
 the  public  peace  :  thus  fixing  upon  the  christian 
 religion  the  stignia  of  persecution,  which  is  most 
 opposite  to  it*  true   nature,  and  exciting  still 
 
526  TrmlUirians  zcho  decline         [Part  II. 
 
 more  strongly  the  prejudices  of  unbelievers 
 against  it. 
 
 3.  From  these  considerations,  and  upon  these 
 principles,  the  Unitarians  justify  their  exertions 
 to  detect  the  corruptions  of  the  christian  doc- 
 trine, and  to  lepresent  cinnstianity  in  its  true 
 lio-ht,  as  the  revelation  of  a  future  life  of  reward 
 and  punishment,  confirmed  by  the  resurrection 
 of  Christ  from  the  dead  :  a  doctrine  of  the 
 greatest  practical  importance,  and  m  the  recep- 
 tion of  which  all  christians  are  agreed.  And 
 till  this  reformation  is  accomphshed,  they  have 
 little  hope  that  the  christian  revelation  will  meet 
 with  general  reception,  or  that  any  considerable 
 moral  advantage  is  to  be  expected  from  those 
 abstruse,  complicated,  and  unintelligible  sy- 
 stems of  faith  which  often  assume  the  name  of 
 Christianity,  and  of  which  the  genuine  doctrine 
 of  Christ  conmionly  constitutes  a  very  fnnited 
 proportion. 
 
 IV.  To  avoid  the  difficulties  attendino-  all  ex- 
 
 o 
 
 planations  of  tlie  doctrine  of  tiie  Trinity,  a  fouilh 
 class  of  professed  Trmitanans  have  contented 
 themselves  with  adopting,  as  they  say,  "  Scrip- 
 ture language,"  at  the  same  time  declining  all 
 explanation  of  the  subject. 
 
Sect.  10.]  all  E.ipla/Kitiun.  527 
 
 Tliey  coiilent  tli(.MiisL'lve.s  with  ub.^if rvin^;,  tliat 
 tlit^  Scripture  leaches  that  the  Father,  the  Son, 
 and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  each  of  them  truly  God  ; 
 divine  names,  tides,  and  attributes,  works,  and 
 worship  being  ascribed  to  each.  They  observe 
 also,  that  the  same  Scripture  likewise  teaches 
 that  there  is  but  one  God  :  each  of  these  posi- 
 tions, therefore,  must  be  in  some  sense  true. 
 But  in  what  sense  tlie  divine  persons  are  three, 
 and  in  what  respect  they  are  one,  is  not  ex- 
 plained; it  is  therefore,  say  they,  presumption 
 in  any  one  to  attempt  it :  and  beino;  a  doctrine 
 of  pure  revelation,  it  ought  to  be  left  in  the  sim- 
 plicity and  obscurity  of  the  Scripture  languuge. 
 Thiy  hypothesis,  therefore,  affirms  that  the  Fa- 
 ther is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
 is  God  ;  and  yet  there  are  not  three  Gods,  but 
 one  God.  But  it  leaves  it  doubtful  Mhether 
 the  personality  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  ihe 
 Spirit  be  a  real  or  a  modal  personality  ;  that  is, 
 whether  the  three  persons  be  three  distinct  in- 
 telligent agents,  or  three  modes,  attributes,  re- 
 Li lions  or  distinctions  of  the  same  inlelli2:ent 
 Being. 
 
 Where  nothinff  is  aflirmed,  nothinii-  can  be 
 denied  :   ])ut  it  mav  behove  the  advocates  lor 
 
528  llemarhs  upon  the  Use         [Part  II. 
 
 the    use    of    this    ambiguous    and    unmeaning 
 phraseology  to  consider, 
 
 1.  Whether  they  can  seriously  maintain  that 
 there  is  any  medium  between  the  Real  and 
 the  Nominal  schwnes  :  in  other  words,  whe- 
 ther they  are  not  under  a  necessity  of  ad- 
 mitting that  the  three  persons  in  the  Trinity 
 either  are,  or,  are  not,  three  distinct  intelligent 
 
 agents. 
 
 2.  Whether  they  can  seriously  believe  that 
 the  Scriptures  have  left  it  a  matter  of  doubt 
 whether  there  be  three  equal  intelligent  beings, 
 all  of  whom  are  the  proper  objects  of  worship, 
 or  "whether  one  Being  alone  is  revealed  as  the 
 object  of  religious  adoration,  by  whatever  names 
 or  characters  he  may  be  described. 
 
 3.  Whether  they  are  themselves  seriously  in 
 doubt  concerning  the  Scripture  doctrine  upon 
 this  subject;  and  whether  this  doubt  arises 
 from  the  obscurity  of  the  Scriptures,  or  from 
 their  own  voluntary  inattention  to  the  subject, 
 and  their  unwillingness  to  take  sufficient  pains 
 to  gain  satistaction  upon  a  subject  of  such  high 
 unportance. 
 
 4.  Whether  it  be  not  a  concern  of  the 
 greatest   magnitude,    and   well   deserving    tb.e 
 
Sect.  10.]      of  equivocal  Language.  529 
 
 most  serious  inquiry,  to  determine  whether  the 
 object  of  reUgious  worship  be  one,  or  three, 
 infinite  beings. 
 
 5.  Whether  it  be  a  mark  of  real  respect  to 
 the  Scriptures  to  use  their  language  without 
 ascertaining  its  meaning ;  and  whether  this  be 
 not  the  way  to  keep  themselves  and  others  in 
 perpetual  ignorance  :  also,  whether  they  must 
 not  allow  that  it  is  the  proper  province  of  rea- 
 son to  investigate  the  irue  sense  of  the  Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 6.  Whether  the  indisposition  to  inquire  and 
 to  attain  clear  and  definite  ideas  upon  a  subject 
 of  such  great  and  acknowledged  importance  as 
 the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  does  not  in  some 
 measure  arise  from  an  unworthy  fear  of  the  re- 
 sult of  these  inquiries,  and  from  a  secret  sus- 
 picion that  the  question  wili  not  bear  examina- 
 tion. 
 
 7-  Let  it  also  be  very  seriously  considered, 
 whether  the  common  use  of  ambiguous  lan- 
 guage, which  will  necessarily  lead  plain  and 
 unlearned  christians  to  conclude  that  there  are 
 THREE  objects  of  religious  worship,  while  the 
 person  who  uses  such  language  is  himself  per- 
 suaded that  there  is,  or  at  least  that  there  may 
 
 2   M 
 
530  Re}7wrk$.  [Part  il. 
 
 be,  only  one,  be  consistent  Mith  the  true  sim- 
 plicit}^  of  the  christian  character ;  and  m  hether 
 it  does  not  justly  expose  the  person  who  uses  it 
 to  the  charge  of  "  handling  the  word  of  God 
 deceitfully/' 
 
 TRE    END. 
 
Lately  pulUshed  ly  the  Author  of  this  Inquiry^ 
 
 AND  MAY  BE  HAD  OF 
 
 J.  JOHNSON  AND  Co. 
 
 ST.   PAUL'S   CHURCHYARD. 
 
 1.  ELEMENTS  of  the  DOCTRLXE  of  the  HUMAN 
 iMIND  and  of  MORAL  FHILOSOPilV.     Price  9s.  in  boards. 
 
 2.  DISHONE-^T  SHAME  the  primary  Source  of  the  Cor- 
 ruptions of  the  Christian  Doctrine.  A  Sermon  preached  at 
 Hackney.     Price  6d. 
 
 3.  A  SERIOUS  CAUTTON  AGAINST  POPULAR  ER- 
 RORS. A  Sermon  addressed  to  Young  Persons.  Second  Edi- 
 tion.     Price  Is. 
 
 4.  The  RIGHT  and  DUTY  of  UNITARIAN  CHRIS- 
 TIANS to  form  SEPARAl'ESOCiElTES  for  RELIGIOUS 
 WORSHIP.  A  Sermon  preached  at  Birmingham,  July  22, 
 1802,  at  the  Opet\ing  of  the  New  Mecting-House  in  the  room 
 of  that  in  which  Dr.  Priestley  formerly  officiated,  and  which 
 was  destoyed  in  the  Riot,  July  1-1,  1791.     Price  Is. 
 
 5.  ZEAL  and  EORTITUDK  in  the  CHRISTIAN  MINI- 
 STRY ILLUSTRATED  and  EXEMPLIFIED.  A  Discourse 
 delivered  at  Hackney,  April  8,  1S04,  on  occasion  of  the  Death 
 of  the  Reverend  Joseph  Priestley,  LL.D.  F.R.S.     Price  Is. 
 
 C.  The  PROGRESS  of  ERROR  concerning  the  PERSON  of 
 CHRIST  represented,  in  a  Sermon  delivered  at  the  Unitarian 
 Chapel,  in  Essex-street,  March  31,   1805.     Price  Is, 
 
 7.  The  IMPORTANCE  of  RIGHT  SENTIMENTS  con- 
 cerning the  PERSON  of  CHRIST.  Preached  before  the  Lon- 
 don Unitarian  Society,  April  10,  ISOP.     Price  Is. 
 
£31 
 
 8.  The  PROVIDENCE  of  GOD  ovcr.vuling  the  ISSULvS  of 
 VVAR  aad  CONQUEST.  A  Sermon  preached  on  Fobruary 
 25,  1807,  being  a  Day  appointed  for  a  General  Fast. 
 
 9.  A  SUMMARY  VIEW  of  the  KV^IDKNCK  and  Pll.VC, 
 TICAL  IMPORTA?^CE  of  the  CHRISTIAN  RKVEI.A» 
 TIONj  in  a  Series  of  Discourses.     Second  Edition.     Price  4-. 
 
 10.  LETTER?  upon  ARIANISAI  and  other  TOPICS  of  ME- 
 TAPHYSICS and  THEOLOGY,  in  reply  to  the  Led n res  of 
 the  Rev.  B.  Carpenter.     Price  4s. 
 
 11.  A  FUNERAL  SERMON  for  the  Rev.  Thcophilus  Lind- 
 scy,  with  a  brief  BIOGRAPHICAL  MEMOIR.     Price  2s. 
 
 Lately  piilUshed, 
 
 The  NEW  TESTAMENT  in  an  IMPROVED  VERSION 
 upon  the  Basis  of  Archbishop  Newcome's  New  Translation, 
 with  a  corrected  Text,  and  Notes  Critical  and  Explanatory. 
 Royal  octavo,  l6s.  Royal  Duodecimo,  8s.  In  iSriio.  Mithdit 
 the  Preface  and  Notes,  4s. 
 
 Also. 
 SERMONS,  with  appropriate  PRAYERS  annexed,  by  the  late 
 Rev.  Theophilus  Lindsey,  2  vols.     Price  one  guinea  in  boards. 
 
 tnnttd  by  liichara  fayhr  and  Co.,  Shoe  Lane,  Lund«n. 
 
0\-  -w--'^-