DISCOURSES ON SCRIPTURE MYSTERIES, PREACHED AT ST. MARY'S, OXFORD, BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY, IN THE YEAR 1787; AT THE LECTURE FOUNDED BY THE LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, M. A. CANON OF SALISBURY; WITH NOTES ILLUSTRATIVE AND CRITICAL.
BY WILLIAM HAWKINS, M. A. PREBENDARY OF WELLS, VICAR OF WHITCHURCH, DORSET, AND LATE FELLOW OF PEMBROKE-COLLEGE, OXFORD.
OXFORD: PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS, AND SOLD BY D. PRINCE AND J. COOKE, OXFORD; AND J. F. AND C. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
M DCC LXXXVII.
IMPRIMATUR,
JOS. CHAPMAN, VICE-CAN. OXON.
Aug.
6. 1787.
TO HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
MY LORD,
HAVING had the honour of being appointed preacher of the
Bampton Lectures
for the current year, by the Heads of Colleges in Oxford, I have the happiness to introduce them to the Public with the additional great advantage of your Grace's protection; an advantage the more considerable, as it derives as much from the character, as the rank of my patron.
In this situation it will, I presume, become me to address your Grace rather under the form of preface than in the style of dedication.
My slender pretensions to your favour are grounded in the earnest endeavour of the following sheets fully and circumstantially to vindicate that faith which, I need not tell your Grace, is not barely attacked, but insulted every day. The Charity which
is not easily provoked
must resent the freedom, I had almost said the audacity which distinguishes the infidels of the present generation. These Gentlemen affect to be the party aggrieved; and to console themselves at the same time with a hope, and sometimes a persuasion of the speedy abolition of confessions and systems, and, in consequence of it, the revival of evangelical doctrine in its native simplicity.
I cannot think opinions openly and arrogantly hostile to the national establishment can be justified even by their sincerity. But infidelity in general is without this excuse: it has been repeatedly shewn to draw its principal resources from the vigilance of captiousness, the popularity of profession, the artifice of dissimulation, the confusion of things not really connected, and the occasional suppression, or adulteration of truth. To these I am sorry, for our own sakes, to add the inconsistency between certain controversial terms, and the imprudence, or unwariness of concession. Such resources as these are indeed inexhaustible. Mr.
Bampton
's wise and pious institution, and every
other of a similar nature, supposes as much. We contend with enemies, who, though with unequal forces, will always be able to take the field. However, my Lord, I flatter myself I have happily chosen more advantageous ground than many of my fellow-soldiers in this warfare; to whose names on other accounts I look up with deference and veneration. After all, the event must be left in the hands of Providence. I have only to beg the favour of the intelligent reader to peruse these discourses and the annexed annotations, (which will be equally necessary,) with an inclination to be satisfied; and in that spirit of candor and impartiallity with which, I trust, he will find them to have been composed. I request his attention throughout the performance, and reasonable allowances for the inaccuracy, or inequality that may be discovered in it. I hope he will be biassed, not by speciousness of principle, or habit of attachment, but by preponderance of argument. I submit it to his judgment, whether I have in any instance shewn an undue warmth, or unwarrantable resentment; and desire him finally to determine, as he shall upon the whole be persuaded, not of the abilities of the advocate, but the merits of the cause. Open to conviction myself, I shall always be ready to rectify an error, or to renounce an opinion, on competent representation; but shall not pay the least regard to any censure or animadversion, the features of which shall manifestly betray it to be the offspring of prepossession, chagrin, or malevolence.
With sincerest wishes and prayers for your Grace's health and happiness, and for the peace and prosperity of that Church over which you so worthily preside,
I remain, With all duty and respect,
My LORD,
Your much obliged and Most obedient servant, WILLIAM HAWKINS.
Extract from the last Will and Testament of the late Reverend
JOHN BAMPTON,
Canon of
Salisbury.
—I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford for ever, to have and to hold all and singular the said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the intents and purposes herein after mentioned; that is to say, I will and appoint, that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford for the time being shall take and receive all the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions made) that he pay all the remainder to the endowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established for ever in the said University, and to be performed in the manner following:
I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in Easter Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of Colleges only, and by no others, in the room adjoining to the Printing-House, between the hours of ten in the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary's in Oxford, between the commencement of the last month in Lent Term, and the end of the third week in Act Term.
Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be preached upon either of the following subjects—to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics—upon the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures—upon the authority of the writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church—upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ—upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost—upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.
Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two months after they are preached, and one copy shall be given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the City of Oxford, and one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library; and the expence of printing them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Lands or Estates given for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the Preacher shall not be paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are printed.
Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath taken the Degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge; and that the same person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons twice.
DISCOURSE I.
JOHN XVIII. 38.
Pilate saith unto him, What is Truth?
THIS question, of all by far the most important, was put to our blessed Saviour by the
Roman Governour,
perhaps carelessly, perhaps contemptuously, but certainly without the least wish for information. In much the same spirit of scorn, or with similar indifference, the same question is every day in the mouths, sometimes of sceptics and scoffers, and sometimes of men of a more serious cast, who affect to be persuaded that we cannot, and, it may be, desire not to give them satisfaction. Unhappily, the Christian world is divided and subdivided almost infinitely; it is parcelled out into sectaries of a thousand denominations. The fact is, though the right of private judgment in matters of religion, which has been exercised from the beginning, was justly and necessarily asserted by the leaders and friends of the REFORMATION, it must be acknowledged, folly, perverseness, pride, and enthusiasm, have, by severally maintaining it, been productive of that strange multiplicity of religious sentiment which we have so much cause to lament; of that schism, heresy, scepticism, and infidelity, which have all along disturbed the Church, but fix a mark of peculiar disgrace on the last and present century.
And indeed, when it is considered, that the Scriptures are on many accounts particularly liable to be misapplied, perverted, or misconstrued;
(a)
that some passages are to be understood in a literal, and some in a figurative sense; that some things are expressed agreeably to the modes of common speech, and some in pure condescension to the human capacity; that passages are to be compared with each other in order to a true understanding of them, and doctrines to be deduced, not so much from single and separate texts, as from the manifest tenor of the Scriptures at large; that not unfrequently one and the same text shall be capable of different, and even opposite construction; that though most places in holy writ are of universal importance, yet some are of temporary and occasional purport only; that the sacred writings, strictly speaking, are the foundation of a rule of faith and manners, such as a creed, formulary, or confession, rather than the rule itself, as will, I trust, in due time more fully appear; and that an assent to the collective body of scripture, as true, does not imply a knowlege, or belief of all scriptural truths; when all this, to which more, were there occasion, might be added, is fairly considered, we cannot possibly be at a loss to account for that variety of notion, that wildness and absurdity of conceit, that extravagance, or impiety of opinion, which I just now observed has more or less so shamefully dishonoured the Christian name in all ages. Of this exuberance of folly and wickedness Popery has ever been industrious to avail itself. From the acknowledged liableness of the Scriptures to the grossest abuse, when in the hands of such as are
unlearned
and
unstable,
(to use the apostle's words,) the Church of
Rome
draws her most specious argument against the common use of them; and would fain have us infer the necessity, or the certainty of an infallible authority lodged in the Church for the decision of controversies, and ascertainment of a rule of faith, from the confessed convenience and utility of such an authority.
(b)
But, unfortunately for her pretensions, as much error and absurdity has repeatedly been demonstrated to be within her pale as out of it.
Wh t is truth?
becomes therefore with many a question of as much difficulty as importance; or, rather, of more form than importance; some encouraging themselves in scepticism from these circumstances, and others blindly acquiescing in any mode of religion, or in none at all, or at best in that which is usually called natural religion, from a pretence of the utter impossibility of discovering the true under such a complication of perplexity.
With points of inferior consequence I shall not trouble myself; but to such as deny, or call in question the capital articles of our religion on the strength of the above considerations, let me insist that nothing of this nature ought to supersede their endeavours to find the truth, and much less to discourage their obedience to it when found. After inquiry we may in some respect or other be mistaken, but without it we are inexcusable. In fact, the very diversity, or contrariety complained of may be justly urged in behalf of the faith which is received in the Church. Were the doctrine of the Trinity, for instance, impugned from one quarter only, and by consistent and uniform opposition, infidelity would be a much more formidable thing than it is; but you may as well look for
one language
at
Babel
as for a catholic system of unbelief, if I may be indulged with the expression. To enumerate all the heresies which have at different times torn and dismembered the Church of Christ, is in a manner to confute them; and these, their common animosity against her excepted, are
at
perpetual
enmity
among themselves. Nay, what is yet more extraordinary, we shall find infidelity itself abounding in mysteries, even while it reprobates them almost with the confidence of a
faith
which
could remove mountains!
If the sacred theory we are to maintain be in many respects incomprehensible, the substitutions of human wisdom will in due time be shewn to be at least equally so; and to require the same degree of assent without any thing like the same foundation.
What is truth, say
others
among us,
what is it but a system of doctrines officially taught, and formally transmitted from generation to generation?
But if doctrines are true, why not officially taught, and carefully transmitted? Is profession ridiculous, or authority contemptible, as such? Indeed, the question is not, what saith the Church?—but—
what saith the
Scripture?
Now by Scripture, and the earliest antiquity, our surest guide, and purest precedent, we are not only willing, but wishful to be tried. It is true the bulk of Christians are not equal to this trial; in a certain sense, they
care for none of these things;
they take matters upon trust; they are not able to
give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of the
faith
that is in them,
except that they were born and bred in it, and suppose it to be unquestionable. It is with respect to this implicitness of assent, this tameness of acquiescence, as it is opprobriously called, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has no less impiously than ludicrously been exposed to contempt under the description of the
See p. 16, 36, 37. in Preface to
Stilling fleet
's Discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Trinity of the Mob!
But this is very unfair representation. Surely no argument can be drawn from the incapacity, or the credulity of the
many,
to the disadvantage of a doctrine that, with respect to the grounds on which we defend it, solicits, demands, defies the penetration of enquiry, and the inquisitiveness
of criticism. The spiritual state of the
common people
all over the world falls nearly under the same predicament; but at the same time a proportionable degree of satisfaction will always be derived to every man from every degree of rational assurance that he is in the
right way;
or belongs to a communion wherein the truth is held in purity approaching nearest to the standard of primitive Christianity.
What is truth?
—Say others. We are no strangers to the doctrines publicly established; to the faith asserted in your Articles, and expressed in your Creeds; but to these
Subscription
is much more universal than agreement. We can produce you names even among yourselves of persons
not a whit behind the very chiefest
Divines in point of rank, probity, or understanding, who nevertheless hold that
God
is to be
worshipped after a way which
you
call heresy;
who
preach another Gospel than that which ye have received
from your fathers,
constantly affirming,
or perpetually insinuating, that
ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.
Too true indeed it is that the principal controverted points subsisting among those "who profess and call themselves Christians" are of the most serious nature. If the tenets of our gainsayers and adversaries of many appellations are right and just, the doctrines of the Trinity, and of the resurrection of the body, (which will be the objects of the ensuing disquisitions,) are heresies of the most abominable, or ridiculous tendency. However, these are circumstances which should not check, but stimulate the spirit of investigation. It will be of infinite moment to inquire whether we or they are the mistaken party, and on which side error really lies; whether
our
doctrines or
theirs
have the strongest foundation in scripture and antiquity; are best supported by presumptive argument, and corroborative evidence; or have least recourse to artifice, and the pitifulness of subterfuge and evasion. We do not wish to have this matter determined either vulgarly by a majority of voices, or invidiously by the reputation of names.
But again, say others,
What is truth?
—What good purpose is answered, or what advantage gained by this extraordinary zeal for theory and establishment? What doth it but
gender strifes,
and feed the flame of contention? The practical doctrines of the gospel are so forcibly, yet so familiarly inculcated, as not to be liable to misinterpretation.
Concerning the faith
thousands
have erred,
but,
as
one
of
our
own poets
hath
said,
"His can't be wrong, whose life is in the right."
It is well for us there is nothing argumentative in the jingle of a couplet. I confess myself to be one of those who are hurt by every effort that has a plain aspect towards resolving all religion into morality. I consider every attempt of this kind as an indirect attack upon the fundamentals of Christianity. According to the idea of these reasoners, the character of the
Messiah,
and of the
Son of God,
will dwindle into that of a mere Legislator, or moral philosopher, who
teaches us to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world.
Tit. ii. 12.
This text, and texts congenerous with this, may plausibly be urged in exaltation of
good works
to the exclusion of faith: but let them be contrasted with the following,
he that believeth, and is baptiz'd shall be saved;
Mark xvi. 16.
he that believe thon the Son hath everlasting life,
John. vi. 47.
&c. and
where is boasting
on the part of moral honesty, or evangelical righteousness? As speciously, or as justly as men may harangue in demonstration of the excellence of piety and virtue; or as loudly, or as reasonably as they may exclaim against the violence, and much more the virulence, which has actuated the spirit of controversy in too many instances; I presume, no intelligent person, if he is impartial, will deny, that the
faith
which St.
Jude
tells us
was once delivered to the Saints,
whatever we are precisely to understand by it, is something entirely distinct from mere morality; that it ought
earnestly
to be
contended for,
agre ably to the same Apostle's exhortation; that it is very possible to contend with
meekness;
that errors, and schisms, and heresies are represented in scripture as things more or less sinful, dangerous, and damnable; and that consequently it is of the utmost importance to our spiritual interests to be right in principle as well as in practice. The petulancy, the pride, and the malevolence of bigots, and of
disputers of this world,
as the Apostle calls them, will no doubt be
brought into judgment
no less than the grossest immoralities; but this will not by any means supersede, or retard an honest and charitable attempt to enquire into and ascertain the leading doctrines of our common Christianity.
Complaints against the damnatory clauses of the
Athanasian
Creed, as it is commonly called, reverberate from more quarters than one. People do not seem to be sufficiently aware that a right faith and a good life are required by this form of confession under the same penalty.
Which faith except a man keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. They that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
It is plain these clauses are to be considered as simply declarative on scriptural grounds of the necessity both of faith and of good works to salvation; and at the same time as leaving all men to that infinite mercy, and those inestimable merits, which are fully adequate to the pardon and atonement of sins, failings, ignorances, and errors of integrity.
(c)
Which few considerations will, I apprehend, fairly deliver the Creed before us from the reproach of uncharitableness. With regard to the several articles of which it consists, I trust, they will be found, in the course of these disquisitions, to have foundation in a fully competent authority; and in the mean time I shall endeavour to remove one general prejudice against them, and to create rather a prepossession in their favour, by evincing, that their acknowleged mysteriousness and incomprehensibility does by no means unqualify them for our assent.
"Man is as such a rational creature;" and as a rational creature he is a believing one too. We can no more conceive him to be without belief, than without sense, thought, or reflection. The Atheist who
says in his heart,
as well as with his lips,
there is no God,
believes there is none. He protests against the supposed folly, or extravagance of the fundamental article of all religion; and on the strength of false conclusions, resolves every thing into a concourse of atoms fortuitously uniting; or into the operation of an unintelligent principle which we call nature; or, in other words, into an everlasting succession of causes and effects. It is possible for a man to deny his own existence, or that there is any such thing as motion. We have heard of instances of this sort; though properly they are instances, not of false persuasion, but of insanity.
(d)
Still man is a rational creature, whether he reasons well or ill; and whether, in consequence of such reasoning, his faith be well or ill grounded. It is certain we know little or nothing by intuition. The mind yields assent to many mysterious truths by forming a very small chain of deductions; such as the immensity of space, the infinite progression of number, and eternity, as well
a
parte ante
as
a parte post.
Space and duration, says an ingenious author, are mysterious abysses in which our thoughts are confounded with demonstrable propositions, to all sense and reason, flatly contradictory to one another. Any two points of time, though never so distant, are each of them exactly in the middle of eternity. The remotest points of space that can be imagined are, each of them, precisely in the centre of infinite space.
See
Deism Revealed.
Vol. 2. p. 145.
In fact, we have no stronger, or more adequate conception of immensity than of omnipresence; we have no clearer idea of the existence of SOMETHING from all eternity than we have of eternal generation. Faith, it is true, strictly speaking, has reference to religion only;
See Note at p. 3 of
Howes
's
Discourse on the abuse of the Talent of Disputation in Religion. &c.
but, I hope, a truth or a mystery is not inadmissible purely on account of its respecting practice, or implying obligation. This will readily be granted even by infidels who deny the truths of Revelation; and much more by such Christians as have called into debate particular points of that Revelation, to which in general they profess to subscribe. It is well worth remarking that Deists and Heretics never fail to attack the professed atheist with such reasonings, as, if pursued through their just consequences, may fairly and successfully be enforced upon themselves. For if
he
affects to decry the fundamental principle of all religion, the Being of a God, on account of the pretended inconceivableness of it, will not
they
observe, in order to confute him, that, unless a more complete, a more uniform, and intelligible system could be built on the ruins of this great article, such his exception can have no weight? And this is the very reasoning we urge against the principles both of deists and heretics. With the professed atheist I shall no farther concern myself; but desire to observe, that deists and heretics of all denominations are agreed with us in one general point, the acknowlegement of the existence of God, and consequently the incomprehensibleness of the Divine nature, attributes, and operations. The primary notion which the human mind frames of God is this general and complex, yet negative idea of incomprehensibleness. There is a certain preeminence, if I may so call it, in the Divine essence, &c. which utterly precludes investigation. But if so, all mysteries, whether natural or religious, whether relative,
e. g.
to the extension of space, &c. or to the nature of the Deity; all these, if considered purely as mysteries, will stand upon a level in point of credibility. And let a revelation be supposed, all adventitious truths introduced thereby will be fixed upon the same foot; because faith cannot have a stronger foundation in human reason than in divine authority. This is granted without difficulty; but then as the deist denies the authenticity of those writings which we affirm to contain such revelation, so the heretic disputes the sense and scope of them. The question therefore is, whether the opinion of the one, and the unbelief of the other, is respectively the result of judgment, or of passion; of conviction, or of pride; of impartial enquiry, or of unwillingness to submit the understanding of man to the
wisdom of God?
For, I repeat it, neither the one nor the other can, consistently with his own principles and acknowledgments, controvert the received sense, or deny the authority of those writings which the Church holds to be the
Word of God,
barely on account of mysterious truths contained in them. If the Divine Essence be necessarily incomprehensible, no Revelation can possibly make it less so; so far from it, that the very idea of a Divine Revelation, with respect to that essence, implies a Revelation of mysteries;
i. e.
of truths undiscoverable, and inconceivable by our natural powers; and accordingly, the credit of Revelation is rather confirmed than weakened by the number and importance of such truths. For it is but natural to expect a more ample display of wonders, and larger discoveries of sublime and sacred points of faith in this Revelation; and surely God is not the less to be believed, the more he communicates to us of his nature, properties, and dispensations. As far as these remarks affect Revelation in general, heretics in general will admit the justness of them; though at the very instant that they allow the writings in question to be the sole rule of faith, they endeavour, as much as may be, to reduce that rule to the measure of their own judgments and apprehensions. I am however already justified in asserting, that as much as some people are averse to believing what they do not understand, they cannot avoid believing what they do not understand; and that therefore, on proper authority, it is full as reasonable to believe an hundred mysteries as one.
(e)
And here taking my leave of the deist, I would desire the heretic by what appellation soever distinguished, to recollect, that Revelation left human nature as it found it; I mean with respect to our intellectual faculties; that,
from the beginning of the creation
to this very hour, man is to be considered as a reasonable creature, as a free-agent, as sometimes believing upon competent evidence, sometimes governed by passions, and sometimes influenced by prepossession. A truth which accounts in a moment for the multitude of persuasions which have engaged the speculative world. To expect, or require that God should manifest himself and his proceedings, &c. to every man fully and personally, is to destroy every notion not only of faith, but of obedience likewise; and to wish to invert the essential frame and constitution of things. Difficulties, unsurmountable difficulties of many kinds occur to our contemplations on that frame and constitution; difficulties, on which the light of Revelation darts not a single beam. If we indulge the excursive faculty of imagination beyond the bounds which reason and scripture have set us, we shall find ourselves inextricably entangled in perplexity, and sometimes in impiety too. Who shall discover the consistency between Divine prescience and human free-will? Yet that man acts freely, and that God foreknows all events, and decrees accordingly, are equally truths not to be shaken by any seeming irreconcileableness or contrariety whatsoever. So again: that the most perfect
freedom
of agency must be ascribed to God, cannot possibly be controverted; and yet does he not
necessarily
foreknow his own actions? Does not
necessarily
act agreeably to the eternal rules of justice, wisdom, and holiness? That God is in no sense the author of evil, either natural or moral, every reasonable man, and much more every Christian will maintain; yet is it not certain, that had this world never been made, neither
sin
nor
death
could have
entered
into it? Human wisdom has fatigued itself to no purpose in the ventilation of these subjects.
(f)
Many real truths, but at present seeming paradoxes, will doubtless be capable of future explication; and spiritual things in general should rather be received with the humility of reverence, than encountered with the arrogance of discussion. There will be no end to
doubtful disputations
while men's sentiments are modified by a partial attachment to a favourite principle; and while truths, apparently opposite and contradictory, are separately contended for, which ought both to be admitted; as ultimately they will be reconciled.
What has been here advanced concerning faith, or mysteries in general, will, I trust, secure at least a fair and earnest attention to what I shall have to offer in defence of the mysteries of the Gospel. If these mysteries should be found to be real objects of faith, it will be neither right, nor safe, to think, or to speak of them indifferently, unhandsomely, or contemptuously.
That the doctrines of the Church of
England,
the doctrine of one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, and that of the Resurrection of the Body, are as reconcileable to our ideas as the consistency of free-will with necessity, or of the Divine perfections with the existence of evil, I should suppose, no man can deny; and therefore the great question is, whether those doctrines be undeniably in those Scriptures which all with whom I am concerned acknowledge to be the rule of faith.
That, with respect to the Trinity, the doctrine of the Church has been so long, so frequently, so copiously agitated with much less success, on our part, than might have been expected from some of the best
Soldiers of Jesus Christ,
the
weapons
of whose
warfare
have been
mighty
in this spiritual field; this, I must confess, is a circumstance enough discouraging; but however, not without its counterbalance in certain considerations.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.
Matters are capable of being set in new lights; nor will any exertion be desperate which has for its object the honour of God, and the peace of his Church. Men are wedded to their errors as much as to their vices; but as we are not to be remiss, or hopeless in our labours for the reformation of sinners, though the
whole world
should
lie in wickedness;
so neither should we be impeded or disheartened in our attempts for the conversion of infidels and heretics, by that pride, that prejudice, however contracted, that
hardness,
or that
slowness of heart,
which indisposes them for the reception of truth.—After all, inquiries of this nature are of very considerable use and importance; they cannot fail at least to
stablish, strengthen,
and
settle
ourselves; to
root
and
ground
us in that
faith
which we shall find to be built upon the most immoveable foundations.
That assertors and vindicators of this faith, that champions for the Church militant, might never be wanting in this place, the zeal and the piety, the wisdom, and the munificence of our founder hath nobly provided. The present institution is happily distinguished by its location; and, in some degree to answer and accomplish it's end, I shall proceed with as much confidence and satisfaction as may reasonably be supposed to arise from a proper sense of obligation, a full persuasion of the truth of the great doctrines in question, and particularly of the merits of the
Trinitarian
cause.
DISCOURSE II.
JOHN V. 39.
Search the Scriptures.
TO the Scriptures of the Old Testament our blessed Saviour referred the
Jews
for satisfaction with respect to his claims to the character in which he appeared among them; and to the Scriptures of the New Testament, together with the other, I am to refer for proofs of those great but mysterious doctrines which I have undertaken to defend: the doctrines contained in the Liturgy, and in the Articles of the Church of
England.
Without laying before you at present all, or the principal texts by which the doctrine of the Trinity is supported, or in which the absolute divinity both of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is explicitly asserted, or necessarily implied, we may previously remark that, supposing them to be authentic, unequivocal, and intelligible, the infidel is in fact precluded from taking advantage of those passages which are declarative either of the acknowleged humanity of Jesus Christ, or of the gifts and operations of the blessed Spirit: that humanity, and those operations being things manifestly distinct from the Divine essence, and real personality. What we shall have to do therefore will be to enquire, in due time and place, whether the exceptions which have been made against the texts with which the catholic doctrine is fortified, are grounded in principles of common candour and common sense; or, in other words, whether the interpretations of anti-trinitarians are critically just, and agreable to the rules which are generally allowed to govern interpretation. In the mean time, it will be well worth while to examine, whether the doctrine before us is not proveable by evidence which, though indirect and collateral, is irresistible. There is hardly any such thing as framing a sentence, or a proposition that cannot be prevaricated with; but the tenor of a context, and the weight of circumstances will not easily admit of sophistication.
According to the Athanasian Creed, as it is called,
the Catholic Faith is this; that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; and that the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
But what saith the Scripture? Saith it not,
in effect,
the same also?
That the Father is the first Person in the Trinity, merely in order of nomination; the Son, the second; and the Holy Ghost, the third; is sufficiently demonstrable from many considerations. In the first place, though the three divine Persons are usually mentioned in a manner which at first sight seems to import an order of a different kind, yet this order is upon some occasions inverted;
e. g.
in St.
Paul
's often quoted benediction to the
Corinthians; The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you:
and in the following passage of the same Apostle;
there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
1 Cor. xii. 4.
And, in other places, the same inversion is observable with regard to the first and second persons;
Ye know,
says the Apostle,
that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, &c. hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Ephes. v. 5.
Now our Lord Jesus Christ
HIMSELF, says the same Apostle,
and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, comfort your hearts, &c. No man,
says our Lord,
knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
Matt. xi. 27.
To this we may add the introduction of St.
Paul
's epistle to the
Galatians; Paul, an Apostle, not of men, neither by man,
but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who hath raised him from the dead,
&c. From these instances we may at least draw this inference, that the general priority of order above mentioned imports no distinction, or preeminence of essence.
The root, ground, or fountain of essence may be acknowledged to be in the
Father,
without the least prejudice to the
Trinitarian
doctrine, which supposes an ETERNAL communication to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. The terms
root
and
fountain,
&c. are customary indeed, but by no means strictly proper, or precisely descriptive. They are familiar, not to our ideas, but to our ears. When we speak of, or contemplate the Divine nature, absolutely, and without reference to particular dispensations, God the
Father
is generally the first in our conception, as far as he can be the object of conception, but not to the exclusion of the Divine nature either of the
Son
or
Holy Ghost.
In these dispensations, in the heavenly oeconomy, we have a manifest and obvious reason for addressing our prayers and petitions, public and private, for the most part, to the first Person of the Holy Trinity. In short, the terms
Father
and
Son,
under which it has pleased infinite wisdom, by way of analogy, to represent this mysterious relation to our minds; these terms imply nothing more than nominal preeminence and subordination: if the Anti-trinitarian should insist that they do imply more, and ask what we mean by eternal generation, or procession, we will answer him the moment we are told what he means by eternal essence itself.
(g)
Again. The Father is commonly represented to us under the character of the maker, the governor, preserver, and judge of the world; the Son under that of our redeemer, advocate, and saviour; the Holy Ghost under that of our guide, comforter, and sanctifier; and yet these characters, we shall see, with the names, properties, and attributes of the Deity, are frequently reciprocated. Thus, in the following places among others, the office of Redeemer is ascribed in expess terms to the first person; or, if you please, to God absolutely considered.
God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave. I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death.
Hosea xiii. 14.
My soul shall rejoice which thou hast redeemed.
Psalm lxxi. 23.
So likewise in numberless passages the Father is styled Saviour. To instance only a few.
There is no God else beside me, a just God, and a Saviour.
Isa. xlv. 21.
Paul, an apostle, &c. by the commandment of God our Saviour,
1 Tim. i. 1.
&c.
We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men. To the only wise God our Saviour be glory and majesty now and ever
Jude v. 25.
And again; the work of sanctification is indiscriminately said to be the work of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thus our bodies are sometimes called the
temple of God,
and sometimes of the
Holy Ghost.
The Apostle declares, that
it is God which worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure.
The same Apostle prays, that
the very God of peace may sanctify the Thessalonians; and
make
his
Hebrew
converts
perfect in every good work to do his will, working in them that which is well-pleasing in his sight;
and, not to multiply examples, St.
Jude
addresses his general Epistle to
those that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ.
To which we may add, that the Father hath sometimes other titles and characters given him which belong more peculiarly to the Holy Spirit, and is called the
God of consolation,
and the
God of all comfort;
as, according to one Apostle,
all scripture is given by inspiration of God;
while we are assured by another, that
holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Tim. iii. 16. 2 Pet. i. 21.
Again. We find all the great properties and characters of the first Person frequently attributed to the second. In a
Passage
in
Isaiah
he is even called the
(h) everlasting Father.
The Father of the everlasting age.
Bp.
Lowth.
And (to lay no stress upon prophetic phraseology) is not the first person the supreme God, a self-existent, independent Being, the creator, the governor, and preserver of the world? So is
Jesus Christ.
For
before Abraham was,
says he,
I am;
John viii. 58.
and he that came from heaven is above all; he filleth all in all; he is the head; and by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible; &c. All things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and upholdeth all things by the word of his power, and by him all things consist.
Coloss. i. 16.
Of some of these and the following texts at present we shall take the sense to be granted. Is God the Father a being eternal and unchangeable? So is God the Son. For
he hath neither beginning of days nor end of life. He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, which is, and which was, and which is to come; the Almighty;
Rev. i. 8.
Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever.
Is omniscience an attribute of the true God? So is it likewise of him whom he
sent into
the world. For he
knew all things;
he
knew what was in man;
he
knoweth the hearts of all men;
Acts i. 24.
he it is who searcheth the reins and heart.
Can any power less than infinite raise the dead? And is it not the prerogative of the Supreme God to judge the world? Yet to do both is the work of
Jesus Christ.
For he is
the resurrection and the life;
John xi. v. 25.
and as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will; and whoso eateth his flesh hath eternal life, and he will raise him up at the last day.
Ibid. vi. 54.
In consequence of such resurrection
we must all appear before his judgment seat.
2 Cor. v. 10.
And once more; is not the true God invisible and incomprehensible? So is
Jesus Christ.
For, agreably to a text before cited,
no man knoweth the Son but the Father.
Again. The character and office of the Third Person are explicitly attributed to
Jesus Christ.
The Apostle's wish, or benediction, which we have already had occasion to refer to, may be produced as one instance of this.
Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, comfort your hearts, and establish you in every good word and work. For without Christ we can do nothing; and he of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption;
John xi. v. 25.
and he gave himself for the Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it;
and the Apostle could
do all things through Christ which strengthned him.
Farther; the characters and properties both of the
first
and
second
Person in the Holy Trinity are likewise many of them ascrib'd to the
third.
Thus, in the old Testament, the work of creation seems to be attributed to the operation of the Holy Ghost, as a distinct personage, or agent.
The Spirit of God,
says
Moses, moved upon the face of the waters. Thou sendest forth thy spirit,
says the Psalmist,
and they are created:
and
Job
asserts, that
God by his Spirit hath garnish'd the heavens;
Job. xxvi. 13.
and
the Spirit of God ha smade me,
says
Elihu.
Ibid. xxxiii 4.
For whatever might have been the precise notion of the antient
Jews,
with regard to the
Spirit,
the
Spirit of God,
and the
Spirit of the Lord,
of which we find such frequent mention; or, whatever they might understand by that parallel expression, (in respect at least of the work of creation,) the
breath of the Almighty,
or the
breath of his mouth;
the light of the New Testament, I
Cor. i. 30.
think, sufficiently directs us to the above interpretation. Thus again, the Holy Ghost is omniscient, and eternal; for the
Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God;
1 Cor. ii 10.
and
Christ through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.
Heb. ix. 14.
Thus the office of advocate, or intercessor, is attributed to the
Spirit, who maketh intercession for the Saints according to the will of God.
Rom. viii. 27.
Thus the resurrection of our Lord himself is said to have been effected by the power of the
Holy Ghost;
for
Christ was put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit,
1 Pet. iii. 18.
and he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies, by his Spirit that dwelleth in us.
Thus again; both Prophets and Apostles are said to be sent, or commissioned by the
Holy Ghost,
as well as by the
Father
and the
Son. The Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me,
says
Isaiah; the Spirit entered into me,
says
Ezekiel, and said unto me, go shut thyself within thy house;
Ezek. iii. 24.
and
the Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabus and Saul for the work whereunto I
have called them.
Acts xiii. 2.
Once more. The Holy Ghost is indiscriminately called the
Spirit of God,
and the
Spirit of Christ;
and the
Gospel of God
and the
Gospel of Christ
are terms equivalent; and the Apostles are sometimes stiled
servants of God,
and sometimes
servants of Jesus Christ;
and the
Holy Ghost
is said to
make overseers over the flock;
as God the
Father
hath
set some in the Church, first Apostles,
and as the
Son gave some, Apostles; and some, Prophets,
&c. And, lastly, the very terms of our salvation are reciprocated. St.
Paul testified to Jews and Greeks repentance towards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ;
Acts xx. 21.
and among the
principles of the doctrine of Christ,
the Apostle reckons
repentance from dead works, and faith towards God.
Heb. vi. 1.
Our Saviour says in one place,
he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life;
and in another place,
he that believeth on him that sent him hath everlasting life.
The general scripture doctrine is, that we are saved by the mercy of God through the merits of our Redeemer; and yet our salvation is sometimes ascribed absolutely to the mercy, or grace of
Jesus Christ.
Thus St.
Peter
declares his and his brethren's belief, that both
Jews
and
Gentiles shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ;
Acts xv. 11.
and St.
Jude
exhorts Christians to
keep themselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Jude 21.
To all this we may add, that the title of
Lord,
(which is one unquestionable character of supremacy,) is common to the three Persons in the
Holy Trinity;
to the second it is applied as well as to the first in places almost numberless; and to the third beyond all doubt in the following:
the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ;
2 Thess. iii. 5.
now God himself, and our Father,
(where, by the way, the word—HIMSELF—does not appear to be more emphatical than in the text sometime since cited,)
and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you; and the Lord make you to increase, and abound in love one towards another, to the end he may stablish your
hearts unblameable in holiness before God, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.*
For that by the
Lord
in these texts we are to understand the
Holy Ghost,
is, I apprehend, demonstrable from these two considerations; first, because it is his peculiar office to
direct the heart, to make us to increase in love, and to stablish our hearts unblameable in holiness;
and secondly, because, according to any other construction, we shall at best make but very indifferent sense of either of these passages. From this inversion then and reciprocation, of which we have produced such a number of instances, the Divinity of each Person in the Trinity may reasonably be inferred; especially as the sense of many at least of the texts I have produced is obvious, and altogether uncontrovertible.
Again; this great point is evincible from the necessary sense, or natural import of certain passages. Let us turn to a few of the most remarkable.
1 Thess. iii. 11.
The
sin against the Holy Ghost
is pronounced by our blessed Lord himself to be of all sins the most damnable.
I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Matt. xii. 31.
Now without staying to inquire here into the precise nature of this sin, or how far it may be absolutely incapable of remission, or in what sense our Saviour's audience understood him, or he meant to be understood, it will be sufficient for our purpose to remark, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in general, and particularly of the personal existence, and coequal divinity of the
Holy Ghost
with that of the
Father,
and of the
Son,
is plainly and truly though covertly comprehended in the above texts, and in their parallels in the other Evangelists. For otherwise we shall be unavoidably driven into the following absurd and execrable conclusions,
viz.
that the highest degree of impiety and profaneness against God the
Father
is a mere venial sin; and that a blasphemy, or a sin, a sin, humanly speaking at least, without hope, or possibility of pardon, may be committed against a Being less than the supreme God; and even against a kind of spiritual chimera, a motion, a virtue, a quality, or an operation.
Again.
As touching brotherly love,
says St.
Paul, ye need not that I write unto you; for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.
1 Thess. iv. 9.
Now that by him who in this place is absolutely styled God, we are to understand
Jesus Christ,
I have little or no difficulty to pronounce, for the two following reasons; first, because, though we may very properly be said to be
taught of God,
when we are instructed by the mouth, or by the preaching of his prophets, or apostles, or others commission'd by him, yet the doctrine of universal love and charity was more immediately and peculiarly the doctrine of our blessed Saviour:
A new commandment,
says he,
I give unto you, that ye love one another;—by this all all men know that ye are
MY
disciples, if ye have love one to another
John xiii. 34.
;
this is
MY
commandment, that ye love one another
John xiv. 9.
: and secondly, because the Apostle seems to regard this great duty as a principle recently taught, and particularly enforced by the precept and example of our Divine Master.
Again.
He that hath seen me hath seen the Father
John i. 18.
, says our Lord, and
he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me.
Now in what sense are these declarations true? Not in the literal; for the
Father
could not be visible in the human person of the
Son;
because
God is a Spirit, and no man hath seen God at any time; whom no man hath seen, or can see
1 Tim. vi. 16.
: and by necessary consequence our Saviour hereby in effect asserts, that, notwithstanding his appearance in the flesh, he himself really and truly partook of the Divine nature; that, according to his own expression, the
Father dwelt in him;
or, in the language of the Apostle, in him
dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
or substantially.
Again. In the Gospels St.
John
the Baptist is called
the voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths strait
Matt. iii. 3.
: but in the evangelical prophet the style is at once more explicit and more majestical;
prepare ye,
says he,
the way of the Lord, make strait in the desart a highway for our God.
Isa. xl. 3.
In the course of the same sublime chapter
Jerusalem
is called upon to
lift up her voice with strength,
to
lift it up and say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God.
And then the prophecy proceeds in the following words.
Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd,
&c. Now, unless it can be demonstrated, that these passages do not refer, ultimately at least, to the coming, and to the person of the Messiah, he is manifestly here announced under the different characters of a
good shepherd,
a
righteous judge,
and the
Lord God.
Besides, if there is no such reference, the several apostolical citations from the prophet are most impertinently ridiculous.
Once more. The first and second persons of the blessed Trinity are expressly distinguished, and respectively characterised as equal, in a passage wherein the Apostle occasionally asserts the unity of essence in the Godhead.
We know,
says he,
that there is none other God but one; for though there be that are called Gods, to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him
1 Cor. viii. 4. &c.
. It may be pretended indeed, that the terms under which the
Son
is here characterised are not of equal weight and significance with those which are descriptive of the
Father;
but I will take upon me to aver, that the same might have been pretended, had these terms been transposed, and the passage had run thus;
to us there is but one God, the Father,
by
whom are all things, and we
by
him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,
of
whom are all things, and we
in
him.
And in many places the three divine Persons are severally specified and referred to, as jointly concurring in the wonderful scheme of man's redemption; particularly in the following. St.
Peter
inscribes his first epistle to the
strangers scattered through Pontus, Galatia, &c. elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
and St.
John
salutes the
churches
of
Asia
with wishing them
grace and peace from him which is, which was, and which is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ
1 Rev. 4.
. I am sensible indeed that by the
seven spirits,
just mentioned, interpreters do not universally understand the
Holy Ghost;
but this at least, I cannot help remarking, may be offered in favour of the sense in which I have taken the expression, that it is a sense of which the words are full as capable as of any other whatever; and that by the present construction a very considerable difficulty is removed which clogs a different interpretation. For admitting the
Holy Ghost
to be signified by the
seven spirits,
there will be nothing singular or unprecedented in this inversion of the order of Persons in the
Trinity;
but why
angels,
according to the sense of some commentators, should be mentioned before
Jesus Christ,
(who is higher than the angels even in many of our adversaries conceptions,) seems accountable only by forced and unnatural explications. And still more perplexed, and incompatible with the nature of a blessing, or a salutation in general, or with the apostolical greetings and benedictions in particular, the sense of others seems to be, who by the
seven spirits
understand the
graces
of the
Spirit,
or the various operations of Divine Providence.
(i)
However, granting the passage to be rather obscure, I would take occasion to observe from it yet farther, that although we should be very cautious of deducing doctrines of faith from symbols, or mystical expressions, yet types and emblems confessedly significant and characteristical will justify our suitable conclusions. It may be questioned perhaps what is precisely to be understood by the
seven spirits
just mentioned, or by many other symbols in the
Revelation;
but it would be excess of perverseness to doubt, whether the
Lamb
in our Apostle's allegorical prophecy be the emblem of
Jesus Christ.
Whenever therefore we observe divine honours plainly ascribed to the
Lamb,
or find him spoken of in terms of equal importance and majesty with those which are predicated of him who is indisputably the true God, the inference is obvious and unavoidable. How then will the
antitrinitarian
evade the force of such passages as these?
And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, &c. heard I saying, Blessing and glory, and honour, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Rev. v. 13.
The Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of Lords, and King of Kings.
Rev. xvii. 14.
I saw no temple therein, for the Lord God Almighty,
and the Lamb are the temple of it; and the city had no need of the Sun, &c. for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof
Rev. xxi. 22.
.
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb
Rev. xxii. i.
.
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, &c. hid themselves in the rocks and the mountains, and said unto the mountains and rocks, fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb
Rev. vi. 15.
. If any man should affect to make a distinction betwixt
him that sitteth on the throne and the Lamb,
or him who is said to
sit on the right hand of God,
in proof of the superiority of the former, I would desire him to remember, that the throne in question is called sometimes simply the
throne of God;
sometimes, as in a text lately produced, the
throne of God and of the Lamb;
that, in another place, the
Lamb
is said to be
in the midst of the throne;
in another, to
sit down in the throne of the Father;
and that it is the
throne
of the
Son of God
which is
for ever and ever.
So likewise, notwithstanding the diversity of constructions to which the expression of the
seven spirits
is liable, the personality, operation, and Divinity of the
Holy Ghost
may be demonstrated from the plain literal sense of many places in this book which are utterly void of emblematical ornament, or allusion. Indeed, the whole was evidently dictated by the
Spirit,
by whose
inspiration all scripture was given,
who alone
searcheth the deep things of God,
1 Cor. ii. 10.
and under whose immediate direction our Apostle wrote this epistle: for he tells us expressly, before he communicates his Revelations, that he
was in the Spirit on the Lord's day;
and elsewhere, that he
was carried away in the Spirit;
and the solemn call to all persons concerned is frequently repeated,
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.
Rev. ii. 11.
To all this we may add, that the personal inherency of the
Spirit
in the essence of the Godhead is demonstrable from St.
Paul
's illustration of a passage just now quoted from him.
The Spirit,
says he,
searcheth all things, yea, the
deep things of God. For what man,
continues he,
knoweth the things of a man, save the Spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
If the conscious spirit in man is man, the
Spirit
of God must be essentially God.
I desire to observe yet farther, that nothing less than a belief in the doctrine of the
Trinity,
as it is received in the Church, can satisfy the full demands of the terms—
faith,
—and
mystery,
—which we meet with so repeatedly in the New Testament, and to which there is so much reference under the old. The whole of the
mystery
of the divine
will made known in the dispensation of the fulness of times;
Ephes. i. 10.
the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world,
1 Cor. ii. 7.
or, if you please, the real character of the universal Saviour, who was to be both God and man, was a secret from the beginning. This stupendous doctrine was infinitely, and by the divine intention, too sublime for the carnal conceptions of the
Jews;
who, whatever they might ultimately understand by, or hope from the
Messiah
promised to
Adam,
to
Abraham,
to the
Patriarchs,
and to others; and foretold by the Prophets in language clear and strong indeed, but at the same time figurative, magnificent, and mysterious, expected, and primarily desired only a temporal deliverer, who should
restore again,
and perpetuate
the kingdom to Israel.
Nay, it is abundantly evident that the Prophets themselves, those
holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,
2 Pet. i. 21.
had not an insight into the full scope, and whole import of the sacred truths and oracles which they delivered. Our Lord seems to allude to this ignorance, when he acquaints his disciples, that
many prophets and kings had desired to see the things
which they saw, and
had not seen them,
Luke x. 24.
&c. It is true this was said by way of anticipation; because, as will be shewn, it was not then even to them
given
to
know
the capital
mystery of the kingdom of heaven.
But St.
Peter
is plain and full upon this subject, when, speaking, in his first general epistle, of the salvation obtained for us by
Jesus Christ,
he proceeds in the following words;
of which salvation the prophets have enquired, and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you; searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow: unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
1 Pet. i. 10.
The expressions here are, I think, in themselves almost sufficiently decisive upon the great point before us. For it is hard to conceive that the Prophets, in whom, it seems, the
Spirit of Christ
resided; and much harder that the angels should not have a clear idea of the work of human redemption; should not be
able to comprehend what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height,
(as St.
Paul
expresses himself, with an eye, I imagine, to this dispensation,) supposing that work to have been accomplished by any person less than
very God;
but admit the Divinity of
Jesus Christ,
and the inquisitiveness and the incapacity of men and angels will by no means be unaccountable. All this, I trust, will afford a most strong argument, that the
faith
which the Apostles preached after the ascension of our Saviour; the
faith
which was first
delivered
to the christian
Saints;
the
faith
which we are required to
hold fast without wavering,
Heb. x. 23.
and to
build up ourselves upon,
Jude 20.
is a
faith
in the incarnation of the
eternal Son of God;
or, in other words, in the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity,
as it has all along been held in the Christian Church. In consequence of the removal of a popular objection against all this, I hope in the ensuing disquisitions to set in a still clearer point of view the great doctrine before us.
DISCOURSE III.
ACTS I. 3.
By many infallible proofs.
THESE words immediately refer to the great event of our Lord's resurrection, but in consequence of it to the divinity of his person. Of this therefore I shall proceed to lay more proofs before you, taking first this opportunity to obviate the following popular objection; that, notwithstanding all that has been, or can be advanced, the doctrine before us is not so absolutely clear and indisputable as we would have it thought, and as a fundamental article of faith ought to be; in as much as no text can be produced which precisely, and
totidem verbis,
speaks the language of the first article of our Church;
viz.
in the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; or of the second; two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood are joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man; or of the fifth; the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father, and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.
To all this, I apprehend, we may readily reply, that if there be any real force in such objections, it will operate much farther by necessary consequence than the objectors themselves can be supposed to desire it should. For it will supply the perverse, or idle caviller with pretences and exceptions against all the divine properties and attributes, as far as they are asserted in the first article. There is no
one
passage in the Scripture which literally tells us, that
there is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.
The divine superintendency, &c, usually called
Providence,
is justly reputed one of the capital doctrines of religion. Yet, upon the principles of these objectors, it should be no doctrine at all. For we meet with no such term as
Providence,
in the sense demanded, either in the
old
or
new
Testament. So that this doctrine must inevitably fall to the ground, unless it be maintained and supported by natural inference; or unless we are at liberty to make use of a proper term to express our sense of it. He who objects to the term—
Trinity
—as unscriptural, should consider by what texts he will undertake to prove the
Unity
of the Divine Nature; which, in the sense required by his argument, is a term no more to be found in Scripture than the other. In fact, upon the principle of our opponents, we shall be under a necessity of expunging a great part of the Apostles Creed, and even such parts of it as all Christians whatever, without the least scruple or hesitation, have assented to. For I desire to know by what express or literal authority of Scripture any person believes in the
Holy Catholic Church,
or in the
Communion of Saints;
or that our blessed Lord was
born of the Virgin Mary, or suffered under Pontius Pilate,
&c? In short, if we are to be absolutely precluded the use and application of proper terms and expressions in the investigation and exposition of Scripture-meaning, it will, I presume, be impossible to frame the most simple system, or formulary of Christian faith and doctrine, or any such thing as a
Creed
of any kind in the Church. The holy Scripture is the sole rule or measure of every form of confession, it is the only test by which any doctrine, or system is, in all its branches, even the most minute of them, to be deliberately and ultimately tried; but it is not the rule itself; and indeed a little inquiry will shew us why the capital points of religion are not systematically delivered in the sacred writings.
The doctrine of the
Holy Trinity,
as maintained by the Church of
England,
was the doctrine of the Catholic Church at and before the time of the publication of the Scriptures of the
New Testament,
or it was not. If it was, the controversy is at an end. If it was not, we would fain know how to account for that great variety of passages, and those numerous circumstances, by which it is at least so plausibly countenanced, not to say forcibly defended. We would fain know how to reconcile with the character of the
meek
and the
lowly
Jesus, any one of his expressions which is capable of being construed into a claim to the Divinity. If this doctrine was the doctrine of the Church previously to the publication of the holy writings, they are sufficiently full and explicit for the satisfaction, or confirmation of Christians of all ages; if otherwise, here is more than enough said to perplex and misguide them, and to lead them into errors of the first magnitude. The great question therefore, I take it, is, whether we have not all the reason in the world to infer from the very mode in which the doctrine of the
Trinity
is inserted and inculcated in the sacred pages; the question, I say, is, whether we are not authorised by this circumstance to conclude that this doctrine was antecedently received in the Christian world? For instance; supposing the doctrine of the
Trinity
to have been the standing doctrine of the Church when St.
John (k)
wrote his Gospel, we have no kind of difficulty to encounter; but are we not very much embarassed by the contrary supposition? In the former case, we may readily conceive the Apostle to be asserting the Divinity of
Jesus Christ
in the most express terms at the beginning of his Gospel; and, in the course of it, to record many particulars clearly declarative of the same; not by way of formal answer to
Cerinthus,
or any other heretic that disputed, or denied it, but purely in flat contradiction to the novel and heterodox notions advanced and propagated by them; and to encourage and stablish good Christians in the faith, as they had all along been taught. What this great Evangelist declares at the latter end of his Gospel,
viz.
that
these things were written,
or, as we may say, given under his own hand, that the Christians whom he addresses
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
is perfectly consistent with their pre-acquaintance with these matters. Agreably hereunto, and indeed in direct confirmation of our hypothesis, St.
Luke
(and many, it seems, before him,)
set in order a declaration of those things which most surely were believed among Christians,
Luke i. 1.
that the person he writes to
might know the certainty of those things wherein
he had
been instructed.
In the same light we may regard those passages in the epistles which have often been produced in vindication of the doctrine before us. Some of these epistles were, with respect to the main end and design of them, entirely of a temporary nature; being written with a view to the decision of controversies in the primitive Church, which for many centuries have been out of date; and upon several occasions and subjects of little moment to succeeding generations. Not one of them however was professedly written in defence of the doctrine of the
Trinity.
According to our present hypothesis, a vindication of this kind had been absolutely superfluous; and though we cannot wonder to observe a point of this consequence frequently mentioned, or alluded to in these writings, yet it would be very unreasonable to expect to find it methodically or systematically taught.
The grand principle of the leading oppugners of the doctrine under consideration is, that the only thing required of Christians to be believed with regard to the Person of
Jesus Christ,
is, that he was the
Messiah,
the Person promised and sent by God to redeem men from that death which they were inevitably appointed to as descendants of
Adam;
and that the
Messiah,
and the
Christ,
and the
king of Israel,
and the
Son of God,
are terms or titles in Scripture absolutely denoting one and the same thing. I need not tell you, that this is the favourite tenet of Mr.
Locke
in his treatise on the
Reasonableness of Christianity,
as delivered in Scripture.
Now we shall willingly admit, that the Apostles themselves were believers under this idea mostly, during our Saviour's residence upon earth; as 'tis certain, they had not the whole
mystery
of the Divine
Will,
the grand scheme of man's redemption, clearly and fully made known to them before our Lord's Ascension into heaven.
I have many things to say unto you,
he says to them,
but ye cannot bear them now;
John xvi. 12.
&c. and in saying this he had most probably an eye to the
mystery
of the Gospel. For though he took frequent occasions to assert and presignify, as I may say, his truly Divine Nature, either directly, or by necessary implication, and could not but have been understood so to have done by his disciples, and by the
Jews,
who
sought to stone him
on that very account, yet,
in the days of his flesh,
many circumstances concurred to shake, or rather to overturn the faith of his followers, with respect to this great article. This is plain enough from the tenor of the evangelical history. It would be ridiculous to suppose that the Apostles could believe their Master to be the
Son of
God
in the highest sense, or even to be the
redeemer of Israel
in any sense, when
they all forsook him and fled.
At the melancholy crisis I refer to, they conceived no doubt very different notions of their Lord from what they had once entertained of him, and afterwards did, when he was
declared to be the Son of God with power,
or to full effect, by his
resurrection from the dead.
Rom. i. 4.
The fact is, the scheme of human redemption by
Jesus Christ,
the
only-begotten Son of God,
in the strictest sense, was opened gradually, and propounded to the world as it were article by article. At first it must necessarily have been sufficient to have believed that
Jesus
was the
Christ,
the
Messiah,
or the
Son of God,
merely as executing a divine commission, his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation to the
right hand of the Majesty on high,
being subsequent points of faith; and accordingly we read of many that
believed on him
at different times, and in different places, long before the conversion of the
three thousand on the day of Pentecost,
whom we cannot but consider as believers in a much higher sense. The
faith
of Christians at that memorable period, and ever since, cannot with the least colour of reason be ascertained, or is to be measured by what is declared to be
faith
in particular instances recorded in the Gospels. The
faith
which
made the woman whole,
who
had an issue of blood,
Luke viii. 43.
and the
faith
that
saved,
i. e. restored to sight the
blind man
near
Jericho,
Ibid. xviii. 35.
could not be that
faith,
the
mystery
of which St.
Paul
requires
Deacons to hold in a pure conscience.
1 Tim. iii. 9.
In short, our Saviour's actual resurrection, by virtue of his own as well as his Father's power, (as we shall presently see,) cleared up a thousand difficulties in a moment, and amounted to a full demonstration of his Divinity. From a thorough conviction of this no doubt it was that his Disciples
worshipped him;
and St.
Thomas
in particular burst into that rapture of acknowlegement,
My Lord, and my God!
Though therefore the
Messiah,
or the
Christ,
be not unfrequently called the
Son of God,
as a person
sent from God,
as a
teacher,
a
prophet,
or deliverer, &c. (as many even created beings, angels, &c. and men in general are called
Sons of God
in certain respects,) yet we insist that this appellation belongs peculiarly to
Jesus,
the
author of our faith,
as a Divine Person likewise; and that he is so called with reference to his nature, as well as to his offices. In some passages of Scripture perhaps, the precise import of this title may be controvertible; as when
devils
and
unclean spirits
call our Saviour the
Son of God,
and the
Holy One of God;
and when
Peter
styles him the
Son of the living God.
In answer to our Lord's question,
whom say ye that I am?
the disciples, according to St.
Mark,
replied by the mouth of
Peter, thou art the Christ.
In other places the significance of the title in question is discoverable by the context; as when
Nathaniel
addresses our Saviour in the character of the
Son of God,
the
king of Israel.
But why must all this affect the sense of any one passage wherein the appellation is given for reasons infinitely superiour?
The
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke i. 35.
(l)
Could stronger terms be devised to express the assumption of the human nature by the Divine? Is it not perfectly reasonable to conclude, that the sacred penmen often make mention of the
Son of God
with an eye to this mysterious and ineffable incarnation? And is it not certain that the person whom St.
John,
at the end of his Gospel, calls the
Christ,
the
Son of God,
is the same with him whom, at the beginning of it, he styles the
Word
that
was with God,
and
was God?
And if so, is not the sense of the latter passage determinable by the preceding? Nevertheless the great Philosopher above mentioned leaves the introduction to this Gospel, and other passages in it of equal import, entirely unnoticed, as though it had no connection with his argument; which is a piece of disingenuousness that, one cannot avoid saying, did little credit to his cause, or to himself. We shall be enabled, by such considerations as these, to put the true construction on the title of the
Son of God,
in most, if not all the places where it occurs in the Epistles; naturally taking into the account the many clear and express proofs of our Lord's Divinity which are cited from them. Of some of the most striking of these proofs, among other particulars, we shall for satisfactionsake take a review in proper time. What Mr.
Locke
has adduced on this subject with a purpose to invalidate these proofs in general, will, I am confident, be utterly overthrown by the force of the following considerations;
viz.
that the
Epistles
are a part of the
New Tesment,
and as essential a part as the Gospels; were like them, as was observed, written occasionally, and after our Saviour's
Ascension,
that St.
Paul,
e. g. was as much a
teacher
of the
Gospel,
an inspired
Apostle,
as St.
Matthew,
or any other Apostle who has historically recorded the actions, words, or doctrine of
Jesus Christ;
and that a
Creed,
or system of faith should have its foundation in these
Epistles
together with the other Scriptures. The truth is, St.
John
in his
Epistles
assérts the same doctrine of our Lord's Divinity as in his Gospel. By Mr.
Locke's
way of proceeding,
viz.
arbitrarily admitting, or rejecting Scripture, we may mould Christianity into what form we please; and to this way of proceeding, among other causes, we are to ascribe the various Schisms, and Heresies, which have so long, and so deplorably divided the Christian world.
We may now, I imagine, fairly date the reception of the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity from his resurrection; and we will next see whether the subsequent accounts we have of the propagation of the Gospel be not entirely uniform and consistent upon this hypothesis, at the same time that they open to us the whole
Trinitarian
system.
Let it be observed then, that the first recorded prayer we meet with is that of the Apostles after the
Ascension,
in which the address is made immediately to our Lord himself, that he would be pleased to
shew
whether he had
chosen Joseph, or Matthias,
to supply the place vacated by
Judas
the
traitor,
whom he had originally chosen with the
eleven Apostles. Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen.
Acts i. 24.
It is, I believe, generally agreed that this address was made to
Jesus Christ,
and if so, this attribution of omniscience to him is sure as strong an argument of his Divinity as any one thing which can be produced in demonstration of it. The ascription is to me on any other foot unaccountable. It is indeed true, that the Apostles had not yet a thorough insight into the evangelical mystery, nor had got perfectly clear of the prejudices and notions, respecting the
Messiah,
which they had imbibed in common with their countrymen: in consequence of which we find them asking our Lord, even after his resurrection, and after he had spoken to them, more or less explicitly, of the
things pertaining to the kingdom of God,
whether he would
at that time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
But that they put this question to him as to one who was able to effect such restoration by his own inherent divine power, or, in other words essentially partook of the divine nature, must surely be concluded from this consideration; that they could not possibly
now
entertain the least doubt but that all his declarations and assurances to them would be verified to a tittle; and that as he
came forth from the Father, and was come into the world,
so he would soon
leave the world, and go to the Father; and be glorified with that glory which he had with the Father, before the world was.
The case appears plainly to have been this: they did not yet comprehend the whole evangelical plan in the concurrence of three Divine Persons, in "glory equal, in majesty coeternal;" they did not perfectly conceive all the
things pertaining
to Christ's spiritual kingdom; the
kingdom of God
in the fullest and most exalted sense, of which he had been speaking to them allusively
forty days,
and with regard to which he may be supposed to have before promised them, that the
spirit of truth, whom
he would
send unto them from the Father,
should
guide them into
ALL truth, and
testify of him.
Accordingly, after the miraculous effusion of the
Holy Ghost
on the
day of Pentecost,
we find them discovering very different sentiments, and animated with spiritual expectations; we see them calling upon the people to
save
themselves from an
untoward generation;
exhorting them to
repent,
and to be
baptized for the remission of sins; (m)
renouncing in an instant all honours, profits, and pleasures of this world;
rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame
for the
name
of their Divine Master; and, in a word, preaching the Gospel of
Jesus Christ,
the
Son of God,
through the inspiration of the
Spirit,
and in the truest sense of the expression. On the memorable day just mentioned we are told, that the
Apostles were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
What they spake is not particularly specified; but in general we are given to understand, that they spake in all languages the
wonderful works of God.
On the credit of what has been advanced, which will be strengthned by what will follow, it is most reasonable to suppose, that, by the
works
here referred to, the great work of redemption by the eternal
Son of God
is principally intended; the
mystery of godliness,
exhibited in
God manifest in the flesh,
and displayed in the wonderful effusion of the
Holy Ghost.
In the first address of the Apostles to the
Jews,
and
Jewish proselytes,
by the mouth of
Peter,
on the same day, both the humanity and divinity of our Saviour are plainly and distinctly asserted, or implied; and in such a manner as hardly to be liable to misconstruction. The doctrine of the resurrection of
Jesus Christ,
considered as the confirmation of a still greater doctrine, that of his Divinity, is the chief
corner-stone
of our Christian Faith; and, as such, is particularly insisted upon by the Apostles, who were
ordained
to be
witnesses
of it. And because this most important of all events could not be accomplished by himself in his mere human capacity, we find the holy writers frequently declaring that
God raised him from the dead.
But let it be remembered, that
Jesus, whom God raised up,
is likewise as expressly said to have
risen;
and is styled by these very witnesses the
Holy One,
and the
Just,
and the
Prince of life
in different places; which beyond all doubt are titles appertaining to the Supreme God. Under the first of these characters, God the Creator is described in numberless passages of the
Old Testament;
and he who is the
Prince,
or author of
life,
according to the marginal reading, must be the same, in point of power and perogative, with him to whom belong the
issues from death;
who
killeth and maketh alive;
and
in whose hand is the life of every thing.
Indeed the
Prince,
or Author of
life
must have
life in himself
from all eternity; must be emphatically
the life
and
resurrection,
as our Saviour calls himself; and therefore may as truly and properly be said to have
raised the temple of his body
by his own power, (to borrow his own phrase,) as to have been
raised from the dead
by the power of
God the Father.
We may say, in short, with equal truth and propriety,
Christ was raised from the dead,
or
Christ rose from the
dead, according to the Scriptures;
the latter assertion importing his Divinity, the former not superseding it; and therefore when St.
Peter
told the
men of Israel,
that they had
killed the Prince of life,
I scarce know which strikes us most, the force of the implied truth, or the keenness of the sarcasm. But to return to the address of the Apostles.
Peter, standing up with the eleven,
says the sacred historian,
lift up his voice, and said unto them, ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words; for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, but this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: and it shall come to pass in the last days, (saith God,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and I
will shew wonders, and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Acts ii. 14.
Now let us compare the promulgation or delivery of this prophecy with the completion of it at this period. Observe the words of the Apostle in the course of his harange.
This Jesus,
says he, (whom, with reference to his humanity, he had just before called
a man approved
by God,)
hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost,
HE
hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear.
That the
Father
and the
Son
concurred in this wonderful dispensation of infinite wisdom and power on an equal foot, it will scarce be possible for us to doubt, when we recollect that the
second Person
in the blessed
Trinity
is often represented as the giver of
spiritual gifts,
independently on any
promise
from, or association with the
first. I will give you a mouth,
says he to his Apostles, just before his passion,
and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay. I am with you always,
says he after his resurrection,
even unto the end of the world.
Matt. xxviii. 20.
Without
him, he tells them, they
can do nothing.
And, to produce only one passage more out of many that might be cited, which has a manifest allusion to the effusion of the
Spirit
on the
day of Pentecost,
St.
Paul
assures the
Ephesians,
that
unto every one is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore,
he adds,
he saith, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Ephes. iv. 7. 1 Cor. vii 11.
It may be pertinent yet farther to remark, that sometimes neither the
Father,
nor the
Son,
appear to be concerned in this matter; the
Spirit
being said, of and by himself, to
divide
his
gifts
and graces
to every man severally as he will.
But what shall we say to the invocation implied in the close of the prophecy we are considering;
whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved?
Whom are we to understand by the
Lord
here? This, I should think, may be determined by the significance of the same words in other places. They cannot be misunderstood in the original prophecy of
Joel.
And if we refer to the tenth Chapter of St.
Paul's
Epistle to the
Romans,
where they occur again, they will amount to an irresistible, though indirect proof of the point in question. It is apparent that
Jesus Christ
is intended, or included however in all these texts, is accordingly to be worshipped, and consequently is God.
After what has been said, we shall not be at a loss for the construction to be put upon the inference with which the Apostle concludes this first discourse which we have been remarking on.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ.
Just noting that in the phrase—
that same Jesus
—abundance of reproach is conveyed, I observe, that these words sufficiently express the two natures united in our blessed Saviour, the
Christ
in his human character, the
Lord
in his divine. But yet farther, the Apostle encourages his auditors, (who, it seems, were
pricked
in the heart by what he had preached to them,) to
repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,
with the comfortable assurance that the
promise of the Holy Ghost was unto them, and to their
Children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the
LORD OUR GOD should
call.
Agreably to which declaration we are told, that
the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved;
and are afterwards informed, that
believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.
Now that, according to the most natural and obvious interpretation, we are by the
Lord
to understand
Jesus Christ
in the two last quoted places, I presume will be admitted by every candid enquirer; and if so, it is he who is described under the character of the
Lord our God
in the text immediately before cited. When therefore we are told at the 42d verse of this Chapter, that the newly-baptized converts
continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine;
and afterwards, that the
Apostles taught and preached Jesus Christ,
and spake to
the people the words of this life,
&c. we may justly conclude that doctrine to have been the doctrine of redemption, as it has since been received in the Christian Church.
When St.
Peter
and his colleagues were brought before the
High-Priest and Rulers,
&c, in order to be examined concerning the cure of the
impotent
man at the
beautiful gate of the Temple,
we find them again insisting on the
resurrection
of their Master, as the fundamental article which was demonstrative of the truth of his mission and doctrine, and by consequence of the Divinity of his Person. This
deceiver
(as they had blasphemously reputed him) had
said, while he was yet alive,
that
after three days he would rise again;
he had affirmed to them, that
as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will;
he had declared to them his existence before
Abraham
in the most explicit terms,
Before Abraham was, I am;
he had
said, that God was his Father,
in the strictest sense,
making himself equal with God,
&c, &c. Supposing then
the Lord to have risen indeed,
the truth of these several assertions must necessarily follow. And, in fact, that he was
risen,
these
betrayers
and
murderers
of the
just one,
had they not been
stiffnecked
and
uncircumcised in heart and ears,
could not but have been convinced by
beholding the lame man who was
healed standing before them;
and afterwards by the many
signs
and
wonders
which were
wrought among the people by the hands of the Apostles,
who most undoubtedly must have been
endowed with
such
power from on high;
or, in other words, by their now
glorified
Master.
I have already in effect considered the sin of
Ananias
and
Sapphira,
who
agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord,
as a sin against the
Third
Person in the Holy
Trinity;
and, I think, we may defy infidelity to put a fairer interpretation upon this portion of the Apostolical history.
I shall not dwell on the two invocations of the proto-martyr at the hour of death;
Lord Jesus receive my Spirit; Lord, lay not this sin to their charge;
both which abundantly imply his faith in
Jesus Christ
as God; but pass on to the account of the conversion of the
Ethiopian Eunuch
by
Philip
the
Deacon.
Acts viii. 26, &c.
The Angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, arise, and go toward the South, and he arose, and went; and behold a man of Ethiopia, an Eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, &c. who had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and, sitting in his▪ chariot, read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said to Philip, go near, &c. And Philip ran to him, and heard him read, &c, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, how can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up, and sit with him. The place, &c. which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, &c. And the Eunuch said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Then Philip began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way they came to a certain water; and the Eunuch said, see, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, if thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he baptized him.
The history is as succinct as possible: but why is it not as reasonable
to suppose, that, when
Philip preached unto the Eunuch Jesus,
he laid the whole mystery of Christianity before him, the grand scheme of human Salvation; and consequently that he believed
Jesus Christ
to be the eternal
Son of God,
as that, when he
baptized him,
he did so
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?
There was no manner of occasion to be more circumstantial, supposing the primitive readers of this history to have believed in our sense of the term.
The next particular that meets us is the conversion of St.
Paul.
It will be proper to lay it before you.
Acts ix. 1, &c.
Saul yet breathing out threatnings and slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord, went unto the high-priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the Synagogues, that if he found any of this way, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven. And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling, and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee; and Saul arose, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man; but they led him, and brought him into Damascus. And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, behold I am here, Lord. And the Lord said, Arise, and go into the street which is called strait, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus; for behold he prayeth; and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias, coming in, and putting his hands on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: and here he hath authority from the chief priests, to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, go thy way; for he is a chosen vessel unto me. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord (even Jesus that appeared unto thee) hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus; and he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said, is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Upon this compendious narrative I remark, first, that throughout the whole we must understand by—the
Lord—Jesus Christ:
secondly, that whether
Saul
received the
Holy Ghost
by virtue of the imposition of the hands of
Ananias,
and previously to his baptism, or after it; in either case, the whole
mystery of the Gospel
must have been communicated to him by immediate irradiation: and, thirdly, that therefore when
he preached Christ in the Synagogues that he is the Son of God,
he asserted him so to be by eternal generation. Occasionally indeed, when he
confounded the Jews,
by proving
that this is very Christ,
his argument no doubt turned upon what he alledged to shew that
Jesus Christ
was the true
Messiah,
the
prophet that should come into the world,
and the
king of Israel
in a spiritual sense, whom they had, and did expect under the idea of a temporal Saviour. It seems after this
Saul spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus at Jerusalem;
and we are told, that upon his being
sent forth to Tarsus,
that he might be out of the reach of the
Grecians,
who
went about to slay him, the Churches had rest throughout all Judea, &c, and were edified, and walking in the
FEAR OF THE LORD,
and in the
COMFORT OF THE HOLY GHOST,
were multiplied.
I recommend the two last particulars of this passage to the attention of every candid and intelligent hearer. I add too, in corroboration of what has been offered under this portion of the history, that as
Jesus Christ
here tells
Ananias,
that
Saul
was
a chosen vessel unto
HIM, so
Ananias
tells
Paul,
(according to the latter's account of
this transaction in another place,) that the GOD OF THEIR FATHERS had
chosen
him.
Acts xxii. 14. x. 1, &c.
The conversion of
Cornelius
and his family presents itself next to our consideration; and the short, but important narrative of it is pregnant with matter to our purpose. This
proselyte
of the
gates
(for such doubtless he was)
saw evidently an Angel of
GOD
coming unto him,
&c. To the
voice
which called to
Peter
to
rise, kill, and eat,
he answered,
not so,
LORD;
for I have never eaten any thing that is common, &c. While Peter thought on the vision, the
SPIRIT
said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee; arise therefore, and go with them, nothing doubting, for I have sent them.
GOD
hath shewed me,
says he afterwards to
Cornelius
and his friends, that
I should not call any man common,
&c. Now if we only suppose, as, I think, we can do no less than suppose, that St.
Peter
addresses
Jesus Christ
in the words—
not so, Lord,
we have plainly a distinction of
three
Persons in the sacred story. The same will be observable likewise in the harangue of the Apostle upon this extraordinary occasion.
Of a truth I perceive that
GOD
is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, &c. is accepted with him. The word which
GOD
sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ,
(HE IS LORD OF ALL,)
that word, I say, you know, which was published throughout all Judea; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
HOLY GHOST,
and with power,
&c. However, if it be objected, that it is by no means credible this devout
proselyte
and his family should be converted to the Christian Faith, in the
trinitarian
sense, by any thing asserted, or intimated in St.
Peter
's discourse to them, we will admit the objection, and leave our adversaries in possession of all the advantage they can make of it. We may venture to do so without the least hesitation: for I desire it may be remembered in what manner, and by whom the Apostle was interrupted in his sermon, if it may be called one.
While Peter yet spake these words,
says the sacred writer,
the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the
circumcision were astonished, for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
By this miraculous event therefore all farther endeavours of the Apostle for the instruction of these people were happily superseded: they were, as St.
Paul
was, instantaneously as it were,
guided into all truth;
and became believers in the same sense in which he was one. Agreeably hereunto, when St.
Peter rehearsed
this matter, and
expounded it by order to those of the circumcision who contended with him,
he tells them in the course of his narration, that
as he
BEGAN
to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them
that heard him. After this, would it not be idle to insist upon the inadequateness of St.
Peter
's address to the purpose of conversion in its utmost extent?
We read in the sequel of this, and in the following chapters, that the
word was preached,
that the
hand of the Lord was with these preachers;
that
a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord; and that the word of God grew and multiplied.
If these expressions are compared with others similar to them in this history, and with several already cited, they will be found, I presume, abundantly to coincide with our hypothesis, or, more properly, to confirm it.
But the time admonishes me to bespeak your attention to the continuation of my argument at the next opportunity.
DISCOURSE IV.
ACTS I. 3.
By many infallible proofs.
IN prosecution of the subject which engaged us last
Sunday,
I proceed to the account of St.
Peter
's imprisonment, and what followed upon it, which the sacred Historian gives us in the 12th chapter of the
Acts of the Apostles.
When
Peter
was
put in prison by Herod,
it seems,
prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him
Acts xii. 5.
; and on the night before his intended execution,
the Lord,
we find,
sent his angel, and delivered him out
of the hand of Herod,
&c. Now that
Jesus Christ
was
the Lord that sent his angel,
appears evident enough from these considerations.
Jesus Christ
is manifestly designed by this title, for the most part at least, through this whole history.
The Lord who delivered Peter by his angel
was certainly the same
Lord
who afterwards spake to
Paul in the night by a vision;
and who, upon another occasion,
stood
by the same Apostle, and encouraged him, &c. Now we should be glad to know, why these particulars are not to be regarded as equivalent to the appearances, and visions, and deliverances
See Dan. iii. 28. and chap. vi. 22.
, which are so frequent in the
Old Testament;
and, in that case, I need not point out the consequences they lead to.
In the following chapter, we see
Barnabas
and
Saul sent forth
by an immediate commission from the
Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them
Acts xiii. 2.
. So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia, &c.
The passage has been introduced before, and I leave it to the consideration of every attentive and impartial hearer.
The next occurrence is the conversion of the
Deputy S. Paulus,
who, we are informed, was a
prudent man,
and
called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
And we may reasonably suppose that our Apostles preached it to him at large, and laid before him the great mysteries of the Gospel; and that he
believed
in the most extensive sense, and was confirmed in his faith by the judgment which he saw miraculously inflicted by the
hand of the Lord
upon
Elymas the sorcerer;
being, as the sacred text expresses it,
astonished at the doctrine of the Lord:
the doctrine just above styled the
word of God.
After this we find St.
Paul
preaching in the
synagogue
of the
Jews
at
Antioch
in
Pisidia
Acts xiii. 16, &c.
Now these
Jews,
though they were not immediately concerned with them that dwelt at
Jerusalem
in the proceedings against our blessed Lord, were yet in all probability
consenting unto his death;
as they could not all this while be unacquainted with his story, or strangers to his pretensions. The Apostle therefore adopts the same mode of argumentation which St.
Peter
had used before, in his speech to the council, and lays the main stress on the fundamental article of the resurrection of our Lord from the dead. From the admission of this, the truth of the other great points of Christianity must necessarily follow. And it should seem that this discourse of our Apostle had a considerable effect upon some of his audience; and indeed that others conceived the full force and import of the most striking particulars in it: for we read, that
when the congregation was broken up,
many of the
Jews
and religious
proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
And, by the way, this circumstance may well be thought to imply, that the
Spirit of grace
had previously operated in their hearts to their entire conversion. But the
next sabbath day,
we are farther told,
almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God;
and the result was, that the
Jews, filled with envy, spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
I would just ask then, whether this BLASPHEMY does not help us to a very strong presumptive proof of the sense in which these
Jews
understood
the things which were spoken
by the Apostle?
Let us now attend
Paul
and
Barnabas
to
Iconium;
and see whether we may not readily infer the nature of their doctrine from the success of it there. In this place, we are informed,
they abode long time, speaking boldly in the
LORD,
which gave testimony to the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands
Acts xiv. 3, &c. &c.
.
I would desire you to compare the last clause of this passage with the conclusion of St.
Mark
's
Gospel;
so then after the
LORD
had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, &c. and they went forth and preached; the
LORD
working with them, and confirming the word with signs following;
and with the twelfth verse of the next chapter;
all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul declaring what miracles and wonders
GOD
had wrought amongst the Gentiles by them;
and with the following passage in the Epistle to the
Hebrews; how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the
LORD,
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
GOD
also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the
HOLY GHOST,
according to his own will
Heb. ii. 3, &c.
;
I say, I could wish you to compare these several places; and, I believe I might venture to abide by the conclusions you will draw from them.
We find our Apostles next at
Lystra,
where
Paul
cured the man that was
impotent in his
feet,
&c:
Acts xiv. 8, &c.
on the sight of which miracle,
the people lift up their voices, saying, the gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
Possessed with this notion, the
priests
of
Jupiter brought oxen,
and would
have done sacrifice,
&c. This no sooner came to the ears of
Barnabas
and
Paul than they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you, that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven and earth,
&c. &c. Now this was precisely the expostulation which the occasion demanded. The existence of the one living and true God was to be asserted to these idolatrous believers in a plurality of deities. At that time to have opposed to their persuasions doctrines peculiarly Christian, would have been altogether premature and unseasonable. It appears however that our Apostles had, before and after this, preached these doctrines at
Lystra,
and in the neighbourhood, with success; though most probably, for obvious reasons, not in the hearing of those that
would have done sacrifice.
For we read at the sixth verse of this chapter, that, being
ware
of the design of the
Jews
and
Gentiles
at
Iconium to use them despitefully, &c. they fled unto Lystra and Derbe,
&c. and
there they preached the Gospel.
And after the affair of the sacrifice, we are told, that
there came to Lystra certain Jews from Antioch, who persuaded the people, and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city,
that nevertheless he revived, and soon after
preached the Gospel at Derbe, and taught many, and returned again to Lystra, &c, confirming the souls of the Disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the saith.
Acts xvi. 1.
We meet with nothing now that hath particular connexion with our argument, before the conversions related in the sixteenth chapter. Let us proceed then to these. At
Troas,
says the history,
a vision appeared to Paul in the night;
from which he and
Silas assuredly gathered that the Lord had called them to preach the Gospel in Macedonia.
Observe then the account of the conversion of
Lydia
at
Philippi. A certain woman named Lydia, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house,
&c. Now I would ask, whether we may not reasonably suppose the
Lord opened
this woman's
heart
for the reception of all evangelical truths, almost in an instant? Whether her case is not at least similar to that of
Cornelius?
And whether we are not as much authorised to take it for granted, that
the things which were spoken of Paul
were
the things pertaining to the kingdom of God,
agreeably to our system, as that this convert was baptized according to the form in St.
Matthew
's Gospel? I would just remark here, that this system is in no wise prejudiced, either by the declaration of the
damsel possessed with a spirit of diviniation,
who
followed Paul
and his companions,
and cried, saying, these men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of Salvation;
or by the Apostle's exorcism of that spirit in the following words,
I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.
But let us turn to the conversion of the jailor, to whose custody
Paul
and
Silas
were committed at
Philippi. Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts xvi. 30.
is the question which the former, in a fit of astonishment and terror, put to the latter.
And they said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, &c. And he was baptized, he and all his. And he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. To believe in God, and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
appear here to be convertible expressions. In short, I affirm that in this, as well as in preceding instances, we have good reason to suppose the persons preached to were made acquainted by the Apostle and his companion with the capital truths of Christianity, as they are taught in the Church.
Not long after this, our Apostle and his fellow-travellers came to
Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews.
Acts xvii. 1, &c.
And Paul
(as the narrative proceeds)
went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures; opening and alledging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again,
and that
this Jesus whom I preach unto you is Christ. And some of them believed.
It will be sufficient to observe here, that our Apostle dealt no doubt with these
Jews
and
Jewish
proselytes, as he had before done with others on like occasions. But the gross misrepresentation, and scandalous calumny of the
unbelieving Jews,
in the city just mentioned, is extremely worth notice. They drew
Jason,
as we are informed, and
certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, these men that have turned the world upside down, are come hither also;
Ibid. xvii. 6.
and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying, that there is another king, one Jesus.
Now it is perfectly reasonable to suppose, that
Jason
and these
brethren
proclaimed their crucified master king in a spiritual sense; nay, that they proclaimed him the sovereign of the universe,
king of kings, and lord of lords;
but it is clear, beyond a possibility of doubt, that they asserted no temporal jurisdiction of
Jesus Christ,
or said or did any thing
contrary to the decrees,
or against the government of
Caesar.
We have next an account of
Paul
and
Silas
's preaching the Gospel at
Berea
Acts xvii. 10.
; but there is nothing in it which discriminates it from parallel ones already spoken to, except the candid reception the Gospel met with at that place.
We will therefore follow our Apostle to
Athens,
where we find him
disputing in the synagogue with the Jews, and others that met with him.
Among these were
certain philosophers of the Epicureans and the Stoics, who encountered him;
some calling him a
babler;
others,
a setter forth of strange gods, because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection
Acts xvii. 16, &c.
. I mean not to insinuate from this passage, that the Apostle is maintaining the Divinity of
Jesus Christ;
as it is evident from the tenor of his ensuing discourse to those heathen philosophers, which is set down at large, that he has here only an eye to the prophetic character, or office of our blessed Lord. If you will turn to the discourse, you will find the great points insisted on, to be the unity and the spirituality of the Godhead, together with the doctrine of a future state, and the resurrection of
all
men from the dead, in consequence of
his,
whom God had
ordained
to be the judge of the world. This was a proper beginning with heathens. But what effect had this discourse upon these idolatrous philosophers?
When they heard of the resurrection,
continues the sacred story,
some mocked,
and others said,
we will hear thee again; howbeit certain men clave unto, him, and believed,
&c. Our Apostle appears then to have made converts at
Athens,
though we do not read that they were
baptized,
or indeed believed in the fundamental articles of Christianity, according to our hypothesis. Without doubt, these articles, the great mysteries of faith, were gradually opened to them afterwards, and previously to their admission into the church by baptism. For we shall see presently that these converts are not the only instances of persons who were disciples, or believers in a certain sense, though they were uninstructed in the first principles of Christianity; and this too even since the propagation of it by the Apostles.
After these things, we are told,
Paul
and
Silas—came to Corinth
Acts xviii. 1, &c.
; and Paul reasoned in the synagogue,—and persuaded the Jews and Greeks;—and was pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ; and when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, your blood be upon your own heads, &c.
You will be pleased to compare this relation with that of the perverse and unbelieving
Jews at Antioch in Pisidia,
already taken notice of.
We have next an account of the conversion of
Justus,
(though it is not particularly set down,) and of
Crispus,
and of
many of the Corinthians;
which contains nothing material to our argument.
But after this we read-of an
insurrection made
by the
Jews against Paul,
and of a charge brought against him before
Gallio;
which has a particular worth our notice.
This fellow,
say they,
persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law
Acts xviii. 13.
. Now when we recollect, that our blessed Saviour was
circumcised,
and
obedient to the law for man;
that himself and his Apostles conformed to the religion of their country in all points, and attended divine service in the temple, and in the synagogues; that our Apostle circumcised
Timothy
in pure condescension to the
Jews;
that, in vindication of his innocence, he declared to
Festus,
as he had done before in substance to
Felix,
that
neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple he had offended any thing at all;
that the
Mosaic
oeconomy totally ceased not before the final destruction of
Jerusalem,
when all disputes concerning circumcision, and the legal rites and observances were happily terminated; when we recollect all this, to which more might be subjoined, it will, I conceive, be impossible to make tolerable sense of the accusation just mentioned, without supposing something to have been superadded to the
Jewish
worship by the Apostles, and first Christians, which gave this
great offence;
and what should this be but the worship of Christians, as such; or, in other words, the adoration of Christ, as God?
We will now proceed to the account which the sacred historian gives us of
Apollos
in the same chapter.
Acts xviii. 24.
A certain Jew named Apollos, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was
instructed in the way of the Lord; and, being fervent in the Spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace; for he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
This portion of Scripture, though a little abstruse, is replete with matter for our observation.
Apollos
is here said to have been
mighty in the Scriptures;
to have been
instructed in
THE WAY OF THE LORD; and to have spoken, and
taught diligently
the THINGS OF THE LORD; i. e. beyond all controversy, the
things of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless he is only called a
Jew;
and why, but because he was not baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ?
He was not a Christian in the full sense of the term, as we understand it; he
knew only the baptism of John;
he knew, as we cannot but suppose from this account of him, he knew
Jesus Christ
to be the
prophet,
the
Messiah that was to come,
whose
way John
had
prepared
by
preaching the baptism of repentance,
but he knew not the whole
mystery of godliness,
the grand secret of human redemption by the
Son of God,
coexistent with his
Father, before the foundation of the world.
And accordingly, we may safely conclude, that it was with respect to this great mystery, that
Aquila
and
Priscilla expounded to him the
WAY OF GOD
more perfectly.
If we do not infer from hence, that he expressly and directly preached the great mystery in question to those
Jews
whom he
mightily convinced,
&c. every difficulty under this head is fairly solved by preceding considerations.
The case of the disciples whom St.
Paul
found at
Ephesus
is very similar to that we have just dispatched.
Have ye received the Holy Ghost,
says he,
since ye believed? And they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Acts xix. 2, &c.
And
he said, unto them what then were ye baptized? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
The passage is not wholly free from obscurity; but we cannot do less than collect from it, that these
disciples
knew as much of
Christ Jesus
antecedently to this interview as
Apollos
did before his acquaintance with
Aquila
and
Priscilla;
and consequently, that when
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,
they were baptized in the name of a greater person than a prophet; and when the
Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied,
had, like
Cornelius
and his houshold, an immediate insight into the profound mystery of the Christian faith. I just add that, in the chapter before us, the
name of the Lord Jesus
is said to have been
magnified;
and that the WORD OF THE LORD JESUS, and the WORD OF GOD are different modes of expression which at first sight will be found to import one and the same thing.
But to proceed. I see nothing of consequence enough to our argument to detain us, till we find St.
Paul
at
Miletus,
from whence he
sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the Church. And when they were come to him,
says the history,
he said unto them, ye know from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you; serving the
LORD
with all humility; and how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you; testifying both to Jews and Greeks, repentance towards
GOD, and
faith toward our
LORD
Jesus Christ. And now behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me; save that the
HOLY GHOST
witnesseth in every city, saying, that afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, so that I might finish my course, and the ministry which I have received of the
LORD
* Acts xx. 17, &c.
Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of
GOD.
And now I know, that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of
GOD,
shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record, that I am pure from the blood of all men; for I have not shunned to declare unto you
ALL THE COUNSEL OF GOD.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the
HOLY GHOST
hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of
GOD,
which he hath purchased with his
OWN BLOOD.
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock: also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Now if we suppose this Apostolical charge to have been delivered to persons pre-instructed in the mystery of the Gospel, agreeably to our representation of it, i. e. to have been believers in the Holy Trinity, it must be acknowleged to contain words of perspicuity,
truth, and soberness;
but on every other supposition, must not St.
Paul
have been thought by his audience to have been indeed
beside himself?
I would recommend
the whole of this passage to every judicious and impartial reader's thorough consideration.
We will now attend this great Apostle to
Jerusalem;
where we find him violently attacked by the
Jews which were of Asia, who stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, crying out, men of Israel help, this is the man that teacheth all men every where against the people and the law,
&c. The accusation brought here against our Apostle is plainly in substance the same with that alledged by the
Jews of Achaia,
who accused him of
persuading men to worship God contrary to the law.
I shall therefore refer you to what was said on that occasion. Only I will add here, that the observation then made is much confirmed by the circumstance of St.
Paul
's
purifying
himself at
Jerusalem
with the
four men who had a vow on them,
agreeably to the advice before given by the judaizing Christians, and in exact conformity to the
Mosaic
constitution. But if we turn to what the Apostle has to say in his own defence, we shall find
* Acts xxi. 27, &c.
his apology to contain an account of his conversion, and of his Apostolical commission in consequence of it; which strengthens much what has been remarked relative to the charge brought against him. It is observable, that St.
Paul
calls himself here a
Jew
in the very same breath almost in which he avows himself a Christian. He admits his hearers to be
zealous towards God, according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,
Acts xxii. 1, &c.
though he plainly intimates all the while that they were erroneously or blindly zealous, or, as he elsewhere expresses it, that their
zeal of God was not according to knowlege.
He does not undervalue or vilify the law, and much less pronounce it to be
void,
and of
none effect,
though he professes himself a preacher of the Gospel. Neither the
Jews
of
Jerusalem,
nor those of
Asia,
could possibly be strangers to the NEW DOCTRINE which he taught under that character: so that we are not at a loss to know the nature and import of the testimony which he bore concerning his Divine Master. Beside, we are to remember, that he was interrupted in the course of his harangue, and precluded from enlarging his speech, or expatiating on his doctrine, (which otherwise perhaps he might have done,) by the clamours and outrage of a giddy and incensed multitude.
We see him next before the
chief priests
and
council;
in which situation he politicly takes advantage of the difference of sentiment between them that composed it: the
one part
being
Sadducees,
and
the other Pharisees.
The Apostle openly declares himself a
Pharisee;
in which plea his immediate view was manifestly to his own preservation; though ultimately he had doubtless an eye to the conversion of the most considerable and respectable part of his audience, by tacitly at least referring to the resurrection of
Jesus Christ,
and the important consequences necessarily resulting from it.
In much the same light we may regard his apology for himself before
Felix
in the
† Acts xxiii. 1, &c.
following Chapter. Under one article of his accusation he is charged with being
a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes;
Acts xxiv. 5, &c.
or, as the
Asiatic Jews
had expressed themselves, with
teaching men every where against the law;
or, in the words of the
Jews
of
Achaia,
with
persuading men to worship God contrary to the law;
and under another article he is traduced as a
mover of Sedition,
and a disturber of the public peace. Now there is something observably dexterous in our Apostle's reply to all this; in which he partly denies the charge, professes his innocence, and defies them to
prove the things whereof they accuse him;
and partly asserts the cause he had espoused, and in general terms acknowleges his Christian principles. In this, as in the preceding case, there is fine address in the Apostle's endeavour to interest his auditors on the side of Christianity, by representing its professors as holding one common tenet with the
straitest
and most popular sect of the
Jewish
religion; while at the same time he was indirectly
preaching through Jesus the
resurrection from the dead,
and by necessary implication maintaining the great mystery of the Christian Faith.
Felix,
we find, was far from being unacquainted with at least some of the doctrines of Christianity, and reserved the matter for a farther hearing; but in the interim he, with his wife
Drusilla, which was a Jewess,
sent for
Paul
privately, and
heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
Acts xxiv. 24, &c.
It does not appear that our Apostle on this occasion discoursed on any one article of faith, strictly and peculiarly Christian.
He reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,
till this iniquitous governor
trembled;
and probably had proceeded to the full display of all evangelical truth, had he not been abruptly dismissed. However, if there be any difficulty here, it is such as affects not our argument in particular; because the very same difficulty will subsist, whether we suppose
that Jesus whom Paul preached
to be "very God of very God," or to be the
Son of God
in a secondary sense only, or indeed barely the
prophet that was to come into the world.
Many of the foregoing remarks may be applied to the defence made afterwards by our Apostle before king
Agrippa and Festus
Acts xxvi. 1, &c.
. I think it unnecessary therefore to cite it. It will suffice to observe, or rather to repeat, that, asserting the doctrine of the resurrection in general, and particularly that of
Jesus Christ,
St.
Paul
at one and the same time insinuates himself into the good graces of such as were pharisaically disposed; and points to a fact, the admission of which, upon full and dispassionate enquiry, must lead all that heard him, all the
Jews
at least into a train of conclusions, necessarily comprehending the great truths of the Gospel. And that this was a much more judicious mode of conviction than the direct or positive assertion of all, or any of those truths could have been, I presume, I need not stay to prove.
When St.
Paul
some time after this
expounded and testified the kingdom of God to the Jews at Rome, persuading them concerning Jesus both out of the law of Moses, and out of the
prophets,
Acts xxviii. 23, 31.
we cannot say with any precision how much of the whole scheme of Christianity he laid before them. Most probably his usual discretion directed him to deal tenderly with them at first; though when he declared to the unbelieving part of them that the
salvation of God was sent unto the Gentiles,
the expression has evident reference to that scheme; as, suitably hereto, the history of the
Apostolical Acts
concludes with an account of his
receiving all that came in unto him for two whole years, and preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ.
This minute and circumstantial survey of the history of the
Acts of the Apostles,
so far as it is connected with our present subject, will, I apprehend, throw much light upon the same. And it will receive additional lustre from the following consideration: that, as in the Holy Scriptures, so in the writings of the Apostolical Fathers, the leading truths of Christianity are incidentally mentioned, or alluded to, and not systematically, but uniformly taught. The doctrine of these Fathers is delivered in the spirit of simplicity; it appears plainly to have been the standing doctrine of the Church; nor is there a single circumstance that will incline us to suspect them of a design to obtrude their own private opinions, or conceits, upon the Christian world. This to me seems demonstrable from a very observable particular; which is, that in their writings they do not cite all, or the principal texts which are adduced in maintenance of the doctrine of the Trinity, but assert the same in other terms, and in language fully equivalent. They evidently considered it, not as requiring proof, but deserving illustration.
Ignatius,
in the introduction to his Epistle to the
Ephesians,
salutes them
according to the will of the Father, and
Jesus Christ our
GOD.
The same Father wishes the
Romans
to
permit him to imitate the passion of his GOD;
or, of
Christ
his GOD, as it stands in the Original. In the above-mentioned Epistle to the
Ephesians,
he takes occasion thus to express himself.
There is one physician, both fleshly and spiritual; made and not made; GOD INCARNATE; true life in death; both of
Mary
and of God; first passible, then impassible; even
Jesus Christ
our Lord.
(n)
In the conclusion of his Epistle to the
Magnesians,
he injoins them to
be subject to their bishop, as
Jesus Christ
to the Father, according to the flesh,
Romans i. 3.
and the Apostles both to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Holy Ghost.
This inversion is a very remarkable one. In his Epistle to
Polycarp
he exhorts him
to consider the times, and expect him who is above all time, eternal, invisible, &c.
Were there occasion, much more to the same purpose might be extracted from this venerable Father.
Polycarp
in his Epistle to the
Philipians,
wishes them to be
subject to the Priests, &c. as unto God and Christ.
In St.
Clement
's first epistle to the
Corinthians
these passages occur.
The sceptre of the majesty of GOD, our Lord
Jesus Christ,
came not in the shew of pride,
&c. &c. The second section of the same epistle proceeds in the terms following.
Ye were all of you humble-minded, &c. desiring rather to be subject than to govern, &c. being content with the portion GOD had dispensed to you, and hearkening diligently to HIS word, ye were enlarged in your bowels, having HIS SUFFERINGS always before your eyes.
This passage is not unsimilar to part of St.
Paul
's discourse at
Miletus
to the elders of the church of
Ephesus,
before submitted to your consideration. Let us see now what this Father says in his other epistle to the Corinthians. The exordium of it is this—
Brethren, we ought so to think of
Jesus Christ
as of GOD &c.
In the third paragraph he quotes these words of our blessed Saviour;
Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father.
But, continues he,
Wherein must we confess him? Namely, in doing those things which he saith, &c. by worshipping him, not with our lips only, but with all our heart, &c. for HE saith in
Isaiah, This people honoureth me with their lips, but
&c.
In conformity with this good Father's idea, we may ask, after the manner of St.
Paul,
is
Jesus Christ
the God of the
New Testament only? Is he not also of the Old? Yea, of the Old also.
In the conclusion of the epistle, St.
Clement
exhorts the
Corinthians
to be vigilant, &c.
because we know not
the day of
GOD
's
appearing;
i. e.
undoubtedly, the day when we
must appear before the judgmentseat of Christ.
It is true, as the learned translator acknowledges, this second Epistle, was neither held in so much reverence by the ancients, nor is so generally received among the moderns, as the first; and, it is certain, St.
Jerome, Photius,
and
Archbishop Usher
after them, concur in endeavouring to represent it as a spurious production. But I am apt to think every reader will be satisfied with what the learned Prelate has advanced in its defence; though, were the point still really controvertible, as the ground of the objections, raised by these illustrious personages, does not lie in the doctrine so explicitly contained in it, and at the same time so consonant to the sentiments of the apostolical fathers, I see no manner of necessity for retracting these quotations. Whoever the author might be, we have his clear sense of the matter.
The charge of credulity brought against many of the Fathers by a late celebrated Author, with vehemency of zeal, and in the dialect of virulence, even admitting it to be well founded, cannot justly be thought to affect in the least the validity of these primitive and plain testimonies to the great truths of the Gospel, as they
are most surely believed among us.
There is not, I am confident, one circumstance to colour a charge of this nature against the Fathers from whom we have been drawing our evidence, except that of the
Phoenix,
by which, as we shall see, St.
Clement
illustrates the doctrine of the resurrection. And ample satisfaction will be given on that head in its proper place.
(o)
To these testimonies we might subjoin those of
Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus,
and a number of others; the weight of whose collected evidence will be found infinitely to preponderate all that has perversely been alledged to its discredit from writers of a subsequent date, and minor authority.
(p)
This in due time will fully appear.
Now, if in all this doctrine we can see nothing like a formulary, or system, we see however from whence
confessions of faith
may reasonably be supposed to have originated, and by what at this day they may be most justly defended. Supposing the first rule of faith to have been purely the baptismal form; or, agreeing with Dr.
Sykes,
that the
very short Creed which at first was deemed sufficient to entitle men to baptism, was no other than a faith in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in
Jesus Christ,
his Son our Lord, and in the
Holy Ghost;
even admitting this, we cannot surely have recourse to better or sounder authority than that which has been laid before you, in order to know exactly what
this faith
implies. It will be hard indeed if the Apostles, and these Apostolical Fathers, should be all along teaching heresy, while they perpetually and earnestly, though not formally or methodically, complain of, and expatiate against it.
But I have yet farther to observe, that the sense of antiquity, and the faith of the primitive Church, may be inferred from such circumstantial evidence as has never, that I know of, been professedly produced, but yet, I trust, will be allowed to come little if at all short of demonstration.
The infamous reproach which was cast upon the whole Christian name by its first enemies, is a circumstance of a particular aspect to our purpose. Christianity was called emphatically THE ATHEISM.
(q)
Now I own I cannot help considering this equally horrid and ridiculous imputation as necessarily importing the primitive Christians to have worshipped
Jesus Christ
as ONE with the Father, or as "very God of very God" from all eternity. For nothing less than such worship will account for the charge either from
Jews
or
Gentiles.
It might naturally be considered by both as a kind of dethroning of the ONE SUPREME GOD. But every modern unbeliever will readily agree with me, that the idea of inferiority and delegation, &c. is far from being irreconcileable with
Jewish
tenets, or with known principles of Polytheism.
(r)
According to the
Apostolical constitutions,
as we learn from an eminent author, it was customary for the priest, after
amen
solemnly pronounced by the communicants in the holy sacrament, to cry out with a loud voice
—
Holy things belong to holy persons;
upon which the people answered,
There is one Holy, one Lord Jesus Christ.
The same writer acquaints us from
Vegetius,
an heathen author, who flourished in the time of the younger
Valentinian,
that Christians in a military capacity were used to swear by
God, Christ,
and the
Holy Spirit,
and the
Majesty
of the Emperor, which next to God is to be honoured, &c.
Cave's Prim. Christ. p. 86. Echard's Roman History, Vol. III. p. 2.
In his
Dissertation on Epictetus, Arrian
(as Bishop
Wilkins
observes)
assures us, that in his time, (which was about an hundred and tweny years after Christ,) it was an usual form in the prayers of the heathen to say
—
Lord have mercy upon us;
whereby they did acknowlege the
unity
of God, says his Lordship; which clause, he adds, is thought to have been from that usage taken into the Liturgy of Christians.
Now, if this be admitted, I would remark, that as the title of
Lord
confessedly belongs to our Saviour, the Christians may fairly be supposed, in their triple form of ejaculatory address,—
Lord, have mercy upon us; Christ, have mercy upon us; Lord, have mercy us;
to invoke
Christ
the
Lord,
as supreme
God:
or if by
Lord
we are in the first and third petition to understand
God the Father,
still we must be presumed in the intermediate one to address the
Son
as
equal
to the Father; because we shall else be absurd enough to invoke the
supreme God
and a
subordinate being
with the same fervour, and as it were in the same instant. You will see the argument these pious ejaculations furnish us with, whether we do or do not credit the account of
Arrian.
See Wilkins on Nat. Relig. B. I. ch. 8. p. 42.
In confirmation of what has been offered, I desire to add one or two more facts, which, if I mistake not, have more weight in them than is commonly apprehended; as, for instance, the appointment of the
Lord's day;
and the style or title
by which churches were in the primitive times distinguished. For can we do less in common reason than worship him with the
supreme God,
and as the
supreme God,
to whose particular honour one day in the week is for ever to be
kept holy;
on whose particular account the most sacred observances of religion were transferred from the
seventh
day of the week to the
first;
and whose peculiar house is now the only
house of prayer for all people?
I shall conclude this discourse with reminding you of a circumstance, if possible, still more decisive: I mean the
Unitarian
doctrine which is so copiously, and so emphatically inculcated in the
Koran
of
Mahomet.
See Passim.
Of the person of
Jesus Christ,
in his prophetical character, this arch impostor speaks in terms the most respectable.
God, says he, gave miracles to
Jesus,
the son of
Mary,
and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit, &c.
Jesus
said in the cradle, verily I am the servant of God. This was
Jesus
the son of
Mary, (s)
the word of truth, &c. Verily God promiseth thee a son, named
John,
(says the angel
Gabriel
to
Zechariah,
according to the
Koran,)
who shall bear witness to the WORD, which cometh from God, an honourable person, chaste, and one of the righteous prophets.
To do honour to the author of Christianity in this capacity,
Mahomet
positively asserts, that
they (the
Jews)
slew him not, neither crucified him; but that he was represented by one in his likeness. They did not really kill him, says he, but God took him up unto himself.
But with respect to our Lord's Divinity, or equality with the Father, you have, among a thousand parallel ones, the sentiments following.
They (viz. the Christians) say, God hath begotten children; God forbid. It is not meet for God that he should have any son; God forbid. Blessed be he that hath revealed the
Forkan,
(Koran,) to whom belongeth the kingdom of heaven and earth; who hath begotten no issue, and hath no partner in his kingdom, &c. Yet have they taken other Gods besides him, which have created nothing, but are themselves created, &c.
Jesus
is no other than a servant whom we favoured with the gift of prophecy, &c. When
Jesus
came with evident miracles, he said, now am I come unto you with wisdom, and to explain unto you part of those things concerning which ye disagree; wherefore fear God, and obey me. Verily God is my Lord, and your Lord; wherefore worship him. He is God, besides whom there is no God, &c. Far be God exalted above the idols which they associate with him. The 112th. ch. of the
Koran
is entitled
the declaration of God's Unity,
and the whole runs thus: Say God is one God;
(t)
the eternal God; he begetteth not, neither is he begotten; and there is not any like unto him. In the 6th. ch. is the following question: How should he have issue, since he hath no consort?
That these carnal sentiments, this gross language, (the language of infidels and scoffers every day,) is directly levelled, not at a
new
or
strange
thing; not at a peculiar tenet of a few enthusiasts; or a particular sect of Christians; but at the leading article, the fundamental principle of our religion, may be affirmed in utter defiance of the united powers of effrontery and equivocation. The doctrine of the Trinity was most indisputably the standing doctrine of the Christian Church at the time this false prophet broached his imposture, in the beginning of the seventh century. All these considerations combined, demolish in a moment the several forts of infidelity, in early corruptions, in Monastic superstition, in Gothic barbarism, Scholastic subtilty, and Papal innovation.
(v)
DISCOURSE V.
1 JOHN V, part of verse 20.
This
HE
is the true God—according to some versions, and perhaps defensible ones. See Webster; and Scot's Christian Life, Vol. II. p.
558.
See Whitby in loc.
is the true God.
HAVING, I trust, already beyond all reasonable doubt ascertained the absolute Divinity of Jesus Christ,
by many infallible proofs
from holy writ, and by other arguments of a nature little less demonstrative, I scruple not to set the words just read to you in the front of the present discourse, as plainly declarative of this great doctrine, though, singly and separately considered, they may not, on a critical review of the whole verse, be altogether unliable to cavil, or, if you please, to exception. And I hope very much to strengthen what has been advanced by shewing the repugnancy of anti-trinitarian principles to the genius and design of the Christian dispensation; or, in other words, by proving that, if we solely or chiefly regard our blessed Saviour under any character inferior to that of the
true God,
our highest ideas will come infinitely short both of the dignity of his Person, and the nature and end of his Commission.
By affecting the common appellation of
Unitarians,
modern unbelievers, as well the followers of
Socinus
as the disciples of
Arius,
(who again may be ranged under many more classes than one,) appear in some sort to be ashamed of the leaders of their respective heresies, and to desert the captains under whose banners they fight. But be their several motives hereunto what they may, (tho' indeed they are obvious enough,) it will suffice, without concerning myself with particular conceits, to take into consideration the two following general persuasions:
First, that of those who regard our Saviour merely as a Legislator, or teacher of morality by divine commission: and,
Secondly, that of those who profess themselves
both almost and altogether such as
we are, his coequality with the Father excepted.
With a view to the confutation of
Socinian
principles, I would observe in the first place, that the title of Legislator, or Lawgiver, is by no means that by which
Jesus Christ
is distinguished, or particularly described, either in the
old
or
new Testament.
The great characters of
Wonderful, Counsellor, Prince of peace, the Sun of righteousness,
Mal. iv. 2.
the Lord our righteousness;
Jer. xxiii. 6.
the
Messiah,
the
chosen of God,
Luke xxiii. 35.
the
Christ of God;
of
Mediator
and
Advocate;
of
Saviour, Redeemer,
and
High-Priest;
of
Son of David, Son of God, Son of the Blessed,
Mar. xiv. 61.
Lamb of God, Lord of glory,
1 Cor. ii. 8.
Prince of life, Author and Captain of our Salvation;
Heb. ii. 10. v. 9.
these characters, and more that might be enumerated, import little or nothing of legislation, but are almost wholly significative of the personal quality of our Saviour, and of his own moral excellence, and of the value and efficacy of his sacrifice. He was, it is true, a
teacher sent from God;
but he was not sent primarily in the capacity of a
teacher.
To instruct the world in righteousness was not the grand and ultimate, but merely a subordinate end of his appearance; and indeed a necessary consequence of it.
Let us see then, in the second place, what the Scripture, and he himself declares to have been the more immediate purpose for which he was
made flesh, and dwelt among us. To this end was I born;
John xviii. 37.
says he,
and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.
Again;
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Ibid. iii. 16.
Again;
I must work the work of him that sent me.
Matt. ix. 13.
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
John ix. 4.
He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and to set at liberty those that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Once more;
I must preach the kingdom of God, for therefore am I sent.
Luke iv. 18. 43.
What the sum and substance of our Saviour's preaching was, will be remembered presently; and mean time we shall find his Apostles delivering themselves in language corresponsive to the above.
The law was given by Moses,
says St.
John, but grace and peace came by Jesus Christ.
John i. 17.
In this was manifested the love of God towards us,
says the same Apostle,
because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us; and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
John iv. 9, 10.
Again;
When the fulness of time was come,
says St.
Paul, God sent forth his son, made of a woman, that we might receive the adoption of Sons.
Gal. iv. 4.
This is a faithful saying,
says the same Apostle,
and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.
1 Tim. i. 15.
And to adduce only one passage more,
the grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men; teaching us that denying ungodliness, and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.
Tit. ii. 11, &c.
The question then will be how, or in what manner, we are taught to live thus; or, in other words, what we are to understand by
Christ's
religion, regarding it as a system of morality.
I must beg leave then, in the third place, to put you in mind, that Christianity is not a
new
law, properly speaking, but a new edition, if I may so say, or promulgation of the
old;
agreeably to the express declaration of its Divine Author, who assures us that he
came not to destroy the
moral
law, or the prophets, but to fulfil both.
Matt. v. 17.
The fact is,
Christ blotted out the hand writing of carnal ordinances,
Col. ii. 14.
and took out of the way
the whole ceremonial of Judaism, but left every thing which was intrinsically
holy,
and
just,
and
good
in the law, in its full force and obligation. He was the
mediator of a better covenant;
he laid the foundation of a new system of faith, and a purer mode of worship; but he repealed not a single law of
Moses,
that had any thing in it properly of a moral and binding nature. A religion of this sort supposed and required reformation in the lives of its professors; and accordingly our blessed Lord, in his excellent discourse on the mount, and in other places, enforces the import, and explains the obligation of many of the precepts of the
Jewish
lawgiver; the full sense and genuine meaning of which had been perverted by the false glosses and misconstructions of later ages, and particularly of the
Scribes
and
Pharisees.
We find him perpetually upbraiding these with their substitutions of oral tradition in the room of the written word of God; and with absurdly and impiously
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Matt. xv. 9.
In these instances he nobly rescues the Scripture from human corruptions; and faithfully discharges the important office, not of a maker or prescriber of law, but of a doctor or expounder of it.
Suitably to all this, our Lord cites and refers to the law of
Moses
upon all occasions.
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matt. xix. 17.
viz.
the commandments contained in the
Mosaic
decalogue, was his answer to the person who had asked him,
what he should do that he might have eternal lise?
When the
lawyer,
by way of
tempting
him, put this question to him,
which is the great commandment in the law?
Ibid. xxii. 35.
He mentions those
two
capital ones, which, though not literally to be found among the
ten,
virtually comprehended them all, namely, the
love of God and of our neighbour;
at once satisfying and confounding his insidious querist with this apposite and decisive reply. Accordingly when he told his disciples, that he gave them a
new commandment
John xiii. 34.
in his particular injunction to them to
love one another,
he was not teaching a
new doctrine, or bringing strange things to their ears,
this duty being evidently implied in the
love
of our
neighbour,
but only injoining a duty, by the practice of which his followers ought to be more especially distinguished; to which they had inducements of an extraordinary nature; to which they were bound by ties and considerations peculiarly Christian, and by reverence for his astonishingly great example, who so
loved
them,
and washed
them
from
their
sins in his own blood.
Rev. i. 5.
In perfect consistence with this, the Apostles
preached the Gospel,
after their
Lord
and
Master
had left the world, and was
gone to his Father.
They taught Gospel truths; they insisted on, (St.
Paul
more especially,) they rejoiced, they gloried in their deliverance from
bondage under weak and beggarly elements;
Gal. iv. 9.
they exulted in the abolition of the ceremonial law, as a mere temporary establishment, and shadowy institution; but at the same time they regarded the moral law as of inviolable authority, and a complete standard of conduct still. When the Apostle just now named exposes the extreme folly of such transgressors of the law as stood selfcondemned; or complains of the rigour of its requisitions; or declares the impossibility of yielding meritorious obedience
to it,
and consequently of obtaining Salvation
under it,
its subsistence and obligation are supposed beyond all possible contradiction. That it
could not make the comers thereunto perfect,
was an argument of its own intrinsic perfection. The same great Apostle, pressing upon his
Roman
converts the duties of
brotherly love,
and universal charity, recites almost all the commandments of the second table; and subjoins that comprehensive precept of
Moses
just now mentioned, which he no doubt considered as inclusive of every evangelical precept, even that of
loving our enemies, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
St.
James
calls this very precept, this great social principle, the
royal law;
James ii. 8.
and when he argues against the folly and presumption of a partial obedience to the divine commandments, and a commuting as it were for iniquities, rests his argument wholly in that supreme authority by which the law of
Moses
was enacted:
he that said, do not commit adultery, said also, do not kill.
James ii. 11.
In short, both our Lord and his Apostles inculcated, and enlarged upon many things of practical importance, as circumstances admitted, and occasions required; but they taught nothing of this kind but what was reducible to the
Mosaic
institutions, or to some general head of
Jewish,
or natural morality. I add of natural morality; because the law of nature, the law of
Moses,
and the law of
Christ
are, in point of morality, one and the same; the latter illustrating, explaining, enforcing, and recommending the two former, but neither
adding to,
nor
diminishing from
them. For the
reason
or
fitness
of things is absolutely unalterable; and whatever is in its own nature morally good or evil, has always been so, and will for ever continue so to be. The moral law which was once written upon
tables of stone
was originally
engraved upon the
fleshly tables
of man's
heart. (u)
To maintain or to imagine otherwise, is to
charge God foolishly;
and to suppose both the law and the Gospel to prescribe a practice in some instances unnatural and unreasonable. St.
Paul
's descriptions of the gross ignorance and depravity of the heathen world are equally animated and just.
Rom. i. 21, &c.
But notwithstanding this, the irradiations of reason and conscience are sometimes beautifully visible amidst this
blackness
of spiritual
darkness.
We might extract from the writings of
Pagan
authors, philosophers and others, of different times, and in different places, a moral system, against which, collectively taken, should lie no fair exception; and produce from them sentiments finely coinciding with the most exalted principles, and most refined doctrines of Christianity.
In these writings we find the purest piety, the exactest justice, the truest benevolence, the firmest fortitude, the noblest disinterestedness, and the meekest patience, most explicitly taught, and earnestly inculcated.
(w)
Tully
divides the duty of man as we do at this day;
viz.
into that which is due, first, to God; secondly, to our neighbour; and thirdly, to ourselves.
Haec (philosophia) nos primum ad Deorum cultum, deinde ad jus hominum, quod situm est in generis humani societate, tum ad modestiam, magnitudinemque animi erudivit.
Tusc. Q. l. I. 26.
The golden rule of equity,
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
&c. (Matt. vii. 12.)
See Whitby in loc.
obtained, as many have observed, both among
Jews
and
Gentiles,
and was delivered by them as well negatively as positively, and under various modes of expression. That to intend wickedness is to commit it, is the express doctrine of
Seneca,
as quoted by
Le-Clerc
in his note on the 12th Chapter of the 4th . book of
Grotius;
and, which is still more remarkable, he instances in cases of lust and sensuality:
Incesta est etiam sine stupro, quae cupit stuprum.
Even so great a debauchee as
Ovid
speculates well upon this subject:
Quae quia non licuit, non facit, illa facit.
Ut jam servaris bene corpus, adultera mens est;
Omnibus exclusis intus adulter erit.
Ibid.
This is precisely the morality of our Divine Legislator. Forgiveness of enemies, &c. is a great point of morality which the heathens were far from being unacquainted with. According to
Plutarch,
it was a prayer of the
Lacedaemonians,
that the
gods would enable them to bear injuries.
And we are informed by the same great biographer, that
Dion
maintained true philosophy to consist, not in shewing kindness to friends, but in forgiving injuries, and pardoning offences.
Menander
is clearly of the same opinion in the following fine passage;
,
.
See Le Clerc's Note above referred to.
Some of the philosophers argued against present solicitude, and the
taking
too much
thought for the morrow,
precisely as our Saviour does in his discourse on the mount. A philosopher, or wise man, ought not to be anxious about these things,
viz. food,
&c. &c.
—is a sentence quoted by Dr.
Whitby
in his note on v. 25. Ch. 6. of St.
Matthew.
The following sentiment of
Plato,
,
See Plato de Leg. l. 4.
is almost a counterpart to our Saviour's—
of every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account at the day of judgment. Tully
's notion of the
servitude
of a sinner quadrates exactly with the doctrine of our blessed Lord, and of St.
Paul
after him.
Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin,
John viii. 34.
says the former;
his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness,
Rom. vi. 16.
says the latter; and says
Cicero, si servitus sit obedientia fracti animi, et arbitrio carentis suo, quis neget omnes imbrobos esse servos?
Tully's Par. 5.
On the other hand,
Deo parere libertas est,
says
Seneca,
in the spirit of a Christian, and the language of the Church; in one of the
Collects
of which, God's service is called
perfect freedom.
The same philosopher represents the Deity as a most beneficent Being who
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just
and on the unjust; ecce sceleratis,
says he,
sol oritur, et piratis patent maria.
Sen. de Ira. l. 4. c. 26. de vit. beat. 15.
And, to mention only one particular more, he directs us in another place to consider human afflictions as the corrections of a father for our spiritual benefit. God, he says,
sicut severus pater durius educat;
See Wilkins. B. 1. c. 16.
which is almost literally the sentiment of the Apostle.
Heb. xii. 7, &c.
The frailty of human nature, our radical disinclination to virtue, the necessity of propitiation, and our want of extraneous assistance as well as of personal resolution, for the purpose of a good life, are points often intimated, and as often insisted upon by
Pagan
writers. The
nitimur in vetitum
—of the poet was a sort of standing
thesis
with many. The multitude of heathen sacrifices shews a consciousness of guilt, and a solicitude for atonement. Their sense of the need of a divine blessing on their endeavours in general, appears sufficiently from their undertaking nothing of moment, whether of a public or private concern, without the previous observance of certain rites and ceremonies; or, as
Pliny
expresses himself in the introduction to his
panegyric
on
Trajan, sine deorum immortalium ope, consilio, et honore.
It may not be easy to ascertain what we are to understand by the
Daemon,
or the
Genius,
which, by his own account attended
Socrates;
but it is certain the notion of
good and evil genii
prevailed much in the heathen world. In the following lines, the warmth of divine infusion in the human breast is beautifully expressed by
Ovid;
Est Deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo:
Impetus hic sacrae semina mentis habet.
Sententiae illus. ex Ovid. See Cumberland on the defects of heathen Deism. p. 21.
The necessity of supernatural impulse to the regulation of human conduct has always been acknowleged.
Tully
says somewhere,
Nemo unquam vir magnus sine divino afflatu fuit;
and
Homer
affirms by the mouth of
Polydamas,
that God is the dispenser of all our talents, or endowments whatsoever:
,
&c. &c. Il. lib. xiii. v.
730.
et seq.
Correspondently with all this, philosophers have represented the difficulty of persevering in a virtuous course, under the very same metaphor which is used by our Blessed Saviour himself.
Cebes
affirms, that there is a
little gate
See Whitby on Matt. 7. 13.
at the entrance of the path that leads to happiness &c. and that it is a path which few walk in; in which
.
When we consider these sentiments and principles independently and separately from whatever is erroneous, inconsistent, or extravagant in heathen authors, we can do no less than reverence them as doing credit to human nature in its most depraved state; as so many efforts of reason nobly struggling to emerge from a vast abyss of ignorance and impurity. The grand use and advantage of the Gospel, regarded as a moral scheme, is not so
much
that things are uniformly taught therein, and delivered in consummate purity, as that they are taught with proper authority, by a Legislator
See Locke's Reasonab. of Christian. p. 269.
from heaven, and under sanctions the most efficacious imaginable. In short, the Christian religion stands particularly discriminated from all other institutions by the personal pre-eminence of its Author, and by the transcendent graciousness, importance, and splendor of the dispensation.
If we regard our Saviour under any character inferior to that of the true God; at least if we regard him merely as a man, or as a law-giver, we shall find few or no marks of that originality by which the founders of all persuasions, religious or philosophical, are distinguished. As a prophet, he was
like unto Moses,
according to the express prediction of the latter; as a worker of
miracles,
he stood supereminent, but not single; as a teacher, or instructer, he followed precedents; his apologues and allegories were agreeable to the oriental mode, and many of his parables were borrowed from the
Jews;
See Whitby on Matt. 6. v. 9.—13. v. 10.
even that excellent form of prayer which he taught his disciples was almost entirely taken out of the
Jewish
liturgies; and the sacraments which "he ordained in his "Church" were graffed upon a
Jewish
stock;
baptism
being a rite which the
Jews
observed with the exactness of superstition; and that of the
Lord's Supper
being transferr'd from their practice of
eating bread and drinking wine,
in an eucharistical way, at the celebration of the
Passover.
See Patrick's Disc. on Baptism. p. 8. Allix's Reflect. V. 2. p. 177. Potter's Ch. Government.
The great Apostle to the
Hebrews
seems to set the matter before us in the clearest light.
He,
says he,
that despised Moses's law, died without mercy, under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment suppose ye, shall he
be thought worthy,—(not who hath broken the law of the Gospel, but)
who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath accounted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the spirit of grace.
Heb. x. 28.
Immoralities, it is true, and those of the grossest kind, are implied in these words; but they are such as are most provokingly aggravated by singular contemptuousness; and the least that can be inferred from this passage is, that a
greater than
Moses is here.
How does
Socinianism
shrink before such considerations as these!
But it is little material which of two errors may be most plausible, when both are equidistant from the centre of truth. Our blessed Saviour is no more
half-God
than he is
all man,
if I have leave so to express myself; nor will
Arianism
fix a firmer basis of faith by its chimerical expedient of a secondary worship, and a gradation of Deity. For this at best will be found to be neither more nor less than
Paganism
improved, and contracted within a smaller circle. It must be equally idolatrous, equally injurious to the honour of the Supreme Being, to acknowlege
Gods many,
or Gods few, or only one God
besides
him. Infinite almost as the number of subaltern deities was among the Heathens, there is no doubt but the wisest of them at least acted nearly upon
Arian
principles;
viz.
under a persuasion of the existence and properties, and with a reservation of the prerogatives of the one Supreme God. According to universal tradition, the notion of a supreme power, a self-existent, independent Being, a first cause of all things, prevailed more or less every where in the world.
See Shuckford's Sac. and Prof. Hist. connec. Vol. 1. B. 5.
The doctrine of divine Supremacy was no secret even among people whose religious rites and usages were silly and extravagant enough to render them obnoxious to the scorn and laughter of mankind, thro' all ages. The superstitions of the
Aegyptians
were gross and numberless; and their worship of the meanest animals, and indeed of things inanimate, was beyond measure contemptible. And yet they had an opinion with respect to God, that erred even on the side of spirituality. For they held that he is not to be addressed by mortals so much as in vocal prayer.
See Parker on Idolatry, p. 43.
This is at once an instance of strong belief, and mistaken veneration. The great attributes of the Deity are asserted by writers of all sorts, by philosophers, and by poets, and in terms of the fullest significancy. His spirituality, omnipotence, omnipresence, independence, invisibility, and incomprehensible nature, are set in a very strong light by
Pagan
authors; particularly by
Pythagoras, Plato, Anaxagoras, Cicero, Porphyry, Seneca, Homer,
and the
Greek Dramatists. (x)
I have not time or occasion to produce my authorities here. The truth is, many
goodly pearls
of speculative doctrine are to be found amongst the rubbish of
Pagan
antiquity; and they strikingly contrast an enormous
farrago
of traditionary error, radical prejudice, vulgar folly, and popular superstition. They are the sentiments of minds that seem to have been enlightened beyond the conceptions of the bulk of mankind. If we separate the carnal
dross
from the spiritual
bullion
of heathenism, we shall be able to extract a body of theoretic divinity from the old
Pagans,
little if at all inferior to the finest
unitarian
system. In short, if
Arianism
be not strictly
polytheism,
it is not much better; it is maintainable only on much the same ground, and by a similar mode of reasoning.
Surely a
Tully,
or a
Plato,
had as admissible an apology for his conformity to idolatrous services, in general prepossession, and national establishment, as the modern unbeliever has for his secondary worship, in any distiction he may affect to make between
Pagan
and
Arian
theology. For unless the holy Scriptures direct us in the plainest manner, and with all possible cautiousness of expression, NOT
to honour the Son even as we honour the Father;
if they do not clearly and uniformly distinguish between
Jesus Christ,
and the
Holy Ghost,
and the
Supreme God,
in point of
nature,
or
essence;
or, in other words, if
Arianism
has not a most firm foundation in the sacred pages, and in apostolical and primitive worship, we cannot honestly resolve it into any thing but the pride of human reason, fabricating its own theory, and
resisting the Holy Ghost.
Now the invalidity of its pretences has, I persuade myself been sufficiently shewn already; and therefore we are to reject its hypothesis, together with that of
Socinianism,
as respectively aiming to establish
another doctrine
than
that
we have
received;
as fundamentally erroneous, and absolutely repugnant to the genius and spirit of Christianity.
But because the
strength
of true believers may be said in some sense to be
made perfect in the weakness
of their antagonists, as a giant appears to most advantage when confronted with a pigmy, I shall take my next opportunity for your conviction, that the
anti-trinitarian
cause has its chief support in disingenuous evasion, flimsy sophistry, or wilful misconstruction; and neither is nor can be defended from the
strong holds
of reason, or by
weapons
from the armory of Sacred Writ.
DISCOURSE VI.
GAL. Chap. 1. part of verse 7.
There be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.
THE Apostle, as appears from the argument he prosecutes throughout this epistle, had, in the words just read, an eye to those
Jewish
converts who were so zealously attached to the
Mosaic
ritual, the
law
of their
fathers,
that they could not endure to see it superseded by the more liberal, the more pure, the more sublime principles of the Gospel. But I shall avail myself of the latitude my text admits; not hesitating to regard as
perverters
of the
Gospel,
those heretics of different sorts, whose unfairness, or imbecility of allegation, construction, and exception on the part of infidelity, I stand engaged to make appear in the following discourse.
That pride, or prepossession should be tenacious of any opinion however strange, or however extravagant, will be no matter of surprize to us when we recollect, that almost every thing which we see not by immediate intuition, or which is not capable of a strictly mathematical demonstration, may be started, and upheld for a subject of dispute. It is possible indeed, and it sometimes happens, that men shall reason injudiciously and inconclusively even in a righteous cause; and truth may suffer, or rather be supposed to suffer by precipitance of passion, or inadvertency of zeal. This before now has been the case with the cause before us. A pious wish to confirm the doctrine of the
Trinity
by producing multifarious evidence, and heaping proof upon proof;
(y)
or an earnest endeavour to elucidate a point, the knowlege of which is too wonderful and excellent for the attainment of human wisdom, by metaphysical nicety, and the sagacity of abstract speculation;
(z)
or by studied similitudes, and artificial allusions, to bring it nearer to our conceptions; all this has been hurtful to the interest of religion, and
given occasion to the enemy
to ridicule, if not to
blaspheme.
Erroneous constructions, and misapplication of particular passages, betray too often a want of moderation, or of skill in interpreters. But, all this while, a charge of unskilfulness, or of prevarication, or of perverseness, or of presumption, or of insincerity, or of intemperance, will come with a very ill grace from our adversaries; and we are to look on the side of infidelity for the most visible signs of weakness, and the surest tokens of conscious distress. I am apt to believe, you will soon be convinced by a few select particulars that this is not arbitarily, or groundlessly said.
I shall hardly be called upon to apologize for freedoms I shall be obliged to take with authors who are no more. It will be acknowleged, with respect to every
Arian
&c. of note, that, to mischievous purpose, he
being dead yet speaketh.
To proceed then.
That when we are baptized
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
we are baptized in the name of three Persons, and of three Divine Persons, and of three equally Divine Persons,
See Lightfoot's Harm. of the N. Test. Sect. 92. p. 273.
seems not to be more evident from Scripture than from the reason of the thing. For else we are baptized in the name of
two
Persons and
one
virtue or quality, &c. which is a notion palpably ridiculous; or we are baptized in the name of
three
Persons, betwixt the
first
and
two latter
of which there is an infinite disparity; (there being no medium between God and a creature;) which is a supposition not less ridiculous. And, in fact, the
Baptismal Form
is so strong, that heretics have found themselves under a necessity of changing it; or of explaining it away; some baptizing into the
death of Christ;
some
in the name of the uncreated God, and in the name of the created Son, and in the name of the sanctifying
Spirit, created by the created Son.
Dr.
Clarke,
to whom
Arianism
is under great obligations, writes as follows.
We are baptized,
says he,
into the profession of that belief, and an obligation to the practice of that religion, which God the Father has revealed and taught by the Son, and confirmed and established by the Holy Ghost.
If this is extrication, what is difficulty?
See a late work entitled An Elucidation of the Unity, &c. p. 59. where this
Form
is treated with equal freedom.
The same learned author paraphrases the introduction to St.
John
's Gospel in the following words:
With God the Father, the FIRST, the SUPREME cause and original of all things, there existed
before all ages
that
Divine Person
whose name is called the
Word of God,
the
only begotten of the Father,
the
brightness of his glory,
and by ineffable COMMUNICATION of divine power and perfections, the
express image of his Person.
The fine artifice of this paraphrase will escape a common, or a cursory reader. I guess, Dr. C—would never have consented to the least alteration in this passage, or have permitted us only for
ineffable
to read
eternal.
The phrase—
before all ages
—is designedly ambiguous; and imports merely an acknowlegement of the impossibility of fixing the date of the generation of the
Son of God.
In the beginning was the word,
John i. 1.
says St.
John;
i. e. (if we will hearken to the
Socinians,) Jesus Christ
existed when the Gospel was first preached by
John
the
Baptist;
or, if you please, by himself.
The word was with God;
i. e. was
known to God, and to God only;
or,
was with God, by
being
taken up into heaven to receive his prophetic commission,
agreeably to a parallel exposition of another passage, which will be presently noticed, and both by the same interpreters.
The word was God, viz.
in a secondary or derivative sense; in a sense implying
Christ's
priority and superiority to all other creatures; so that if we take this whole sentence together,
the word was with God, and the word was God,
the term
God
is to be understood in the proper sense in the first clause, and in an improper and inferior sense in the second: as Dr. C. and others, according to a judicious writer's remark,
ingeniously
expound this passage!
No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven;
John iii. 13.
are the words of our Lord himself in the same Gospel. Perhaps the
Socinian
construction of this text which was just now laid before you is little less romantic than
Grotius
's exposition of the words—
he that came down from heaven,
i. e. says this famous commentator, he that
was sent, or given to us by the special Grace of God.
As some interpreters make, or, more properly, invent a distinction between primary and secondary worship, and would fain have us believe in a created creator, or a deity by delegation, so others of a very different stamp
think
of the
Saviour of the world
as meanly as they can possibly
think,
and divest him of almost every ray of glory.
The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
says St.
John.
John i. 14.
Christ
was born
mortal, subject to infirmities and sufferings,
&c. say some
Socinian
expositors: the
word
WAS
flesh,
simply and absolutely, say others: the
word
was MADE, or CONVERTED into
flesh,
says the
Flandrian Anabaptist.
St.
Paul
assures the
Colossians,
that in
Jesus Christ dwelleth all the fulness
Col. ii. 9.
of the Godhead bodily; viz.
all the will of God as we are given to understand by
Socinus. Before Abraham was,
I AM,
John viii. 58.
says our Lord expressly to the
Jews;
by which he means only to affirm, according to some interpreters, that he was the
Messiah before Abraham was the father of many nations;
or, as others expound, shall I say? or wrest this scripture, that he existed, or WAS before
Abraham
in the
purpose
and
decree
of God. How far the name of
Grotius
dignifies this exposition, let every intelligent hearer judge. Or, let us see whether we are like to derive more satisfaction from the following explanation or rather evacuation of this text by the celebrated author of the
Scripture doctrine of the Trinity.
Before Abraham was, and before all
generations,
I had a being with him of whom
Moses
told the
Isralites,
that his name was I AM.
That often justly cited passage in the 9th . Chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever,
is a rankling
thorn
in the
eyes
of unbelievers, which Dr. C. wished to
extract
with the
poultice
of a devised ambiguity. He would have us believe that the original
Greek
is of a doubtful construction, and may signify either,
of whom Christ came; God who is over all be blessed for ever;
or,
of whom Christ came, who is over all; God be blessed for ever.
To this text we shall have occasion to turn again.
The
Arians
in general confess that the Divine Personage who so often, and sometimes so magnificently makes his appearance under the Old Testament, is
Jesus Christ,
the
Son of God;
yet when this transcendent Being expressly says,—
I am the God of Bethel,
—we are to understand him as in effect saying only,
my Father, whom I represent, is God of Bethel.
Such is the sense of these expositors; who however kindly and
logically
grant that
the Word was with God,
or, in plain terms, existed from all eternity, tho' not
actually,
yet
potentially!
One is tempted to speak ludicrously by the extravagance of these conceits. Is not this
making the word of God of none effect
thro' wantonness of interpretation? Is not this turning holy Scripture, which should be the
rule of faith,
into a mere play-thing of fancy?
Let us take a view of another famous writer's sentiments on this important subject.—Mr.
Whiston,
after acknowleging
Jesus Christ,
(whom he calls
) to have given the law upon mount
Sinai,
to have appeared to the Patriarchs, &c. and to have taken
the peculiar style, titles, attributes, adoration, and incommunicable name of the God of
Israel,
supposes him to have been
truly and really concerned in the creation of the world.
But, observe, he was a Creator merely by commission; &c.
it being (according to this author) unfit and impossible for the DIVINE NATURE ITSELF, or at least THAT OF THE FATHER, to be so much, and in such a manner concerned with the corporeal world, and the sinful race of mankind, as we every where find this DIVINE PERSON, our blessed Mediator, to have been.
Whiston's Solution, &c. p. 254.
And so we are obliged to this philosopher for his wonderful discovery, that
Jesus Christ,
tho' a DIVINE PERSON with all the attributes &c. and the "incommunicable name of the God of
Israel,"
was yet without the DIVINE NATURE, because it is impossible for the DIVINE NATURE to act in the abstract; or at least for THAT of the FATHER to do so, which, it seems, is something
distinct
from, or superior to the
Divine!
If this is not Christianity, it is tolerable Platonism.
But the grand expedient to which a latementioned Divine, and indeed the
Arian
fraternity have usually recourse, is yet behind. Unable to with stand the united force of the several texts by which the full Divinity of our Saviour is evinced, they contrive to resolve the whole of his Deity into that absolute authority which, they say, he derives from his Father, and exercises jointly with him in the government of the universe. Dr.
Clarke
not unartfully tells us, that
the reason why the Scripture, tho' it stiles the Father God, and also stiles the Son God, yet at the same time always declares that there is but one God, is, because in the monarchy of the universe there is but one authority, original in the Father, derivative in the Son: the power of the Son being not another power opposite to that of the Father, nor another power co-ordinate to that of the Father, but itself the power and authority of the Father, communicated to, manifested in, and exercised by the Son.
Scrip. Doc. of the Trin. Prop. 39. See Stephens's Sermon on the eternal generation, &c.
But did not, or would not this able writer recollect, that something besides power was communicated, when the
Father gave to the
Son to have
LIFE
in himself?
John 5. v. 26.
From which passage I take occasion to observe, that when an ambiguous word occurs in any passage of Scripture; or a term, which independently considered, appears to denote communication from the Father, and inferiority in the Son, its signification is generally qualified and restrained by the plain tenor and importance of the whole sentence. This is eminently the case with the text last quoted.
As the Father hath life himself,
says our Blessed Lord,
so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.
In this phrase—
having life in himself,
(which is a periphrasis of
Jehovah,
the first and most essential name of the Deity,) the self-existence both of Father and Son from all eternity is necessarily implied: because tho' the word
given
imports communication of an incomprehensible kind, yet such communication must have been from eternity. To assert, that the Father gave self-existence to the Son from all eternity at any supposed period of time, would be neither more nor less than a contradiction in terms.
See this text miserably distorted in Locke's Reasonab. of Christian. p. 67.
It may be worth while to adduce two or three instances more.
By him, viz.
by
Jesus Christ,
says St.
Paul
to the
Colossians, were all things created that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, &c. all things were created by him and for him.
Ch. 1. 16. Does not all this imply
unoriginateness?
Is not
Christ
represented here as absolutely the Creator? Yet in this very chapter reference is had to the Gospel-dispensation, and in that reference terms must necessarily be used importing subordination and inferiority. So in the 1st. chap. of the
Revelation,
where
Christ
is styled
Alpha
and
Omega, the beginning and the ending,
&c. the same reference is made.
I am he that liveth, and was dead.
So again,
the Word was with God,
says St.
John;
and this expression does not necessarily imply equality, or coexistence. But what follows?—
The Word was God.
We not unfrequently meet with interpreters who agree in opposition to the catholic sense of a passage, but differ in the mode of it; who, like contrary qualities in bodies counteracting each other, mutually defeat their respective ends by repugnancy of construction. We will turn to one or two singular instances of this.—
By whom also
Heb. 1. 2.
he made the worlds,
says the Apostle to the
Hebrews,
speaking of
Jesus Christ.
One should hardly think these words liable to be misunderstood. But
Grotius,
unwilling, as it should seem, that
Jesus Christ
should be supposed to have any concern in the creation, even as an agent or minister, gives us to know, that the
worlds
were
made
not
by
him, but
for
him, or for his sake; agreeably enough to part of a text just now cited, and agreably to the notion of the
Jewish
Rabbins, that the world was made for the
Messiah.
Now, in the first place, not to insist with Dr.
Whitby,
that this construction manifestly wrests the preposition
, with a
genitive case
annexed to it, from its proper import, I wish to observe, that there is no admitting this learned writer's exposition of the place before us, and of that other passage of the Epistle to the
Romans, Christ was raised from the dead
Rom. 6. 4.
by the glory of the Father,
(the single one with which he supports his interpretation,) without obscuring, or confounding our ideas of the divine operations. For, according to our author,
God
the
Father made the worlds
for the
glory
of his
Son,
but raised up that Son from the dead for his own
glory.—Christ was raised from the dead for the glory of the Father,
says our commentator; so that by this interpretation the Apostle in effect affirms, that
Christ was raised from the dead by the Father for the glory of the Father:
which at best is uncouth phraseology. But let us see how the passage will fare under the management of
Socinus
and his followers. These gentlemen are sensible of the powers of the preposition in question, but are equally reluctant to believe
Jesus Christ
to have been the Maker of the Universe.—
By whom he made the Worlds;
i. e. say they, by whose agency, or ministry God established
a spiritual kingdom, and reconciled the world unto himself
by the Gospel dispensation. Are not these several expositions as irreconcileable as light and darkness? And have we not reason in abundance rather to reject both, than to subscribe to either? I just observe farther; that
Grotius
had been more consistent, had he done no violence to the preposition aforesaid, and adopted the
Socinian
interpretation. For he is intirely of one mind with the
Socinians
in his explication of the above-cited parallel in the
first Chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians.
But this is not the only instance of this great writer's inconsistency with others and with himself. Convinced by ocular demonstration of the resurrection of his Master,
Thomas answered and said,
that is, say some very gravely, in effect cried out, or exclaimed,
My Lord, and my God.
For, it seems, this is not the language of confession, but of astonishment!
Grotius
however sees this matter in a very different light.
Hic primum, says he, ea vox in narratione Evangelica reperitur ab Apostolis Jesu tributa, postquam scilicet sua resurrectione probaverat, se esse a quo vita et quidem aeterna expectari deberet. Mansit deinde ille mos in Ecclesia, ut apparet non tantum in scriptis Apostolicis, ut in nono capite Epistolae ad Romanos commate quinto, et veterum Christianorum, ut videre est apud Justinum Martyrem contra Tryphonem, sed et in Plinii ad Trajanum Epistola, ubi ait Christianos Christo, ut Deo, carmina cecinisse.
See Grotius in loc.
And yet we are not much obliged to this eminent commentator for an acknowlegement which appears to have been forced from him. In the first place, it is not true that Christ is styled God purely because he is
the resurrection and the life,
as is here more than intimated. It is not true, that he is so called by the Apostles and first Christians, merely on the strength of the passage before us. For though the terms in which St.
Thomas
declares his conviction,
My Lord, and my God,
occur not before, nor possibly could, Christ is not only in effect in many places, but also expressly styled God in this Gospel. In the next place it is worth remarking, that this author in some sort at least asserts the Divinity of Christ from a text, of which, when he takes it separately in hand, he questions the authenticity.
See Grotius on Rom. ix. 5.
The truth is, we find too many among us perpetually leaning to the side of infidelity, by softening and qualifying as much as possible the sense of texts which are quoted every day on the part of the orthodox. An eminent commentator supposes the first prayer of the Apostles,
Thou Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
to be address'd not to
Jesus Christ,
but simply to God.
Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,
says St.
Peter
in his discourse on the
day of Pentecost;
i. e. says Dr.
Pyle,
Whosoever shall believe and embrace his religion;
which paraphrase plainly reprobates the idea of invocation on
Christ.
The reference of the words
he is Lord of all,
in St.
Peter
's address to
Cornelius,
either to God the Father, or to
Jesus Christ,
is at best perversely singular; and surely neither just nor natural.
To this end,
says St.
Paul
to the
Romans, Christ both died and rose, &c. that he might be Lord both of the dead and living;
Rom. xiv. 9.
i. e. (according to our author's inadequate illustration,) that
he might be the Saviour and rewarder of all good Christians.
St.
Paul
wishes
grace
and
peace
to the Church at
Corinth, to them that are called to be saints,
1 Cor. i. 2.
with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, viz.
(as the same writer interprets the passage,)
to all who worship God through
Jesus Christ,
the Lord and Saviour of all that profess his religion.
In the second Chapter of this Epistle, the Apostle calls our Saviour
the Lord of glory;
meaning, it seems, thereby simply the
Messiah. God was manifest in the flesh,
says the same Apostle to
Timothy;
which, being interpreted by this writer, is only equivalent to
the Son of God took upon him our nature.
In short, our author's notion of the whole
mystery
of the Gospel seems to be lamentably insufficient, when he tells, and in more places than one tells us, that it signifies only the admission of
Gentiles
as well as
Jews
into the Christian covenant.
But a very recent instance of perverse interpretation in the work of a sensible and specious author
Mr. Taylor. See his
Key
to the Apostolical Writings.
out of our Church is fit to be taken into particular consideration. In his note on that famous passage in the Epistle to the
Romans,
(which the Anti-trinitarians are ever attempting to press into the service of
Arianism,
as has already been in effect seen,)
viz. of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever;
this author admits the justness of the application to our blessed Lord, who, says he,
is
God over all,
as he is by the Father APPOINTED Lord, King, and Governour of all.
And then he refers to several texts as declarative of such APPOINTMENT.
The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; John v.
22.
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; &c. John. xiii.
3.
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; Matt. xxviii.
18.
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel preaching peace by Jesus Christ, he is Lord of all; &c. Acts x.
36.
God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; Phil. ii.
9.
and set him at is own right hand, in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, &c. and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, &c. Ephes. i.
21, &c.
He hath put all things under his feet,
&c. 1
Cor. xv.
27.
This, says our author, is our Lord's SUPREME GODHEAD. And that he is
blessed for ever,
or the object of everlasting blessing, is evident from Revelation v. 12, 13.
Worthy is the Lamb, &c. to receive blessing, &c. and every creature,
&c.
heard I saying, blessing, and honour, &c. be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever,
&c. Now it is very observable that in some of the places here referred to there is not any intimation of an
appointment.
The annotator seems to be aware of this when it is too late; he grows jealous of the passage he had admitted; and, like one conscious of having allowed more than his hypothesis could conveniently afford, to all intents and purposes revokes his grant by a counter construction, and so at one dash deprives our Lord both of his blessedness and supremacy. For thus he proceeds.
But what this part of his character, in which he is
more nearly related
to believing
Gentiles,
than to infidel
Jews,
has to do with
privileges belonging to the latter,
doth not seem to me very clear; much less can I conceive, why the Apostle in this particular enumeration of
Jewish
privileges, should not mention their relation to God,
as their God,
in which they particularly gloried, (Chapter ii. 17.) and which was indeed the glory of all their glories, being the first and grand article in the covenant with
Abraham;
and which he fails not to assert among the singular privileges of
Christians,
(Ch. v. 11.) when he is shewing that the subjects of their glorying were not inferior to those of the
Jews.
How could he overlook the main article of this list? Or what if there should be a transposition of a single letter in the text,
for
. This will remove every difficulty. Then the
English
will be,
of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, whose is the God over all, blessed for ever.
Thus the grand privilege will be inserted to advantage, and stand at the top of a lofty
climax
rising from the Father, to Christ, and to God.
We have indeed no copy to justify this reading.
But the aforesaid considerations seem to make it probable the article (
) might be very easily transposed. This is only my conjecture.
Now I beg leave to ask, whether our annotator was under an absolute necessity of conjecturing? Conjectures, I presume, are never admissible in criticism, but when they clear the sense of an author from obscurity; or when direct absurdities, or considerable difficulties are removed by them. Is either of these cases the case at present? So far from it, that unless we are to sacrifice sense to figure, and real truth to ideal climax, I affirm without ceremony the old and universal reading to be the only right one; and that this passage, abundantly plain and consistent in itself, is here obscured by elucidation, and marred by amendment. Mr. T. in fact smothers himself in a dust of his own raising. For though, in a spirit of true compassion, and in the tenderest affection to his brethren, &c. the Apostle calls to mind their national character, and many of the privileges they had enjoyed, yet at the time of his writing this Epistle, it should be remembered, that their grand privilege of all, as our author justly terms it, that which the
Jews
constantly made their boast of, and
which was indeed the glory of all their glories,
was absolutely lost, and irrecoverably
done away
for ever. God was no longer
their
God in any sense favourable to them; they were disowned; they were
cut off
by him, to use St.
Paul
's words in another place; the believing
Gentiles
were now
more nearly related to him;
they
were
purified
to be a
peculiar people;
and
Jews,
as
Jews,
had no manner of interest in the new dispensation: so that, according to this author's construction, the Apostle falsifies fact, and insults his
kinsmen,
by way of commiseration.
There is another text which the same author handles not less to his own disadvantage.
Every house is builded by some man,
says the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews,
Ch. iii. 4.
but he that built all things is God.
Mr. T's. paraphrase is as follows.
When he saith,
every house is builded by some person, but he who built all things is God,
he evidently distinguishes between a
subordinate
and
Supreme
builder. But this distinction he needed not to have mentioned, had he not spoke of a
subordinate
builder before. For, if in the case under consideration, there be no
subordinate
builder at all, this distinction is nothing to his purpose. Then his argument would have been;
Christ
must build the house; because no one could build it but he; seeing no house is built by any but God. Whereas, contrariwise, he asserts a
subordinate
builder, and tells us such a one is consistent with God's being the
Supreme
original builder.
Now, I take it, this is a mere fanciful distinction of Mr.
Taylor
's own brain. The context runs thus.
This man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house, hath more honour than the house: for every house is builded by some man, but he that built all things is God.
Surely he
that built all things,
he who made the world was the very Person or Being that
built the house,
as the Apostle expresses it; i. e. who founded the whole
Jewish
OEconomy, ecclesiastical and civil; and consequently, though
every house is builded by some man,
though every institution, &c. has some author, and
Moses
in particular may be said to be a founder in a secondary sense,
Jesus
Christ
is strictly and properly the Supreme Architect, as we may say, as well in the one as the other of the above instances, to the total exclusion of every idea of
subordination.
And so this very passage in effect plainly asserts our Saviour's Divinity, and confirms the
Supremacy
this Gentleman appears to be extremely forward to destroy by it. It is remarkable enough that the texts under consideration have been before now a
snare
to unbelievers. For the
Socinian
gloss on them is,
that Christ is as much more excellent than
Moses
as God is more excellent than his own people;
and this superexcellence is on all hands allowed not to come one jot short of absolute infinity.
In consequence of the shifts to which infidelity is reduced, it will add, omit, affirm, and suggest, sometimes arbitrarily, sometimes imprudently, and sometimes on weak and incompetent authority. That passage in St.
Paul
's first Epistle to
Timothy, without controversy great is the mystery of godliness;
1 Tim. iii. 16.
God
was manifest in the flesh,
&c. makes so clearly for us, that the
Socinians,
and they who patronise them, struggle to get rid of it at all events. And that they do so purely by the help of a supposititious reading, which can be supported only by a strained, incoherent, and ridiculous construction, (according to which the
mystery of godliness
was
manifest in the flesh,
and
received up into glory,
&c. instead of
Jesus Christ,)
hath been abundantly shewn by many, and especially by the learned Bishop
Pearson
in his
Exposition of the Creed.
With a view to the elusion of certain passages in the
Revelation
which we have already produced as plainly expressive of the
Son's
coequal majesty with the
Father, Grotius
has most unwarrantably assigned them their proper and respective
thrones
in heaven.
He that sat on the throne, &c. in primo solio, id est Deus,
says he in his paraphrase of Rev. xxi. 5.
Supposing, for argument's sake, the merit of the
trinitarian
controversy to depend chiefly on the authenticity of the seventh verse in St.
John
's 1st
Epistle, there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one,
See Mr. JONES on this verse.
I would gladly ask, whether it is not, in the nature of things, at least as reasonable to suppose in general that this text was omitted by the enemies of the doctrine of the
Trinity,
as that it was inserted by its friends? And if so, infidelity would appear at best to stand upon a precarious foundation, as far as it depends on the spuriousness of this text; and we should surely err with more prudence and modesty on the side of the Catholic Church, than against her. But an excellent writer
Mr. Travis.
has, in his
Letters
to Mr.
Gibbon
on this subject, evinced the genuineness of this text to the intire satisfaction of every candid and impartial inquirer; and particularly makes it appear, that
the context of the Apostle is so far from receiving any injury by the retention of the verse in question, that it would lose all its genuine spirit, would become unapt and feeble in its application, and therefore could hardly be said to subsist without it.
To this performance I refer you with pleasure.
It has been urged, and with an air of confidence, that
Jesus Christ
cannot be an object of divine worship, because in that excellent form of address to the Deity which he recommended to his disciples, there is not the least mention made of himself, nor the most distant allusion to his office and character. A circumstance which has been considered as decisive in favour of
Unitarianism.
Some persons have as
little
of
knowledge
as they have of
faith
in these matters. At the time of his dictating this mode of prayer, our blessed Lord was not, properly speaking, either the
mediator between God and man,
or a
sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.
Though therefore this form of devotion is used at this day with the greatest propriety imaginable, yet it was originally delivered to the disciples for their own more immediate use; as is manifest from the nature of the thing, and from St.
Luke
's account of this matter.
It came
to pass,
says that Evangelist,
that as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
Luke xi. 1.
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father,
&c. It was not till after his Ascension, and return to his Father, that they could properly pray
to
or
through
him; that they were to
ask
in his
name,
and to
receive;
it was not till after he had
offered one sacrifice for sin,
Heb. x. 12. vii. 25.
and sat down at the right hand of God,
that his mediatorial character commenced,
in which he ever liveth to make intercession for us.
There are two remarkable passages in St.
Paul
's Epistles, which, as they are claimed by our adversaries with more appearance of right than the foregoing, it will be proper to take into consideration.
Who
(i. e.
Jesus Christ) being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation,
&c.
Phil. ii. 6. &c.
This text is often quoted as asserting the true Divinity of our Saviour. I am therefore concerned to deliver it from the construction which the
Arians
with much assurance put upon it; and which many amongst ourselves have, I think, very unwarily admitted; subjecting themselves thereby to the necessity of having recourse to a hackneyed, and after all mere verbal distinction between
self-existence and necessary existence,
in order to reconcile their admission with orthodox principles.
Thought it not robbery,
&c.
, i. e. (says
Novatian
and many with him,) he never compared himself with God the Father,
nunquam se Deo Patri aut comparavit aut contulit;
the reason follows,
memor se esse ex suo Patre.
Every
Arian
will abide by this explication; and how do the advocates for
Novatian
get clear of the imputed consequences? Why, says
Dr. Waterland,
this interpretation of the text (supposing it just) implies no more than this, that
Jesus Christ
never pretended to an equality with the Father in respect of his
original,
knowing himself to be second only in order, not the first Person of the everblessed Trinity.
Dr. W. observes, that the whole passage in
Novatian,
rightly understood, affords a strong proof of the coequality of the two Persons; and that it is quoted accordingly by Dr.
Whitby
in his treatise
de vera Christi deitate.
But as this can only be done by help of the above distinction, I must ask, why
Novatian's
sense of this text must be admitted as the true one? He did not
affect,
say some, did not
claim,
did not
take upon him,
&c. to be honoured as God. Notwithstanding the great authorities of
Grotius, Tillotson,
and
Clarke,
&c.
See Mr. Parkhurst's Note at p. 79 of his Treatise on the Divinity and Pre-existence of our Saviour.
with which this interpretation is fortified, I cannot help thinking the reading in use,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
not barely to be the more eligible, but indeed the proper reading. For, not to insist on one circumstance in its favour, which is the nonagreement of the several interpretations of the learned Gentlemen above-mentioned, it deserves to be noted, that though the phrase
would admit the construction contended for, yet the context will be found absolutely to revolt against it. Granting the phrase
being in the form of God
to be in itself of undeterminate signification, yet when predicated of him who is
one
with the
Father,
who
was in the beginning with God,
and really and truly
was God,
it certainly is to be regarded as synonymous with those expressions; and consequently as importing an intire equality with God. But herewith the construction of
Novation,
and of the
Arians,
not to say of Dr. W. himself, is totally incompatible. The reading in use therefore must be allowed to be not only natural, but necessary.
He thought it not robbery,
i. e. to be no violation of right, or justice.
The other passage is the following.
There is one body,
says the Apostle to the Ephesians, and
one Spirit; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; one God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Chap. iv. 4. &c. The
Socinian
and the
Arian
inference from these texts is obvious; but in proof that it is an unfair one, I would remark, that had St.
Paul
intended here to have distinguished the
Father
from the
Son
and the
Spirit,
by this ascription of Supremacy, he would certainly have named the two latter with their severally discriminating inferior titles; and this without a needless, and I might say, impertinent combination of
unities,
if I may so call them. Besides, had this been the Apostle's design, how comes it to pass that supremacy is in almost the same terms ascribed in the
New Testament
to
Jesus Christ;
whose
throne is for ever and ever,
who is
Lord of all, who is over all, God blessed for ever?
Or how are we to account for its being so frequently said, that both
Christ
and the
Spirit
as well as the
Father
is
in us?
If the manifest attribution of Supremacy in the texts just now cited does not exclude the
Father,
why must it be understood in the place under consideration to exclude the
Son?
The same question may be asked with the same propriety, and with the same success, with regard to the following well-known passages in the first Epistle to
Tim.
which, I believe, the Anti-trinitarians in general set with much assurance at the head of their authorities.
Now unto the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever:
1 Tim. i. 17. vi. 15, &c.
Who is the blessed and only potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, or can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting.
Surely all this is
briefly
but fully
comprehended
in the above descriptions of
Jesus Christ;
to whom, by the way, independently on the
Father,
St.
Peter
ascribes
glory both now and for ever.
We shall now be able to despatch with no difficulty certain passages which at first sight have an humiliating tendency, and seem to import the inferiority of the
Son
to the
Father,
and the impersonality of the Holy Ghost. It may be of use to expose pretences.
With respect to his human character, or his legation,
Christ
is confessedly
God's;
and the
head of Christ is God;
and, says he,
my Father is greater than I.
We have already seen, that the absolute Godhead of
Jesus
Christ,
though it had been on certain occasions not barely intimated, but in plain terms asserted by him, was not uniformly manifested to his disciples during his residence upon earth. It was a truth which he was in due time fully to authenticate to them, but which at present for obvious reasons they could
not bear.
See Parkhurst's Divin. &c. of Christ. p. 102. &c. 117. &c.
Accordingly, as in many other places, so in the words last quoted, which were calculated to sooth them under the loss they were about to sustain by his
going away, my Father is greater than I,
the blessed
Jesus
with particular propriety alludes to the commission he had undertaken, and adapts himself to their imperfect and unsettled conceptions.
See Disc. 3 and 7. See John xiv. 26. xv. 26.
On pretty much the same ground he had at another time declared to the
ruler
who addressed him under the character of
Good Master,
See Luke xviii. 18.
that
there is none good but one, that is God.
The full manifestation of the great mystery of the Gospel was reserved for the
day of Pentecost;
before which consideration a thousand difficulties will crumble into atoms; and by which an answer is given in full to the substance of what Dr.
Priestly
has advanced in the
first Sect. of the Introd. to his History of
EARLY OPINIONS, with respect to the silence of the
Old
Testament, and the incompetency of a great part of the
New.
This is life eternal,
says our blessed Lord,
that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
John xvii. 3.
Our Lord, speaking here in his human capacity, and with reference to his mission, very naturally avows his Father to be
the only true God,
in contradistinction to all
false Gods;
but cannot be supposed to exclude
himself
and the
Holy Ghost,
who are partakers of one essence with the
true.
So again:
who is the first born of every creature, and the beginning of the creation of God.
Col. i. 15. Rev. iii. 14.
As to the latter of these expressions, it implies no more, according to some interpretations, than the Father of the Christian Church, or, if the original word had been rendered the
cause,
or the
origin,
instead of the
beginning,
as with very sufficient warrant it might have been, this text is so far from affirming
Christ
to be a
creature,
that, in effect, it avers him to be the
Creator;
or, if it be precisely equivalent to the former expression, it will in course be reducible to the same signification. Now literally, and in his human character,
Jesus Christ
was not the
first-born of every creature;
and in his divine character he was not born or begotten at all, except in a transcendent and incomprehensible sense; but he was, and is styled in a few verses below, the
first-born from the dead,
and in his own resurrection ascertained ours, &c. And in this just sense he is the
first-born of every creature,
the
beginning of the Creation of God,
or of the new creation and constitution of things, not only without disparagement to his divine nature, but in direct confirmation of it.
So again:
Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father.
Mark xiii. 32.
In our Saviour's human capacity, or in his mediatorial character, the final and general judgment was a matter that did not concern him; but in his divine character he cannot but know the time of his own visitations.
So again:
Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.
John xx. 17.
These words contain a proper and natural commission given to
Mary Magdalen
by our blessed Lord in consequence of his resurrection, and agreeably to what he had spoken
unto
his disciples
when he was yet in Galilee.
Luke xxiv. 6.
It was his intention to signify by her the speedy accomplishment of what he had frequently foretold and promised them under the character of the
Messiah;
but it was neither necessary nor expedient to discover to her singly the
fulness
of his
Godhead.
So once more:
When all things shall be subdued unto him,
THEN
shall the Son also
himself be subject to him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
1 Co. xv. 28.
In other words; when the great scheme of man's redemption shall be completed,
Christ
shall resign his commission into his hands from whom he received it, and his mediatorial kingdom be succeeded by the eternal kingdom of God, the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
with whom the
Saints,
and
Spirits of just men made perfect,
shall live in fulness of bliss and glory. This is the obvious and indeed necessary construction. For if we attend to the
letter
of this passage, and not to the
spirit
and scope of it,
when all things shall be subdued,
&c. THEN shall the Son be subject, &c. we shall assert that
Jesus Christ
will be
subject
to the
Father
AFTER the consummation of all things, but was not so BEFORE; or, that he was greater in his
human
character than in his divine: which is absurd.
He must reign,
says the Apostle, just before,
till he hath put all things under his feet.
Now it is not literally true that he shall reign so long, and no longer than this, as the words import. For though his reign over the Church militant shall cease, of his reign over the Church triumphant
there shall be no end.
The truth is, with the Evangelical plan, with the commission of
Jesus Christ,
the idea of subordination, or subjection, is connected; but with regard to absolute perfection of essence and attribute, the complement of the Godhead, the Trinity in Unity, ever was, and for ever will be ALL IN ALL.
Lastly: with respect to such expressions as the following, which appear inconsistent with personality,
be filled with the Spirit;
Ephes v. 18.
quench not the Spirit;
1 Thess. v. 19.
the Spirit which he hath given us;
1 John iii. 24.
receive ye the Holy Ghost;
John xx. 22.
&c. it is obvious to remark, that, agreeably to a common figure, the cause and its effects are promiscuously used; and accordingly by the
Spirit
in all these places, and in all parallel ones, we are to understand the gifts and graces of which the
Holy Spirit,
or
Holy Ghost
is the dispenser. If this interpretation be not admitted, we may with equal propriety and justice call in question the personality of
Jesus Christ
in his human character, and even that of God the Father himself. For
if Christ be in us, the body is dead;
Rom. viii. 10.
and
God is a consuming fire;
Heb. xii. 29.
God is love;
1 John iv. 8,
and God is in you of a truth.
1 Cor. xiv. 25.
On the whole then, I may fairly conclude with remarking, that, for the most part, in the arguments of
Socinians
we may be said to have
premisses
without
conclusions,
and in those of
Arians conclusions
without
premisses;
and that there is nothing in the feeble attempts, the bold assertions, or the
perverse disputings
of our adversaries, I do not say to terrify, but in any degree to discourage us from
striving together for the faith of the Gospel,
even that
faith which standeth not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1 Cor. ii. 5.
DISCOURSE VII.
1 COR. Chapter 15. Verse 12.
If Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
THAT important article of our Creeds, the
Resurrection of the Body,
is the other great
mystery
which has all along been
foolishness
to Infidels, and a
stumbling-block
to many Christians. Under this article then I am to endeavour, agreeably to my engagements, to give all the satisfaction which the sensible, the candid, and the well-disposed can require.
I might insist that the great doctrine before us is virtually at least contained in my text: but as there is a strong propensity in human pride to consider what is propounded to our faith as insulting our understandings, it will be necessary to enter into a full and even minute discussion of the subject.
A late ingenious author, Dr.
Sykes,
very confidently asserts, that this doctrine has no manner of warrant from scriptural authority. He observes, as Mr.
Locke
has done before him, that
there is not any such expression in the New Testament as the
Resurrection of the flesh;
that the Scriptures often speak of a
Resurrection,
and of the
Resurrection of the dead;
but as to the
Resurrection of the body, or of the flesh,
there is not one word. And therefore that such an article was required
at first
to be professed in order to Baptism, can never be proved.
See Enquiry when the Resurrection of the Body was first inserted in the Creeds. sub. init.
I have already apologized for freedoms taken with the dead. The names I just now mentioned are of the first authority with unbelievers at this day; and I take a part in the controversy with a hope to conduct it to your content, if not by recency of argument, or reply, at least by the mode of their enforcement.
Now that the above expressions or phrases,—the
Resurrection of the body,
or
the flesh,
never occur in the New Testament; that this article, together with some others which Dr.
S.
mentions, did not make a part of the
Baptismal Creed
before the middle of the fourth century, may without difficulty be admitted; because if it will appear, that the
Resurrection of the body,
or
of the flesh,
is most unquestionably the doctrine of Scripture, and of the Apostolical and primitive Church, we are bound by all means to retain it; and its insertion into the
Creed
at
any
time was both proper and necessary; the original
Creed,
whatever it precisely was, having been reasonably enlarged, (by Dr.
S
's own confession), as circumstances demanded, and heresies multiplied.
Let us enquire then, whether the doctrine of the
Resurrection,
as it is delivered in our
Creeds,
be not founded in evidence rational, scriptural, and irresistible.
If we consider this doctrine as a matter of opinion, and not of faith, we shall find it to have countenance in no contemptible authority. Tho' the heathens saw
spiritual things
in general thro' a dim
glass
indeed; tho' the prospect of futurity was greatly clouded to a world almost wholly corrupt in principle, and abandoned in practice, yet the notion of another state, and even of a
resurrection,
or of a
renovation
of all things, which is a
resurrection
in effect, was far from being universally exploded, as absolutely ridiculous, or chimerical. We are assured
Zoroustres
taught the doctrine of the
resurrection
among the antient
Persians,
as he himself derived it most probably from the
Jews,
with whom he had communications.
Grotius,
who, with respect to this article at least, was not of
doubtful mind,
in proof of the admissible possibility of the thing, cites the authorities both of historians and philosophers, and affirms it to have been the tenet of almost the whole sect of the Stoics.
See Grotius de vent. l. 7. and 10. Le Clerc's Notes. Prideaux Connect. v. 1. p. 103. &c.
The Grecian custom of burying the dead with their faces upwards, and looking toward the rising Sun, which is exactly the Christian mode, has a very strong smatch of this sentiment.
(aa)
'Tis observable,
Mahomet
speaks in his
Koran
of the
resurrection
as of a doctrine known and received in the world from the beginning, and far antecedently to the
Mosaic
dispensation. This appears from the following passage.
That this, i. e. the doctrine of the
resurrection,
is no other than fables of the ANTIENTS is, says he, the pretence of unbelievers.
And indeed his learned translator remarks in his
Preliminary Discourse,
that some of the
Pagan Arabs
believed neither a
creation,
nor
resurrection;
but that others believed both. We are given to understand by a sensible writer, that the first
Europeans
who visited
China
found many Christian truths intermingled with the trash of fable, and tradition; that the
Gentiles
of
Indostan
have confused notions of the Trinity; and in particular that the people of
Ceylon
believe the
Resurrection of the Body.
Jenkins's Reasonab. &c. V. 1. p. 103. P. on the Cr. p. 379.
In his note at the 19th verse of the 26th chapter of Isaiah,—
Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise,
&c. the learned Bp.
Lowth
observes, that the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead
must have been "a popular and common doctrine" among the
Jews,
at the time of the delivery of this prophecy; and we may reasonably make the same inference from a parallel passage in
Daniel;—many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; &c. many,
as I find it noted by the judicious commentator, being here and elsewhere manifestly equivalent to
all.
That the notion of a
Resurrection,
according to the common acceptation of the term, prevailed among the
Jews
in our Saviour's time, will be soon manifest from certain occurrences and passages in the evangelical writings. St.
Paul,
in his apology before King
Agrippa,
affirms it to have its foundation in the
hope of the promise made unto the Fathers:
tho' when, where, or in what manner, he mentions not. And certain it is that the
Pharisees,
the
straitest
and most considerable
Sect
among them, not only entertained this notion with seriousness, but contended for it with vehemency; as appears from the violence of opposition between them and the
Sadducees,
who as strenuously denied it. What then did both parties understand by it? Let us, for a resolution of this question, turn first to the account which the evangelists give us of a discourse held by the
Sadducees
with our Saviour, on the subject of the
Resurrection. The same day,
says St.
Matthew,
and much in the same words, St.
Mark,
and St.
Luke
after him,
came to him the Sadducees, who say that there is no Resurrection, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses said, if a man die having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother: now there were with us seven brethren; and the first when he had married a wife, deceased; and having no issue left his wife to his brother; likewise the second also, and the third, to the seventh. And last of all, the woman died also. Therefore in the Resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven, for they all
had her.
Matt. 22. 23. &c.
The argument herein implied is indeed perfectly ridiculous, and grossly carnal; and is exposed accordingly by our blessed Lord in his reply to it: but it undeniably supposes the
resurrection
of the
bodies
of these same
brethren
and their
wife,
agreably to the
Pharisaical
hypothesis. Indeed that very reply plainly supposes the same thing.
Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
All this is abundantly confirmed by our Saviour's own argument immediately following.
As touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
There is neither connection, nor indeed sense in this portion of scripturehistory, unless we suppose the re-union of the
souls
and
bodies
of
Abraham
and
Isaac,
&c. in the
resurrection;
and that our Saviour meant by implication to assert it. For his argument directly proves nothing more than the immortality of the soul, and its consequential existence in a future state. But had this proof been the sole object of his discourse, he would most assuredly have expressed himself in a very different manner upon the occasion. Our Lord's meaning is yet more fully discovered by St.
Luke
's account of this matter.
Now that the dead are raised,
says he, according to that Evangelist, EVEN
Moses shewed at the bush,
saying, &c.
Again: When our Lord told
Martha,
that her
brother,
newly deceased, should
rise again, she said unto him,
says the sacred text,
I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
John xi. 24.
Now that
Martha
believed her
brother should rise again at the last day
with that
body
which was laid in the grave, and had been
dead four days,
is evident enough from this consideration; that, though she appears to have been doubtful of the possibility of his resurrection at
that
time, and in so
extraordinary
a way,
Lord,
says she,
by this time he stinketh,
and this notwithstanding
her
avowed belief that
whatsoever
our Saviour would
ask of God, God would give it
him, and
his
declaration that he was himself
the resurrection and the life,
yet when
Lazarus
actually
came forth,
neither she nor the many
Jews
who were present shewed the least sign of amazement. It does not appear that they were in any degree astonished at this mode of his restoration to life; and therefore we may justly presume they were persuaded that
in the resurrection at the last day
"all men shall rise again with their bodies," through the operation of that omnipotent power which,
in the twinkling of an eye,
is able to inspire life and vigour into dust and ashes, and animate corruption itself.
The supposed
resurrection
of
John the Baptist
may be considered in the same point of view.
Herod,
hearing of the
fame of Jesus, said unto his servants,
as the Evangelist acquaints us,
this is John the Baptist, he is risen from the dead, and therefore mighty
works do shew forth themselves in him. Herod
hardly thought these
works
were done by the spirit or apparition of the
Baptist;
and if not, we must conclude that he believed him to be risen indeed, according to the notions entertained by the
Jews.
The sacred history informs us the
Sadducees
were
grieved
that the Apostles
preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
And is it not as plain as implication can make it, that their doctrine was, that the followers of Jesus, and indeed all men, should be raised in like manner as he was?
The truth is, of this kind of implied evidence we have plenty in the sacred volume. I will only produce one piece more of Gospel-history, in presumptive proof that
Gentiles
as well as
Jews
understood by a
resurrection
what we do at this day. St.
Paul
concludes his discourse to the
Athenians
with insisting on the certainty of a future judgment from the
assurance
which God had
given to all men
of it, by his having
raised that man, whom he had ordained to be their judge,
from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead,
says the historian,
some mocked;
but
others said, we will hear thee again of this matter.
Acts xvii. 32.
Now St.
Paul
's audience consisted chiefly of
Stoics
and
Epicureans;
and the latter most undoubtedly were the party that derided the doctrine which the former did not conceive to be altogether extravagant, or ridiculous. But had the Apostle meant only to inculcate the general doctrine of a future state, the
Stoics
in all probability would have been satisfied as to that point without a farther hearing; and the
Epicureans
would have no more
mocked,
or insulted, than if a
Stoic
had preached it.
Indeed there is one circumstance in the evangelical history which at first glance may be thought to militate against what has been laid before you. When our Saviour
came down from the mountain
after his
Transfiguration,
with
Peter, James, and John, and charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen
from the dead, they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another, what the rising from the dead should mean.
Mark ix. 10.
But that they could not possibly doubt what was to be understood by the expression, or the thing itself, is demonstrable from preceding considerations; and therefore the case must have been this. They were perplexed with the account our Lord had given of himself; they could not conceive how their Master, whom they still regarded as a temporal deliverer, should suffer and be put to an ignominious death, (as he had assured them he should in the 31st v. of the last Chapter;) or how the expected deliverance would be effected by, or after such resurrection: this was probably the subject of their enquiry; they
questioned one with another,
not what THE, but what HIS
rising from the dead should mean.
All this is perfectly consistent with a parallel passage in St.
Luke. He took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully intreated and spitted on; and they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
Luke xviii. 31.
What has already been advanced will obviate a common assertion, or insinuation, that there is a very material difference between the case of a body which has been dead a few days, or months, or even years, and of one which has been buried in the earth many centuries since; and that the same Power which is able to effect a
resurrection
in the former case, cannot be conceived adequate to the like operation in the latter. And indeed it deserves to be remarked, that to maintain, or to intimate this, is at best to make extremely free with Omnipotence, and in fact only begs a question instead of satisfying it. Besides, this expedient will appear to be heavily encumbered with strange inconveniences; to speak much less harshly of it than perhaps in justice I should. When a finite understanding has laid the line which infinite power cannot pass, it will have a fair claim to our attention; although, even were this done, the number of instances we meet with in holy writ of the same identical body's being raised from the grave, or restored to life, which had actually deceased, will however justify our supposition, that the bodies of such as shall die within a reasonable time before the
last day
shall be raised after this
modus
or manner; and agreeably to the common and natural ideas of a
resurrection.
It will be hard indeed if our adversaries will not allow us to take this for granted; and if they will, the same understanding which is able to measure infinity can readily inform us how, or whether with a body or without one, the bulk of mankind shall appear at the great day of final retribution.
I come now to revelation more clear and explicit; to plain, intelligible Scripture; with respect to which, it pains one to see so great a man as Mr.
Locke
taking refuge in the above distinction, and indeed in the most pitiful evasions. Observe then how this justly celebrated philosopher expresses himself in the passage following.
In the New Testament (wherein, I think, are contained all the articles of the Christian Faith,) I find our Saviour and his Apostles to preach the
resurrection from the dead,
and the
resurrection of the dead
in many places: but I do not remember any place where the
resurrection of the same body
is so much as mentioned. Nay, which is very remarkable in the case, I do not remember in any place of the New Testament, (where the general
resurrection
at the last day is spoken of,) any such expression as the
resurrection of the body,
much less of the
same body.
I say, the general
resurrection,
&c. because where the
resurrection
of some
particular persons
presently upon our Saviour's resurrection is mentioned, the words are,
the graves were opened, and many bodies of saints, which slept, arose, and came out of the graves, after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many:
of which peculiar way of speaking of
this
resurrection, the passage itself gives a reason in these words,
appeared to many;
i. e. those
who slept, appeared,
so as to be risen. But this could not be known, unless they brought with them the evidence, that they were those who had been dead, &c. And it is probable they were such as were
newly
dead, whose bodies were not
yet
dissolved, &c.
See Essay on the Human Underst. and ch. on Identity.
There is, I persuade myself, little or nothing in this passage but has its answer in the foregoing considerations; unless we should be kind enough to acknowlege for argument the triumphant sneer of that parenthesis,
(wherein, I think, are contained all the Articles of the Christian Faith.)
It might therefore be sufficient to remark, that Mr. L. seems to admit
mysteries
as some people dispense
alms, viz. grudgingly,
or
of necessity;
and at the same time to express our obligations to him for his indulgent concession, that
bodies
have been raised from the dead upon
particular occasions.
But because this great writer may possibly be still thought by some to have hit upon an expedient, which happily helps him out of embarassment, in the stale distinction between a
particular
and the
general
Resurrection, let us see whether this distinction will not vanish before the ensuing argumentation.
I venture to aver then that the
resurrection
of the
body
of
Jesus Christ
is an especial earnest, or sure token of the
resurrection
of our
bodies
from the dead. I desire your impartial judgment of the texts which follow.
Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept.
1 Cor. xv. 20. vi. 14.
God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. If we have been
Rom. vi. 5.
planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. He who raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus.
2 Cor. iv. 14.
As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
John v. 21.
These texts will be sufficient for my present purpose. Let us consider them separately a little.
Now is
Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept.
I need not enlarge upon the
Jewish
practice alluded to under this figurative expression; and shall only observe, that, as the
first-fruits
were offerings of that identical grain of which the harvest was to follow, the
resurrection
of our
bodies,
after that of Christ, could not have been signified by a finer emblem.
God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power:
i. e. most undoubtedly, he will raise up us in like manner.
If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
The former part of this verse has some obscurity in it, which may be liable to various construction; but the latter ascertains, almost as fully as words can do, the great article before us.
He who raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus.
This text is exactly parallel with that just quoted from the other Epistle to the
Corinthians. As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
This proof runs rather in another line, but however will terminate in the same point. For we may safely conclude, that the Son will
raise the dead, and quicken them
hereafter, in the same manner in which himself and many dead persons have been already raised. We have by this time, I hope, sufficient grounds for this conclusion. And indeed St.
Paul
assures us, that the
Lord Jesus Christ shall change our vile body that
IT
may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.
Phil. iii. 21.
For how, or when shall he do this, if not in the GENERAL
resurrection at the last day,
and by a change of THAT
body
which was deposited in the ground? Our
vile body
is not to be
changed
for ANOTHER
body,
but is ITSELF to be
fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body.
Would it not be
prima facie
ridiculous to attempt torturing the passage to any other sense?
Though what has been here offered can, I think, scarcely fall short of bringing conviction to a mind open to it, yet it will be greatly corroborated by other passages and particulars, and especially by the doctrine contained
in the fifteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians,
which is almost totally spent upon this subject. In truth, there are more reasons than one for our not passing by that Chapter. If we read this portion of Scripture with due attention, and impartiality, we shall be led, I presume, to this unavoidable conclusion, that the
bodies
of all men shall be raised, if not absolutely, totally, or numerically, yet really and truly the same as they died; or, in other words, that the
bodies
which shall be raised shall, with their respective souls, constitute the same persons that lived before in the world: nor can this doctrine be invalidated by metaphysical subtilties, and
oppositions of science falsly so called;
which are much less calculated to satisfy, than to perplex and confound us. If the import of such passages as the following,
it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory;
v. 43, &c. 51, &c.
it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; behold I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment,
in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed; for
THIS
corruptible must put on incorruption, and
THIS
mortal must put on immortality;
if the manifest import of these texts can be evaded, so may the most studied paraphrase, or the most careful illustration of them. There will be no such thing as intelligible language to be found. The case is, the human body undergoes many changes in a course of years, e. g. from infancy to old age, which, I suppose, it will be granted, are the changes of the same body, properly speaking, still. For though it may not be easy to say precisely in what the
ratio
of identity consists, we may safely say, than an almost infinite number of changes and modifications, which might be supposed, do not affect it. There are very few names which have a stronger claim to deference than that of Mr.
Boyle;
and it is an observation of his, that
there is no saying what the utmost human art or contrivance may be able to effect; much less what means, even physical ones, God is able to use for the reproduction of bodies; of which the
necessary constituent parts
may be preserved consistently with numberless changes from the cradle to the grave, and after death.
Our great Creator at least knows what properly constitutes identity much better than we can tell him; and therefore without entering fully into the state of the controversy as maintained long ago by Dr.
Stilling fleet
and Mr.
Locke,
(which would be little better than continuing a
game of words,)
I shall content myself with pointing out to you one or two instances of cavil, and quibble, and captiousness in the latter, which plainly enough indicate him to have been galled in many places, and are indeed altogether unworthy both of himself and his argument.
The Bishop, in vindication of his own and the catholic tenet, cites these words of our blessed Saviour,
all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.
From hence, says Mr. L., your Lordship argues, that these words,
all that are in the graves,
relate to no other substance than what was united to the Soul in life; because a different substance cannot be said to be in the graves, and to come out of them. Which words of your Lordship, if they prove any thing, prove that the Soul too is lodged in the grave, and raised out of it at the last day. For your Lordship says,
can a different substance be said to be in the graves, and come out of them?
So that according to this interpretation of these words of our Saviour, no other substance being raised but what hears his voice, but what, being called, comes out of the grave; and no other substance coming out of the grave, but what was in the grave; any one must conclude, that the Soul, unless it be in the grave, will make no part of the person that is raised, unless, as your Lordship argues against me, you can make it out, that a substance which never was in the grave, may come out of it; or that the Soul is no substance.
Ibid.
But will not this sophistical bubble burst in an instant before a most simple consideration, pursued through its necessary consequences? By a common figure, and agreeably to the customary license of speech, we talk of the acts, or operations of one of the two constituent parts of man, as of the acts or operations of the whole. E. G.
No soul sees me;
or
no body sees me; every soul heard him;
or
no body heard him;
are expressions used indiscriminately, not only in ordinary discourse, but in correct composition. The soul perceives the
voice;
the body is raised by divine power, and reunited to it.
(bb)
Again: The learned prelate quotes the following words of the Apostle, in support of the doctrine of the
resurrection
as it is held in the Church.
We must all appear before the judgmentseat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
To which his Lordship subjoins this question: CAN THESE WORDS BE UNDERSTOOD OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL SUBSTANCE BUT THAT BODY IN WHICH THESE THINGS WERE DONE?
A man, Mr. L. answers, may suspend his determining the meaning of the Apostle to be, that a sinner shall suffer for his sins in the
very same body
in which he committed them: because St.
Paul
does not say he shall have the
very same body
when he suffers, that he had when he sinned. The Apostle says indeed, done
in his body.
The body he had, and did things in at five, or fifteen, was, no doubt,
his body,
as much as that which he did things in at fifty was
his body,
though
his body
were not the
very same body
at those different ages: and so will the body, which he shall have AFTER the
resurrection,
be
his body,
though it be not the
very same
with that which he had at five, at fifteen, or fifty.
Ibid.
Now agreeing with Mr. L. and the admirers of his doctrine upon this head, that
the body which a man shall have
after
the resurrection,
according to their scheme, (for what shall be done
in
or
at
it, we are left to conjecture,) I say, agreeing with them, that this body will be
his body,
yet we would fain know in what sense he could be said to
receive the things done
IN IT,
or
BY IT, according to another reading. A man has
his body
truly, if not numerically the same through life, under a greater or less variety of changes and modifications; but by Mr. L's train of reasoning, it should seem that a man may have
his body
before he is in possession of it. Had the Apostle said, as a man sins in
a
body, so he shall suffer in
a
body, Mr. L's mode of arguing might have been admitted; but as matters stand at present, it has evidently no logic to support it.
Once more.
The next text of Scripture you bring for the same body, says Mr. L. is,
if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is not Christ raised.
From which your Lordship argues, IT SEEMS THEN OTHER BODIES ARE TO BE RAISED AS HIS WAS. I grant other dead as certainly raised as Christ was; for else his
resurrection
would be of no use to mankind. But I do not see how it follows, that they shall be raised with the
same
body, as your Lordship infers in these words annexed; AND CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT, WHETHER HIS BODY WAS THE SAME MATERIAL SUBSTANCE WHICH WAS UNITED TO HIS SOUL BEFORE? I answer, none at all; nor that it had just the same distinguished lineaments and marks, yea and the same wounds that it had at the time of his death. If therefore your Lordship will argue from other bodies being raised as his was, that they must have proportion with his in SAMENESS, then we must believe, that every man shall be raised with the same lineaments and other notes of distinction he had at the time of his death, even with his wounds yet open, if he had any, because our Saviour was so raised; which seems to be scarce reconcileable with what your Lordship says, of A FAT MAN FALLING INTO A CONSUMPTION, AND DYING.
Ibid.
The wit here is not worth answering; and the fallacy of the paragraph was obviated in some of the foregoing observations. Suffice it to remark that the addition of one word in its
proper
place would have demolished all this fine fabric of reasoning. Mr. L. should have granted, that other
dead
and BURIED shall "as certainly be raised as Christ was." In short, we affirm, on Scriptural authority, that at the
last day
the
bodies
of men shall really be raised. The article of the
resurrection
in our Creeds requires only this belief. We are neither concerned in niceties of conjecture, nor obliged to adopt Mr. L's. notion of identity.
(cc)
But to return to Dr. S. I admit that this learned writer has speciously enough reconciled a text or two
See particularly Rom. viii. 11.
to his favourite tenet, which have been generally referred to the received doctrine. But shall plausibility be obtruded upon us for demonstration? Shall it overturn the credit of other interpretations of the same passages, more solid perhaps, or at least equally ingenious? Shall it supersede the authority of a very great number of texts too clear and explicit to be opposed by any thing but general assertions, bold denials, flat contradictions, and the artifice of subtilization? Shall it shake the faith of ages, and nullify the doctrine of the catholic Church?
And, after all, in this, as in the case of the
Trinity,
we are in effect only called upon to exchange one Creed for another. These
squeamish
Gentlemen who know not how to
digest
the
wholsome
doctrines of the Gospel, expect us to
swallow
with
greediness
a kind of spiritual
Nostrum, prepared
by human imagination. It is true, Dr. S. with all the effrontery of
quackery,
would make us believe his
dose
may be
taken
without any sort of inconvenience. For he roundly asserts, that
the
resurrection of the dead
is no ways liable to any of the difficulties which the other notion MAY be liable to.
Now whatever difficulties our notion
may
be liable to, I ask, whether that of the Doctor has not at first sight its
peculiar
difficulties? Indeed it will stand clear of all, if we answer the following queries suitably to the confidence with which he proposes them.
May there not be a
resurrection of the dead,
says he, without the
resurrection of flesh?
May not the dead person be raised to life, and have a
body
given to him, suitable to the place he is to have? May not the
thinking conscious
person be restored, though he has not that restored which has no thought, nor consciousness belonging to it?
To the first of these three questions I answer absolutely—No.—A
resurrection of the dead,
supposes a
resurrection of flesh.
To the second and third I make free to reply with a few questions in my turn; and desire to ask, whether, when the
graves and the sea shall give up the dead,
they will not give up what was
put into them?
Was this the
body,
or was it the
soul?
Or, if by a
resurrection of the dead
we are only to understand our being invested with a
new
body,
with what shadow of sense is this styled a
resurrection?
Or, if there is sense and propriety in the term, may we not fairly ask, from whence is
this body
to
come? (dd)
If
thought,
or
consciousness
constitutes person, can
thought or consciousness
die? If not, what are we to understand by
a thinking conscious person's being restored?
Restored! From whence? Or to what?
(ee)
In short, whatever becomes of man after death, whatever may be the nature of the intermediate state, what notion can we form of
thought's rising from the dead,
or the
resurrection of consciousness?
Men will advance inconsistences, and assert paradoxes sooner than believe as the Church would have them.
(ff)
This notion of a
thinking person's being restored
does indeed correspond well enough with an opinion maintained with much earnestness some years since by certain Divines,
Dr. Law. Mr. Peckard, &c.
who held, that during the state between death and the last day, the soul will
sleep,
as it were, and all the rational powers be suspended. I shall not enter into the merits of their arguments. It will be sufficient to say, that these writers supposed the reunion of the Soul to the body at the day of judgment; and consequently, according to their notion, (for argument's sake admitting it,) the
restoration of the Soul
to its powers, &c. and
the resurrection of the dead,
are very different things.
Again: if we believe the Apostle's account, the instantaneous change which is to be effected in us at the
resurrection
will be from
natural
to
spiritual,
from
corruptible
to
incorruptible;
but we shall look in vain for such a change under any other hypothesis. They who insist, that our souls shall be united to
new bodies
may be allowed to suppose such bodies will be
spiritual,
as St.
Paul
speaks, and
incorruptible;
but will they not be hard put to it to prove that
these
ever were
natural,
or
corruptible?
Or does this Apostle's illustration of the doctrine before us by the similitude of seed sown, which
is not quickened except it die,
convey the least idea of a soul's awaking from sleep, and in a moment as it were recovering the use of all its faculties? Surely this cannot be the
mystery
which the inspired writer
shews
us in this chapter. But, according to our sense, the Apostolical comparison is as apt and happy as possible. The
bare grain
is
sown,
dissolves, and appears again under a new modification.
So also is the resurrection of the dead.
The body
is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body;
a body subtilized and purified; a body disencumbered from that
flesh and blood which cannot inherit the kingdom of God,
and, to adopt the high figuring of St.
Paul, clothed upon with an house from heaven,
and arrayed with
immortality.
And, all this while, in both cases,
God giveth a body
as it
pleaseth him, and to every seed,
and to every individual,
his own body.
The learned authors we are concerned with, and their numerous admirers, seem to have forgot, or to wish us to forget, that they hold opinions declared to be heretical, and condemned as such by an inspired Apostle. The author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews
numbers the
resurrection of the dead
among the
principles
of the
doctrine of Christ.
Heb. vi. 1, 2.
What was the precise tenet of
Hymeneus
and
Philetus
who asserted that the
Resurrection is past already,
we cannot learn from the Apostle who so severely censures them. But he describes them to be persons who
concerning the truth
had
erred,
and
overthrown the faith of some.
It is reasonably to be presumed, that they, as well as the old heretics,
Basilides, Carpocrates, Menander, Valentinus,
&c. and the
Anabaptists
and
Libertines
of later ages, (as I find them called,) denied the
resurrection of the body
on much the same grounds as their successors in this heterodoxy. It has been boldly maintained, that by the
resurrection of the dead
we are only to understand a
resurrection
from
sin
to a state of
grace;
or a kind of
resurrection
from
ignorance
to a
knowlege
of truth; or, in general, the immortality of the Soul.
Libertini,
says
Calvin,
as quoted by Arch-bishop
Laud, rident spem omnem quam de resurrectione habemus, idque jam nobis evenisse dicunt, quod adhuc expectamus, &c. ut homo sciat animam suam spiritum immortalem esse viventem in caelis.
And says
Peter Martyr,
as cited by the same prelate,
sunt etiam hodie Libertini qui eam irrident, et resurrectionem quae tractatur in Scripturis tantum ad animas referunt.
The
Gnostics
and
Valentinians
affirmed the flesh to be incapable of incorruption.
Carnis salutem negant,
says
Irenaeus, dicentes non eam esse capacem incorruptibilitatis. Menander
had the impudence to annex the privilege of immortality to his Baptism. And among others, probably the
Corinthian
converts affirmed the
Resurrection of the dead
imported no more than a
renovation of life and manners, a newness of life,
as St.
Paul
expresses it; and thus they absurdly confounded figure with letter, or a type with its antitype.
We should now see, for full satisfaction's sake, what the sense of the primitive Church was with respect to the doctrine before us; but this enquiry affording ample matter for distinct consideration must be reserved accordingly.
DISCOURSE VIII.
1 COR. Chapter 15. Verse 12.
If Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
THAT the doctrine of the
Resurrection of the body
was taught by the Apostles and by our Lord we have already seen; and that the Apostolical Fathers maintained it with the same precision will presently appear.
Let us consider, says St.
Clement
in his first Epistle to the
Corinthians,
how the Lord does continually shew us that there shall be a future
resurrection;
of which he has made our Lord
Jesus Christ
the FIRST FRUITS, raising him from the dead. Let us contemplate, beloved, the
resurrection
that is continually made before our eyes. Let us behold the fruits of the earth. Every one sees how the seed is sown. The sower goes forth, and casts it upon the earth; and the seed which when it was sown fell upon the earth dry and naked, in time dissolves; and from the dissolution the great power of the Providence of the Lord raises it again; and of one seed many arise, and bring forth fruit.
This passage is almost a direct comment on the 36th. and two following verses of the 15th. Chapter of St.
Paul
's first Epistle to the
Corinthians.
St.
Clement,
it must be confessed, is not so happy in his elucidation of the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body
from the supposed death and reviviscence of the
Phoenix
from his own ashes, according to a current opinion in those days; the enlargement on which fabulous wonder has drawn a charge of ungenuineness on the Epistle itself. But the judicious Editor and Translator in his preliminary discourse vindicates the good
Father,
and rescues the work from this imputation in a most satisfactory manner; so that "with serious and ingenuous minds," (to borrow his own words,) this is a matter which will reflect no discredit on St.
Clement
's doctrine, or on the pious zeal with which he maintained it. The reality of the doctrine is in no wise affected by the whimsicalness, or the weakness of the illustration.
He that raised up
Christ
from the dead, shall also raise up us in like manner, if we do his will,
says
Polycarp
to the
Philippians.
Ignatius
assures the
Trallians
in the most positive terms, that
as
Jesus Christ
was truly crucified and dead, so he was also truly raised from the dead by his Father,
after the same manner
as
he
will also raise up
us
who believe in him.
(gg)
The following extract from St.
Clement's
second Epistle to the
Corinthians
is at least as full and express as the passage a little above quoted from the first.
Let not any one among you say, that this very flesh is not judged, neither raised up. Consider, in what were ye saved, in what did ye look up, if not whilst you were in this flesh? We must therefore keep our flesh as the temple of God. For in like manner as ye were called in the flesh, ye shall also come to judgment in the flesh.
(hh)
And yet all this evidence shall shrink into nothing before a little ready confidence, and unceremonious decision. For thus says the Author of the
Inquiry.
If we pass from the New Testament,
Barnabas
and
Clemens
of
Rome
mention no more than the
resurrection;
and not any particular
modus
of it, or the
resurrection of the flesh:
vide
Barnabas,
ch. xxi.
Clemens,
ch. xxiv.
Clemens
indeed, in his second Epistle, mentions the
resurrection of the flesh;
but that is allowed not to be genuine.
Ignatius
too speaks as the Scriptures do.
Ep. ad Trall.
And in the larger Epistle to the
Ephesians,
he speaks of the resurrection
,
from the dead;
but he never mentions any thing of a
resurrection of the flesh.
Now if the passages I produced from St.
Clement
's first Epistle, and from
Ignatius,
do not to all intents and purposes assert the
resurrection of the body,
or
of the flesh;
if St.
Clement
's second Epistle must absolutely be pronounced spurious, because the learned world is divided in its sentiments relative to it; if the doctrine contained in this Epistle cannot possibly be agreeable to that of the other, or to that of
Ignatius,
or to that of the Apostolical and primitive Church, because it is a matter of some doubt who the author might be; if these reverend fathers speak in
no
place of the
resurrection
of the
body
because in
some
places they speak of the
resurrection of the dead,
or of the
resurrection
in general, as the holy Scripture itself occasionally does; if this be the case, equivocation shall hereafter pass for argument, and dogmaticalness for demonstration.
One should be apt to think, that the nearer the fountain, the clearer the stream; or, in plain terms, that the most antient Christians are the most orthodox; that those who lived in, or nearest to the times of the Apostles, and Apostolical men, were like to understand their doctrine with readiness, to embrace it with veneration, and to transmit it in purity. What can be more clear than the language of
Justin Martyr,
as it is quoted by Dr. S. himself?
Christ
shall come a second time, when
,
he shall raise the bodies of all men that have been?
Well; but says our author,
this was
Justin
's opinion, but it was not in any
Baptismal
Creed; he takes no notice of any article of any Creed as containing the notion of the
resurrection of the flesh,
whatsoever his own philosophical notion of the resurrection might be.
Will it follow then that the doctrine of the
resurrection of the flesh
was purely the personal, or philosophical notion of
Justin
Martyr,
because it was not in his time an article in any
Creed?
If so, it will follow, by parity of arguing, that almost all the other articles of our present
Creeds
were the private tenets or opinions of particular persons, and not the common doctrine, or belief of the catholic Church. This must follow upon Dr. S's own principles. For he has himself remarked in his preface, that
it is highly probable these, (referring to doctrines he had been mentioning,) and other doctrines were taught,
(viz.
after baptism,) as circumstances arose, either to explain some things inculcated in the Gospels, or to avoid something erroneous. And hence it was that the
original Creed
was enlarged, and more things inserted into it; and indeed all that has been added to it seems to have been owing to these causes.
The just now cited declaration of
Justin Martyr
is therefore to be regarded as exactly coincident with a doctrine publickly received, and not as the bare result of his own judgment, for any thing Dr. S. has said, or proved to the contrary. But if so, the doctrine of the
Resurrection of the body,
or of the
flesh,
was an article of faith from the beginning; and its subsequent date as an article of any
Creed
is a circumstance of very inferior consideration. What matters it to us
when
it was thought necessary to be required of the members of the Church of
Christ
openly to profess they believed as the Apostles and primitive Christians did?
But let me shew you how unfairly the author of the
Enquiry
deals by
Polycarp.
Of the two places in this
father's
epistle to the
Philippians
in which mention is made of the
resurrection,
the principal, I think, is that I not long since quoted, and will here lay again before you.
He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also raise up us in like manner.
The words
in like manner
are by the no less faithful than judicious translator printed in
Italics,
as not been literally contained, though necessarily implied in the original. This passage then, like many more parallel ones which I have had occasion to produce, I mean, from the Scripture itself, manifestly imports the
resurrection of the body;
though should any person affect to doubt what the good
father's
meaning may be
here,
they may soon learn what his idea of the
resurrection
was, from a part of the prayer he preferred to God in the hour of his martyrdom, according to the account we have of it in the circular epistle of the Church of
Smyrna.
He
there
makes mention of the
resurrection
both of
soul
and
body.
For though the
soul
cannot, properly speaking, be said to
rise again,
yet as the soul and body constitute the same man, as these constituent parts are separated by death, and reunited at the
resurrection,
this reunion is not unfitly expressed by a term that may be truly predicated of one of the constituent parts.
Dr. S. admits the genuineness of the above-mentioned narrative; and yet will not suffer us to consider the
letter
in one place to be an explanation of the
sense
in the other. There is more of art than honesty in an attempt to slip out of this difficulty by saying, as the
Enquirer
does in the following words, that
by the time this letter was wrote, the notion seems to have prevailed among Christians, that the
body
was to be raised, though it was not yet got into any of their Creeds.
This is a sort of spiritual juggle which inverts truth, and disguises it in the same instant: it metamorphoses the real sentiment of
Polycarp
into a whimsical notion which began to gain ground in the Church!
But this matter may be viewed in another light. The force of truth has drawn from our author an involuntary cession of his own darling point. For immediately after the sentence last cited from him, he acquaints us, that
soon after the middle of the second century disputes arose about the
resurrection;
the
heathens
objecting to the possibility of it, and the CHRISTIANS endeavouring to answer the objections they met with. The enquiry, says he, was, whether there was to be a
resurrection
of the
soul
alone, or of the whole man consisting of body and soul? And then a second question was, whether the
flesh,
the
very
flesh
which we now bear about us, was to be raised up again? The WRITERS of that time still extant contended for the
resurrection of the flesh
together with the soul. But there does not appear to be any
Creed
which established such a doctrine. For whatever PRIVATE PERSONS might imagine to be true, was not instantly to be
professed
as an article of faith, necessary to be believed in order to Baptism.
And afterwards he tells us, that
the controversy about the
resurrection of the flesh
did not begin till the middle, or near the end of the second century. And then as philosophers objected to the
resurrection
ITSELF, from the common topics,
how could
FLESH
devoured by beasts or fishes, and thus become
PARTS
of those animals; or perhaps reduced by fire to ashes, or disperst by seas and rivers, be restored? Athenagoras, Theophilus,
and
Tertullian
undertook a defence of this notion; and taught, that it was no ways beyond the power of Almighty God to restore to every one the flesh he once had.
Enquiry &c. p. 18.
(ii)
Now I desire to observe, in the first place, that these philosophers objected to the
resurrection
from the common topics just mentioned because they were the strongest that occurred to them; and because when they objected to the
resurrection of the body,
they most unquestionably meant to object to the
resurrection
ITSELF. In the next place, I would remark, that if by the CHRISTIANS,
who endeavoured to answer the objections of heathens,
and by the WRITERS of
that time,
we are to understand only a few PRIVATE PERSONS who maintained an extraordinary opinion; if
Athenagoras,
and
Theophilus,
and
Tertullian
did no more than defend their own personal tenets; it is passing strange these same heathen philosophers should set their
wits
against them at all; and stranger still, that the whole body of Christians had not joined the outcry in their own vindication, and in public disavowal of an enthusiastic and ridiculous principle. Nay this is not all. The doctrine of the
resurrection of the body,
if it was a mere private or personal opinion, was in fact contrary to the Gospel of
Christ,
and the sense of the Church; and therefore must have been regarded as a most gross, if not dangerous heresy. But as it most undoubtedly was never represented so to be, we are to conclude, I presume, that it was true and catholic doctrine, notwithstanding its non-appearance in any Creed, in the early ages, and though the acknowlegement of it was not a qualification for Baptism. We therefore insist, that whenever it became an article of a
baptismal Creed,
it was inserted with the most admissible pretensions.
It is, farther, very observable, that the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body
is most expressly taught in many places of the
Koran
of
Mahomet.
Let us turn to a few.
Man saith,
says
Mahomet, after I have been dead, shall I really be brought forth alive from the grave? Doth not man remember that we created him heretofore when he was nothing? The unbelievers say, when we and our fathers shall have been reduced to dust, shall we be taken from the grave? Man saith, who shall restore bones to life when they are rotten?
Answer, he shall restore them to life, who produced
"them the first time." (kk)
The whole system of
Mahometism
is, you well know, a superstructure raised upon the foundations of
Judaism
and
Christianity.
The grand aim of the impostor seems to have been to concentre both in one faith; with which view, and that no romantic one, he in part adopted, and partly rejected the respective theories. In order to ingratiate himself with the
Jews,
he asserted, as we have seen, even to an extremity of zeal, the unity of the Godhead; and at the same time not to put the
Christians
out of all temper, as he frequently takes occasion to speak respectfully of
Jesus Christ,
so he declares probably in the most explicit terms for the great article we have been discussing.
(ll)
We may therefore fairly conclude from this circumstance only, that the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body
was not the sentiment of a few individuals, but the profession of the universal Church at the beginning of the seventh century. And after all, supposing it to be questionable whether this were really the plan of
Mahomet,
the least that can be inferred from the perspicuity with which the doctrine of the
resurrection
is taught and enforced in the
Koran,
is that he conceived it to be sufficiently reconcileable with the common reason and apprehension of mankind; at the same time that, from this among other particulars, we must see, and must desire its adversaries to take notice, that it is not a doctrine peculiar to Christianity.
To come now to the
conclusion of the whole matter.
If
these things are so,
if the great doctrines we have been handling are defensible upon sound principles, and have a most firm foundation in Scripture, and in primitive authority, abundant reason have we to
hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering;
in nothing dismayed by adversaries who trifle with us upon the most serious subjects; who render the word of God of none effect, by perverse interpretation; who cannot, or will not see the plain sense of the plainest expressions; who will not acknowlege
Jesus Christ
to be the Creator of the world though
all things were made by him;
or that he made satisfaction for sin, though he was
sacrificed for us,
and
gave his life a ransom for all.
I know not any thing that can equal this stubbornness and slowness of heart except the insolence of such as gravely tell us, we must not hope to propagate the Gospel among
Jews, Mahometans,
or heathens, while the strange doctrines contained in our Creeds are retained in the Church. Is not this to all intents and purposes saying, we must not hope to eradicate infidelity till we have renounced the capital articles of our belief; or, in other words, must not expect to make converts to Christianity, till we cease to be Christians? And indeed so inconsiderable are the impediments to a spiritual coalition between the followers of
Socinus
and the disciples of
Mahomet,
that, according to information given us by writers of credit, terms of union and amity were actually proposed by the former to the latter in the last century.
See Mr. Jones's Introduc. Disc. p. 4. Note.
That men should admit the mysterious truths of holy Writ upon rational grounds, or that they should reject them upon what they call rational grounds, we may readily enough comprehend; but there seems to be something unaccountably romantic in an attempt to compromise matters as it were with the author of our faith by accommodating these truths to the human understanding.
But whatever may be the views, or whatever the claims, or whatever the pretences of Latitudinarians in general, the notion of a
Creed,
or a system, or an establishment respecting the great doctrines we have been considering, occurs to us in a manner spontaneously. In the Church of
Christ,
the only question ought to be, not whether a
confession,
a
formulary,
or a series of
articles,
be long or short, simple or circumstantial, antient or modern, but whether it has its grounds in competent authority.
(mm)
If the doctrines of the
Trinity
and of the
Resurrection,
as they are held in the Church, be scriptural doctrines, no more objection can justly lie against the
Nicene,
or the
Athanasian Creed,
than against that of Dr. S. This author not only admits but refers to an
original Creed,
which he observes has been enlarged "as circumstances arose," or occasions called; though that it has been enlarged in some instances beyond all reason he strongly insists, with many
others with
him. But be this as it may, and even if
these things
were not
so
as we have represented them, it is abundantly sufficient that they appear to be
so
to us. No rule, no system, no establishment whatsoever can in any tolerable sense be said to invade the
right of private judgment
in matters of religion; because
Creeds,
formularies, institutions, and appointments in general must be incompatible with the exercise of this right, at all periods of the Christian Church, or at none. It is pleasant enough to remark how
zealously
some will be
affected in a
ridiculous
thing;
and how vehemently they will
beat the air
in their contention for that
right
of
private judgment,
which is indeed unalienable; and in fact is exercised by those who submit to what may be called
public;
by men of all persuasions; by
Jews, Turks, Infidels,
and
Heretics;
by the Sectaries of all religions; and by people of no religion at all.
(nn)
Not Heretics only, says the great
Chillingworth,
but
Romish
Catholics also, set up as many judges, as there are men and women in the Christian world. For do not your men and women judge your religion to be true before they believe it, as well as the men and women of other religions? Oh! but you say,
they receive it, not because they think it agreeable to Scripture, but because the Church tells them so.
But then, I hope, they believe the Church, because their own reason tells them they are to do so. So that the difference between a Papist and a Protestant is this, not that the one judges, and the other does not judge, but that the one judges his guide to be infallible, the other his way to be manifest.
The fact is, every man's attachment to any thing, to this or that Church, to this party, or to that principle, &c. is ultimately resolvible into his opinion of its excellence, its truth, its propriety, or its expedience; or of its conduciveness on the whole to his welfare, comfort, and satisfaction, i. e. it is resolvible into his own private judgment. This judgment, it is true, may be warped by passion, biassed by prejudice, clouded by ignorance, and blinded by perverseness; it may be intoxicated by voluptuousness, enervated by indolence, or inverted by frenzy; or it may be influenced by wisdom, by folly, or by caprice. But, at the same time, whether we judge well, or ill; or of whatever differences or degrees human judgment may admit; we shall strictly and properly be found in all cases and instances to judge for ourselves. (
)
It was the concurrence of private judgment which first formed the Christian Church; it was the same concurrence which gradually compounded the enormous mass of popery; it was the same that effected the
Reformation;
and it was the same that constituted the numerous sects and parties into which this
Reformation
has been most deplorably split and subdivided. It is to nothing more or less than this that the Church of
England
owes her existence. And upon this ground it is certain, her requisition of assent to her public offices, and of subscription to her
articles,
the measure of just policy, and common prudence for her security, are no more to be regarded as invasions of the
right of private judgment,
than the open attempts, or the secret machinations of her enemies, for her destruction. Upon this ground, in short, her declarations of faith in what she holds to be evangelical truth; and indeed the whole scheme of her doctrine, discipline, and polity, are perfectly intelligible, and manifestly consistent. But is not the inference drawn from the acknowleged
right of private judgment
by a late famous author, and his associates, altogether chimerical, and totally incomprehensible? Their inference is, that every individual Christian may, if he thinks fit, withdraw himself from all the Churches upon the face of the earth, stand absolutely single in the profession of his faith, or, as this author expresses it, be a
Church to himself.
See Confessional. Ch. 2. p. 34. Note.
And is not this in effect to assert, that a Church may be formed without a communion, without government, or ministry; without a possibility of being infected with heresy, or divided by schism? Is it not to all intents and purposes to aver, that a society may subsist without members, without establishment, or constitution? We deny not that a man may judge he has a claim to this spiritual independence; and indeed our principle supposes him so to judge; but then we must beg leave to think in our turn, that he is grossly mistaken in that judgment.
(pp)
I wish to remark, that if the capital truths of the Gospel are discoverable any where, they are most indisputably to be found in the Catholic Church; the great repository of Christian doctrine. Our blessed Lord's assurances of superintendency, support, and protection are out of all question given to his disciples, and to believers in general, as to a body, or society.
Upon this rock,
says he,
I will build my Church, &c. Lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
When he promised his Apostles that he would send the
Holy Spirit
to them, who should
guide them into all truth,
he must necessarily mean that truth which they were to communicate to their successors, and these to others, and so on, through all generations. When the sacred penmen speak of the
truth,
or the
faith,
&c. they undoubtedly speak of the truth embraced, and the faith professed by all sound Christians; and when St.
Paul
exhorts the
Corinthians
to
examine
themselves, and to
prove
themselves,
whether
they were in the
faith,
he most certainly means the faith of the catholic Church. In a word, we must look for spiritual truth in its native simplicity, though we
search
for it as for
hid treasures;
we must look for it within the pale of some communion or other: which surely will be acknowleged by every man, who does not, in defiance of Scripture, and in contempt of all the world, suppose that the infallibility which he justly denies to appertain to any Church upon earth, is really and truly lodged in himself.
The principle of the
Confessional
leads, we apprehend, to these absurd consequences; but at the same time we assert no
dominion
over the
faith,
or the consciences of others; we leave every one to
stand or fall to his own master;
we conceive, that, by the immutable constitution of things, every one will think and act for himself, though we imagine all men to be accountable to God as well for their opinions as for their practices; we neither do, nor wish to
compel
men to
come in
that our Church
may be filled,
persuaded as we are at the same time that this Church is, in respect of all essentials, an apostolical one; that she
holds fast the things which become sound doctrine,
and teaches the
words of eternal life.
It may with great truth be affirmed, that the Church of
England
asserts the
right of private judgment
in the same sense, and to the same latitude that every party or body of Protestants does. For how does the management of the several leaders and teachers of the Sectaries accord with this universally avowed principle? How do
they
leave men to their own judgments in matters of religion? Do
they
not find ways and means to become masters of the understandings, and the consciences of their followers; and accomplish that by indirect artifice which they load us with obloquy for doing under the sanction of lawful authority? The fact is, in case of superiority, any sect that you may name would think itself, not barely empowered, but bound to strengthen and secure itself by legal fences and establishments, and by authoritative constitutions; i. e. by those very means and methods against which it now so vehemently exclaims. Experience will justify our supposition that such would be the case; as we know the most considerable branch of the
Dissenters
to have changed its language, and its sentiments, with its situation. The first article of the memorable
solemn League and Covenant
declares the intention of its framers to be,
to
bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
CONFESSION OF FAITH, FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT, and DIRECTORY FOR WORSHIP and CATECHISING;
that they and their posterity after them might as brethren live in faith and love.
It is pleasant enough to observe, that, notwithstanding the fine flourishes and colourings of certain authors, who plausibly profess themselves to be advocates for the common rights and privileges of Christians, we find them sometimes driven out of their track by the irresistible force of truth, and insensibly advancing▪ or admitting ecclesiastical notions: we find them after all their efforts and struggles to climb over the pale of the Church, unwarily, or rather unavoidably slipping back, as I may say, into her fold, and undermining their own principles. The words of a late famous prelate
Bp. Hoadley.
upon this subject will verify the observation.
As it is absurd, says he, to suppose that any man can be saved by the faith of another, or by any belief but what is truly his own; so there is no possible method of having a faith of his own, properly so called, without building it entirely upon what appears right to his own judgment, such as it is, after his best endeavours for INFORMATION.
That is to say, in other words, a man cannot properly be said to judge for
himself
till he has received information, or instruction from
others.
In short, let privileges be as sacred, or consciences as tender as you please, I affirm that the erection and establishment of a national Church, whether the doctrines she teaches are in themselves orthodox or otherwise, true or false, is as fairly defensible upon rational and protestant grounds, as the institution of any religious sect, or society whatsoever.
True it is that men, inflamed with false zeal, or misled by wrong judgment, may depart both from protestant and Christian principles; and at their peril it will be. The Church of
Rome
endeavoured to extirpate what she
called heresy
by the very same means which in early days Paganism employed for the overthrow of the Christian faith itself. And what was the consequence? The inhumanity of persecution afforded to every thinking mind a very strong argument of the corruption of that Church in which it was countenanced; it frightened men
into
their
Senses;
it helped to open their understandings; and Popery may upon the matter be said to have been burnt out of the kingdom. I undertake not to prove, that in our own Church zeal has always been sufficiently governed by prudence, or tempered with charity. There is no occasion to recur to a few disagreeable instances, or the transactions of untoward times. But, I trust, I shall be abundantly warranted in asserting, that he who at this day shall charge the Church of
England,
or any considerable number of her members, with a want of due moderation,
knows not of what manner of Spirit we are of.
And yet, if the author of the
Confessional
is to be credited, we are relapsing gradually into Popery, both in our doctrines and our practices. We are given to understand, in the seventh Chap. of that work, that
Some competent observers have grounds for more than a suspicion, that the Church of
England
has been, and still is, though by degrees imperceptible to vulgar eyes, edging back once more towards Popery.
Sure these
observers
are much more
sharp-sighted
than their neighbours! I do not well know what these Gentlemen are afraid of; but I know true Christianity to be most in danger from the diametrically opposite quarter; not so much from men of too great, as from people of too
little faith;
not so much from the triple-mitre of the
Roman
pontiff, as from the many-headed
hydra
of infidelity. The truth of the matter is, the author before us and his friends do not speak out, as our
open enemies
have done, and as themselves were called upon to do, by every maxim of justice, candor, and generosity. They are in no dread of
fire
and
faggot;
they are offended, not by the
discipline,
but by certain doctrines of the Church of
Rome,
which we hold in common with her, (even the
doctrines
I have been defending,) and which they most insidiously and industriously labour to confound with the absurdities which are justly had in derision, or in abhorrence among us, and of which the credit visibly diminishes every day. Errors may be grafted upon the stock of truth; which in itself is not the less pure, or the less amiable, because it may be
holden
in folly as well as in
unrighteousness.
To an ardent longing to see these common doctrines expunged from our
Articles
and
Creeds,
we are unquestionably to ascribe that profusion of spleen, malevolence, and rancour with which so many pages, of the
Consessional,
and of other treatises are shamefully defiled. But for these doctrines, I am thoroughly persuaded, the reasonableness, and utility, not to say necessity of Church-establishments, would generally be admitted, and even contended for. That nicety of human wisdom which strains at two or three of our
Articles
could, I am apt to think, well enough digest the remainder of the
thirty nine.
But as matters are circumstanced, the principle I have been combating is far from being an unpopular one. The privilege, or right of private judgment, in the sense of our adversaries, reduces in some sort all men to an equality, and is extremely soothing to vain and to weak minds. The fact is, there is no difficulty in declaiming from standing and specious topics either of eulogy, or invective. An affected zeal for reformation, and an avowed anxiousness for the revival of gospel simplicity, have a verv ingratiating tendency with the bulk of mankind.
Liberty of conscience, Freedom of sentiment, (qq) ecclesiastical
tyranny, violence of bigotry, arbitrary injunctions, spiritual impositions,
&c. are, I grant, expressions sufficiently sonorous and amusing, and may pass with many for argument; though at the same time,
looseness of principle, stubbornness of schism, rankness of heresy, arrogance of self-sufficiency, perverseness of opposition, and petulance of temper,
&c. are phrases which must be allowed by "competent" judges to sound quite as well, and to mean full as much.
To conclude. That there is nothing in the least exceptionable in our whole ecclesiastical system; nothing that might reasonably be retrenched; nothing that could possibly be amended even in our
Articles,
as well as worship, rites, and usages, we by no means affirm: but respectfully leaving
these things
to the consideration of them that
are over us in the Lord,
we utterly deny that there is any thing fundamentally wrong, or essentially erroneous in our spiritual constitution.
(rr)
Men may be, and we find them to be bigots in the cause of infidelity; nor can it afford the least matter of wonder, if no regard is paid to the complaints, or rather the
railing accusations
of such as under fair shews and pretences have manifestly
evil will at Sion;
and while they profess themselves to be actuated by the
Spirit of liberty,
appear to be really possessed with the
Daemon of licentiousness.
I profess I see not what we can do for, or with these determined enemies of our holy faith except praying, in the spirit of
fervent charity,
that God would be pleased "to bring them into the way of truth."
The Spirit speaketh expressly,
says St.
Paul, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing Spirits, and doctrines of devils.
1 Tim. iv. 1.
This passage cannot possibly be considered as a dead letter; and therefore it infinitely concerns ALL persons "diligently to try and examine themselves," in order to their moral assurance that it does not in any sense or degree touch THEIR spiritual state. In general however, under a conviction that we are ourselves in the
good and the right way,
it will be our duty, as Members of the Church to wish, and as Christians to pray, that God would
have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics; that he would take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of his word; and so fetch them home to his flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one Shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord.
ANNOTATIONS.
Page 2.
(a) or misconstrued.]
Controversy in general may be said to subsist in a great measure by the pliancy of composition.
Christopher Davenport,
a
Franciscan,
in a paraphrase, or exposition of the
thirty-nine articles,
makes them all capable of a
Roman-Catholic
sense; and
Raynardus,
a
Roman
likewise, by a perverse interpretation, converts every article of the
Apostolic Creed
into heresy or blasphemy. The design of the latter is obvious enough. I do not recollect to whom I am indebted for these particulars. In like manner Dr.
Waterland
acquaints us, that
Franciscus,
abbot of St.
Clare,
contrived to reconcile our
thirty-nine articles
to the doctrine of the Council of
Trent,
by dint of great dexterity, and most amazing subtilty,
as the learned Doctor expresses it.
With respect to religious questions, the
Romanists,
in derision of the principles and pretensions of
Protestants,
and by way of proof of the necessity of ecclesiastical interposition, have all along called the Scriptures
mortuum atramentum,
"dumb judges," &c. and assimilate the same to a "nose of wax," to represent their susceptibleness of any sense it may suit us to put upon them; though at the same time none more than themselves endeavour to make advantage of their versatility. This is apparent in many instances;
e. g.
in their constructions of those texts by which they pretend to prove the doctrine of
extreme-unction,
of a
purgatory,
&c.
The applications of Scripture made by the
Roman Canonists
are serio-ridiculous, if I may so say, beyond all conception. They will prove the twofold power of the Pope from the
two swords
which the Apostles had when
Christ was seized by Judas.
Christ said to
Peter, Feed my sheep
in general, not such or such a flock; from whence it has been inferred, that the Pope, as successor to that Apostle, is to be acknowledged the universal Pastor, &c, &c.
JEWEL'S
Defence of the apology of the Church of England.
part 4th. p. 473,
&c. Translation of
JURIEU'S
continuation of the accom. of the Scripture prophecies.
p. 52. Dr. WATERLAND'S
Importance of the doctrine of the Holy Trin.
p. 211, 363,
&c.
Page 4.
(b) Such an authority.]
It is much on the same principle that the Papists, as
Chillingworth
remarks, in order to ground the belief of the Trinity, &c. in the Church's infallibility, roundly deny that this great doctrine can be proved, either from Scripture, or by
consent of the ancient fathers.
This, as that great author observes, is
doing the principal and proper work of the
Socinians
for them.
I find the following extract from the
Racovian Catechism,
made by the anonymous author of
Four Treatises concerning the Doctrine, &c. of the Mahometans:—Sententia eorum, qui Christo naturam divinam tribuunt, est repugnans non solum sanae rationi, verum etiam Divinis Literis,
&c." Hereunto the author subjoins two other similar passages, the first from
Smalcius,
a famous
Socinian;
and the latter from
Socinus
himself. The words of
Socinus
are these.
Usque ad tempora
CONCILII NICAENI,
et aliquanto post, ut omnium qui tum extitere scriptis liquet, ille unus verus Deus, quem passim sacra testimonia praedicant, solus Pater Jesu Christi est creditus; et qui contrarium sentiunt, ut
SABELLIANI
et eorum similes, pro haereticis plane sunt habiti.
Let us see then how Bp.
Jewel
manages this matter against his antagonist Mr.
Hardinge,
who, in his pretended confutation of the
Apology for the Church of England,
confidently asserts, that
the Divinity of the Holy Ghost cannot be proved by any express authority from Scripture.
We find that illustrious prelate taking the wisest method of putting his adversary to silence and confusion, by producing testimonies and opinions, and not barely concessions, but strong asseverations of a directly contrary tendency, from the writers of the
Roman
Church itself. One quotation from
Nazianzen
is extremely remarkable, and runs as follows.
Dicet aliquis non esse scriptum, Spiritum Sanctum esse Deum. Atqui proponetur tibi
EXAMEN
testimoniorum, ex quibus ostendetur, Divinitatem S. Spi. testatam esse in sacris literis, nisi quis valde insulsus sit, et alienus a Spiritu Sancto.
In short, the various methods which have been taken by Papists to evince the necessity of admitting the infallibility of the Church, and to discredit the authority of the evangelical writings, are equally scandalous and pitiful. You have them particularly enumerated by an author just now quoted; and it will be sufficient to select one of them, as it is a flagrant one; I mean that of the Cardinal
Perron,
who, in the last century, in order to render the Scriptures suspected and contemptible, asserted, that
some things in them sound like fables, others are apt to raise in the mind indecent and dishonest imaginations, as some expressions in
Solomon's song;
the history of
Balaam's Ass
which spoke; and the
jaw-bone
of an
Ass,
with which
Sampson
slew a thousand
Philistines.
CHILLINGWORTH
's Preface. Bp.
JEWEL
's Defence. part
2
d. p.
90.
Translation of
JURIEU
's Contin. &c. p.
66. WOLLEBIUS
's Compend. Theol. Chris. cap.
2.
p.
15. TRAVIS
's Third Letter to Mr.
GIBBON. See SOCINUS
de Eccles. p.
345.
Four Treatises, &c. p.
191.
Page 13.
(c) Errors of integrity.]
One of Mr.
K.
's arguments, or rather one argument urged by him in the name of his Church, is the following.
Heretics would arise after the Apostles time, and after the writing of Scriptures: these cannot be discovered, condemned, and avoided, unless the Church be infallible; therefore there must be a Church infallible.
To which Mr.
Chillingworth
replies in these words.
I pray tell me why cannot heresies besufficiently discovered, condemned, and avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of faith? If Scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is heresy; seeing heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from, and an opposition to the faith. That which is straight will plainly teach us what is crooked, and one contrary cannot but manifest the other. If any one should deny that there is a God, that this God is omnipotent, omniscient, good, &c, that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world, and the Son of God; if any man should deny either his birth, his passion, or resurrection, or
sitting at the right hand of God;
his having
all power given him,
that it is he whom God hath appointed to be
Judge of the quick and the dead;
that all men shall rise again at the last day, &c, if a man should hold, that either the keeping of the
Mosaical
law is necessary to Salvation, or that
good works
are not necessary; in a word, if any man should obstinately contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture, who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath sufficient means to discover, and condemn, and avoid that heresy, without any need of an infallible guide? If you say, that the
obscure places of Scripture contain matters of faith,
I answer, that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them, whatever it is, which was intended by God, is true; for he that doth not so, calls God's truth into question. But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them, or to believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not necessary either to faith, or salvation.
It may be asked, however, whether this gives us satisfaction to the full? Do not our
Creeds
and
Articles
contain particulars which we shall look for in vain in M.
C.
's list of the objects of faith? Are not many whom we consider as heretics ready to subscribe to this list? Was Mr.
C.
inadvertently, or designedly silent with regard to these particulars? Or are we to consign them to the class of obscurity? Whatever might have been his motive to the wording of his paragraph in this manner, or whatever was his personal persuasion in respect to the fundamental articles of the faith professed by the Church of
England,
the momentous import of the interrogatories I have just put must be visible to every reader.
When Mr.
C.,
or any body else tells us, that
God does not require any more of any man than this, to believe the Scripture to be God's word, and to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it;
or, that
he that believes the Scripture sincerely, and endeavours to believe it in the true sense, cannot possibly be an heretic,
See Relig. of Protest. p. 335; and end of Preface.
he must be understood with qualification; as asserting, not absolutely that an honest man cannot possibly
err concerning the faith,
but that error, or heresy will not be imputed to involuntary ignorance, or to sincerity of persuasion.
Heresy, says Bp.
Taylor,
is not an error of the understanding, but of the will;
and elsewhere,
it is not the opinion, but the impiety that condemns and makes the heretic.
On this principle this sagacious and moderate writer condemns the
Heresiarch
whose error
commences upon pride and ambition, &c. and excuses those who follow him in simplicity of heart.
Agreably to all this, Dr.
Potter,
(author of the Answer to
Charity Mistaken,
whose cause
Chillingworth
espouses,) and after him Dr.
Waterland
quotes the following remarkable passage from
Salvian,
an antient Bishop of
Marseilles,
respecting the truly
sincere of the
Arian
persuasion.
They are heretics, but do not know that they are so. In short, they are heretics in our judgment, not so in their own; for they esteem themselves such good Catholics, that they even throw upon us the infamous charge of heresy. Such therefore as they are to us, we are to them. We know assuredly that they are injurious to the divine generation of the Son of God, in making him inferior to the Father. They, on the other hand, think us injurious to the Father, in believing them both equal. How they shall be punished at the day of judgment for this their error, &c. no one can know except the Judge.
It may be proper to take Mr.
K.
's argument, and Mr.
C.
's answer into re-consideration.
Heresies, says the former, would arise after the Apostles' time, and after the writing of Scriptures: these cannot be discovered, condemned, and avoided, unless the Church be infallible; therefore there must be a Church infallible.
The substance of Mr.
C.
's reply is, that
without any need of an infallible guide,
the great truths of the Gospel are discoverable, and consequently heresies avoidable, by all such as
believe Scripture to be the rule of faith:
and that with respect to those obscure places of Scripture," which Mr.
K.
tells us "contain matters of faith," we have nothing to do but
believe that the sense of them, whatsoever it is, which was intended by God, is true,
without being solicitous to avoid mistakes concerning them.
By this answer 'tis certain this celebrated disputant seems to lay his own faith rather open to suspicion. For does he not admit what he might, and in fact ought to have contested? Take them in the gross, the
places of Scripture which contain matters of faith,
are not by any means
obscure,
but altogether plain and intelligible.
I speak concerning
the faith of
the Church.
What the sense of these places is, according to the established laws of interpretation, and according to the belief of the Christians of the first ages, is a question, to the determination of which we surely need not have recourse to infallibility. Though therefore, with respect to passages really ambiguous, or
obscure,
it will be a safe and excellent rule,
to believe that the sense of them, whatsoever it is, which was intended by God, is true,
yet it will be unfair, unreasonable, and unsafe to apply this rule to places which are no otherwise ambiguous, or
obscure,
than as they "contain matters of faith;" especially when we remember how frequently, and how earnestly we are required to
strive for the faith,
to
contend for the faith,
and to
examine
and
prove
our
own
selves
whether
we
be in the faith.
Truth is not less truth because it is held in a Church that pretends not to be infallible. God
only knows the hearts of the children of men:
but at the same time it will be no breach of charity to intimate, that
every man
should
be fully persuaded in his own mind,
that if he errs, his error is an error, not of his
will,
but of his
understanding.
CHILLINGWORTH,
part
1.
c.
2.
p.
90. TAYLOR
's Disc. on the Lib. of Prophesying, Sect.
2.
p.
23, 42. POTTER
's Ans. to Char. Mistaken. Sect.
4.
p.
119. WATERLAND
's Import. of the Doc. of the Trinity.
p. 167. SALV.
de Guber.
l. 5.
Page 14.
(d) of insanity.]
I cannot bring myself to recall these words by the high respect which on many accounts is due to the names of certain persons, eminent for their ability, and some of them for their piety too, who have advanced notions not a whit less eccentric or extravagant than these. The late worthy Bishop of
Cloyne,
who denied, or at least doubted the existence of matter, is not without his numerous admirers. In fact, he seems to have confounded all, though he has convinced none. But whatever purpose was intended to be served by such a doctrine, surely its real consequences must be detrimental to the cause of Christianity. If all about us is mere mockery and illusion, the very foundations of all evidence, all faith, and all practice are undermined; nor will it be possible to determine which position most contradicts my senses, or offers most violence to my conceptions,
that
which avers the non-existence of matter, or
that
which maintains the
transubstantiation
of it in the holy Sacrament. The followers of Mr.
Hobbes
will be apt to laugh this notion to scorn, under a persuasion that they deny, or doubt the existence of Spirit, and consequently of God, with a much better grace. It may be observed, with regard to both extremes, that there is no such thing as demonstrating beyond a possibility of doubt, or contradiction. For, to use the words of an author of the last century,
it is possible that
mathematical evidence
itself may be but a constant undiscoverable delusion, which our nature is necessarily and perpetually obnoxious unto, and that either fatally or fortuitously there has been in the world time out of mind such a being as we call
Man,
whose essential property it is to be then most of all mistaken when he conceives a thing most evidently true.
There is no shutting the door against scepticism. We meet with doubters and disputers of all ages and nations.
Marcus Antoninus
makes mention of one
Monimus,
a
Cynic
philosopher, who averred that all is fancy, and that there is absolutely no such thing as a
criterion
of truth.
Pyrrho,
though not the first sceptic, was famous enough to give an appellation to scepticism. But notwithstanding all this, a man of sense and of common prudence will listen to rational evidence, and yield assent to moral certainty. He will soon be convinced upon enquiry, that both body and spirit exist, and that mind is neither matter nor motion; that if chance, or nature, if you please, made the world, it is that which preserves it too; and may dissolve it; and, after its dissolution, may restore it to its original state, or reduce it to one infinitely worse than the present. This sure is at best but uncomfortable philosophy. Not that I would hereby insinuate immorality to be necessarily connected with infidelity.
Plato
distinguished long ago between the "ranting" and sober atheist; and observed, that a man whose sentiments are impious may be virtuous from constitution. Accordingly he very justly resolves atheism into not barely depravity of manners, but sometimes into an affectation of singular wisdom.
See Letters on Infidelity. p. 35.
One source of atheism in his opinion is,
, which is almost literally translated in the following words of the Apostle,
professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Dr.
Cudworth
seems unwarily to give some advantage to the atheist, where he says, that
when we affirm that God is incomprehensible, we only mean, that our imperfect minds cannot have such a conception of his nature as doth perfectly master, conquer, and subdue that vast object under it, &c.
The case is, we comprehend by our reason
that
God is, though not
what
he is, in respect of his essence in the abstract. But that he is self-existent from all eternity, that he is a
Spirit,
that he is the Creator and Governor of the Universe, that he is all perfect, are certain truths, notwithstanding the darkness which surrounds them.
Sophocles
may be imagined to have had these truths in his eye, when speaking of the divine edicts, and the immutable decrees of heaven, he puts this fine sentiment in the mouth of
Antigone,
.
And yet we have wits and philosophers of great name and recent date, who seem desirous of reviving the old atomical physiology, which, as Dr.
Cudworth
expresses it,
makes all things to be materially and mechanically necessary without a God.
These gentlemen are at least far from pronouncing matter incapable of the privilege of thought. One
Hume's Dialogues, p. 60.
in direct terms calls thought the
agitation of the brain.
Unhappily Mr.
Locke
so far subscribes to this principle, as to declare his opinion, that
we have not sufficient knowledge to determine, by the light of reason, that God could not grant the gift of thought and sensation to a being which we call material.
Mr.
Voltaire
eagerly catched at this notion of the
sole reasonable metaphysician,
as he calls him.
MORE
's Antid. against Atheism. p.
10. CUDWORTH
's Intell. Syst. ch.
3.
p.
176. PLATO
de Leg. l.
10. CLARKE
's Dem. of the Being, &c. of God, p.
22, 23, &c. SOPHOC.
Antig. Act.
3.
v.
462.
Memoirs of
VOLTAIRE,
p.
61.
See
JOHNSON
's note at cap.
4.
of
PUFFENDORF
's de officio hom. et civ.
See M. ANTONI. lib. 2—15.
Page 19.
(e) hundred mysteries as one.]
I shall beg leave to confront the pride of infidels with the joint authorities of Mr.
Boyle,
and Lord
Bacon;
the former of whom in his treatise, entitled
Motives to the Love of God,
thus expresses himself.
If I be not very much mistaken, they are so, who presume to give us satisfactory definitions of God's nature, which we may perhaps more safely define by the impossibility of its being accurately defined. Nor will an assiduity and constancy of our speculations herein relieve us: for too fixed a contemplation of God's essence does but the more confound us.
And then he refers us to the well-known story of
Simonides.
Agreably to these sentiments, the great Lord
Bacon
says,
If any man shall think by view and enquiry into these sensible and material things, to attain that light whereby he may reveal unto himself the nature and will of God, then is he spoiled through vain philosophy. And hence, continues he, it hath proceeded, that some of the chosen rank of the more learned have fallen into heresy, whilst they have sought to fly up to the secrets of the Deity, by the waxen wings of the senses.
And
again. "The prerogative of God comprehends the whole man, and is extended as well to the reason, as to the will of man;
i. e.
that man renounce himself wholly, and draw near unto God; wherefore as we are to obey his law, though we find a reluctation in our will, so we are to believe his word, though we find a reluctation in our reason; for if we believe only that which is agreeable to our reason, we give assent to the matter, not to the author, &c. By how much therefore any divine mystery is more discordant and incredible, by so much the more honour is given to God in believing, &c. &c.
How do these sentiments differ from those of the "philosophic Christians" of this enlightened age!
Motives, &c. p.
63, 64.
Bacon on the Advancement of Learning, translated by Watts, B.
1.
p.
8. 9.
p.
468.
Page
21.
(f) ventilation of these subjects.]
It is ridiculous, it is useless, it is endless to start metaphysical questions, which instead of clearing matters, serve only to confound them. It has been asked, whether the Deity be naturally or morally good; or whether he is
necessarily good and just in the same sense as he is eternal and omniscient?
All speculations on such points as these are covered by the general idea of absolute inherent perfection. Perhaps
Seneca
may be allowed to discharge this difficulty not unhappily, when, speaking of the Deity, he says,
Ipse est necessitas sua.
The ingenious editor of
Puffendorf
's treatise
De officio hominis et civis
speaks much the same language in the following note:
Deus intelligitur ad suarum perfectionum normam actiones componere. Ipse
sibi lex est. Ens natura perfectissimum cum Deus sit, ideo quodcunque agit vel eligit, non potest non esse optimum. Itaque nugas agunt, vel quiddam pejus, qui Deum, ens primum et summum, virtutis et obligationis capacem esse docent.
See Johnson's Note at Sect. 4. Book 1.
But these last words seem rather obscure.
To avoid making God the author of evil, the doctrine of
Zoroastres
was, that
God originally and directly created only light, or good; and that darkness, or evil, followed it by consequence, as the shadow doth the person; that light, or good, hath only a real production from God, and the other afterward resulted from it, as the defect thereof.
An ingenious writer gives us the sentiments of
Plato
on this perplexing subject, in the following translation.
God is good. He is not, as many say, the cause of every thing. The good things we enjoy are to be solely ascribed to him; but we are to search for another cause than God for our evils. Or, if we will say they come from God,
Plato
quotes here the famous passage in
Homer,
where mention is made of
Jupiter
's two Vessels, the one containing good, and the other evil, &c. See
Plato
de Repub. b. 2. and
Pope
's Note at v. 527. of 24th. Book of the Iliad.
some such reason as this is to be assigned. We may say, God does always what is just and good, and the persons punished receive benefit by it; but the poet must not say the sufferers are miserable, and God inflicts that misery on them; if indeed he say, the wicked, as miserable, stand in need of punishment, and when punished by God, receive benefit from it, this may be permitted; but we are strenuously to oppose any man, who says God is the author of evil to a good man. Such language is at no rate to be tolerated in a state.
The judicious reader will see how little a way this theory goes towards clearing the difficulty; but he will, I presume, acknowlege it goes far enough to convince us, that
Plato
had,
to speak modestly, as precise ideas of the Divine nature as any modern philosopher,
according to the translator's expression. But in his
Timaeus,
this famous philosopher imputes the origin of evil to the
necessity of imperfect beings,
as Dr.
Cudworth
expresses it.
Wherefore, says he, though, according to
Plato,
God be properly and directly the cause of nothing else but good, yet the
necessity of these lower imperfect things
does unavoidably give birth and being to evils.
This is conformable enough to modern notions.
Aristotle
seems to have thought the Deity to have been the cause or principle of all things without exception; tho' in the following sentence he expresses himself in terms general, modest, and unperemptory;—
.
It is further observable, that not only many heathens, and among others,
Platonists,
but, what is more extraordinary, Christians also have asserted the self-existence and eternity of matter, in order to account for the origin of evil, and effectually salve the honour of the Deity. God would have made
nihil non optimum,
says
Hermogenes,
as
Tertullian
represents his and his followers reasonings. These heretics were called
Materiarii.
It has been the opinion of some that God permitted the fall of man, purely with a view to his redemption.
See Catcott's Serm. 2. p. 33. 3. 48.
The author of
Deism Revealed
remarks, "that there are two opposite and supreme principles, according to the belief of almost all the Pagans now in the world.
We are further given to understand by other authors, that God's
absolute decrees and predetermination of good and evil
is the doctrine of the
Koran
in general; though the
Mahometans
are divided in their opinions upon this article. The sect of the
Hashemians
were, it seems, so afraid of making God the author of evil, that they would not allow him to have created an infidel; which was adopting something like the old
Magian
theory, according to which there are two principles, or a good and evil God, who are in a state of perpetual enmity and opposition. On the other hand, the
Mozdarians
thought it possible for God to be a liar, unjust, &c. as the
Basharians
taught, that
God is not obliged to do what is best; and that, had it pleased him, he might have made all men true believers.
The
English
translation of a
Latin
version of an
Arabic
manuscript, which contains a short system of
Mahometan
theology, gives us a distinction upon the subject of the divine decrees, as whimsical as it is unsatisfactory. In the sixth section we have the following passage.—
God hath so decreed good, obedience, and faith, that he ordains and wills them; and that they may be under his decree, his salutary direction, his good pleasure and command: on the contrary, God has decreed, does ordain, will and determine evil, disobedience, and infidelity; yet without his salutary direction, his good pleasure, or command; it being only by way of seduction, indignation, and prohibition. But whosoever shall say, that God is not delighted with good, and faith, or that God hath not an indignation against evil and infidelity; or that good and evil are from God, so that God hath decreed and willed both, with complacency in them, he is certainly an infidel.
Then follows in another character;—
Direct us, O great God, into the right way!
—A petition expressive of the author's perplexity.
The general way both among Jews and Christians of accounting for the origin of evil, is to derive it from the abuse of human liberty. Let us turn to the sentiments of the learned
Grotius
upon this subject.
Cum diximus Deum omnium esse causam, addidimus, eorum quae vere subsistnnt; nihil enim prohibet, quo minus ipsa, quae subsistunt, deinde causae sint accidentium quorundam; quales sunt actiones. Deus hominem et mentes sublimiores homine creavit cum agendi libertate: quae agendi libertas vitiosa non est, sed potest sua vi aliquid vitiosum producere.
Still will not this elastic difficulty return with full force upon us? For may it not be asked, who created men and angels, and endowed them with this liberty? Or could
either
have abused a privilege they never enjoyed? Is there nothing of apparent causality in all this? Indeed the learned author seems to me to be sensible of his distressed situation. He observes very justly, in the words immediately following those just cited, that it would be impious to call God the author of evil.
Hujus quidem generis malis, quae moraliter mala dicuntur, omnino Deum adscribere auctorem nefas est.
But what does he say in the leading sentence of this very section?
Neque ab eo quod diximus, dimovere nos debet, quod mala multa evenire cernimus, quorum videtur origo Deo adscribi non posse; ut qui perfectissime, sicut ante dictum est, bonus sit.
Surely that same
videtur
betrays entanglement. Let us just see now in what manner Mr.
Le-clerc,
the ingenious editor of this work of
Grotius,
illustrates this delicate passage.
Praevidit quidem etiam Deus fore ut naturae liberae libertate sua abuterentur, indeque multa mala et physica et moralia eventura; nihilo secius abusum illum, consectariaque ejus pati maluit, quam naturas libertate praeditas non creare. Quid ita? Quia cum natura libera sit praestantissima creatura, quaeque summam opificis potentiam quam maxime ostendit; Deus noluit incommoda ex naturae mutabilitate promanantia antevertere, quia ea potest, cum visum erit, per totam aeternitatem emendare; iis modis qui non nisi bonitati ejus convenientissimi esse possunt, quamvis eos nondum revelarit.
The very learned and equally pious Dr.
Barrow
expresses himself on this subject in the following words.
As for those real imperfections and evils, (moral evils, habitual distempers, irregular actions, &c.) we need not seek any one eternal cause for them; (though order and uniformity do, disorder and confusion do not argue any unity of cause whence they should proceed:) the true causes of them are notorious enough: the voluntary declining of men, &c, from the way God doth prescribe them; their abusing their own faculties, &c. &c. As for other evils of griefs and pains incident to the nature, or consequent upon the actions of any being, they are such as God himself, (without any derogation to his goodness,) may in his wisdom, or justice be author of, for ends sometimes apparent to our understanding, sometimes surpassing its reach. It may suffice, that God challengeth to himself the being the cause of them.
Shall there be any evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it? Doth not evil and good proceed out of the mouth of the Most High? I am the Lord, and there is none else; I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil.
(See Amos. 3. v. 6. Lamen. 3. v. 38. Isa. 45. v. 7.) We derive rather distress than content from all this; nor (to go a step farther) shall we receive more satisfaction from St.
Augustine,
in the following quaint solution,—
mali nulla natura est, sed amissio boni mali nomen accepit;
or from
Wollebius,
(Divin. Profess. at
Basil
in the last century,) in the following distinction,
non enim eveniunt (viz. Dei decreta) necessitate coactionis, sed necessitate tantum immutabilitatis;
or from Mr.
Whiston,
in his observation, that
whatever is evil must have been the consequence of man's fall, and not God's introduction.
We are reminded by these several particulars of the heresy of the
Marcionites,
who no less absurdly than wickedly maintained, that the God of
Moses
and the God of the Gospel were two different Beings; the former, rigid in his nature, and vindictive in his proceedings; the latter, benign in his disposition, and gracious in his dispensations.
Bp. WILKINS
on the Prin. of Nat. Relig. B.
1.
p.
116.
See
Mr. GEDDES
's note at p.
129
of Essay on the Composi. of the Antients.
Bp. CUMBERLAND
's Essay on the defects of Heathen Deism, p.
10. PRIDEAUX'S
Connex. V.
1.
p.
179. GEDDES
's Essay on
PLATO,
p.
132, &c. JENKINS
's Reason. of Christian. V.
1.
p.
224. TERTUL.
adver.
HERMOG.
p.
282. CUDWORTH
's Intell. Syst. ch.
4.
p.
197.
Ibid.
220. ARIST.
Met. lib.
1.
System of Mahom. Theol. p.
33. SALE
's Disc. prefixed to the Transla. of the Koran.
BARROW
's Expos. of Cr. p.
111, 112. AUGUS.
de civ. Dei.
11. 9. WOLL.
Comp. Theo. cap.
3.
p.
23.
See
STILLINGFLEET
's Orig. Sac. B.
3.
ch.
3. Bp. BRAMHALL
's Controversy with
HOBBES,
on this subject.
Mr. BRYANT
's Treatise, and
Dr. PRIESTLY
on philosophical necessity. Humorous Dial. between
PHILAU.
and
TIMOTH.
dedicated to Abp.
SHELDON,
p.
87, &c. WHISTON
's Disc. on the Hist. of the Creat. See Bp.
LOWTH
's note at Isai. ch.
45.
v.
7.
See
GROTIUS,
lib.
1.
p.
18.
de veri.
Page
30.
(g) eternal essence itself.]
We cannot possibly be too cautious, too reserved, too general in our doctrines from the pulpit, or the press, respecting the Holy Trinity, or the particular Divinity of our Saviour. Infidelity is always on the watch, and will take advantage in a moment of the least ambiguous, or inaccurate, or obscure expression, which may fall from our lips, or our pens. Some of the Fathers themselves, and indeed of our own most able writers, sometimes speak unguardedly, and inconsistently on these subjects. For the sake of perspicuity and distinction, as it should seem, it has been said, the
Father
is
self-existent,
and the
Son,
or
Holy Ghost, necessarily existent;
which is in fact a distinction without a difference. The
Three
Persons, as constituting
One God,
are equally
selfexistent.
The
Father,
the
Son,
and the
Holy Ghost
are the Deity; and every idea of originality, derivation, &c. evaporates in the consideration of a Trinity in Unity.
Though it has pleased God to represent the relation which the Second Person in the Trinity bears to the First, under the analogy of that of a Son to a Father, yet we must not think that this analogy holds in every respect, or that every circumstance of human paternity and filiation is applicable to the Divine.
These are the words of a late worthy and learned writer, who expresses himself still more happily in the following passage.
It is impossible for God himself to reveal these things to such kind of beings as we are, any other way than by accommodating himself to our conceptions, and using such terms as bear some analogy to things known and understood by us.
The Father, (says another able advocate for the doctrine of the Trinity,) is first in our conception of God; and therefore when we speak of the Almighty, or the eternal God, and the reason is the same for the only God, we primarily and principally mean the Father, tacitly including the other two Persons.
It is well observed by Mr. Parkhurst, that the first, second, and third persons in the Trinity are merely
theological,
not
scriptural
terms. Divin. &c. of Christ. p. 35.
But is the language of the author last quoted of a piece with this sentence, when he talks of selfexistence, or
unoriginateness,
as the peculiar mode of the existence of the
First
Person? Or is the writer first quoted perfectly consistent with himself, when he concurs in sentiment with those whom he calls "the most zealous defenders of the
Nicene
faith;" and agrees with
all
the antient writes, who, he tells us,
hold the Son to be in some sense inferior to the Father, and that even with regard to his divine nature?
The Father, says he, is the first Person, the Son, the second. The Father they
all
represent as unbegotten, receiving his being and attributes from none but himself; the Son they teach to be God of God; begotten of the Father, and receiving his nature, &c, from the Father, but yet coeternal and coequal with the Father, receiving from him from all eternity the same intire and individed essence.
Is not this language inaccurate, incongruous, and self-contradictory?" Many passages both in antient and modern writers are exceptionable on the same grounds. To select a few. The learned Bp.
Bull
gives, in his own words, the following sentiment of
Petavius. Nam, ut recte Petavius, non potest Filius a Patre gigni, nisi ab eo naturam ac deitatem accipit,
&c. St.
Hillary,
as quoted by the same author, says in
libro de Synodis, Patri subjectus est Filius, ut auctori. Russinus
in his treatise on the Creed, calls the Father the head of the Son.
Cum ipse Filius sit omnium caput, ipsius tamen caput est Pater.
And
Damascenus
in his tract de
fide orthodoxa
has the following words;
. And St.
Austin, argute pro more suo,
according to Bp.
Bull's
remark, observes, in a discourse on a passage in St.
Matthew
's gospel, (if I mistake not,) as follows:
Insinuatur nobis in Patre auctoritas, in Filio nativitas, in Spiritu Sancto communitas, in tribus aequalitas.
It is Bp.
Bull
's own remark,
unicum esse in Trinitate principium, principii expers, nempe Patrem, dogma fuisse in primaeva ecclesia tam fixum,—ut in quadrigesimo nono Canonum, qui dicuntur Apostolorum, damnetur quisquis baptizaverit in tres principii expertes;
. Under the same article the learned Prelate observes, that the antient Fathers, and those of the
Nicene
Council, and
Athanasius
himself never scrupled to give the appellation or title of the one only God to the Father. Let the reader take his own words.
Denique veteres Deum Patrem, eo quod principium, causa, auctor, et fons Filii sit, unum illum et solum Deum appellare non sunt veriti. Sic enim ipsi Patres Nicaeni exordiuntur suum symbolum;
q. v.
Et magnus Athanasius, quo nemo melius intellexit Synodi Nicaenae mentem, &c, concedit Patrem jure dici
,
quod solus ingenitus sit, &c. Propter Patrem vivit Filius,
says St.
Ambrose,
as quoted by Bishop
Pearson, quod ex Patre Filius est; propter Patrem, quod
ERUCTATUM
est verbum ex Patris corde, quod a Patre processit, quod ex paterno generatus est
UTERO, &c. Dr.
Fiddes
gives us a passage from St.
Hilary,
in which that Father asserts, that
our making the Son God is no objection against the Father's being the one God. He is the one God, says he, because the only underived God.
Surely Bp.
Pearson
himself, who in the main is wonderfully exact, does not speak in the most proper terms, when he tells us, that
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is originally God, as not receiving his eternal being from any other; that therefore it necessarily followeth, that Jesus Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a Person subsisting in the Divine Nature originally of himself; and consequently, it having been already proved, that he is truly and properly the eternal God, that he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eternally but originally God; that in him (Christ) is the same fulness of the Godhead, more than which the Father cannot have, but yet that in that perfect and absolute equality there is notwithstanding this disparity, &c. &c.
To adduce only one example more; even the judicious
Hooker
is off his guard in the following passage.
Seeing therefore the Father alone is originally that Deity which Christ originally is not, (for Christ is God by being of God, light by issuing out of light,) it followeth hereupon, that whatsoever Christ hath common unto him with his heavenly Father, the same of necessity must be given him, but naturally and eternally given him, not bestowed by way of benevolence &c.
The priority implied in the term Father, in its common acceptation, accounts for all this incoherency; but where, I would gladly know, do the terms
auctor, fons, origo, principium,
&c. occur in the Scriptures, or in the writings of the apostolical Fathers,
Clemens, Polycarp,
and
Ignatius?
Or where are any terms to be found importing subordination and inferiority, except such as evidently refer to the humanity of
Jesus Christ?
And after all, and all this put together notwithstanding, the common resemblances by which the great mystery has been faintly illustrated by the Fathers, especially by
Justin Martyr, Tertullian,
and
Origen,
as light from the sun, or a stream from a fountain, are produced to no purpose as proofs of a subordination, &c. For let light be supposed to have issued from the sun, or a stream from a fountain, from all eternity; on this supposition it is plain, causality and originality are merely nominal; the fountain necessarily implies the stream, and the sun, light: and in like manner, in the case before us, the existence of the Father necessarily supposes the existence of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The Father can no more exist without the Son than the Son without the Father.
The truth is, the Fathers of the Church, whose sentiments Bp.
Bull
lays before us, apparently grant much, but really yield nothing. If
Athanasius,
e. g., asserting the eternity and Divinity of the Son of God, meant not such an absolute co-equality as entirely excludes all dependence and inferiority, he flatly contradicts the Creed which goes under his name, in which it is expressly said, that in the Trinity,
none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another;
and if he did mean this, we cannot argue against his faith from the carelessness, or the impropriety, or even the absurdity of his expressions. Elucidation has before now been the parent of entanglement. The
Arians
themselves are sensible they cannot admit the eternity of the Son of God, without acknowleging at the same time his absolute co-equality; and therefore affect to understand every passage or phrase seemingly derogating from the dignity of
Jesus Christ,
as a direct assertion, or tacit concession that he is a creature. Through a most strange inadvertence, the writers we have been extracting from appear to have confounded the idea of temporal with that of eternal generation.
It has been frequently and well observed, that most of the Fathers, before the Council of
Nice,
speak sometimes of a temporal generation of the Son by the operation of the Holy Ghost on the blessed Virgin; and sometimes, by a sort of
catachresis,
give the name of generation to the mission of the Son from the Father, for the purpose of creating the world; and that, by directing our whole attention to the passages relative to both these, the enemies of our faith have artfully attempted to prevent our notice, or acknowlegment of other numberless places in the writings of these Fathers, wherein they plainly and unequivocally assert the eternal generation of the Son of God.
By help of these considerations, and such as these, we shall, for the most part, be enabled to reconcile exceptionable passages in the writings of the Fathers in general with the purest faith, and strictest orthodoxy; and shall have no cause for resentment, or complaint, if in so large a bulk of human composition, and amidst such a multiplicity of subjects and circumstances, we are sometimes surprized by inaccurate diction, or unsound sentiment.
The supposed canon referred to by Bp.
Bull,
which forbad the baptizing
, on pain of damnation, really maintains only the doctrine of the
Athana. Cr. viz.
that
there is one Father, not three Fathers.
Tertullian
says somewhere, that there was a time
quando Filius Dei non erat;
which is true in the second or third sense of Sonship; as there was a time when God was not a Creator;
viz. ante mundum conditum.
Nay, there is an expression in
Lactantius
which more than insinuates that there was a time, when even God the Father, or God absolutely considered, was not; for, says he,
Deus ipse se fecit.
And, by the way, they who talk of God the Father's
RECEIVING
his Being from himself alone,
do but paraphrase the words of
Lactantius.
I cannot think the Catholic faith can be in the least affected by these
early opinions
concerning
Jesus Christ.
Metaphysical subtleties, technical terms, and unscriptural definitions and distinctions have undoubtedly done no small disservice to the cause of Christianity. But, as Dr.
Waterland
repeatedly observes, let the blame be laid at the right door. These things were artfully and gradually introduced into the Church by heretics, for the purpose of confounding and perplexing matters. The antient Christians rested solely on the authority of Scripture, and the concurrent voice of tradition.
See Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy. p. 626.
The Church believed in the Trinity, believed in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and worshipped all Three as One God, before the distinction was expressed by the term
Persons,
or the word
substance
was made use of. "It does not appear," says Dr.
W.
that the word
Trinity
was yet applied to this case;
viz.
in
Justin Martyr
's time, in the middle of the second century. The orthodox were necessitated to contend against their adversaries with their own weapons. And, what is worse, terms of art have been the fuel of strife amongst the orthodox themselves. It was a mere dispute of words which had like to have occasioned an irreparable breach between the Eastern and Western Churches. Take the following account of it in the words of Dr.
Potter.
"The Orientals," says he,
professing to believe three
Hypostases
in the glorious Trinity would not admit three Persons, and were therefore thought to be
Arians.
On the contrary, the Western believing three
Persons,
could not be induced to confess three
Hypostases,
and thereupon were taken to be
Sabellians.
Here was a great jealousy grounded upon a great error; which
Athanasius
easily discovered, and restored again their good amity and intelligence; shewing that they differed not in judgment, all meaning the same thing; and that
Hypostasis
on one side was the very same in effect with
Person
on the other.
Answer to Char. Mista. Sect. 3. p. 90.
A writer of the last century, whose name does not appear, speaking of the controversies with which the Church of
England
was agitated in the year 1641, expresses himself in the following manner.
They be not of the highest nature; for they are not touching the high mysteries of faith; such as detained the Churches after their first peace for many years, what time the heretics moved curious questions, and made strange anatomies of the nature and Person of Christ; and the catholic fathers were compelled to follow them with all subtlety of disputations and determinations, to exclude them from their evasions, and to take them in their own labyrinths: so as it is rightly said,
illis temporibus ingeniosa res fuit esse Christianum.
Farther; it is certain the great doctrine of the Trinity hath been sometimes dishonoured, if not weakened, by puerile illustrations, and playfulness of distinction. According to
T. Aquinas, Trinitas est quasi trium unitas.
It is somewhere observed likewise by this famous Doctor, that the Father is the
beginning,
but not the
cause
of the Son. And says a learned systematical writer, I think, with a levity one should not expect in him,
aliud est Trinus, aliud est Triplex. Trinum est quod essentia unum, tres habet subsistendi modos: triplex, quod ex tribus rebus est compositum. Deum trinum dicimus, non triplicem; et Trinitatem non Triplicitatem.
To which is very sensibly subjoined the following caution;
cum judicio legendi sunt Patres, qui non raro sententiis dissident in usu vocum,
Substantiae, Hypostase
,
, &c. The same author cites, and at the same time justly censures a chimerical distinction of the Schoolmen betwixt
generation
and
procession. Differunt
Generatio et Processio;
sed quodnam est discrimen, tutius ignoratur quam quaeritur. Sholastici dicunt
Generationem
Filii fieri per modum
INTELLECTUS,
unde
dicitur Dei sapientia; Processionem per modum
VOTUNTATIS,
unde Spiritus dicitur amor et charitas.
You have Mr.
Boyle
's sentiments on this subject in his
Considera. on the style of Scripture,
p. 41.
Bp. BULL
de subord. Fil. Sect.
4.
p.
225.
Defen. Fid. Nicae. cap.
10.
Sect.
3.
p.
206,
&c.
PEARSON
on the Creed, p,
34, 134.
Fiddes, vol.
1. 384. HOOKER'S
Eccles. Pol. p.
296, &c. STEPHENS'S
Serm. on the eternal Gen. p.
51. WATERLAND'S
Defence of his Quest. p.
134. FOGG'S
Theol. Spec. p.
89, 109. WATERLAND'S
Sermons. p.
141. RANDOLPH'S
Vindica. of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Part
2.
p.
10.
Page
32.
(h) the everlasting Father.]
Whatever we are precisely to understand by this expression, it is certain the proper title of Jesus Christ, considered as the second Person in the Trinity, is that of Son of God; Son in a transcendent and incomprehensible sense. We are informed by St.
John,
that the
Jews sought the more to kill
our Saviour,
not only because he had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father,
thereby
making himself equal with God.
It is worth observing, that this translation by no means does justice to the original; or any thing like so forcibly imports the equality in question:
;
he called God his
OWN
Father,
as Dr.
Whitby
and Dr.
Hammond
render it,
his
PROPER
Father, his Father
, (as
Nonnus
explains the words
in the beginning,
John i. 1.)
his Father
in a peculiar sense, in a sense necessarily implying the same nature in both. The omission here is the more remarkable, as our translators attended to the same emphatical word in the only place besides where it occurs, and where its significance is not so obvious:
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
(Rom. viii. 32.) The
Socinian
evasion of the passage in St.
John
is inexpressibly ridiculous, and reduces it almost to nonsense.
He made himself equal with God,
by asserting, that he did the works of his Father!
See
WEBSTER
on John.
1. 2.
See
WHITBY
and
HAMMOND
on John
v. 18.
See Dr. W.
LOWTH'S
Commen. on Isai.
9. 6.
Page
46.
(i) of Divine Providence.]
The notion that by the
seven Spirits
here mentioned are to be understood
seven angels,
who are the principal
ministring Spirits
of the Deity, is countenanced by a no less respectable authority than that of Dr.
Hammond
and Mr.
Mede.
But this is rejected by
Grotius,
and by the anonymous writer whom I follow, though under a different idea, and purely from a general survey of the matter. The writer I mean lays much stress on the number
seven,
which in
Hebrew
denotes perfection;
See Catcott's Serm. I. p. 14.
but his reasonings from this circumstance appear to me too weak a foundation for the support of a theory.
Dr.
Gill
without the least hesitation understands by the
seven spirits
the third Person in the blessed Trinity. He has adopted the above idea, and enlarged upon it. "By these
seven Spirits,"
says this very sensible writer,
are intended the Holy Spirit of God, who is one in his Person, but his gifts and graces are various; and therefore he is signified by this number because of the fulness and perfection of them; and with respect to the
seven Churches,
over whom he presided, whom he influenced and sanctified, &c.
The
Ethiopic
version, this author observes, reads
from the seven Spirits which are before the throne of Jesus Christ.
It is farther a remark of the same author, that the second Person is last mentioned in the benediction before us,
because many things were to be said of him; he is described in all his offices, &c.
Bp.
Newton
says, in effect, the very same thing. According to him, Jesus Christ is mentioned last
because the subsequent discourse more immediately relates to him.
MEDE
Disc.
10.
B.
1.
p.
42.
See
HAMMOND
and
GILL
in loc.
NEWTON
on Prophecy. Vol.
3.
p.
12.
Page
60.
(k) when St. John wrote.]
Some have supposed, as an ingenious writer observes, that detached pieces of the history of Christ, written by Apostles, or under their inspection, were extant in the Church before any Gospel was published.
Opinions are far from being concurrent with respect to the publication of the Gospels in general; but this is a diversity which does not in the least affect our argument.
See Bp. Percy's Key to the New Test. p. 47, &c.
Cosmas
of
Alexandria,
it seems, dates St.
Matthew's
Gospel from the martyrdom of St.
Stephen;
and is generally thought to be as wide of the mark as
Isidore
of
Seville;
according to whom, it was not written before the reign of
Caligula.
Perhaps the common opinion is the truest, that it was wrote about eight years after our Lord's Ascension.
It appears from the testimony of several old ecclesiastical writers, that St.
John
wrote his Gospel by the desire of the Bishops of
Asia. Is cum esset in Asia,
says St.
Jerome, et jam tunc haereticorum semina pullularent, Cerinthi, Ebionis, et caeterorum, qui negant Christum in carne venisse, coactus est ab omnibus pene tum Asiae episcopis, et multarum ecelesiarum legationibus, de
DIVINITATE
Salvatoris
ALTIUS
scribere.
How far the notion of
Theophylact,
and, I believe, of some others, that St.
John
was particularly qualified to conceive, and to teach evangelical mysteries, by his personal purity, how far such a notion was well-grounded, or ought to be regarded as a mere fantasy, I undertake not to determine.
In
Hermannus Frank's
treatise entitled,
Christ the Sum, &c, of all the Scriptures,
&c. there is an anecdote concerning a
Franciscus Junius,
who was converted from Atheism by accidentally dipping into the
New Testament,
and reading the first chapter of St.
John's
Gospel. This, says the author, is recorded by
Theophilus Spizelius
in his
scrutiny of Atheism.
He tells the story himself in his Life prefixed to his works, printed at
Geneva
1705.
Mr.
Boyle
in his
Considerations,
&c. makes mention of the above circumstance, as related somewhere by
Junius
himself; and at the same time refers us to the history of a certain
Rabbi
who was converted to Christianity by reading the 53d. Ch. of
Isaiah;
and to the conversion of St.
Austin,
who was "changed from a debauchee into a Saint," by a passage in the 13th. Ch. of St.
Paul's
Epist. to the
Romans.
TOWNSON
on the Gospels. p.
25, 63.
See
LARDNER;
and testimonies prefixed to St.
MATTHEW
's Gospel in
MILLS
's Gr. Test. Prolegomena ad Commen. in Mat.
RANDOLPH
's Vindica. pt.
2.
p.
20, 21, 25. BOYLE
's Consid. p. incert.
SEE WATERLAND
's Import. of the doctrine of the Trin.
Page 67.
(l) the Son of God.]
It is excellently observed by the incomparable Dr.
Barrow,
that the first
Adam
derived his being immediately from God's power and divine inspiration; that
Isaac, Samuel,
and
John the Baptist
had a generation extraordinary and miraculous, as being of aged fathers, or barren mothers, by the interposition of Divine Power; and that we cannot easily conceive how the production of angels should be so much inferior to our Saviour's temporal generation, supposing he had no other.
It will corroborate what has already been advanced, to remark farther, that if Jesus Christ be any thing less than very God by eternal generation, he was abundantly over paid for all he did and suffered for our sakes; he was recompensed beyond all measure by his exaltation to the
right hand of the majesty on high,
and by the divine honour and worship which has been universally ascribed and paid to him. Under this view of the matter, the assumption of humanity deserves not the name of a condescension. In his human capacity indeed, Jesus Christ
for the joy that was set before him endured the Cross, and despised the shame;
but in his divine, he could have no
respect to the recompense of a reward.
This is a thought which has been started and pursued by several writers.
Equidem rem attentius perpendenti,
says Bp.
Bull, liquebit, ex hypothesi sive Sociniana sive Ariana, Deum in hoc negotio amorem, &c, suum potius in illum ipsum Filium quam erga nos homines ostendisse.
BULL
's Judic. Eccles. Cath. cap.
5.
p.
313. WATERLAND
's Import. of the Doct. of the Trin. p.
47, 48, 49. BARROW
on the Cr. p.
136.
Page 72.
(m) Baptized for the remission of Sins.]
Persons baptized were in the primitive Church dipped three times; and this immersion at the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost repectively, let us, I think, sufficiently into the sense of the Christian Church, with regard to the equality of the Persons in the blessed Trinity. It affords at least a most strong presumption; which is greatly confirmed by the strictness of the
Apostolical Canons,
which, as Dr.
Cave
acquaints us, order
him,
Bishop, or Priest, that neglects the trine immersion, to be deposed. Afterwards, says the same learned Author, to obviate the pretences of the
Arians,
who used the trine immersion to denote the
Persons in the Trinity to be three distinct substances,
the fourth Council of
Toledo
in their fifth Canon decreed, that a single immersion would be sufficient; that the dipping under water would express Christ's death and burial, or descent into hell, and the coming out, his resurrection; the single immersion expressing the
Unity,
while the
Trinity
of Persons would be sufficiently noted by the
Form of words
in Baptism. To this effect Dr.
Cave.
It is but reasonable to make allowances for the zeal, or, if you will, the simplicity of the devout Christians of the first ages. In process of time, and as the Christian world grew darker and more corrupt, many ceremonies and customs became
acts
of piety, which were originally but its
appendages.
I shall only mention one, for example's sake, I mean that of praying with
uplifted
and
expanded
hands, in representation of the figure of the
Cross:
a practice which has given sanction to much folly and superstition.
CAVE
's Prim. Christian. p.
205, 183.
See
HOOKER'S
Eccles. Pol. B.
4.
p.
154.
Page 120.
(n) Jesus Christ our Lord.]
The numerows passages we meet with, both in the writings of the Apostles, and of these Apostolical fathers,
For proof of the genuineness of St. IGNATIUS'S seven short Epist. &c. See p. 131, &c. of Parkhurst's Divin. of J. Christ. and Arch. Bp. Wake on the Epist. of Ignatius.
which strongly mark the human nature of
Jesus Christ,
might, one should think, direct us to the sense we are to put upon such as are relative to his divine. The perfect Godhead and perfect manhood of our Saviour seem to me to be forcibly contrasted in this discrimination. It had been better perhaps if Divines had rested wholly in this one general distinction. We can hardly be copious without being obscure at best on the subject of the
hypostatic union.
But we must not yet dismiss the passage before us.
In the first dialogue of
Theodoret,
which
Vossius
refers to in his note at this place, there is a remarkable variation of reading. Instead of
made
and
not made,
or
born
and
unborn,
;
See Note at p. 136. of Parkhurst's Divin. of Jesus Christ.
it there runs
. It seems,
Athanasius,
and
Gelasius,
in his treatise
de duabus naturis,
defend the first reading. But both come to the same point.
Jesus Christ
was
made
and
not made, born
and
unborn,
except in a mysterious and transcendent sense; he was the eternal Son of God. Or, he was
made,
or
born of a woman,
through the operation of the Holy Ghost, who
came upon
her, who was
unmade
and
unborn;
he was
both of
Mary
and of God;
the latter clause being a kind of paraphrase on the former; and so in effect
Ignatius
asserts here both the personality and the eternal existence of the
Spirit.
There is another paragraph in this Epistle to the
Ephesians,
wherein omniscience, an essential property of the Godhead, appears to be attributed in the fullest terms to Jesus Christ,—
.
Jesus Christ
is signified by the word
, wherever it occurs in the Epistles of this Father, I believe, without exception; and the context evidently patronises this application. Arch. Bp.
Wake
seems to have overlooked the plain scope of this passage. His translation runs, "there is nothing hid from God, &c."
I had the satisfaction to find my sentiments exactly coinciding with those of Bp.
Bull
upon this very paragraph. His words are these,
De Christo loqui Ignatium, indubium est, non modo ex voce
, qua Christum ubique designat, sed etiam ex toto Sermonis contextu, de Jesu Servatore duntaxat agente.
And it is yet farther observable, that the introductory part of this Epistle (as
Vossius
has remarked) is rather obscure; and that (however it happened) the Most Rev. Translator has not done full justice to the plainest expression in it. The
blood of Christ
in the translation is in the original simply the
blood of God;
.
BULL'S
Defen. Fid. Nicae. cap.
2.
Sect.
2. IGNA.
Epis. to the Ephes. Sect.
1. & 15. BARROW
on the Cr. p.
156.
See John.
1.
v.
14.
Page 123.
(o) in it proper place.]
In matters not of faith, but merely of opinion, these venerable fathers in general are not altogether without peculiarities which are tinctured a little with the pious fancifulness of superstition. This is more especially apparent in their notion of spiritual references, and emblematical representations.
The
scarlet-line
which the
spies
directed
Rahab
to fix to her window, &c. is specified by St.
Clement
himself,
Epist. to the Corin. Sect. 12.
and by some others, as typical of the redemption of mankind by the
blood
of Jesus Christ. But of all of them, except St.
Barnabas, Origen
is perhaps the largest dealer in symbol and allegory, as has often been pointed out in numerous instances; although it would be as unreasonable to object this in order to disparage the grounds of our common faith, as it would be to except, with the same view, against the eccentricity of some of this Father's tenets, or those of any others in any other respects; as, e. g. that helltorments will not be eternal, for which assertion he had certainly
no Scriptural warrant;
or that the
angel
with whom
Jacob wrested
was an
evil
one, which was likewise a notion of
Origen
's; or that souls after their separation from bodies retain many corporeal properties, as
Irenaeus
and
Tertullian
imagin'd, &c, &c. In truth, orthodoxy may be said to be built
upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone,
and has no concern with these particularities; and much less with the conceits which the luxuriance of piety itself has sometimes given birth to. The Father I last named whimsically asserted, that the devil invented
buskins,
that a man might ADD TO HIS STATURE, notwithstanding what our Saviour says to the contrary; and gravely informs us in another place, that this prince of darkness, or one of his infernal ministers, upon being exorcised out of a certain woman, who was a frequenter of stage-entertainments, complained loudly that he was dispossessed of his property; the theatre being his own ground!
Clemens
of
Alexandria
advises us to
lay our heads upon stone,
as
Jacob
did, in order to our having visions, &c. &c. But of such harmless extravagance infidelity strives in vain to avail itself.
Whether St.
Barnabas,
who was St.
Paul's
companion and fellow-labourer, was the author of the catholic Epistle to which his name is prefixed, is a question undecided at this day. Much has been urged on this subject
pro
and
con
by learned men; nor am I concerned to inquire, on which side the arguments preponderate. It will suffice to say, that many have thought the allegorical interpretation of Scripture with which the performance abounds, by far too imaginary, or indeed too trifling for the pen of one of the
Minor
Apostles, as
Vossius
calls him. This able critic is however a strong advocate for him, and the primitive fathers in general; and gives it as his clear opinion, that nothing of this kind in him, or in St.
Clement,
(from whom he extracts the particulars above noticed,) ought in reason to be alledged to the discredit of their writings. His words are these.
Quis a primis illis Christianis omnigenam scientiam, et doctrinam expostulet? Quis illos non aeque hallucinatos existimet atque eorum nepotes; praesertim in rebus nihil ad fidem pertinentibus? Nunquid et in Epistola Clementis similia occurrunt? Quis enim bono animo concoquere possit fabellam illam quam de Phoenice narrat, &c? Non puto etiam quemquam velle admittere expositionem istam, ut linteum coccineum Rahab meretricis
N. B. Many are of opinion that Rahab was no harlot.
signum fuerit sanguinis Christi, &c. Atqui tamen iste
Clemens pari jure atque Barnabas dictus est Apostolus. Non debent itaque in hoc reprehendere, quod in altero excusant.
Vossii Notae ad Barnabae Epist. Cathol.
But it should be remembered all this while, that
Vossius
vindicates the authenticity of St.
Barnabas
's Epistle, so called, by a very unequal comparison. The Epistle of St.
Clement,
and those of other fathers are interspersed more or less with typical application, but they are not distinguished by it.
(See St.
BARNABAS'S
Epist. particularly Sect.
5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14.)
I would take this opportunity to observe, that the doctrine of types and symbols, as it has been revived by many moderns, so has it by some been upheld with a zeal which, in going beyond the bounds of judgment, has, it may be, done disservice to Christianity. Let me ask the most sanguin advocates for symbols and prefigurations, how they relish this mode of speculation in the
Romanists,
when, among the arguments which they adduce in pretended proof of St.
Peter
's primacy, they tell us his SHIP, out of which the Lord taught the people, was an emblem or type of the Christian Church? In short, the doctrine of types in general is, in my opinion, too often at best more ingenious than solid, and has a stronger foundation in fancy than in fact. Perhaps the reader may be entertained as well as convinced by two or three select instances. The coat of the
Jewish
High-priest, says Dr.
Lightfoot,
fitly resembled Christ's human nature: first, as this was of one stuff without mixture, so that without sin, &c. secondly, as this was put on after an extraordinary manner, so Christ put on humanity by an extraordinary conception; thirdly, as was the edge about the hole to keep it from rending, such was the unseparable union of Christ's two natures; fourthly as were the bells and pomegranates, such were his life and doctrine.
Another learned writer, Mr.
Mede,
speaking of the
manna
and the
rock
in the
wilderness,
which are mentioned by St.
Paul
as types of Christ, 1 Cor. 10. v. 3, 4. expatiates in the following words.
As
Manna
came from heaven beside the ordinary course of nature, so Christ's birth was wonderful, &c. As
Manna
was of a most sweet taste, so is Christ unto the soul, &c. As
Manna
was of a white colour, so our Saviour was white and pure. As
Manna
before it was eaten was brayed in a mortar, &c. so was Christ our heavenly manna broken upon the Cross, &c. As the
rock
gave no water before it was smitten with the
rod
of
Moses,
so was Christ smitten upon the Cross, that out of him might flow that sovereign stream, which he who
drinketh
shall
never thirst.
As the
rock
was smitten with the
rod
of
Moses,
so was Christ our redeemer with the rod of the Law, &c. With much more to this effect.
According to a modern author, Mr.
Calcott,
the
Jewish
tabernacle or temple was a type of the body of Christ. The
table,
the
shew-bread,
&c. were all emblematical, and significative of the properties, &c. of
Jesus Christ,
dwelling in a
tabernacle of flesh.
The table e. g. was compounded of two sorts of materials,
wood
and
gold,
and it was a piece of furniture which exhibited a compound person, it was a type of that person who should be compounded of
Jehovah
and
Adam,
God and Man. In Mr.
Bates
's
Faith of the antient Jews,
the
right ear
is made to stand for
obedience;
the
thumb
of the
right hand
for
actions;
the
great toe
of
the right foot
for
ways; shoulder
for
consent,
&c. For farther satisfaction the reader may consult, if he pleases, LESLEY'S
Truth of Christian. Sect.
13. POTTER
on Ch. Gov. p.
50. ALLIX'S
Reflect. p.
232,
and vol.
2.
p.
182. PEARSON
on the Cr. p.
76. BARROW
on the Cr. p.
107. 205.
See
MEDE.
B.
1.
Disc.
44.
p.
249. LIGHTFOOT.
See
LANGHORN'S
Let. between Theo. and Const. p.
93. TERTUL.
de Spectal. c.
26. &c. &c.
Page 124.
(p) minor authority.]
The Epistles from which the extracts are made, (if we except the last,) have ever been held by the Church in general in the highest estimation. They were written by men who, it is well known, were intimately acquainted with the Apostles.
Polycarp
was a disciple of St.
John;
and his Epistle to the
Philippians,
with the first of St.
Clement
to the
Corinthians,
were for several centuries publickly read in the Churches of
Asia.
See CH. 10. of WAKE'S DISCOURSE prefixed to his Translation of these Epistles.
Their authority therefore is little inferior to Apostolical.
I will transcribe a passage or two from the
ante-nicene
fathers, and leave the weight of the whole with the reader.
, &c, says
Justin Martyr:
Apol. I. c. 6.
, says
Athenagoras,
.
Legatio pro Chris.
p. 10. Nothing can be more express, simple, and unequivocal than these declarations.
And again, in contempt of, or rather in astonishment at the charge of Atheism, which the heathens brought against the first Christians, the same father asks,
;
Ibid.
p. 11.
Tertullian
calls the Holy Ghost
tertium numen Divinitatis, and tertium gradum majestatis. Irenaeus
calls the
Word
Dei aeternum verbum,
See STEPHENS'S Ser. on the Eter. Genera. who illustrates this doctrine by a multitude of testimonies from p. 44. to p. 50.
and, according to him, Jesus Christ is
Filius Dei existens semper apud Patrem.
It may be proper to take notice in this place, that the equality we are contending for is not in the lest disturbed by the disagreement betwixt the
Greek
and
Latin
Church, with respect to the
procession
of the Holy Ghost. The doctrine of the former was, that the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son, and is the Spirit of the Son;
non ex Filio, sed spiritum Filii
esse dicimus, et Patris per Filium.
This doctrine is erroneous indeed, but innocently so. For, as Archbp.
Laud,
See Laud against Fisher. p. 24.
and many others have observed, the question, whether the Holy Ghost proceeds
a Filio,
or
per Filium,
is but a question
in modo loquendi;
a mere difference in words, and affects not the faith. And therefore I cannot think Bp.
Taylor
argues candidly, or logically, in the following passage.
The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, which is an article the
Greek
Church disavows, derives from the Tradition Apostolical, as it is pretended; and yet before St.
Austin
we hear nothing of it very clearly or certainly, forasmuch as that whole mystery concerning the blessed Spirit was so little explicated in Scripture, and so little derived to them by tradition, that till the Council of
Nice,
you shall hardly find any form of worship, or personal address of devotion to the Holy Spirit, as
Erasmus
observes, and I think the contrary will very hardly be verified.
Bp. TAYLOR on Lib. of Pro. Sect. 5. p. 90.
The Holy Ghost is expressly styled by St.
Peter
the
Spirit of Christ
which, in the next sentence, is said to have been
sent down from heaven;
1 Pet. 1. v. 10, 12. and I take it to be fully as presumeable that the article of the
procession
in question was grounded in the construction which this passage naturally admits, as that it "derived from tradition Apostolical;" notwithstanding the immaterial disagreement above-mentioned. But whether this difference with respect to the mode of
procession
took its rise from different construction, or from diferent tradition, the faith both of the
Greek
and
Latin
Church in the third Person of the Trinity was still built on a sure foundation. Eternity of generation, and procession, and existence, is equally inexplicable; and though nothing was, or, in the nature of things, could be
explicated in Scripture
in respect of the whole mystery, yet, I apprehend, enough was
revealed.
Even if the first Christians had not addressed the blessed Spirit in any form of devotion at all, this could not have been owing to their want of comprehension of the mode of
procession,
but to their disbelief of his personality, and eternal existence. But that the primitive Christians, and the
ante-nicene
fathers believed the personality and eternal existence of the
Spirit,
and consequently his coequality with the
Father
and the
Son,
sufficiently, I trust, appears from the testimonies produced; and therefore admitting that most of the prayers of the Church were addressed to the
Father,
and few only to the
Son,
and fewer to the
Holy Ghost,
(which is far from being a matter unaccountable,) we have ample proofs that Christians worshipped
one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.
Erasmus
does not venture to assert, that no addresses were made to the Holy Ghost; and, if he had, we might confront him with the above cited declaration of
Justin Martyr;
which at least supposes this Divine Person to have been included, and frequently named in the supplications of the first Christians.
, &c.
But we are by no means destitute of antient testimonies to the same effect. The accounts of the martyrdom of
Ignatius
and
Polycarp
conclude with ascriptions of glory, &c. to the
Father,
and the
Son,
and the
Holy Ghost.
See WAKE
's
Relation of these Martyrdoms. p. 137, 152.
The relation of the sufferings of the former closes with these words;
who trod under foot the Devil, and perfected the course he had piously desired, in Christ Jesus our Lord; by whom, and with whom, all glory and power be to the Father, with the blessed Spirit, for ever and ever.
The Epistle of the Church of
Smyrna
to the Church of
Philadelphia,
concerning the Martyrdom of
Polycarp,
concludes as follows:
We wish you, brethren, all happiness by living according to the rule of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; with whom glory be to God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, &c.
In
Clemens
of
Alexandria
there is a prayer and doxology to the Trinity in these words:
Be merciful unto thy children, O Master, O Father, O Son and Father, both one; O Lord, grant that we may pass the waves of this troublesome world, continually praising and giving thanks to the only Father and Son, to the Son and Father, to the Son our Master and Teacher, together with the Holy Ghost, altogether one, in whom are all things, &c. &c.
Add to this, that the doxologies in the antient Liturgies were some of them expressed in fuller and stronger terms than that used in our daily services.
It is affirmed by Mr.
Lindsey
in his
Apology,
that the Fathers of the three first centuries were all what we now call
Arians
or
Socinians.
We might ask this Gentleman in the words of
Dathan,
&c, but on much better grounds,
wilt thou put out the eyes
of Christians? The assertion has hardly its fellow in the whole circle of polemical divinity. Let these venerable Fathers speak for themselves. I take this opportunity to put the reader in mind of the same Gentleman's very disingenuous translation of that passage in
Justin Martyr
's dialogue with
Trypho,
where he tells him, that there were those who admitted Christ to be the Messiah, tho' they believed him to be mere man. The whole passage is perfectly scrutinized, and a shameful omission of Mr.
Lindsey
taken notice of in Mr. BINGHAM
's Vindication of the Doctrine, &c. of the Church of England,
p. 23, 24, 25.
See also
Dr. RANDOLPH
's Vindicat. of the Trinity,
part 3, p. 40. and
Bp.
BULL
's Judic. Eccles. Cathol.
cap. 7mo, where he charges the
Remonstrants
with mutilating and curtailing this very passage. With what face will Mr. L. lay
Socinianism,
or
Arianism
at the door of
Justin Martyr?
The passage quoted from this father in the former part of this note is so strong and explicit, that it probably gave occasion to some
Socinians
to aver, that HE was the first who taught the doctrine of the Trinity. I said,
some Socinians,
because, as we have already noted, most
Socinians
and
Socinus
himself fathers this doctrine upon the Council of
Nice,
with an absurdity which is exposed at large by Bp.
Bull
in his Defence of that Council. This duplicity is no small argument of
Socinian
distress.
Dr.
Middleton,
in resentment, I presume, of that explicitness with which
Justin Martyr
in the place referred to, and in many other, asserts the doctrine of the Trinity, and with a view to counteract it, takes much pains to represent his interpretation of Scripture as frequently absurd, and his doctrine as neither more nor less than refined
Platonism.
But the unfairness, or rather the falsity of both imputations has often been shewn. The
triad
of
Plato,
(whose admirer, &c. this holy father, it is well known, before his conversion was,) the
mundane, animative,
and
intelligent
nature of God, although it has been mentioned by some, improperly but honestly enough, to illustrate the doctrine in question, with an intention to adapt it in some degree to our apprehensions, could not possibly give rise to it. It is as clear as words can make it, that
Justin
the
Martyr
was a
Trinitarian
on principles very different from those of
Justin
the
philosopher.
Dr. M. most uncandidly vilifies the typical and allegorical representations, which occur often in this primitive writer, and in which probably he gratified not so much his own taste as that of those early ages.
Dr.
Whitby,
in his treatise entitled,
An Endeavour to evince the certainty of Christian faith,
&c, cites historians of credit, who acquaint us, that when
Julian
's design of falsifying the predictions of our Saviour, by rebuilding the Temple of
Jerusalem,
was defeated by miraculous eruptions of balls of fire, &c, (as the story is told by
Ammianus Marcellinus,
and many others,) almost all the
Jews,
who were eye-witnesses of this wonderful scene, were converted to the Christian Faith, and acknowleged Christ to be God. The writers referred to are
Sozomen, Nazianzen,
and
Socrates,
and the following passage seems to be as plain and decisive as can be wished.
.
It seems evident enough from these words, that the
Jews
who were converted on this occasion, and consequently Christians in general, at that time acknowledged Jesus Christ to be absolutely God.
Indeed the truth of this great doctrine is in some measure inferrible from the incredibility formerly objected to it by its adversaries.
, says
Celsus;
and
Trypho
speaks rather resentingly in the following words to
Justin;
.
Agreably to this, the same
Trypho
declares, that to assert Christ to have been born of a virgin is
. Now I desire to ask, whether the doctrine of a miraculous birth, and bodily appearance of an
inferior
Deity for any supposable purpose whatever, be not sufficiently reconcileable both with
Jewish
and
Pagan
principles, and with what we know to have been the sentiments of
Julian
himself? Or, whether we are not in all reason to look for the chief ground of difference between
Justin
and
Trypho
in the coequality we are asserting? This will appear yet more clearly in a subsequent note. It is, in short, this equality which constituted
superstitionis novae genus,
as Christianity is called by
Suetonius
in the life of
Nero.
Dr.
Willes,
in his first discourse, prefixed to Sir
Rog. L'Estrange
's translation of
Josephus,
says that
Pilate
wrote to
Tiberius
de Christo Deo. But where does he find this? The Acts of
Pilate,
so called, are confessedly spurious.
CELSUS
apud
ORIG. l. 4. JUSTIN
's
Dial. p. 292. LACTANTIUS. l. 4. c. 12 and 22.
Page 125.
(q) the Atheism.]
The venom of this calumny soon spent itself; and the honourable and often-noted testimony of
Pliny
in his letter to
Trajan,
that the Christians were a
simple
and
innocent
people who worshipped Christ as God, at once vindicates their morals, and declares their faith.
The fact was, the primitive Christians, like their immediate predecessors the Apostles, were reviled, defamed, and made as the
filth of the world, and the off-scouring of all things;
they were charged with the most detestable vices; with rebellion, murder, incest, and to free them from these infamous reproaches, was one main business of the fathers in general, and especially of
Justin Martyr, Athenagoras,
and
Tertullian.
WHITBY
'S Endeavour,
&c. ch. 8. p. 243.
Page 126.
(r) principles of polytheism.] Hesiod
makes mention of many thousand Deities, and
Varro
of three hundred
Jupiters;
but both with a reservation of the properties and prerogatives of the Supreme God. These subaltern Deities were supposed to act as his instruments, and under his direction. Some of the wiser heathens however were ashamed of this latitudinarian system; and pretended to resolve their theology into allegory, &c, as
Zeno, Chrysippus,
and other Stoics; and philosophers of later date found it necessary to have recourse to the same expedient to elude the charge brought against the multitude of the heathen Gods by Christians. With respect to the Pagan notion of a subordination of Deities, we may affirm in the words of Dr.
Heylin,
that God is not only
unus,
but
unicus,
or in the phrase of Mr.
Hooker,
that our God is one, or rather very
oneness,
in which essential unity, says he, a Trinity personal subsisteth.
It will be well worth remarking, that the doctrine of the Trinity has often been represented as having no little colour or countenance both from
Jewish
and
Pagan
principles. A.
Ross,
See Note at No. 38.
in his
View of all religions,
&c. undertakes to shew, that
the doctrine of the Trinity was not unknown even by the light of nature to the Gentile philosophers, poets, &c.
Zoroastres,
says he, speaks of the Father, who, having perfected all things, hath delivered them to the second Mind, which Mind hath received from the Father knowlege and power. Here is a plain testimony of the first and second Person. Concerning the third,
Zoroastres
saith, that the Divine Love proceeded from the Mind or Intellect; and what else is this Divine Love but the Holy Ghost?
He then proceeds to lay before the reader the principles of the
Chaldean Magi,
who
acknowleged three beginnings, to wit,
Ormases, Mitris,
and
Ariminis,
i. e. God, the Mind, and Soul." He observes that
Pythagoras
was not ignorant of this mystery, when he placed all perfection in the number THREE, and made Love the original of all things.
He gives us the sentiments of
Zeno, Socrates, Numenius, Plotinus,
and many others,
who write very plainly of the
Hypostases,
&c, so that
no Christian can write more fully.
Let us hear now what a much better known, and an universally admired author has to offer upon the same argument. From the three divine attributes of infinite Goodness, Wisdom, and Power, the
Pythagoreans
and
Platonists
seem to have framed their
Trinity
of what Dr.
Cudworth
calls
Archichal Hypostases:
to which he supposes
Aristotle
may be thought to allude in the following passage in his book
de caelo.
l. 1. c. 1.
(the Pythagoreans)
.
In another place, this learned author gives us to understand, that
Zoroastres,
and the ancient
Magi
acknowleged the Supreme Deity under the different names of
Mithras
and
Oromasius;
which
Mithras
was commonly called
or three-fold. This, it seems,
J. Vossius
would refer to the three
hypostases
in the Deity, agreeably to the Christian theory: but
Cudworth
thinks it to be more conformable to the
Pythagoric
or
Platonic
hypothesis of three distinct substances subordinate to each other. This writer observes elsewhere, that
Pagan
theology in general maintained a
Trinity
of universal principles, or Divine
hypostases
subordinate; the
, or
EN called
; and
or intellect,
, the second God; and the mundane Soul, or animated world,
, the third God. According to the same author, the
Crocodile
was a symbol of the first God of the Aegyptians;
an animal which when in the water sees without being seen:
and among the same people
a winged globe with a serpent springing out of it,
was the
Hieroglyphic
of a triform Deity, or Trinity of Divine
Hypostases.
By the globe was signified the first incomprehensible Deity, without beginning or end, self-existent, by the
Serpent,
the Divine wisdom and creative virtue; and by the
wings,
that active Spirit which quickens, enlivens, and cherishes all things.
Let us see now what was the theology of
Julian,
and the latter
Platonists.
This famous Apostate maintained, that the inferior Gods were ministers of a supreme God. He asserted, that this Supreme God, or first Deity, and fountain of all things, produced from himself, an eternal mind, and a corporeal, or "sensible animated Sun," as a great God in the visible world. The latter
Platonists,
in opposition to Christianity, held, that before the Trinity there was another supreme and highest
Hypostasis,
existing and remaining in the
solitude of his own unity,
as Dr.
Cudworth
literally translates the words of
Jamblicus.
This must at least be allowed to be language somewhat more intelligible than that of those old
Platonists
who taught, that there is a substance, a principle "in the order of nature superior to intellect." They suppose this first and highest principle of all, to be, by reason of its absolute and transcendent perfection, not only above understanding, knowlege, and reason, but above essence itself; which, by the way, was the heresy of
A. Joachim,
condemned by the fourth
Lateran
Council. Our Author very justly calls this visionary doctrine
mysterious Atheism;
and it seems to have been adopted by that fantastic heretic
Valentinus,
whose thirty Gods, or
Aeons,
were the production or offspring of a self-originated Deity, whom he calls
Bythus,
or
, i. e. unfathomable
profundity;
or, according to some, of
profundity
and
silence.
Even the theory of
Hesiod,
whether literally, or physiologically understood, is much more agreeable to truth, and the
Mosaic
history. This old bard makes
Chaos,
and
Earth,
and
Tartarus,
and
Love,
the principles of all things.
(Theogon.
v.
116.
and seq.)
In short, the philosophy we have been just speaking of absolutely refines away all religion, and the very belief of a God; because Divinity in the abstract can no more be said to produce, to act, or to govern, &c. than
wisdom
can be said to be
wise,
or
motion
to
move.
At best, little solid or consistent can be extracted from this medley of principles; and if we understand by
a Trinity,
what in reason we ought to understand by it,
viz. a Trinity of three efficient, living, intelligent Persons, the sovereign causes and rulers of all things,
(to use the words of a learned
See Extract from an anonymous Author quoted by Dr. RANDOLPH in his Vindica. p. 51. &c.
writer,) we shall look in vain for such a doctrine properly and precisely taught before the epoch of Christianity. It is certain, the antient Pagan Theology derived partly from tradition, and partly from
Judaism.
In the doctrines of the latter we are to look for the rise and foundation of the principal tenets of the Philosophers whose names have been mentioned; of whom some are known to have had communications with the
Jews.
What then were the sentiments of these descendants of
Abraham
heretofore with respect to the great doctrine before us? The question is a material one; and, unless I greatly mistake, the solution of it will terminate in a very satisfactory conclusion.
Christian writers differ but little in what they have advanced upon this head. To take a few of them as they fall in our way.
Wollebius
lays down the following principle as an indubitable one.
Etsi Veteris Testamenti tempore doctrina S. S. Trinitatis obscurior fuerit, non tamen plane ignota fuit.
He then quotes the first
Chap.
of
Genesis,
and other passages in the Old Testament, in common with other authors, in support of his position, or his
Canon,
as he calls it, and finishes the paragraph in the following words;
quae testimonia tametsi pertinaces Judaei eludere satagunt, Christianae tamen menti satisfaciunt.
The learned Dr.
Lightfoot
's sentiments on this subject, which Mr.
Parkhurst
has adopted, or rather with particular warmth espoused, are as follows.
The very first thing, says he, that is taught in all the Bible
See Genesis 1. 1, 2, 3, &c.
is this very mystery.
God
created;
God, i. e. the Word
said;
and the Spirit, i. e. the Holy Ghost
moved.
So
Moses
also when he is to teach concerning the creation of man, he first teacheth that it was the Trinity that created him.
And God said, Let us make man after our image.
He saith
Let us,
to shew the Trinity of Persons; and he saith
in our image,
not
in our images,
to shew the unity of essence.
The Trinity is supposed by Dr. L. to be declared in many places; even at v. 4. of Deut. 6.
Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one.
Dr. L. gives this as the true reading, which, says he,
teaches the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity. Three words answer the three Persons, and the middle word our God, deciphering fitly the Second, who assumed our nature.
This learned writer supposes the same mystery to be imported in the following among many other texts.
Exo.
34. v. 6.
Isa.
6. v. 3.
Psalms
50. v. 1. 136. v. 1, 2, 3.
Indeed, Jesus Christ is by the almost unanimous suffrage of writers the
Jehovah
of the Old Testament. The
Angel of the Covenant,
the
Angel
who appeared to
Moses
at the
bush,
the chief of the
Angels
who were entertained by
Abraham,
&c, is generally supposed to have been the Second Person in the
See particularly ALLIX. BULL. JUSTIN MARTYR. IRENAEUS, and TERTULLIAN.
Trinity. A sensible writer endeavours to prove, that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in the
Law,
and that it is in fact acknowleged and asserted by the
Jewish
Rabbies, by
Philo
and
Maimonides,
&c. The
Jewish Cabalists,
says he,
distinguish God into three Lights; and some of them call them by the same names, as the Christians, of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and yet say that this does not at all break the Unity of God. Your famous
Philo,
says he, expresses the same in many places.
And he produces a considerable number of instances, by which it appears that this celebrated Rabbin at least lays himself open to the attacks of every Christian adversary.
To the same effect Dr.
Randolph
quotes a remarkable passage from
Eusebius,
in which it is observed, that, according to the doctrine of the
Jews,
there is, after the Essence of God, &c, a principle begotten of no other but the Father, being first-begotten, &c, being the image of God, the power of God, the wisdom of God, and the word of God; the true light, the
Sun of righteousness,
&c, &c.
There are two striking passages, the one in the book of
Proverbs,
and the other in the
apocryphal
book entitled the
Wisdom of Solomon,
which have been pretty generally considered as designative of the Second Person in the Christian Trinity.
I was set up from everlasting, or ever the earth was. When he prepared the heavens, I was there; when he appointed the foundations of the earth, then was I by him, as one brought up with him, &c.
(Prov. 8. v. 22.
&c.) When all things were in quiet silence, thine Almighty Word leapt down from heaven out of thy royal throne, &c, &c.
(Wisd. 18. v. 15.
&c.)
The anonymous Author of the testaments of the twelve Patriarchs, (who, as Dr.
Grabe
supposes, wrote at the latter end of the second century,) makes every one of them foretell the coming of the Messiah, and most of them, in the plainest terms, the incarnation of the Son of God, or rather simply of God.
All this put together, intricate or incoherent as it may appear, will be thought most clearly to import a Trinity of some kind in the Godhead; and we may accordingly discern in a moment wherein lies the precise difference between the
Pagan,
the
Jewish,
the
Arian,
and the true Christian theory. By the hypothesis of each of the three former, the Supreme God neither is nor can be more than One Person; by that of the latter, the Deity consists of three Persons and one undivided essence. This as manifestly resists the idea of dependence and inferiority, as the other is compatible with it, or rather, under the notion of a Trinity, supposes it. In short, it will, I presume, be no easy matter to say what objection of weight
Jews,
and
Gentiles, Pythagoreans,
and
Platonists,
could have made to the Gospel, what obstacle there was to their
becoming obedient to the faith without delay,
except that the universally adopted principle of SUBORDINATION was superseded, and effectually destroyed by the peculiarly Christian doctrine of EQUALITY.
Perhaps I shall be thought to take upon me here the character of Moderator in the dispute between Mr.
Parkhurst
and Dr.
Priestly.
I had no such intention. But if what has been offered does not exactly coincide with the notions of the former, it will at least in the result be subversive of the principles of the latter. The Christian doctrine of an equal Trinity will be established by the acknowlegement of a plurality of any kind, respecting the Godhead, by
Jews,
antient, or modern, or both. With regard to the notions of
Philo,
&c, see Howes
's Remarks in Vindication of the antient Fathers
&c. p. 41, 42, and seq.
It is observable, in conformity herewith, that the Fathers in general consider the doctrine of the Trinity, in the sense of the Catholic Church, as that which characteristically discriminates Christianity both from Judaism and Heathenism. With respect to the former,
Tertullian
has these remarkable words;
Judaicae fidei est res, sic unum Deum credere, ut Filium adnumera re ei nolis, et post Filium, Spiritum. Quid enim erit inter nos et illos nisi differentia ista? Quod opus Evangelii? Quae est substantia Novi Testamenti, statuens Legem et Prophetas usque ad Johannem, si non exinde Pater, Filius, et Spiritus, tres crediti, unum Deum sistunt?
HOOKER
's Eccles. Pol. p.
A. ROSS
's View of all Rel. Sect.
7.
p.
185. CUDWORTH
's Intell. Sys. p.
206. WOLLEBIUS
's Compen. Theol. l.
1.
c.
2.
p.
15. LIGHTFOOT
on Gen.
1. STACKHOUSE
's Hist. of Bib. Ch.
1.
p.
223. Bp. ANDREWS
's Lect. p.
552. LOWTH
's Direct. for reading S. S. p.
68, 69.
See
PATRICK
's Notes at
Exod. 3. v. 14. 6. v. 3. 18. v. 2. TERTULL.
adv. Prax. c.
31.
See Mr.
PARKHURST
's Tract on the Divinity, &c. of our Lord from p.
1.
to p.
46.
See
JONES.
Chap.
3.
Sect.
1, 2, 3.
See
PATRICK
on Gen.
1.
v.
26. LESLIE
's Short Method with the Jews. p.
88. RANDOLPH
's Vindica. of the Doctrine of the Trinity. pt.
1.
p.
21. GRABE
's Note at Sect.
2,
c.
3.
of
BULL
's Defense.
Page 129.
(s) Son of Mary.]
Nothing can be more ridiculous than the
Mahometan
notions respecting the birth of our Saviour.
Mary
is supposed to have conceived by the breath of
Gabriel.
Yet in the nineteenth Chapter of the
Koran,
the following inconsistent and impious expressions are put into the mouth of the Deity himself.
We sent our Spirit Gabriel to Mary in the shape of a perfect man.
Mr.
Sale
observes, that
Mahomet
's account of the delivery of
Mary
is like the fabulous one of
Latona.
Both, it seems, were delivered by a
palmtree;
and in the womb of the latter
Apollo
spoke, as in that of the former, say some, did
Jesus.
Possibly this may be a refinement upon the
Koran
itself; or upon the circumstance of the
babe's leaping in the womb of Elisabeth.
Luke i. 41.
See
Sale
's Note at Ch. 19. of the
Koran.
Page 131.
(t) God is one God.]
It is the tenet of all true
Mussulmen,
says the author of
Mahometism explained,
that the most abandoned sinners that ever existed shall be saved,
provided they shall once during their lives have testified the Unity of God, by pronouncing that fundamental article of the
Mussulman
belief,
there is no God but
ALLAH, and MAHOMET
is his Apostle.
This, I conceive, must be understood with some restriction, and supposes no apostacy subsequent to the attestation in question. For the famous
Mahometan
Doctor,
Algazali,
in his comment on these two capital articles of their faith, delivers himself in the following words.
He shall also believe that they that confess one God shall at length go out of the fire, after they have underwent the punishment due to their sins; so that by the favourable mercy of God, no person shall remain in hell who acknowleged the Unity of the Godhead.
The first
Mussulmen
gloried in the title of
Unitarians
upon every occasion. Some of them carried their zeal for the grand article of their religion to a degree of savage ferocity. We have a notable example of this in the history of the
Saracens.
At the siege of
Damascus,
in the reign of
Omar,
the second
Caliph
after
Mahomet, Abu-Obeidah,
the commander of the
Saracen
army, had granted quarter to certain citizens; which was a piece of lenity so exasperating to
Derar,
an officer of very high rank, as to draw from him a declaration, seconded by the solemnity of an oath, that, for his part,
he would never have mercy upon any that said that God had a son, and joined a partner with God.
We learn from the anonymous author of
Four Treatises,
&c, (who assures us he derives his authorities from writers of the first class,) that the
Mahometans
carry this
unitarian
principle with them literally to their graves. His account of their funeral solemnities is entertaining enough; but the following are the only particulars with which we are at all concerned. At the interment of a
Mussulman
the
Muezzin,
or Cryer, must go before the corps, reciting with a loud voice,
there is no God but very God.
At the close of the whole ceremony, the defunct is addressed by the priest in these words.
Be mindful of the covenant with which thou hast gone out of this world; bearing witness that there is no God but very God alone, and that Mahomet is his prophet, and that Paradise is for certain, and fire for certain, and the resurrection for certain;
&c, &c.
How shall we reconcile all this with Mr.
Locke's
assertion, that
to the light which the Messiah brought into the world with him, we must ascribe the owning and profession of one God, which the Mahometan religion hath derived and borrowed from it.
Strange assertion! The
Mahometan
faith is this, that there is one Person in the Godhead; the Catholic faith is this, that there are three Persons in one Godhead. Remove this difference; and you will make a considerable breach in the
middle wall of partition
between the two religions.
(See Disc.
4
th. sub fin.)
Reasonab. of Christianity. p.
86.
Comment prefixed to the
2
d. Vol. of
OCKLEY
's History of the Saracens.
OCKLEY
's Hist. of the Saracens, Vol.
1.
p.
227, 134.
Treatise concerning the Turkish Liturgy. p.
139, 142.
Page 132.
(v) Papal innovation.]
The
Arians
in
Poland,
soon after the
Reformation,
most ridiculously attempted to represent the doctrine of the Trinity as the most anti-christian of all corruptions in the Church of
Rome;
and would have fain had it believed, that Providence permitted the Pope to wear a
triple
crown, as a mark denoting him to be a maintainer of that doctrine.
See
HOOKER
's Eccles. Pol. B.
4.
p.
142.
Page 144.
(u) tables of man's heart.] Burlamaque,
in his book entitled
Principles of natural and politic Law,
observes somewhere, that
moral maxims or actions are as certain, as much dictated by pure reason, as physical, or mathematical ones.
That the Creator, e. g., says he, is to be worshipped &c, by the creature, is as selfevident as that the whole is greater than its parts. Bp.
Cumberland
calls the Law of nature immutable, eternal, and universal.
Dissertation on the Law of Nature. p. 89.
I cannot think Bp.
Taylor
expresses himself with accuracy, and much less with true casuistical precision, in the following passage extracted by Dr.
W. Lowth
from the
Ductor Dubitantium.
If we be sent to read the laws of nature in the tables of our own hearts, where some things are disordered by passion, many more are written by interest; some are indited by custom, and others imprinted by education; and amongst several men these are the authors of contrary inscriptions; I say, if we have no better director than this, whereby to square our actions, we shall find ourselves at a loss for the managing our behaviour in some of the weightiest concerns of life.
The
inscriptions
of passion, interest, and custom, &c, are not those
original
impressions which are still legible, and sufficiently distinguishable by a candid and inquisitive mind. The law of nature, abstractedly considered, is still what Bp.
Cumberland
calls it.
That obnoxiousness to error from which men of the brightest parts, and the greatest professional abilities, are not exempt, is to writers in general at once an encouraging and an humbling circumstance.
The corruption of human reason, and the ignorance and error incident to our understandings,
has, says a most excellent author, given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of Divine Providence, which in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased at sundry times, and in divers manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct Revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or Divine law, and they are to be found only in the Scriptures. These precepts when revealed are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from hence to conclude, that the knowlege of these truths was attainable by reason in its present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but till then they can never be put in any competition. Municipal law is a rule of civil conduct. This distinguishes municipal law from the natural, or revealed; the former of which is the rule of moral conduct, and the latter not only the rule of moral conduct, but also the rule of faith.
See Commen. on the Laws of England. Sect. 2. p. 42.
These periods seem to have slipped from the pen. The Scriptures are the Revelation of divine or supernatural truths, but of the
original law of nature
they are only the revival, or republication. THEY plainly declare that to be the will of God which, in
the times of ignorance
and corruption, might rather be said to have been obtruded upon the world, than recommended to it, as the will of God, by the philosophers;
they
teach that by authority which, before, reason only dictated, or opinion espoused; so that now every species of immorality is totally without excuse. Properly speaking, it is not the Divine Will, but the Divine Nature, "which was
hid from the wisdom of ages.
For though we have in Scripture only the
sure word
of morality, yet
Socrates, Plato,
and
Tully,
as far as they taught truly, taught the morality of Scripture. In a word, Revelation is necessarily the rule of conduct, but directly and immediately the rule of faith.
The passages just cited interfered with the argument before me; and I am happy in the opportunity hereby given me to acknowlege my obligations to a learned and sincere friend, and to testify my high respect for the name and memory of Sir W. BLACKSTONE.
Page 144.
(w) earnestly inculcated.] See
GROT.
l.
4. 12. TULL.
de Nat. Deo. l.
2—25.
De Leg. l.
2. 11.
De Off. l.
2—3. PERS.
Sat.
2.
v.
69. XENO.
Memo. l.
1.
p.
571. POTTER
's Greek Antiq. Vol.
1.
B.
2.
ch.
5. PLATO
's Alci. and
PLUTARCH
's Insti. Lacon.
CICERO
pro domo sua, apud Pontif.
TULL.
de Leg. l.
2—7.
De Divinat.
1—51—57.
Fragmen. Vet. Poet. p.
60. TULL.
de Nat. Deo. l.
3—35. AESCHYLUS
's Persae. v.
293. EURIPIDES
's Hecuba. v.
954.
Bacchae. v.
70. SOPHOCLES
's Ajax. v.
118
et seq.
AESCHYLUS
's Prom. Vinc. v.
1073. EURIP.
Orest. v.
821.
Phaeniss. v.
1206.
Androm.
851.
Tusc. Quaest. l.
2.
v.
21.
Fragmen. Vet. Poet. p.
24, 96. &c, &c, &c. See particularly the works of
Epictetus
and
M. Antoninus.
It has been indeed, and is often alledged, that both these authors borrowed, or rather stole the best of their philosophy from the documents of Christianity. But, admitting the truth of the allegation, they adopted these principles as fit and right, and as perfectly agreable to human reason; which is quite enough for our purpose. It is not at all material to know, whether, or how far, these, or any other philosophers, were really indebted to Revelation.
Many writers, with a laudable desire to extol Christianity, have represented in a very strong light the imperfection and insufficiency of heathen Morals, and drawn at full length, and in the most lively colours, the errors and impurities of Paganism; but all this in manifest consistence with what has been advanced.
See particularly
LOWTH
's Direct. for reading the Scrip. Ch.
8.
p.
129. 10.
p.
183, &c. and WHITBY
's Endeavour. p.
10.
Page 155.
(x) the Greek Dramatists.
The true God must ultimately be understood by the
&c. of
Homer;
the
Divum Pater,
&c. of
Virgil;
the
Summus Deorum
of
Ovid;
the
communis conditor
of
Juvenal;
and by him, as
Horace says,
Unde nil majus generatur ipso;
Nec viget quicquam simile aut secundum.
Naevius,
according to
Varro,
calls
Jupiter Patrem Optimum, Supremum, et Summum.
—
he above all,
is
Porphyry
's description of the Deity.
Prometheus,
in
Aeschylus,
calls
Jupiter,
though insolently and in defiance,
. v. 936. And in the
Supplices
of the same author he is styled
; which are almost
Isaiah
's own words according to Bp.
Lowth
's translation. q. v. v. 584. See
Isaiah
9. 6. There is a fine passage in the
Antigone
of
Sophocles
which represents
Jupiter
as neither
slumbering nor sleeping,
Psalm 121. v. 3, 4.
and as subject to no infirmity, or decay.
See v.
612.
et seq.
The sovereign independence of the Deity, the unsearchableness of his counsels, and the stability of his decrees, are strongly expressed in the following places.
See Homer. Il. l.
1.
v.
5.
Aeschylus
's
Supplices. v.
1056. 600.
Prome. Vinct.
v. 50.
Agamem.
v. 1496. The
Chain
in
Homer,
Il. 8. v. 19. &c, has been remarked on by many writers; and the subserviency of all things, past, present, and to come, to the Divine will and pleasure, is expressly declared in the continuation of the passage above referred to in
Sophocles:
,
.
Vid. supr.
The spirituality of the Divine Being is expressed by
Plato, Anaxagoras, Aristotle,
and others, under the term
; by
Cicero,
and the Latin writers, by that of
Mens.
The
divinae particula aurae
of
Horace,
the
aetherius sensus of Virgil,
the
animus
as contradistinguished from the
anima
of
Juvenal,
&c, &c, unquestionably refer us to the spiritual creator.
Tully,
we know, delights in this argument, and handles it in a thousand places. In one particularly, he asserts, "Nihil ab optimo et praestantissimo genitore, animo melius procreatum;" and in another, he speaks the very language of Revelation itself.
DEI, says he, IMAGO quaedam ANIMUS est; ex ipso DEO delibata ac profecta.
Timaeus. Fragmen. Sec. 8. Consola. sub fin.
The omniscience, the omnipresence,
See Virgil. Aen. l. 6. v. 724. Geor. 4. v. 221.
the invisibility, and the incomprehensible nature of the Deity, are set in a very strong light by
Pagan
writers.
Tully,
in his book
de natura Deorum,
cites
Pythagoras
affirming,
Deum esse animum per naturam
rerum omnium commeantem. l.
1. 10.
Seneca,
speaking of God, says,
Quocunque te flexeris, ibi illum videbis occurrentem tibi; and Plautus
says finely,
Est profecto Deus, qui quae nos gerimus auditque et videt.
The
Greek
Dramatists are very clear and explicit under these articles. In a fragment of
Euripides
one says,
; which, as Mr.
Barnes
observes, is exactly parallel with
Hesiod
's,
.
See Tragaed. Incer. v. 8. and Barnes's Note. See Ibid. v. 335.
Of all the heathens
Plato
perhaps had the most exalted sentiments, and, as a learned author expresses it, "came nearest to the truth," He was indeed conversant in the
Jewish
Law to such a degree as to be described under the character of
Moses
speaking
Greek,
according to the same author's observation from
Eusebius
and others. He calls God
, and emphatically the
.
Origen
cites this remarkable expression from him, which is produced by
Grotius;
.—
But, it may be, this eulogy is premature.
In the sacred commentary of the
Persian
rites, the following words, says
Sir Isaac Newton,
are ascribed to
Zoroastres.
O
, &c.
This, says he, was the antient God of the
Persian Magi.
The same great author acquaints us, that
Hystaspes,
father of
Darius,
was co-founder of the religion of the
Persian
empire with
Zoroastres;
which religion, says he,
was composed parly of the institutions of the
Chaldaeans,
in which
Zoroastres
was well skilled; and partly of the institutions of the antient
Brachmans,
who are supposed to derive even their name from the
Abrahamans,
or sons of
Abraham,
born of his second wife
Keturah,
and instructed by their father in the worship of ONE GOD,
without images, &c."
(See
NEWTON
's Chronol. Ch.
6.
p.
350, 351.)
One is almost afraid to say, this consummate Philosopher could himself be mistaken in this or in any matter; could possibly be liable to the weakness of inadvertence, or the littleness of prepossession. Yet the author of the
Essay on Spirit
makes use of Sir.
Is. Newton
's words when he declares, that
God is a relative term, which has reference to subjects.
Surely it has been observed with great truth, that of all terms the term GOD is perhaps the most absolute. It is the name of the Supreme, self-existent Being, independently on ten thousand creations. We know not wherein the essential happiness of the Deity consists; but we know that the mere production of worlds contributes nothing to it. It is true, God is our Creator, our King, our Father, but does he stand related to us under these characters by necessity, or by bounty of grace? We worship him as our Maker, we honour him as our Sovereign, we fear him as our Judge, we love him as our Father, &c, but before the great day of universal manifestation we shall not
see him,
and even then most probably shall but imperfectly
see him as he is.
Page 160.
(y) proof upon proof.]
The refinements of learned men have disserved the cause they wished to promote. According to the traditions of the
Chinese,
as
European
missionaries have represented them,
Confucius,
their great philosopher, who lived above five hundred years before Christ, used often to say,
It is in the West that the true Saint is to be found;
and even before him it was a saying of
Laokun,
that
eternal reason produced
ONE; ONE
produced
TWO; TWO
produced
THREE;
and
THREE
produced all things.
How far the conclusion of
Simplicius
's comment upon
Epictetus
may deserve more attention, I will not determine. It is to be found in Dr. CAVE
's Prim. Christian.
being a prayer
in which mention is made of three Persons, the
Lord,
(or Father;) the
Saviour,
(or Christ;) and the
light of truth;
which even in Scripture, says Dr. C., is "a common periphrasis of the Holy Spirit." If we may believe
Socrates
in his Ecclesiastical History, (as the same author refers to him,)
Ignatius
heard the angels in a vision praising the Trinity in alternate hymns, which introduced alternate hymns into the Church. Mr.
Hooker
seems inclined to suspect the authority of this story; and it is certain nothing is said relative to such a vision in all the genuine epistles of this antient Father, which are seven; though in one of them, viz. that to the
Ephesians,
he talks of
Jesus Christ's being sung, and of singing to the Father by Jesus Christ:
Sect. 4.
which makes the omission more extraordinary.
The absolute Divinity of
Jesus Christ
has, with more haste than judgment, been asserted by some from our Saviour's words to the
leper, I will; be thou clean:
and by others from his
power to forgive sins;
nothing in all this implying a self-inherent authority. Dr.
Whitby
quotes the following passage from a no less illustrious Father than
Irenaeus,
with respect to the
remitting power.
By remitting the sin, &c, he shewed who he was; for if none can remit sins but God, and yet our Lord did remit them, &c, it is manifest that he was both the
Word of God,
and the
Son of man,
receiving the power of remission from his Father, as God and Man.
Surely he could
receive
this power as man only.
It is not my intention to derogate in the least from the merit of Mr.
Jones
's performance, (the
Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity,)
which upon the whole is admirable and satisfactory. His scriptural parallels are for the most part happy; and his mode of reasoning is always ingenious, and generally conclusive. Perhaps it rather fails in the application of the following text;
God was
IN CHRIST,
reconciling the world to
HIMSELF. 2 Cor. 5. 19.
It is allowed on all hands, says Mr.
Jones,
that the
world
was reconciled by Christ Jesus to the
one, only, great and supreme God.
But, this very
same God
(for the word is but once used in the whole sentence) was
in
Christ; manifest
in
the flesh, and
reconciling the world to himself.
And were there no other passage of Scripture to be found, this alone is sufficient to overthrow the whole doctrine of
Arianism;
which, as far as the Scripture is concerned, depends upon this one assertion, that
the word
GOD,
in Scripture,
NEVER
signifies a complex notion of more persons than one; but
ALWAYS
means one person only, viz. either the person of the Father singly, or the person of the Son singly.
Which is absolutely false: for here it signifies
both.
The text considers God as agent and patient at the same time, and upon the same occasion; as the
reconciler
of the world, in the
person
of the
Son;
and the object to whom the
reconciliation was made,
in the
person
of the
Father;
yet there is but one word (GOD) to express them both. So that the word God, though of the
singular
number, is of a
plural
comprehension. And thus I find it to have been taken by some of the most eminent writers before the council of
Nice; Plasmatus in initio homo per manus
DEI, id est, FILII et SPIRITUS, says
Irenaeus;
putting the singular name of God for the
two persons
of the
Son
and
Spirit.
And the same word, in the language of
Origen,
(if we are allowed to take the version of
Ruffinus
as genuine,) includes the whole
three
persons:
igitur de
DEO,
id est,
de PATRE,
et
FILIO,
et
SPIRITU SANCTO. And our excellent church has used the word
God
in the same comprehensive sense; as in the
Blessing
after the communion service, GOD ALMIGHTY,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
I am afraid this is not so full an answer to the above assertion as was to be wished; and that it is not absolutely sufficient for the "overthrow of the whole doctrine of
Arianism."
In the first place, Dr.
Clarke's
proselytes will be apt to insist, that the whole doctrine of
Arianism
does not depend upon this one assertion; and in the next place, that, if it did, Mr.
Jones
has advanced nothing here forcible enough to overthrow it. It is true, they will say,
God was in Christ;
but in what sense? why, by his grace, his influence, and spiritual communications; as he is likewise said to be
in
us; and as Christ is said to be
in
us; and as we are said to be
in
God, and to be
in
Christ, by the purity of our hearts and affections. This, they will tell us, is plain simple theory, without any wanton refinement, or imaginary distinction of "agent and patient, &c." And with regard to the authorities of
Irenaeus, Origen,
and the
Blessing
in the Communion service, they will add, that they cannot admit either a private sentiment, or a public doctrine to be the standard of true Chistianity.
As this is specious enough, it may be proper to disencumber ourselves from the weight of this same
Arian
assertion, by other considerations.
Hac non successit, alia progrediamur via.
First then let it be observed, that though the
English
word
God
be "of the
singular
number," yet the
Hebrew
word
Elohim,
of which it is the translation, is confessedly "of a
plural
comprehension." Accordingly it has been demonstrated over and over again, that the ancient
Jews
held a plurality of some kind in the Deity.
(Vid. Supr.)
But, secondly, we may recur to considerations still more internal, and indisputable. If it has been abundantly made to appear, that the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, as properly and truly as the Father is God, the term God must unavoidably be acknowleged to include, or to "signify a complex notion of
more persons than one,"
in many places of holy writ. It will suffice to produce a few instances. The Father is said to be
in
us, 1 John. 4. 13. or to
dwell in
us, or
abide
with us, and the Son is said to be
in us,
&c, Rom. 8. v. 10. and the Holy Ghost is said to be
in
us; and, in a case which he mentions, St. Paul tells the
Corinthians,
it would be reported, that
God
was
in them of a truth.
1 Cor. 14. 25. Now can any man assign a tolerable reason why the word
God
in this passage should not be regarded as inclusive of the whole blessed Trinity?
Another Scripture saith, every one of us shall give account of himself to God;
Rom. 14. 12. but if in the term,
God,
Jesus Christ is not comprehended, what will become of the text which assures us
we must all appear before
HIS
judgment-seat?
2 Cor. 5. 10. The great Apostle of the Gentiles puts the
Elders
of the
Church of Ephesus
in mind, that he had
not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God:
and if he who
purchased
this
Church with his own blood,
and he who appointed
overseers over it,
are to be considered as parties in this
counsel,
(and surely they are to be so considered,) the word, God, has manifestly a
complex
signification here, and
means
more than
one person only.
Acts 20. 27, 28. The
Kingdom of God
is a phrase which, in most places where it occurs, will, I presume, not barely admit but require the same latitude of application. The
Word of God
may be regarded in the same light. Lastly I shall close these examples with one which is the more eligible, because it is contained in a text which has already undergone examination, and to which our adversaries are for ever putting in their claim. I mean v. 28th. of the 15th. Chapter of St.
Paul
's first Epist. to the
Cor.
See Disc. 6. sub fin.
When all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God,
i. e. the complement of the Deity, the Trinity in Unity,
may be all in all.
Every critical eye sees clearly that, in this passage, for the complex word—God—we must read the single term Father, before we can with any sort of propriety accommodate it to the purpose of the anti-trinitarians. In this case indeed, there would be an obvious sense, and a natural antithesis, and both in their favour.
The other text—
I am in the Father, and the Father in me,
John 14. 11., which Mr. J. produces as synonomising with the preceding, may be explained away by similar means. The
Arian
has the following passages to oppose to them.
That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in me,
&c. John 17. 21, 22, 23. I am far from saying, or even insinuating, that there is any real difficulty in all this; or that the orthodox construction of the passages adduced by Mr. J. does not fairly and properly belong to them. I only take leave to observe, and have an obvious view in observing, that, with regard to the defence of Christian doctrine in general, and particularly to the confutation of the assertion above-mentioned, this truly respectable author might have selected texts less equivocal, less liable to prevarication.
It is observable, Dr.
I. Watts
makes the texts
I am in the
FATHER and
the
FATHER IN ME, &c, subservient to his doctrine of the inherency, or
indwelling
of the Father, i. e. of the godhead in the MAN
Christ Jesus.
It has been remarked, that by a small alteration in the punctuation, the 3d. v. of the 17th. Chap. of St.
John, that they might know thee the only true God,
&c, may be thus rendered,
that they might know thee, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, to be the only true God.
This reading is supported by the authorities of
Novatian,
St.
Austin,
and St.
Ambrose.
But it will be prudent, I believe, to wave these authorities. These Fathers seem to have been
in great fear, where no fear was.
We may safely abide by the sense of the text before us in its present state. Were we really in distress, it might be worth our while to appeal to these
early opinions
in our favour.
See Discourse
6
th sub. fin.
Dr. WATTS
's Last Sentiments. p.
76, 77.
See the passage in
IRENAEUS
cited at large, and illustrated by
Dr. WATERLAND
in his
2
d Defence of his Queries. p.
90.
See Mat.
9. 6.
Deism Revealed. Vol.
2.
p.
192. CAVE
's Prim. Christian. p.
40, 177.
See
WHEATLY
's
MOYER
's Lecture Sermons. Sermon
5.
p.
250.
Note B.
Page. 161.
(z) abstract speculation.]
Among the many tripartite representations of the Trinity, material and intellectual,
essence, intelligence,
and
will,
have been regarded by some as significant of that great mystery; which seems to be much about as wise a symbolization as that of those who gravely affirm the
moon
to be an emblem of the
Church, birds
emblems of
heretics,
and
fish of antichrist.
We find in our nature, says a celebrated writer, which is said to be made after the image of God, a very near resemblance of the Holy Trinity, and of the different operations of each of the Divine Persons. For example; to know a thing present, and to remember what is past, and to love or hate, are different operations of our mind, and performed by different faculties of it. Of these, the understanding is the
Father
faculty, and gives being to things, as to us; for what we know not, is to us as if it were not: this answers to creation. From this faculty proceeds the
second,
that of
memory,
which is a preserving of that the understanding has created to us. Then the
third
faculty, that of the will, which loves or hates, proceeds from both the other; for we cannot love or hate what is not first created by the understanding, and preserved to us by the memory.
The plastic power of a warm imagination, or a sanguine zeal, will form emblems and adumbrations of the Trinity in all countries, and in all ages of the world. We are told the old
Aegyptians,
and modern
Americans,
worshipped the Deity under the picture of a sun with
three heads.
As infidelity will take all advantages of pious whim, and indiscreet attachment, so will it as surely avail itself to its utmost of certain strange notions, which have been advanced, in direct variation from the received doctrine of the primitive Church. It is not easy to say with what propriety, or in what sense, Papists have called the
Virgin
the
complement
of the Trinity. Mr.
Sale
tells us, some of the Christian
Arabs
associate with a Sect that worshipped the
Virgin
as a God. We learn from the same author, and others, that some of the
Nicene
Council maintained there were two Gods besides God the Father,
viz. Christ
and the
Virgin.
Others have affirmed, that the
Spirit
was the
creature
of the
Son.
The Bp. of
Agen
wrote an expostulatory letter to Father
Gabriel,
who had roundly asserted, that
Mary
was the
fourth
Person in the Godhead.
JURIEU
's Accom. B.
3.
p.
163, &c. STACKH.
Body of Div. p.
183. SALE
's Prelim. Discourse, p.
35.
PRID.
Life of Mahomet. p.
36. LESLIE
's Sh. Meth. with De. p.
61,
&c.
Page 207.
(aa) smatch of this sentiment.]
We are told that
Diogenes,
upon being asked, how he would be buried, answered, in cynical contempt, as it should seem, of this custom of his country,
, with my
face downwards.
POTTER
's Gr. Antiq. V.
2.
B.
4.
Ch.
6.
Page 227.
(bb) reunited to it.]
There is no guarding against the impertinence of captiousness, or the prevarications of infidelity. Many questions may be asked upon subjects of this kind, which may perplex our judgments, without disturbing our faith. It will be sufficient to insist, that, even setting aside the authority of Scripture, or granting it to be undecisive, our theory is at least as free from difficulties as that of our opponents.
Page 231.
(cc) L's. notion of identity.]
In controversy it is neither unusual, nor is it bad policy to cry f—l first. Both Mr.
L.
and Dr.
S.
have recourse to something like this artifice, when they apply to believers St.
Paul
's severe reprimand to such enquirers as should ask,
how are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come? Thou fool,
the Apostle replies; and proceeds to illustrate the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body,
through the remaining part of the Chapter, and particularly in the verses some time since quoted. If this plainly appears from the fairest and most natural construction of these passages, we stand clear of the aforesaid mortifying imputation, and may justly return the compliment. And, in fact, we are encouraged to risk our reputation for wisdom on
our
interpretation, by that sort of half-concession which truth seems to have extorted from Mr. L. himself, when he tells us, that the words—
that which thou sowest,
&c. might be
sufficient to deter us from determining any thing
for
or
against
the same body's being raised at the last day.
For these are not St.
Paul
's strongest, or most unequivocal expressions.
Page 234.
(dd) this body to come.]
One would almost imagine Dr.
S.
had espoused somewhat like the antient heathen notion, that the
shades of departed persons retained a kind of subtile vehicle, in all particulars exactly resembling the body of the deceased.
The notion of such a
subtile vehicle,
which is not a whit more comprehensible than the Christian theory of the resurrection, is at least so far consonant to the same, as it implies a natural wish of reunion, and a sort of
hankering
of the soul after its old companion.
GEDDES'S
Essay on Compos. p.
212.
Page 234.
(ee) or to what.]
Dr.
S.
must have known what has been said by our most eminent Divines upon the subject before us. This Church never produced a sounder Divine, or this nation a closer reasoneer than Dr.
Barrow.
His sentiments are as clear and determinate as possible on the orthodox side of the question. Could the Inquirer persuade himself that he has confuted them by the consciousness of silence, the affectation of contempt, or the peremptoriness of opposition?
See
BARROW
's Expos. of the Cr. under the Article of the Resurrec. of the Body. p.
305.
Page 234.
(ff) would have them.]
The common arguments which are adduced in proof of the identity in question have, I presume, much more weight than some are willing to allow. The effects of chymical operations have been observed to be analogous to the resurrection. It has been remarked that
"from the ashes of a plant fairer plants have sprung."
Grotius
pursues much the same course of arguments as others, but is unhandsomely deserted by his Editor. For Mr.
Le-clerc
is for adjusting matters nearly on the same ground, and in the same language with Dr.
S.
and Mr.
L.
RESURGERE
corpus dici optime potest, cum
SIMILE
ex terra a Deo formatur, conjungiturque menti. Itaque non opus est ut in nimias angustias nos redigamus dum
materiae nimis rigide defendimus.
JENKINS
's Reas. of Christ. v.
2.
p.
447.
See
BEATTIE
on the immutab. of Truth, Ch.
4.
p.
86,
&c.
GRO.
de ver. l.
2.
c.
10.
Page 243.
(gg) believe in him.]
Some have erred concerning this matter. Dr.
Cudworth
supposes Christ's body to have been changed into a spiritual or heavenly body immediately after his resurrection; the subtilty and tenuity of which was shewn by his entering into the place where his disciples were assembled when the DOORS WERE SHUT,
however its glory were for the time suspended, partly for the better convincing them of the truth of his resurrection, and partly because they were not then able to bear the splendor of it.
But there are many reasons why we should not humour this child of a fruitful imagination. When our Lord, after his conversation, &c, with the two disciples at
Emmaus,
vanished
out of their sight,
had he not
that
body with which he was crucified? Had he not
that
body when he
shewed
his disciples his
hands
and his
feet;
when he called upon them to
handle
him, &c, and assured them that it was he himself who addressed them? The truth is, he could appear or disappear at pleasure, by virtue of his divine power; and therefore it was by no means necessary he should be invested with a
spiritual
or heavenly body for that purpose. The resurrection of
that
body which was crucified, which
rose from the dead,
and with which Jesus Christ conversed upon earth
forty days,
is the proper pledge and earnest of
our
resurrection; his
glorious body,
strictly so called, being probably assumed at his
Ascension.
St.
Ignatius,
in his epistle to the
Smyrnaeans,
expresses himself very emphatically upon this subject. In his note on the passage I allude to, the learned
Vossius
says as follows.
Resurrectionem Christi vocat (Ignatius)
quia nobis haec data commune resurrectionis futurae signum.
The Most Rev. Translator, I observe by the way, renders
by the word
token,
which I need not inform the critical reader is not fully adequate to the original: the
Greek
term denoting a
token,
or
sign
given in consequence of an agreement between party and party. Our Saviour had pledged himself, both to his disciples, and to the
Jews,
to rise again; and by so doing at once fulfilled his engagements, and gave ample security for the general resurrection.
From that passage in St.
Paul
's 2
d. Epist. to the Cor. Ch.
5. which speaks of our being
clothed upon with our house which is from heaven,
&c, some have inferred, says Dr.
Cudworth,
that
bodies come not out of graves:
but as this matter is cleared by commentators, and Dr.
S.
lays no stress on the place, I shall waste no time upon it.
JENKINS
's Reason. of Christian. v
2.
p.
447, &c. GROT.
de Verit. l.
2.
c.
10. IGNA.
to the Smyrn. Sect.
1.
See
VOSSIUS
's note p.
257. CUDWORTH
's Intell. Sys. ch.
5.
p.
796, 799.
See
WHITBY
's Note at John
20.
v.
19.
Page 244.
(hh) in the flesh.]
This passage in St.
Clement
is not to be over strictly, or literally understood. The Apostle expressly declares, that
flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
That body which shall be
raised up at the last day,
that material substance which, when re-united to the soul, will constitute the identical person who died, and was buried, shall be changed, shall even be
fashioned like unto the glorious body
of
Christ,
previously, as it should seem, to its appearance before his
judgment-seat.
For
we shall all be changed in a moment &c, at the last trump, when the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and this mortal shall put on immortality.
It has been observed by many, that the good fathers from whom passages are extracted on this subject, together with St.
Paul
before them, in his 15
th. Chap. of the
1
st. Epis. to the Cor.,
speak only of the
resurrection of the just:
but it is at the same time to be noted, that, with respect to this principle of incorruption, the change in the general
resurrection
will undoubtedly be the same both of the
just and the unjust.
Weak reasoning, like a weapon which falls short of its aim, will be returned upon us by our adversary. St.
Chrysostom
's argument, and that of some other fathers, and of many modern Divines, for the
resurrection of the same body,
drawn from the supposed absurdity of
one
body's sinning and
another's
suffering, is obviously a futile one, and may be rendered serviceable to the interest of the enemy. The body undergoes a great variety of changes in the course of life; and, it might be asked, would not every imaginable purpose of retribution be fully answered by a future state of happiness, or misery, to soul and body, whencesoever
that body
might be supposed to
come? Ut justum est,
says
Wollebius, ut quaedam peccata post hanc vitam puniantur; ita est quoque, ut quod socium fuit peccatorum sit quoque poenarum.
Compend. Chris. Theol. p.
193.
Page 251.
(ii) he once had.]
How far, says Dr.
S.,
they
(Athenag.
&c.) succeeded is not the point at present; they might have shewn that the
resurrection of the flesh
is no where taught in Scripture.
But what if this was left to be shewn by Dr.
Sykes?
What, if their design was to prove the
resurrection of the flesh
to be a Scripture doctrine, and that upon rational grounds? I venture to think this is put out of doubt by what has been submitted to the reader; though luckily Dr.
S.
himself will help us out if we have any how failed in our argumentation upon this subject. For in his account of
Tertullian
's
third form,
or
rule of faith,
in his book
De Praescriptione Haereticorum,
the Dr. thus expresses himself.
Nor is his
third Form
or
Rule,
&c, any
Creed
of any Church, but only a summary of the doctrines of the Gospel.
This father then intended his
Form
or
Rule,
as a summary of Christian doctrine, even according to Dr.
S
's account of the matter; and in
it,
as it is quoted by
himself,
we have mention in plain terms of the
resurrection of the flesh.
The words of
Tertullian
are these: that Christ shall come in glory to judge the world,
facta utriusque partis resuscitatione, cum carnis restitutione.
Enquiry. p. 17.
Page 254.
(kk) the first time.]
Notwithstanding the explicitness of these passages,
Mahomet
's theory of the
resurrection
is sometimes not a little whimsical, according to what we learn from Mr.
Sale
of it. He acquaints us, that this false prophet supposed the whole human body would be corrupted, except the
rump-bone,
which is first formed, (the
os coccygis,
as he terms it;) and that this is to be a sort of seed from whence the whole will be renewed at the last day, after a rain of forty days,
(viz.
a great dew, according to the
Jews,
from whom
Mahomet
took this hint,) which will impregnate the earth, and "cause the bodies to sprout like plants." The
Jews,
it seems, call this bone
Luz. Cudworth
appears to have an eye to this particular in his 5th Chapter. p. 799.
SALE
's Prelim. Disc.
p. 81.
Page 254.
(ll) been discussing.]
The story which
Mahomet
introduces into the second book of the
Koran
of the miracle God was pleased to work, for the confirmation of
Abraham
's faith in the article before us, is extraordinary indeed, and well worth transcribing.
God said to Abraham, take four birds, cut them in pieces, and disperse them in four different mountains; and then call them, and you shall see all
those four birds will immediately come to you.
This story is told by
Mahometan
writers still more circumstantially.
These four birds, they say, were a pigeon, a cock, a crow, and a peacock; and that when
Abraham
had cut them in pieces, he made a perfect anatomy of them, and minced them all together. Some add, that he pounded them in a mortar, and reduced them all to one mass, which he divided into four parts, and carried them to the top of four several mountains; and that then, holding up their heads, which he retained in his hands, he called them severally by their names; and that each came accordingly for his head, and flew away with it.
MORGAN
's
Mahom. explained. Vol. 1. p. 156. See Mr. WHITES'S Note at l. 14. p. 274. of his learned B. Lectures.
It is certain
Mahomet
refined much upon the history of
Moses
in general; and my author observes, that probably this wild story has its foundation in God's command to
Abraham
to offer a sacrifice of a
turtle-dove,
and a
pigeon,
among other animals, as we read in the 15
th Chapter of Gen. v.
9.
et seq.
Page 257.
(mm) in competent authority.]
The sense of the Apostolical and primitive Church may be collected from the Form of the first
Baptismal Creed,
which ran in the following terms, I
believe in God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
See CYPRIAN. Epist. 73.
That this Creed, which implicitly declares the
Three
Persons to be
One
God, was simply the Confession used in the earliest times, is the opinion of many learned men, and particularly of
Episcopius,
(the most eminent of the
Remonstrants
in
Holland,)
who, as Dr.
Waterland
observes, was not aware of its destructive consequence to his own Hypothesis,
viz.
that the divine eternal generation of the Son was not inserted in the Creeds from the beginning.
The words of
Episcopius,
as quoted by Bp.
Bull,
are these.
Antiquissimum (symbolum), quodque in prima Baptismi administratione jam inde ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus usitabatur, hoc erat;
CREDO IN DEUM PATREM, FILIUM, ET SPIRITUM SANCTUM:
nempe ad praescriptam ab ipso Jesu formulam.
On which occasion the learned prelate makes the following observations.
Perspicuum est in hac formula vocem
DEUM
ad omnes Tres, nempe Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum referri. Quod Graeci adhuc clarius exprimunt.
.
Ita sane hanc brevem Confessionem veteres intellexere. Hinc Tertullianus (adv. Prax. c. xiii.) communem Christianorum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto Fidem exponens, ait, et Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et Spiritus Sanctus Deus, et Deus unusquisque. Mihi sane videtur in his paucis verbis, Credo in Deum, &c, magnam illam veritatem, nempe Filium et Spiritum Sanctum
UNUM
esse cum Patre Deum, aliquatenus clarius
exprimi quam in fusioribus quibusdam symbolis quae subsecuta sunt. Nam per additamenta illa post verba Credo in Deum Patrem, &c, et adjectiones post mentionem Filii, non repetita voce
DEUM
in articulis de Filio et Spiritu Sancto, videri potuit, et nonnullis visa est
DEI
appellatio ad solum Patrem pertinere; plane contra mentem ac sententiam eorum qui latiora illa symbola condididerunt.
BULL
's Judic. Eccles. Cath. Chap.
4.
p.
308, 309. WALL
's Hist. of Inf. Bap. Part
2.
Ch.
9.
p.
491. BINGHAM
's Antiq. B.
2. WATERLAND
's Import. of the Doc. of the Trin. Ch.
6.
p.
223.
and Serm.
8. RANDOLPH
's Vindica. Part
2.
p.
81.
Page 258.
(nn) no religion at all.]
As nothing differs more than judgment, so by consequence nothing multiplies more than error. The number of heresies and heretics, according to
Prateolus,
was in his time no less than 520, as Bp.
Taylor
informs us, in his discourse on the
Liberty of Prophesying.
But he takes no small pains at the same time to lessen their number, and extenuate their malignity; and, it must be granted, not without success. It concerns not me to enter into particulars, or to examine the grounds of this learned prelate's moderation. The list of heretics, including those of a modern date, as it is given us by
A. Ross,
in his
View of all the Religions in the World,
is almost as numerous as the abovementioned. The very names of the greatest part of them must be to the generality of readers unknown. He gives us an account of the
Secundians, Ptolomaeans, Colarbasii, Heracleonites, Ophites, Cainites, Cataphrygians, Theodocians, Semiarians, Aquarii, Floriani, Aeternales, Luciferians, Humiliarii, Cruciferi, Hospitalarii, Bethlemites,
&c, &c, &c.
A. ROSS was a
Scotchman,
and Chaplain to
Charles I.
He was the author, or compiler of near thirty treatises, the subjects of some of which are not uninteresting. His
View of all Religions
past several editions; the last of which appeared in 1696. It is referred to by Mr. BOYLE in his Discourse on the usefulness of
Natural and Experimental Philosophy.
See GREY'S HUDIBRAS. Canto. 2. v. 2.
Of a few of the old heresies, which were to a remarkable degree extravagant, it may not be amiss to mention the tenets.
Irenaeus
in
cap.
28.
l.
2.
adv. Haere.
censures such heretics,
quicunque inerrabilem
generationem enarrare ausi sint ex trivio petitis comparationibus, dicentes scilicet,
VERBUM DEI
ex Patre generari, ad instar
VERBI HOMINIS
per linguam prolati;
which are Bp.
Bull
's words.
The
Valentinians
taught, that Christ's body was in a manner purely spiritual, and passed through the Virgin as through a pipe, or conduit.
The
Cainites
worshipped
Cain
as the author of much good to mankind; as also
Esau, Corah, Dathan,
&c, and
Judas,
asserting that he foreknew what happiness should accrue to mankind by Christ's death, and therefore betrayed him.
It was the doctrine of
Apelles,
that there was but one chief God, to whom was subordinate a fiery God, who appeared to
Moses in the bush,
who made the world, gave the law, and was the God of
Israel.
He gave to Christ a body compacted of the starry and elementary substance, which appeared in the shape only of man. This body, when he ascended, he left behind him, every part thereof returning to their former principles: Christ's spirit only being in heaven. This heretic lived, says
A. Ross,
about 150 years after Christ, in the reign of the Emperor
Commodus.
We have already exhibited to the reader many strange Pagan notions relative to the nature, &c, of the Deity; but perhaps the most extraordinary, the most eccentric of them all, has not yet been remembered. It is not properly a heresy indeed, but it is an error which may fitly occupy this place. The heathen mystical theologists often call God
—
male
and
female,
signifying thereby, though grossly, yet not unemphatically, the
creative
power of the Supreme Being. Dr.
Cudworth
cites a passage from a hymn of
Synesius,
(whom he calls a
learned
and
pious
Bishop,) wherein the Almighty is addressed under expressions precisely equivalent:—
,
.
Agreeably hereunto,
Varro
quotes from
Soranus,
an eminent poet, (according to our author,) the verses following:
Jupiter omnipotens, regum rex ipse Deûmque.
Progenitor genitrixque Deûm; Deus unus et omnis.
Methinks this sentiment becomes the heathen theologist, or poet, much better than the Christian Divine.
Far from meaning to rank a late very eminent writer, Dr.
I. Watts,
in the number of notorious heretics, or in the least to detract from the excellence of his character, I think myself bound in duty to my subject to take notice here of the singularity of his sentiments.
His idea of the Divinity of Christ was, that
the Godhead, the Deity itself, personally distinguished as the
FATHER,
was united to the man Christ Jesus, in consequence of which union, or indwelling of the Godhead, he became properly God.
It seems these were likewise Dr. DODDERIDGE'S sentiments.
He conceived this union to have subsisted before the Saviour's appearance in the flesh, and that
the human soul of Christ existed with the Father from before the foundation of the world;
on which ground he maintains the real descent of Christ from heaven to earth, &c.
In these sentiments there is not so much as a reference to the Holy Ghost. But we are not to consider them as final. We shall find the Dr. to have had more enlarged notions respecting the doctrine of the Trinity.
In his SOLEMN ADDRESS TO THE GREAT AND EVER-BLESSED GOD, on a review of what he
had written in the Trinitarian Controversy,
he puts the following questions with all that
humble reverence,
(his own words,) and that
holy awe
WHICH
becomes a creature in the presence of his God.
Hast thou not, O Lord God Almighty, hast thou not transacted thy divine and important affairs among men by thy Son
Jesus Christ,
and by thy holy Spirit? And hast thou not ordained that men should transact their highest and most momentous concerns with thee, by thy Son, and and by thy Spirit? Hast thou not, by the mouth of thy Son
Jesus,
required all that profess his religion to be washed with water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Is it not my duty then to enquire, who or what are these sacred names,
and what they signify?
Hast thou not ascribed divine names, and titles, and characters to thy Son and thy holy Spirit in thy word, as well as assumed them to thyself? And hast thou not appointed to them such glorious offices as cannot be executed without something of divinity or true Godhead in them? And yet art not thou, and thou alone the true God? How shall a poor weak creature be able to adjust and reconcile these clashing ideas, and to understand this mystery? Or must I believe and act blindfold,
without understanding?
Holy Father, (he proceeds,) thou knowest, how firmly I believe with all my soul, whatsoever thou hast plainly written and revealed in thy word. I believe Thee to be the only true God, the supreme of beings, self-sufficient for thine own existence, and for all thy infinite affairs and transactions among creatures. I believe thy only Son
Jesus Christ
to be all-sufficient for the glorious work of mediation between God and man, to which thou hast appointed him. I believe he is a man, in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. I believe he is one with God; he is God manifested in the flesh; and that the man
Jesus
is so closely and inseparably united with the true and eternal Godhead, as to become one person, even as the soul and body make one man.
I believe also thy blessed Spirit hath almighty power and influence to do all thy will, to instruct men effectually in divine truths, &c. I yield up myself joyfully and thankfully to this method of thy salvation, as it is revealed in thy gospel. But I acknowlege my darkness still. I want to have this wonderful doctrine of the all-sufficience of thy Son and Spirit for these divine works made a little plainer.
Hadst thou informed me, gracious Father, in any place of thy word, that this divine doctrine is not to be understood by men, and yet they were required to believe it, I would have subdued all my curiosity to faith, &c. But I cannot find thou hast any where forbid me to understand it, or to make these enquiries. My conscience is the best natural light thou hast put within me, and since thou hast given me the Scriptures, my own conscience bids me search the Scriptures to find out truth, &c. I have, therefore, been long searching into this divine doctrine, that I may pay thee due honour with understanding. Surely I ought to know the God whom I worship, whether he be one pure and simple being, or whether thou art a threefold deity, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Dear and blessed God, hadst thou been pleased, in any one plain Scripture, to have informed me which of the different opinions about the Holy Trinity, among the contending parties of Christians, had been true, thou knowest with how much zeal, satisfaction, and joy, my unbiassed heart would have opened itself to receive and embrace the discovery. Hadst thou told me plainly in any single text, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three real distinct persons in thy divine nature, I had never suffered myself to be bewildered in so many doubts, nor embarrassed with so many strong fears of assenting to the mere inventions of men, instead of divine doctrine; but I should have humbly and immediately accepted thy words, so far as it was possible for me to understand them, as the only rule of my faith. Or hadst thou been pleased so to express and include this proposition in the several scattered parts of thy book, from whence my reason and conscience might with ease find out, and with certainty infer this doctrine, I should have joyfully employed all my reasoning powers, with their utmost skill and activity, to have found out this inference,
and ingrafted it into my soul.
Thou hast called the poor and the ignorant, the mean and foolish things of this world, to the knowlege of thyself and thy Son, and taught them to receive and partake of the Salvation which thou hast provided. But how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult, and so abstruse a doctrine as this; in the explication and defence whereof, multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost themselves in infinite subtilties of dispute, and endless mazes of darkness? And can this strange and perplexing notion of three real persons going to make up one true God, be so necessary and so important a part of that Christian doctrine, which, in the old Testament and the new, is represented as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest understandings?
O thou searcher of hearts who knowest all things, I appeal to thee concerning the sincerity of my enquiries into these discoveries of thy word.
I humbly call thee to witness, O my God, what a holy jealousy I ever wear about my heart, lest I should do the slightest dishonour to thy supreme Majesty in any of my enquiries or determinations. Thou seest what a religious fear, and what a tender solicitude I maintain on my soul, lest I should think or speak any thing to diminish the grandeurs and honours of thy Son
Jesus,
my dear Mediator, &c. Thou knowest how much I am afraid of speaking one word which may be construed into a neglect of thy blessed Spirit, from whom I hope I am daily receiving happy influences of light and strength. Guard all the motions of my mind, O Almighty God, against every thing that borders upon these dangers. Forbid my thoughts to indulge, and forbid my pen to write one word, that should sink those grand ideas which belong to thyself, or thy Son, or thy Holy Spirit. Forbid it, O my God, that ever I should be so unhappy as to unglorify my Father, my Saviour, or my Sanctifier, in any of my sentiments or expressions concerning them.
Blessed and faithful God, hast thou not promised that the meek thou wilt guide in judgment, the meek thou wilt teach thy way? Hath not thy Son, our Saviour, assured us, that our heavenly Father will give his holy Spirit to them who ask him? And is he not appointed to guide us into all truth? Have I not sought the gracious guidance of thy good Spirit continually? Am I not truly sensible of my own darkness and weakness, my dangerous prejudices on every side, and my utter insufficiency for my own conduct? Wilt thou leave such a poor creature bewildered among a thousand perplexities, which are raised by the various opinions and contrivances of men to explain thy divine truth?
Help me, heavenly Father, for I am quite tired and weary of these human explainings so various and uncertain. When wilt thou explain it to me thyself, O my God, by the secret and certain dictates of thy Spirit, according to the intimations of thy word?
Now, for truth's sake, I desire to ask any intelligent, impartial, and candid reader, whether we have not in these passages strong indications of a wavering, though pious mind? Whether such language as this does not rather tend to encourage specious scepticism, than sound faith? Whether it is not chargeable with inconsistency between reverence and remonstrance, between declarations of acquiescence and expostulations of discontent? Whether, according to Dr.
W
—'s ideas, all ecclesiastical authority is not as such altogether odious, or contemptible; and whether, for what appears to the contrary from these periods, Christianity might not flourish without the existence of Church, pastor, or teacher? Whether we have not in this illustrious Dissenter an extraordinary instance of the compatibility of radical and invincible prejudice with an
honest and good heart,
and a solid understanding? Whether Dr.
W.
had any thing like sufficient grounds for his suspicion that the orthodox received doctrines are resolvible into mere
explainings, inventions, or contrivances of men?
Whether he does not appear to be unreasonably, though sincerely anxious to
understand all mysteries,
while at the same time he could not but know, that the capital doctrines of the Gospel are delivered AS mysterious, and that Christians are supposed and required to
walk by faith, and not by sight?
Whether he does not most erroneously convert a
particular
promise into a
general
one; not recollecting that, though, for obvious and very important purposes, our
heavenly Father will give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him,
yet that Spirit was by no means
appointed
to
guide
every individual Christian into
all
spiritual
truth?
Whether, had we been told "plainly;" in so many words,
in any single text, that the Father, Son, and holy Spirit are three real and distinct persons in the divine nature,
it had been possible for D.
W.
to have misunderstood it; or whether he, or any body else, could have been "bewildered in any doubts," with respect to this doctrine? Whether such a "discovery" of it would not have been received every where with "unbiassed hearts," and with universal
zeal, safaction and joy,
a few instances perhaps of obduracy, &c, excepted? Whether, had it been
so expressed and included in the several scattered parts
of Scripture, that the Doctor's
reason and conscience could with ease have found it out, and with certainty inferred it,
there would have been the least occasion for the "skill and activity of his rational powers?" Whether, after all, the doctrine in question be not expressed, or included in the sacred pages sufficiently to warrant any man's firm assent to it; especially when we take into the account the whole weight of that evidence by which we prove its correspondency with the sense of antiquity, and the belief of the primitive Church? Whether the wisest and the weakest are not equally incapable of "taking in so difficult, and so abstruse a doctrine" as that of the Trinity? Whether the Christian doctrine concerning things spiritual and mysterious is really "represented," either in the Old Testament or the New, as
plain and easy even to the meanest understanding?
Whether, granting that
multitudes even of men of learning and piety have lost themselves in infinite subtilties of dispute, &c, in the explication and defence
of the doctrine before us, all this should not be principally attributed to antitrinitarian artifice, and to a gradual departure from that simplicity in which it was originally taught and received in the world? Whether, if this
perplexing notion of three real persons going to make up one true God
be a part of Christian doctrine, it is not
prima facie
the most "necessary and the most important?" Finally, whether the doctrine of the Trinity, as held in the Church, has not at least as much countenance from Scripture, and even from reason, as Dr.
W
—'s notion of the
indwelling of the Deity in the Man Christ Jesus;
and whether this is not in effect acknowleged by himself?
As to the notion itself, it is, I trust, to all intents and purposes refuted in the foregoing pages; and I shall content myself with expressing my astonishment at the force of prejudice in one who so strongly recommends, or more properly inculcates an "indifference for every thing but truth,"
See Improvement of the Mind. p. 285.
and censures so severely all domestic, national, or party attachments. For with all his gentleness, benevolence, charity, and love of truth, Dr.
W.
appears to me to have been biassed by more than ordinary prepossessions. He who has expressed himself in the manner we have seen; he who has occasionally declared, that he
allowed the greatest distinction possible between the sacred three in the divine nature, which does not arise to three distinct conscious minds or spirits;" and that he was fully "established in the belief of the
Deity of the blessed Three,
though he knew not the
manner of explication,
must, to my apprehension, be considered as protesting against the doctrine of a Trinity of
Persons,
chiefly because it was an established one; because it was the doctrine of the Church.
I have dwelt the longer on this case as it is uncommon; as it is the case of a great and good man, whom (to borrow Dr.
Johnson
's words)
every Christian Church would rejoice to have adopted.
Dr.
WATT
's last Sentiments on the Trinity. p.
62.
Solemn Address. p.
101,
&c. See
JOHNSON
's Life of Dr.
WATTS
with notes, &c.
CUDWORTH
's Intell. Syst. Ch.
4.
p.
304. A. ROSS
's View of all Religions. Sect.
7.
P. 260.
(oo) to judge for ourselves.]
It abundantly appears by a considerable number of extracts made by Bp.
Jewel
from many fathers and doctors of the Church of
Rome,
that antiently in that communion the Holy Scriptures were not barely indulged, but recommended to every hand. By what means the
Romanists
have since qualified the sense of these passages, or reconciled the same with principles of a later date, I have no occasion to inquire. But in one of them there is a singularity which, I believe, will pay any man for his trouble in the reading. It is to be found in
Theodoret;
and is translated by the great prelate as follows.
Ye may commonly see, that our doctrine is known, not only of them that are the doctors of the Church, and the masters of the people, but also even of the
tailors,
and
smiths,
and
weavers,
and of all artificers: yea, and farther also of
women;
and that not only of them that be learned, but also of
labouring women,
and
sempsters,
and
servants,
and
handmaids.
Neither only the
citizens,
but also the
country-folks
do very well understand the same. Ye may find, yea, even the very
ditchers,
and
delvers,
and
cow-herds,
and
gardiners
disputing of the HOLY-TRINITY, and of the CREATION OF ALL THINGS.
The same passage is referred to by Dr. POTTER in his Answer to
Charity Mistaken. p.
205.
JEWEL
's Defence, &c. part.
5.
p.
507.
Page 262.
(pp) mistaken in that judgment.]
An eminent and learned writer of the last century, whom I have quoted before, observes, (and the observation has been also cited,) that
heresy is not an error of the understanding, but of the will;
and to this doctrine, properly stated, we can readily subscribe. But in the excess of his moderation, this Right Rev. author sometimes questions, in effect at least, the authority, not only of all ecclesiastical traditions, and councils, but of the Scripture itself; giving us sentiments wholly incongruous with every idea of faith, system, or establishment. Witness
those
contained in the following extract, which, to my imagination, nothing but the zeal of adherency to a favourite principle could have drawn from the pen of so able a writer, and so professed a casuist.
Since, says he, holy Scripture is the repository of divine truths, and the great rule of faith, to which all sects of Christians do appeal for probation of their several opinions, and since all agree in the articles of the Creed as things clearly and plainly set down, and as containing all that which is of simple and prime necessity; and since on the other side there are in Scripture many other mysteries, and matters of question upon which there is a vail; since there are so many copies with infinite varieties of reading; since a various interpunction, a parenthesis, a letter, an accent may much alter the sense; since some places have divers literal senses, many have spiritual, mystical, and allegorical meanings; since there are so many tropes, metonymies, ironies, hyperboles, proprieties and improprieties of language, whose understanding depends upon such circumstances that it is almost impossible to know its proper interpretation, now that the knowlege of such circumstances and particular stories is irrecoverably lost; since there are some mysteries which, at the best advantage of expression, are not easy to be apprehended, and whose explication, by reason of our imperfections, must needs be dark, sometimes weak, sometimes unintelligible; and lastly, since those ordinary means of expounding Scripture, as searching the originals, conference of places, parity of reason, and analogy of faith, are all dubious, uncertain, and very fallible, he that is the wisest and by consequence the likeliest to expound truest in all probability of reason, will be very far from confidence, because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of improbability and incertainty, all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such mysteries, and amidst so many difficulties. And therefore a wise man that considers this, would not willingly be prescribed to by others; and therefore if he also be a just man, he will not impose upon others; for it is best every man should be left in that liberty from which no man can justly take him, unless he could secure him from error. So that here also there is a necessity to conserve the liberty of prophesying, and interpreting Scripture; a necessity derived from the consideration of the difficulty of Scripture in questions controverted, and the uncertainty of any internal medium of interpretation.
Now if this be the case, we are but mocked, when we are told the Scriptures are the "repository of divine truths;" or that
any
articles of faith can be "clearly and plainly set down" in any Creed whatsoever. Under the above circumstances, in what formulary, or system, shall we look for
all that which is of simple and prime necessity?
Is it not strange too, that there should be
many other mysteries
in Scripture distinct from those
divine truths
of which it is the repository; and stranger still, that matters of
question
should be put under a
vail?
Upon all matters of
faith
there is indeed a vail; I mean, upon all mysterious matters, which cannot possibly be "apprehended at the best advantage of expression." The explication of
these
is absolutely impracticable; and every attempt for that purpose,
by reason of our imperfections, must needs be dark, sometimes weak, sometimes unintelligible.
Perhaps he will bid as fair as any man to be an expounder of mysteries who shall disentangle the several clauses of this paragraph. I know not whether any thing can be found surpassing this, either in the style, or in the spirit of present moderation.
See a curious vindication of this author, (Bp. TAYLOR,) in WOOD'S Ath. Oxoni. p. 402. Vol. 2.
The truth of the matter is, that very sensible and very good men, are apt to run into inconsistencies upon this subject.
It is very meet, says Dr.
Potter
in his answer to
Char. Mistaken,
that the ignorant people should
obey their overseers in the Lord,
and submit themselves to the ministry and direction of the Church
in many
profound doctrines
above their reach. But it behoves them, (says he, in the immediately following sentence,) to have a distinct and comfortable knowlege of the
essential points of faith;
and not securely to rest in a babish simplicity, but (so far as God hath enabled them) to be led on to perfection. To which purpose they are commanded to
search the Scriptures,
that they may
grow and increase in knowlege,
&c, and that they may be able both to
believe with the heart, and confess with their mouth,
and render a
reason
of that
hope
that is in them.
Bp.
TAYLOR
's Disc. on the Lib. of Pro. Sect.
2.
No.
6.
Char. Mistaken answered. Sect.
6.
p.
203.
Page 270.
(qq) freedom of sentiment.]
The humour of raising doubts and disputes, opposing establishments, and disdaining to think or act in the common way is, as Bp.
Gibson
observes, well expressed by one of the advocates for infidelity, in words to the following effect; that
if the opinions of a certain friend of his were established to day, he would oppose them to morrow.
This, the Bp. informs us, is reported to have been said by a person (I suppose) of some consequence, whose name he mentions not.
Bp.
GIBSON
's Past. Let. p.
7, 8.
Page 271.
(rr) spiritual Constitution.]
The author of a work published some years since under the title of
Free Thoughts on the subject of a farther Reformation,
speaks of our Reformers in the following terms.
One no small disadvantage which they unhappily laboured under, and which from their time to this has been matter of just regret to true friends of
Divine Revelation,
was their
defect
of knowlege in sacred matters, above all in the
true sense of Scripture,
&c. If (says he in another place) we would form our judgments of the abilities of our Reformers to frame for us a system of doctrines which should remain a perpetual standard of belief and profession in the
English
Church, and by which all our Clergy in all future ages should be summarily concluded, we shall, I suppose, see just reason to wish that they had been more equal than they appear to be, to so weighty an undertaking. Those who are well acquainted with their writings will see, in a variety of instances, evident marks of their insufficiency for such a task; and be fully convinced of the truth of that observation of a learned and worthy Doctor of our Church, that they were but
bad interpreters
of the Scriptures.
In support of all this derogation, which is obligingly qualified with a few introductory commonplace compliments, our author has given us a number of extracts, relative to certain religious topics, from Arch-Bishop
Cranmer
's Catechism, published in 1543, and dedicated to King
Edward
VI. We may see, it seems, from these extracts, how greatly disproportioned the abilities of this famous Prelate and his colleagues were to the work of Reformation, &c. To what conclusions this will lead, I need not inform the reader. But I take leave to offer a remark or two upon the occasion. In the first place, if the intellectual weakness of our Reformers was really so great as is here represented, Protestants to a man have reason enough to be ashamed of themselves. What answer shall they make to any sensible
Roman-Catholic
who should teaze them with these mortifying truths? To my thinking, as none of the exceptionable contents of the passages cited from the Arch-Bishop's Catechism make a part of the doctrine of our Church, they might, in reverence to
his
memory, and for
her
credit, have much better been suppressed. Had this Gentleman contented himself with observing, that the Reformers of the Church were fallible men; and consequently, that the Forms and Offices they have delivered down to us may be capable, in some instances, of alteration and improvement, he had spoken more agreeably to truth, though less adequately to his purpose. For what he has alledged has a plain tendency to shew the necessity rather of
pulling down
than
repairing
our spiritual
building.
On the whole, as he has conducted matters, I know not any one person upon earth under so many obligations to him as the Pope of
Rome.
I shall take this opportunity to animadvert on certain dirty aspersions in a late performance from the hand of a rigid non-conformist, and perhaps an avowed unbeliever, and perhaps both.
The anonymous editor of Dr.
Johnson
's Life of Dr.
I. Watts
with Notes, sacrifices to the virulence of his diposition every regard to decency, charity, and truth. It will be proper to trace this calumny to it's source.
Happy, says the celebrated Biographer, will be that reader (viz. of the works of Dr.
W.)
whose mind is disposed by his verses or his prose, to imitate him in all but his Non-conformity, to copy his benevolence to man, and his reverence to God.
Is there any thing in this to put a man of candour, or a man of sense out of humour? Yet our Editor asks,
is not this exception, and even the mention of this circumstance, a striking proof of Dr.
Johnson
's bigotted attachment to the national established mode of worship?
It is really no proof at all. How far Dr.
J.
was in fact a bigot to establishments, I undertake not to determine; but the period just quoted by no means proves him to have been so. The most moderate Churchman breathing has not the better opinion of Dr.
W.
for his Non-conformity. I cannot think such an one could have "mentioned this circumstance" more tenderly, had he mentioned it at all; and with what propriety Dr.
W
—'s Biographer could have left it unmentioned, I must leave it to this Gentleman to explain to us.
Reverence to God, he proceeds, and benevolence to man, are the two grand essentials of religion. He that possesses these is a true Christian, whatever be the external mode of worship which he adopts. Neither his Conformity nor his Nonconformity will exclude him from the divine favour, nor ought it to be matter of censure to his fellow-creatures. If a man in uniting with any Christian community, appears to follow the dictates of his own conscience, &c, he deserves the esteem of all parties, and to object to his peculiarity of religious profession is the mark of a little mind.
Now this is partly true, partly false, but, you see, as far as Dr.
Johnson
is concerned, wholly impertinent. There is as little as possible of censure, or of objection in the sentence above quoted from him. As to sincerity of persuasion, no body denies the validity of it's pretensions; but at the same time what will make an honest man will by no means constitute a "true Christian."
Reverence to God and benevolence to man are indeed the two grand essentials of all religion;
and, to borrow our author's term, they MAY be
possest
by Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics.
"That Dr.
W.
was conscientious in his Non-conformity," will be readily admitted; but surely this will not justify the unfairness, or the duplicity, or the malignity, or the falshood of the following paragraph.
Considering what the terms of ministerial conformity are, says our annotator, it may be justly questioned, whether if all the clergy were equally conscientious, one half of them would not be Dissenters. To declare an
assent and consent
to ALL and EVERY THING
contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, the book of Common Prayer,
&c, (which comprehend such a prodigious number of particulars; many of them very disputable, some of them unintelligible, and others exploded by the wisest and best of men;) is such a requisition as it is hard to be conceived the generality of the clergy can
bona fide
approve. It is indeed WELL KNOWN that MOST of them, and even of the BISHOPS themselves, disbelieve some of the doctrinal articles of the Church, as appears from the general strain of their preaching and of their writings, and that they profess to subscribe them only as articles of peace. If the terms of conformity were a declaration that they
did not believe
"all and every thing, &c," it is undeniable that many (not to say the most) of those that conform might very conscientiously make it. Whether therefore their subscription to the present terms be consistent with simplicity and godly sincerity, it behoves them seriously to enquire. If others think that such a subscription would, in them, be a gross prevarication, and rather than be chargeable with it, willingly forego the advantages of being in the Church, they ought at least to be respected as honest men. And if Dr.
Johnson
had studied the grounds of Non-conformity (which he appears not to have done) he might have entertained a better opinion of the understandings of Protestant Dissenters as well as their integrity. But this is not the place for entering into that controversy.
If these representations are just, and these assertions true, the controversy is absolutely decided with a vengeance; and the bulk of the clergy of of the Church of
England
are as great a set of sc—ndr—ls as can be produced in the annals of the human race. I shall not waste a moment in vindicating them from imputations so palpably scandalous; but content myself with declaring my firm belief, that Dr
Johnson
would not
have entertained a better opinion either of the understandings or integrity of Protestant Dissenters
from these samples of BOTH; and that were Dr.
W.
restored to life, he would, for visible reasons, think himself under much greater obligations to the Biographer than to the Annotator.
In short, we are not to wonder at any thing which is advanced by one who maintains, as this writer does in another page of this very performance, that
in the Scripture-plan no traces of a national Church, or ecclesiastical authority, are to be found.
It may be pertinent to remark farther, that
exceedingly mad
as the Puritans and their friends in the last century were
against
the governors of the Church, and our whole ecclesiastical polity, THEY appear to have been more than ordinarily solicitous to express their full
assent
and
consent
to the most material articles of our faith. Their
quarrel
was not
against
our doctrine but our discipline. I have by me a just and literal translation of the
Confession of Faith,
together with two
Catechisms,
a larger and a less, drawn up by the
Assembly of Divines at Westminster,
in 1651, under the authority, and with the concurrence and approbation of Parliament, (so called,) and of the Kirk of
Scotland.
The 3d clause in the ch.
de Deo et Sacro-sancta Trinitate
runs
verbatim
as follows.
In Deitatis unitate personae tres sunt unius ejusdemque essentiae, potentiae, ac aeternitatis; Deus Pater, Deus Filius, ac Deus Spiritus Sanctus. Pater quidem a nullo est, nec genitus nempe nec procedens: Filius autem a Patre est aeterne genitus: Spiritus autem Sanctus aeterne procedens a Patre Filioque.
In the 23d ch.
de statu hominum post mortem, deque resurrectione mortuorum,
we find this clause:
Novissimo illo die, qui comperientur in vivis non morientur quidem sed mutabuntur; qui mortui fuerint resuscitabuntur omnes, ipsissimis iis corporibus quibus viventes aliquando fungebantur, ac non aliis, ut ut qualitate differentibus; quae denuo animabus quaeque suis aeterno conjugio unientur.
These doctrines are held out almost in the same words in both
Catechisms.
From which circumstances I take occasion to ask, whether, as far as we may reasonably collect from the style and the sentiments of the Editor of Dr.
Johnson
's Life of Dr.
I. Watts
with Notes, the views and the dispositions of the Protestant Dissenters of this age have not a tendency more inimical and destructive, than were those of these same Ancestors of theirs who "triumphed in the ruin" both of Church and State?
But is there not after all an inveterate difficulty, which we have rather met than encountered, and much less overcome, and which furnishes Popery with its shrewdest argument, and Infidelity with its strongest handle? The protestant principle asserts the right of private judgment in matters of religion. And yet precepts relative to obedience to spiritual authority, &c, are as plain as those directions which require us to
prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good,
&c. How shall we reconcile these things? In consequence of the exertion of this personal right, differences arise in the world, and controversies, the natural issue of them. How are these to be decided? Is it not a solecism in religion to suppose a controversy without a judge? Nevertheless we say, and demonstrate too, that the Church of
Rome,
the only Church which pretends to infallibility, has erred, and that even in fundamentals. Accordingly we refer to no arbitration; we acknowlege no rule of faith, no judge of controversy but Holy Scripture.
Supremus judex
(say the
Westminster
Divines abovementioned)
a quo omnes de religione controversiae sunt determinandae, omnia conciliorum decreta, opiniones, &c, nullus alius esse potest praeter Spiritum Sanctum in Scriptura pronunciantem.
Confess Fid. Cap. 1. 10.
But are not these
vain words?
Doth any man, or any body of men pretend to the
gift of discerning of Spirits
at this day? Or if they do, are their pretensions admissible? Or can Scripture, with any propriety, be said to be the judge of controversy, when it is the whole and sole ground of it? Do not all parties find means to wrench the authority of the sacred pages to their side? Every
Anti-trinitarian
will say, in the words of
Chillingworth,
(whatever the real sentiments of the latter might be,)
Propose me any thing out of this Book, and require whether I believe or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no Demonstration can be stronger than this, God hath said so, therefore it is true.
Religion of Protestants &c. p. 335.
But then to the proofs you have to offer, and the texts you have to produce, he opposes his texts, and his proofs, such as they are; or perhaps one general assertion, which no body can deny,
viz.
that there is but "one living and true God." Where now is the judge of controversy? What is become of ecclesiastical authority? Or what have we to say to those who
cast
it
in our teeth,
that the Church of
England
hath erred as well as the Church of
Rome?
In short, where is heresy? And what is schism?
With a view to the solution of this difficulty, and by way of Supplement to the contents of the foregoing sheets, let us see whether a little enquiry will not enable us sufficiently to ascertain what heresy of the worst sort was in the days of the Apostles themselves, and according to the conception they must by fair construction be understood to have entertained of it.
In his 2d general Epistle St.
Peter
foretells that there would be
false teachers
among Christians,
who
should
privily bring in damnable heresies,
EVEN
denying the Lord that bought them.
(ch. 2. v. 1.) From which passage we can do no less than infer, that the denial of the
Lord that bought
us is of all
heresies
the most
damnable.
Now whether we do, or do not abide by Dr.
Whitby
's interpretation, who apprehends we are to understand God the Father by the word
Lord
in this passage,
Christ being never styled
(the original word) in the New Testament,
the inference will inevitably be one and the same.
Jesus Christ
was confessedly the purchaser of the
Church with his own blood.
In point of nature, or attribute, there can therefore be no difference betwixt these two Persons; the heresy which denies either will be equally damnable, according to Dr.
W
's sentiment. But if we reject it, the Divinity of our Saviour is not less implied in the text before us. For in most evident allusion to this very purchase,
Ye are bought with a price,
says St.
Paul
to the
Corinthians; therefore,
continues he,
glorify God,
i. e., out of all question,
Jesus Christ
who
bought
you,
in your body and in your Spirit,
which are God's; i. e., which are Christ's. (1 Cor. 6. 20.) It may be a satisfaction to the reader to compare this passage with the following in the next Chapter.
He that is called being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
(v. 22, &c.)
In his last and farewell address to the
Children of Israel,
which is called his
Song,
their great Legislator puts this question to them,
is not he thy father that hath bought thee?
Deutero. Ch. 32. 6.
God is said to have
bought
his people by his deliverance of them from the
bondage of Aegypt;
which was only a type, but indisputably a type of the
eternal redemption obtained for us
by the precious blood of
Christ.
And is it not just to infer the equality of these Divine purchasers from the nature and value of their respective purchases? The denial of the
Lord that bought
us is therefore in effect the denial of the Divinity of our Saviour.
There is a passage in St.
Jude,
parallel to this which we have had in consideration, that will not be found consistent with it, or with its context, without supposing the same equality. This Apostle complains of certain
ungodly men,
who
denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
They
denied our Lord Jesus Christ,
as one with the Father, not as in essence distinct from him. I say, the affinity of this passage to the other, and its own context, not barely warrant, but demand this sense.
Jude the Servant of Jesus Christ, &c, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved
BY
Jesus Christ, and called.
We are very sufficiently authorised to read
by
for
in,
See Hammond, &c, &c.
in this passage; and if so, it is most undoubtedly as much the attribute, or property of the Supreme God to
preserve,
and to
call,
as it is to
sanctify;
which indeed is the discriminative office of the Holy Ghost: whose Divinity, by the way, is here plainly asserted by implication. But we are under no necessity of disturbing the present version. In the 3d verse, the Apostle exhorts Christians to
contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints.
That from the beginning some should
depart from the
faith, or a belief in
Jesus Christ,
as the
Son of God
by eternal generation, on principles, and for reasons, by which infidels and sceptics are influenced at this day, is by no means matter of astonishment. But supposing the faith of the primitive Christians, the
faith which was once delivered unto the Saints,
to have been merely a faith in
Jesus Christ
as a
prophet,
or as the
Messiah,
or as a
creature
of a more or less
excellent name,
there would, I presume, have been little room for
contention
about it, or danger of its being
denied.
If we take into examination that impious and strange doctrine of which St.
John
speaks in terms of strong censure and resentment, in his
first
and
second general Epistle,
this research will likewise terminate in an unquestionable proof of our Lord's Divinity; and convince us, that in the denial of it the error consisted.
Every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God: and this is that Spirit of anti-christ, whereof ye have heard, &c. Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-christ.
(1 John. 4. v. 3. 2 John. v. 7.) Or, as some read these passages,
that confess not Jesus Christ which is come in the flesh.
The import of these texts will not be in the least affected by this variation. That the
man Christ Jesus,
the person who was known by the name of
Jesus Christ,
lived and conversed in the world, did
many wonderful
works,
was contumeliously treated, and at length put to a painful and ignominious death, were facts too recent, and too generally known, to be disputed by any at the time when our Apostle wrote these Epistles. That the
Jesus Christ
of these Epistles was the very identical person whom the Apostle styles in his Gospel the
Son of God,
the
Word
that
was in the beginning with God,
and really and truly
was God,
cannot with the least appearance of reason be questioned. But that
God
was indeed
manifest in the flesh,
took our nature upon him, and
bare our sins in his own body on the tree,
this was a
saying
too
hard
for the acceptation of those
deceivers, false prophets,
and
anti-christs,
as St.
John
calls them, and whom, at the 6th v. of Chap. 4. he represents as possest with the
spirit of error.
Accordingly they were weak, and at the same time bold enough to resolve this great truth into mere semblance and deception; and to affirm that the human person of
Jesus Christ
was a phantom, and lived, and suffered, and died, not really, but in appearance only: which abominably ridiculous notion was, as has been observed, in a great measure adopted afterwards by
Mahomet,
who was offended at those indignities and sufferings which he considered as altogether unworthy of that prophetic character which he acknowleged
Jesus Christ,
as his predecessor, to have been vested with. This doctrine is delivered in the
Koran
in general terms; but the followers of
Mahomet
differ in their sentiments respecting it. According to some,
Jesus Christ
was not nailed to the Cross, but a malefactor who in person much resembled him. The person crucified, say others, was
a spy that was sent to intrap our Saviour;
and others assert him to have been
Judas;
and others,
Simon the Cyrenian.
Or if we suppose St.
John
to have had in his eye another heretical tenet of a similar nature and tendency, which was very early disseminated in the Church,
viz.
that of the
Carpocratians,
&c, who made a distinction betwixt
Jesus
and
Christ;
and maintained, that the former suffered, and rose again, but that the latter was impassible, as being purely of a spiritual nature; (agreeably to the idea suggested by
Webster
's translation of Father
Simon,
which for
every Spirit which confesseth not,
&c, reads which
separateth Jesus;)
the result will necessarily be found to be one and the same. For to what can we reasonably attribute the denial of our Lord's humanity, or its separation from the divinity, but to an averseness to acknowlege the union of God and Man in the person of
Jesus Christ?
And if so, it will naturally follow that this union was the doctrine of the
Apostles,
and the belief of the primitive Church.
It is well worth observing, that
Polycarp,
in his Epistle to the
Philippians,
quotes word for word the 3d v. of the 4th Ch. of St.
John
's first Epistle,
Whosoever does not confess
and that
Ignatius,
who conversed with the Apostles, and, upon the death of
Evodius
was appointed Bishop of
Antioch
by as many of the sacred College as were then living, not barely mentions, but most expressly censures and condemns this whimsical opinion of the
Phantomists,
if I may take liberty so to call them.
Stop your ears, says he, in his Epistle to the
Trallians,
as often as any one shall speak contrary to
Jesus Christ;
who was of the race of
David,
who was truly born, and did eat and drink; was truly persecuted under
Pontius Pilate;
was truly crucified, and dead.
And a little after, if, says he,
some who are Atheists, that is to say Infidels, pretend that he only SEEMED to suffer, (they themselves only seeming to exist,) why then am I bound? Why do I desire to fight with beasts?
In the Epistle of the same Father to the
Smyrnaeans,
we have the following passage.
And he suffered truly, as he also truly raised up himself; and not, as some unbelievers say, that he only SEEMED to suffer.
Though therefore neither the Apostles, nor the Apostolical Fathers particularly specify what heresy is, it appears by just and natural inference from many passages in their writings originally to have consisted in denying the perfect Godhead, and perfect manhood of our Saviour; and that heresies in general deserve to be considered as so many evasions of these fundamental truths. There is another passage in the Epistle to the
Trallians
which, simply asserting the Divinity of
Jesus Christ,
puts this out of all reasonable doubt.
I exhort you, says the venerable Author, or rather not I, but the love of
Jesus Christ,
that you use none but Christian nourishment; abstaining from pasture which is of another kind, I mean heresy.
For
See the references in the Margin.
they that are heretics confound together the doctrine of Jesus Christ
with their own poison, &c. Wherefore guard yourselves against such persons. And that you will do if you are not puffed up, but continue inseparable from
Jesus Christ
our GOD, and from your Bishop, and from the commands of the Apostles.
In short, all these circumstances concur to the establishment of our first Hypothesis. If the Catholic faith of the primitive Christians was the same which is held in the Church of
England
at this day, at and before the publication of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, as well as the writings of the Apostolical Fathers, their doctrine on the subjects we have been handling is sufficiently uniform and explicit; if otherwise, it is by far too consistent, and too perspicuous.
Agreeably to what has been advanced, we may farther observe the sacred authors frequently referring to some standing doctrines, some capital articles of belief, which had been by them taught, and were by the Church universally received. It will be a hard matter to comprehend the meaning of many passages in the Scriptures, without supposing them to import, or to allude to some such doctrines or principles. The first converts to Christianity are said to have
continued stedfastly in the Apostles, doctrine and fellowship;
Acts ii. 42.
and whatsoever that doctrine might be, it was then no WRITTEN doctrine. St.
Paul
thanks God, that the
Roman
converts had
obeyed from the heart that
FORM OF DOCTRINE
which was delivered to them.
Rom. vi. 17.
He exhorts the
Thessalonians to stand fast, and hold the
TRADITIONS which
they had been taught, whether by word, or by
his
Epistle;
2 Thess. ii. 15.
and recommends it to
Timothy,
to
keep that which was committed to his trust;
and to
hold fast the
FORM
of sound words which he had heard of
him.
2 Tim. i. 13.
He injoins
Titus
to
reject a man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition.
Titus iii. 10.
It will be sufficient to add to this the advice of St.
Jude
to Christians in general, which just above fell under notice,
viz.
that they should
earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints.
It was doubtless with an eye to this
faith,
to the preservation of the same in purity, and to the future peace and prosperity of the Church, that
Jesus
Christ gave some, Apostles;
as St.
Paul
informs us;
and some, Evangelists; and some, Prophets; and some, Pastors and Teachers:
Ephes. iv. 11.
nor could the purpose of such appointments have been answered but by a regular succession of some of these characters through all ages.
For the same purpose most unquestionably,
God hath set in the Church, helps, and governments,
&c, as the same Apostle declares to his
Corinthian
converts in the 12th Chapter of his first Epistle to them.
Now how all this could be done; or how either
Evangelist, Prophet,
or
Teacher,
or Governor could at
any
time, or in
any
manner, exercise his function, without invading the right of private judgment, as it has of late days been contended for; or without departing from the
simplicity
of the Gospel in its original state, I pretend not to have sufficient penetration to discover.
Matters appear then to stand thus.—That
Jesus Christ
constituted no arbitrator, no infallible judge, or decider of controversy, &c, in his Church, is demonstrable from the differences, the disputes, and dissentions, relative to
circumcision,
&c, which subsisted in its very infancy. At the same time it is certain the Holy Scriptures speak of a
common faith, and of the common salvation.
Titus i. 4. Jude v. 3.
You have seen
what grounds we have for our persuasion that such
common faith
was nothing more or less than a belief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and the other articles contained in our Creeds. Under this persuasion, the Church of England, as a national Church, as a Church reformed from the gross errors, corruptions, and superstitions of
Rome,
has not only "power to decree rites, or ceremonies, but authority in controversies of faith;"
viz.
authority, not to determine, but to declare. Accordingly we do not anathematise, or molest them that renounce our Doctrine, or separate from our Discipline, upon principles avowed by ourselves. We maintain our own rights without encroaching upon the privileges of others. We "discover, condemn, and avoid" what we call and believe to be heresies, without aiming, or wishing to prevent them by coercion. We conceive spiritual government to be as compatible with religious liberty, as temporal jurisdiction is with civil; and that when the Reformers asserted the right of private judgment in matters of religion, the natural right of all men to make use of their own faculties,
they could not possibly mean to invest every individual with the privilege of working out his own salvation by his own understanding and endeavours,
independently on any extraneous assistance, or instruction whatever; and much less to intimate, that he is under an indispensable obligation so to do. Were this the case, the Apostle's question,
are all Teachers
must be answered in the affirmative; and the necessary consequence would be, that EVERY BODY, and yet NO BODY would be a
Teacher.
Which is absurd. Neither the justest claim, nor the most reasonable exemption can alter the nature of things. If it be true, that this Church derives her existence from the exertions of human reason, emancipating itself from spiritual slavery; it is as true, that she owes her preservation to decent order, and legal establishment. If it be true, that the bulk of the people naturally wish to act, to think, and to judge for themselves; it is as true, that they naturally take advice or instruction from others, submit to controul, and reverence authority. In short, to whatever causes we are to ascribe that diversity of opinion which distracts the world; how perplexing so ever the present constitution of things may be; or for whatever reasons it has pleased infinite wisdom to place us in a state of trial, infirmity, and imperfection; one general truth must universally be subscribed to;
viz.
that, with respect both to faith and practice,
the Lord knoweth them that are his,
2 Tim. ii. 19.
and will hereafter acknowlege them accordingly.
P. S. It is needless to tell the sensible reader, that I have not been professedly contending with any of the latitudinarian writers whose works are incidentally quoted, or referred to, in the progress of these Discourses and Annotations. If what has herein been offered be sufficiently solid and satisfactory, they are severally replied to, though not in form, yet in effect.
THE END.
N. B. The reader is desired to correct a few errors of the Press with his pen; especially in p. 84. l. 15.—109. l. 1.—147. l. 16.—333. l. 26.—334. l. 11.