Part 50

Yet reason has her due province; she may and ought to ascertain the genuineness, authenticity, and divine authority of the scriptures. When this is done, she cannot correctly delay her assent, because she may not fully comprehend the promises or works of God, for this would require wisdom no less than Divine. But suppose she should presume to try them, by what balances shall she weigh them? To what shall she compare them? To the reasons and fitness of things? what are these but circumstances and relations springing from the works of God? His creation originated from his wisdom and power, and is ever dependent on them. This is therefore to circumscribe infinite wisdom by what has been already discovered of it; it is to limit infinite power from effecting any thing which it has not hitherto accomplished. Such judgment is not the work of reason, it is irrational. Reason can only make an induction, where there exists premises from which a conclusion can be drawn; but here her limits are exceeded, she has no standard by which she can measure infinity. By reasoning we justly infer from the works of God, many of his glorious moral, as well as natural, perfections; we gather that he is holy, just, true, and good, and we may fairly say that he will never depart from such rectitude, but that all his works will be conformed to such principles. We can go no farther than unto generals, we have no right to question any word or act of his, and say it is not conformed to such perfections, because this would suppose that we possess infinite wisdom. He may have ways of solving our difficulties and objections, with which we are not acquainted. Such judgment is not only irrational, but arrogant, as it is an extension of the claims of reason beyond her just limits. Our duty in such case is exemplified in the father of the faithful. At God’s command we must, like him, sacrifice our Isaacs, and leave to him both to accomplish his promises and to justify the action. It is evident that the doctrine of the Trinity is but partially revealed to man, but sufficiently to let him into a competent knowledge of the plan of redemption.

Footnote 81:

_Vid. Epist. 2. ad Dionys._

Footnote 82:

_Vid. Euseb. Præp. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. 12._

Footnote 83:

_Vid. Huet. Concord. Ration. & Fid. Lib. II. cap. 3._

Footnote 84:

_See Dr. Berriman’s Historical account, &c. page 94._

Footnote 85:

“Philo uses not the name for his derivative Being in the Godhead, which we see the other Jews of the time using in the Gospels. He speaks not of him, by his natural appellation of the Son of God. No! He takes up another title for him, which indeed was known equally to other Jews, or Philo could not possibly have adopted it; which was known equally to the Gentiles, as I shall show hereafter; but which was known only to the scholars of either. He calls him ‘the LOGOS of God.’ This is a name, that can be borrowed, together with the idea annexed to it, only from the Jews, or from the common ancestors of them and of the Gentiles; that answers exactly to the _Dabar_ of Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures, and to the _Memra_ of Jehovah in the Chaldee paraphrasts upon them; and signifies merely ‘the WORD of God.’ This name has been since introduced into our religion, by one of the inspired teachers of it. And notwithstanding the ductility of the Greek language in this instance, which would allow it to be rendered either the _Word_ or the _Reason_ of God; yet the English Bible, with a strict adherence to propriety, and in full conformity to the ancient Christians and ancient Jews, has rejected the accidental signification, and embraced only the immediate and the genuine. Yet, even now, the name is confined in its use to the more improved intellects among us. And it must therefore have peculiarly been, in the days of Philo, the _philosophical_ denomination of Him, who was _popularly_ called the Son of God.

“The use of the name of Logos, or Word, by Philo and by St. John in concurrence, sufficiently marks the knowledge of the name among the Jews. But the total silence concerning it, by the Jewish writers of the three first Gospels; the equal silence of the introduced Jews concerning it, in all the four; and the _acknowledged_ use of it through all the Jewish records of our religion, merely by St. John himself; prove it to have been familiar to a few only. It is indeed too mysterious in its allusion, and too reducible into metaphor in its import, to have ever been the common and ordinary appellation for the Son of God. Originating from the _spiritual_ principle of connexion, betwixt the first and the second Being in the Godhead; marking this, by a _spiritual_ idea of connexion; and considering it to be as close and as necessary as the _Word_ is to the energetick _Mind_ of God, which cannot bury its intellectual energies in silence, but must put them forth in speech; it is too _spiritual_ in itself, to be addressed to the faith of the multitude. If with so full a reference to our _bodily_ ideas, and so positive a _filiation_ of the Second Being to the First, we have seen the grossness of Arian criticism endeavouring to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust of a figure; how much more ready would it have been to do so, if we had only such a _spiritual_ denomination as this, for the second? This would certainly have been considered by it, as too unsubstantial for distinct personality, and therefore too evanescent for equal divinity.

“St. John indeed adopted this philosophical title, for the denomination of the Son of God; only in one solemn and prefatory passage of his Gospel, in two slight and incidental passages of his Epistles, and in one of his Book of revelations. Even there, the use of the popular instead of the philosophical name, in the three Gospels antecedent to his, precluded all probability of misconstruction. Yet, not content with this, he formed an additional barrier. At the same instant in which he speaks of the Logos, he asserts him to be distinct from God the Father, and yet to be equally God with him. ‘In the beginning,’ he says, ‘was THE WORD; and THE WORD was _with_ God; and THE WORD was GOD.’ Having thus secured the two grand points relating to the Logos, he can have nothing more to say upon the subject, than to repeat what he has stated, for impressing the deeper conviction. He accordingly repeats it. His personality he impresses again, thus; ‘THE SAME was in the beginning _with_ God.’ His divinity also he again inculcates, thus: ‘ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM, and WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE.’ Here the very repetition itself, of enforcing his claim to divinity, by ascribing the creation to him; is plainly an union of two clauses, each announcing him as the Creator of the universe, and one doubling over the other. And the uncreated nature of his own existence is the more strongly enforced upon the mind, by being contrasted with the created nature of all other existences. These were MADE, but he himself WAS; _made_ by Him, who _was_ with God, and _was_ God. Nor would all this precaution suffice, in the opinion of St. John. He must place still stronger fences against the dangerous spirit of error. He therefore goes on to say, in confirmation of his personality and divinity, and in application of all to our Saviour: ‘HE was in the world, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, and the world knew him not; HE came unto HIS OWN [PROPER DOMAINS,] and HIS OWN [PROPER DOMESTICKS] received him not.’ And he closes all, with judiciously drawing the several parts of his assertions before into one full point; and with additionally explaining his philosophical term, by a direct reference of it to that popular one which he uses ever afterwards: ‘and THE WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, full of grace and truth.’

“Yet, when such guards were requisite, what induced St. John to use this philosophical title at all? The reason was assuredly this. The title was in high repute, and in familiar use, among the refined spirits of the age; and his Gospel was peculiarly calculated for the service of _such_. The almost perpetual recurrence of the appellation in Philo’s works shows evidently the use and the repute in which it was, among the more spiritualized of the Jews. St. John therefore adopted it himself, for the more easy access to _their_ conviction. It was also congenial, probably, of itself to the spiritualized state of St. John’s mind. He, who has dwelt so much more than the other Evangelists upon the _doctrines_ of our Saviour; and who has drawn out so many of them, in all their spiritual refinement of ideas; would naturally prefer the _spiritual_ term of relationship for God the Son and God the Father, before the _bodily_, whenever the intellect was raised enough to receive it, and whenever the use of it was sufficiently guarded from danger. These were two reasons, I suppose, that induced St. John to use it a _few_ times. And these were equally (I suppose) the reasons, that induced him, with all his guards, to use it only a few.

“Nor let us be told, in the rashness of Arian absurdity, that we misunderstand St. John in this interpretation of his words. If reason is capable of explaining words, and if St. John was capable of conveying his meaning in words to the ear of reason; then we may boldly appeal to the common sense of mankind, and insist upon the truth of our interpretation. Common sense indeed hath _already_ determined the point, in an impartial person, in an enemy, in a Heathen. I allude to that extraordinary approbation, which was given by a Heathen of the third century to this passage of St. John. ‘Of modern philosophers,’ says Eusebius, ‘_Amelius_ is an eminent one, being himself, if ever there was one, a zealot for the philosophy of Plato; and he called the Divine of the Hebrews _a Barbarian_, as if he would not condescend to make mention of the Evangelist John by name.’ Such is Eusebius’s account of our referee. But what are the terms of his award? They are these. ‘And such indeed was the Logos,’ he says, ‘by whom, a perpetual existence, the things created were created, as also Heraclitus has said; and who by Jupiter, _the Barbarian_ says, being constituted in the rank and dignity of a Principle, is with God and is God, by whom all things absolutely were created; in whom the created living thing, and life, and existence, had a birth, and fell into a body, and putting on flesh appeared a man; and, after showing the greatness of his nature, and being wholly dissolved, is again deified and is God, such as he was before he was brought down into the body and the flesh and a man. These things, if translated out of _the Barbarian’s_ theology, not as shaded over there, but on the contrary as placed in full view, would be plain.’ In this very singular and very valuable comment upon St. John’s Gospel in general, and upon his preface in particular, we may see, through the harsh and obscure language of the whole, some circumstances of great moment. The bold air of arrogance in the blinded Heathen over the illuminated Divine must strike at once upon every eye. But the Logos appears, from him, to have been known to the _philosophers_ of antiquity _later_ than the Gospel; and known too as a perpetual Existence, and the Maker of the world. St. John also is witnessed by a Heathen, and by one who put him down for a Barbarian, to have represented the Logos as THE MAKER OF ALL THINGS, as WITH GOD, and as GOD; as one likewise, ‘_in whom_ the created living Thing,’ or the human soul of our Saviour, ‘and’ even ‘Life and Existence’ themselves, those primogenial principles of Deity, ‘had _a birth_, and _fell into a body_, and _putting on flesh appeared a man_,’ who was therefore man and God in one; who accordingly ‘showed the greatness of his nature’ by his miracles, was ‘wholly dissolved,’ and then ‘was _again_ DEIFIED, and IS GOD,’ even ‘SUCH AS HE WAS, before he was _brought down into the body_ and _the flesh_ and _a man_.’ And St. John is attested to have declared this, ‘not even as _shaded over_,’ but ‘on the contrary as _placed in full view_.’ We have thus a testimony to _the plain meaning_ of St. John, and to the _evident Godhead_ of his Logos, a _Godhead_ equally _before_ and _after_ his death; most unquestionable in its nature, very early in its age, and peculiarly forcible in its import. St. John, we see, is referred to in a language, that shows him to have been well known to the Grecian cotemporaries of Amelius, as a writer, as a foreigner, and as a marked assertor of _Divinity_ for his Logos.”

WHITAKER.

Footnote 86:

_Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Hist. Theol. Lib. I. cap. 2 §. 8._

Footnote 87:

_Vid. Curcell in Quattern. Dissert. de Voc. Trinit. personæ ge._

Footnote 88:

_Vid. Calv. Institut. Lib. I. cap. 13. §. 5._

Footnote 89:

“The doctrine of a plurality appears in the very first words of inspiration. God would not record the history of _creation_, without informing the Church that the character of Creator was by no means to be confined to one person. It has often been observed, that this is taught in the words rendered _God created_, where we have a noun in the plural joined with a verb in the singular number, plainly expressing a plurality in unity. That this is the genuine sense of the passage appears from the work ascribed, in the next verse, to the Spirit of God, who is said to have ‘moved on the face of the waters.’ By modern Jews, whom some Christians have followed, this expression has been rendered, ‘a wind of God,’ or ‘a mighty wind.’ But the firmament, or expanse, was not created till the second day. This includes the atmosphere which surrounds our earth: for the fowl is said to ‘fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.’ Now, it cannot reasonably be supposed that there could be a mighty wind, or any wind at all, before the existence of an atmosphere.

“If we turn to the gospel-history, we find a third person mentioned as engaged in the work of creation. ‘All things were made by’ that Word, who ‘in the beginning existed with God.’

“This plurality appears still more expressly, when the sacred historian gives an account of the creation of man: ‘And God said, Let _us_ make man in _our_ image, after _our_ likeness.’ But it is a plurality in unity: ‘So God created man in _his_ own image.’ It has been justly observed, that to this the language of Elihu, and of the royal Preacher, agrees: ‘None saith, Where is God my _Makers_;’ and, ‘Remember now thy _Creators_.’ Nothing can be more absurd than the various attempts which have been made to shew, that this language may be otherwise understood. God could never speak in this manner to angels, or to any second causes. For to whomsoever these words were addressed, they must have been co-operators with God in this divine work. They must have assisted him in making man. Philo the Jew expressly says that these words, _Let us make_, declare a plurality. That the Jewish writers in general view this language as including a mystery, not to be made known to the vulgar, and indeed studiously concealed by them, from their abhorrence of Christianity, has been elsewhere demonstrated. It is therefore unnecessary to enlarge here. I shall only add, that the modern Jews are so fully convinced that the doctrine of a plurality is contained in these words, as to wish to alter the reading. Instead of _Let us make man_, they incline to read, _Let man be made_; although the Samaritan text, the Septuagint, the Talmudists, and all their translations, whether ancient or modern, express the language in the same manner with our version.

“The same important doctrine is introduced in the history of the _Fall_. That three-one God, who said, ‘Let us make man after our image,’ in the same character laments the loss of this image. ‘JEHOVAH God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us;’ or, as some read the passage, ‘Behold the man, who was as one of us!’ Here Philo observes; ‘These words, _as one of us_, are not put for one, but for more than one.’ The learned Allix has remarked that the ancient Jewish writers maintain, that God ‘speaks not this to the angels, who had no common likeness to the unity or essence of God, but to Him who was the celestial Adam, who is one with God.’ To whom this character applies, we learn from the Targum of Jonathan on the place, who here speaks of ‘the only begotten in heaven.’

“This doctrine is also taught in the history of the _Confusion of Tongues_. ‘JEHOVAH said,—Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.’ Here the Jews repeat their contemptible subterfuge, that God addresses his ‘house of judgment,’ that is, created angels. For it is an established doctrine with them, that ‘God does nothing without previously consulting with his family above.’ But it has justly been observed, that these words, if spoken to angels, would imply that God were one of them, or that he descended in the same manner with them, by a real change of place. Besides, in a moment to change one language into many, and to infuse these into the minds of men, who were utter strangers to them before, so that they should entirely forget their former modes of speech, is a work that far surpasses the power of angels, and can be accomplished by no being but that God, with whom to will and to do is the same.

“It must be evident to every one, who reads the history of the Old Testament with any degree of attention, that an _Angel_ is often introduced as speaking the language, performing the works, and accepting the worship, which exclusively belong to the Supreme Being. In other words, one, who is undoubtedly a divine person, often appears in a delegated character. Now, while it was the will of God in this manner constantly to remind his Church of the economy of redemption, he at the same time taught her a distinction of persons in the divine essence. It was this Angel who appeared to Abraham on different occasions, to Hagar, to Jacob, to Moses, to Joshua, to the Israelites at Bochim, to Gideon, to Manoah and his wife. But I enter not into a particular consideration of these appearances, having endeavoured to illustrate the character of this divine Messenger in another place. There it has also been proved, that the law was given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai by the second person of the adorable Trinity, in the character of the Angel of JEHOVAH. It deserves particular attention, that at the very time that the God of Israel gave his people a law, by which they were to be distinguished from all the idolatrous nations around, one special design of which was to preserve the doctrine of the divine unity;—at the very time that he pronounced that leading precept, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me;’ he, according to the Sacred History, viewed in its connexion, sustained the character of an Angel, and was pleased to communicate the knowledge of this fact to his people. How can these apparent contradictions be reconciled, but by admitting that it was the will of God to reveal himself to his church, as at the same time possessing essential unity and personal plurality?

“The more ancient Jewish writers declare, that two persons were engaged in promulgating the law. They say; ‘The two first precepts were spoken by the Supreme Spirit, but he spoke all the rest by his Glory, who is called _El Shaddai_, known to the fathers; by whom the prophets foretold future events; who is called _Jah_: in whom the Name of God is; the Beloved of God who dwelt in the temple; and the Mouth of the LORD; and the Face of the LORD; and the Rock; and that Goodness which Moses saw, when he could not see God.’ Elsewhere they call him ‘the _Schechinah_, by whom we draw near to God, and present our supplications to him; who is that Angel in whom the name of God is, who is himself called God and JEHOVAH.’ The change of person, in the promulgation of the law, asserted by these writers, is evidently a mere fancy. But their language deserves attention; as it shews how fully they were convinced of the doctrine of a plurality in unity, when they introduced it in this manner.

“It has been universally admitted by the friends of revelation, that the great end which God hath in view in the work of _Redemption_ is the display of his own adorable perfections. But there is doubtless another, although less attended to, nowise incompatible with this, nay, itself an eminent branch of the supreme end. This is the manifestation of the mystery of the Trinity, and of the mode of subsistence peculiar to each person in the divine essence. This must undoubtedly be viewed as included in the one great design of the all-wise God in our redemption; and it is evident that he hath still kept it in eye, in the revelation given to the Church, and especially in the history of that work, as it is recorded in the gospels. We may trace the doctrine of a Trinity in the accounts given of the old creation; but it appears with far superior evidence in the history of the new. This corresponds to the superior greatness of the work, and to the brighter and more extensive display of divine perfection.

“Such was the state of the Church, as to admit of a more full manifestation of this mystery. It was more obscurely revealed to the patriarchs, and under the Mosaic economy. This was analogous to the general character of the revelation then made; as well as to the state of the Church, yet in her infancy, and exposed to constant temptations to polytheism, from the situation of all the surrounding nations. But ‘when the fulness of the time was come,’ that the gospel should be preached to every creature, and the kingdom of Satan fall as lightning from heaven, in the overthrow of heathen darkness; there were no such impediments to the more clear revelation of this mysterious doctrine. The rest of the divine conduct indeed rendered this necessary. God had now ‘sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.’ The ends of this mission could not be accomplished, without a full revelation of the character of this illustrious Messenger. He could not otherwise receive that homage from the Church, which he merited as her Redeemer, and which was necessary, in order to her salvation. Now, his character, as essentially the Son of God, and at the same time a divine Messenger, could not be properly unfolded, without a declaration both of the paternity of the First Person, and of that wonderful dispensation, according to which the Second, although equal in power and glory, voluntarily ‘emptied himself.’ Nor could the unity of the work of redemption, as pervading all the dispensations given to the Church, and the beautiful harmony of the law and the gospel, be otherwise displayed. Without a full revelation of this mystery, how could it have been known that he, who appeared in the end of ages as sent of God, was the very same person who had formerly led the Church, as the Angel of his face; that He, who now brought spiritual redemption to his folk, was no other than that Angel-Redeemer, who had already so frequently delivered them from temporal calamities?