Part 55

“It will be asked, perhaps, when all this is excluded from our ideas of generation, of Father and Son, what idea will remain in our minds, which is conveyed by these words? Will they not be without any signification to us, and altogether useless? To this, the following answer may be given: From what is revealed concerning this high and incomprehensible mystery, we learn, that in the existence of the Deity, there is that which is high above our thoughts, as the heavens are above the earth, infinitely beyond our conception, and different from any thing which takes place among creatures, which is a foundation of a personal distinction, as real and great as that between father and son among men, and infinitely more perfect: which distinction may be in the best manner conveyed to us by Father and Son, to express the most perfect union and equality; that the Son is the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, and that there is infinite love and endearment between them; and that in the economy of the work of redemption, the Son is obedient to the Father, &c. All this, and much more, our minds are capable of conceiving from what is revealed on this high and important subject; which is suited to impress our hearts with a sense of the incomprehensible, infinite, adorable perfection and glory of the Father and the Son; and is necessary in order to give us a right understanding of the gospel; of the true character of the Redeemer, and of the work of redemption.

“What has been now said under this second particular, may serve to remove the other supposed difficulty in admitting the eternal filiation of the second person in the Trinity, _viz._ that it represents the Son as inferior to the Father, and as existing _after him_, and therefore his existence had a beginning. This is obviated by the above observations; and particularly by this, that it is a _divine filiation_, and therefore infinitely unlike that which is human; and above our comprehension. Besides, to suppose eternal generation admits of _before_ or _after_, or of a beginning, is inconsistent. It may be further observed,

“3. That the opinion that Jesus Christ is the first and only begotten Son of God, by the second person in the Trinity becoming incarnate, and united to the human nature, is, perhaps, attended with as great difficulties as the other which has been considered, if not greater. If so, the inducement to embrace it, and reject the other, which we are examining, wholly ceases.

“If the Son was begotten by the miraculous formation of the human nature; then the Holy Ghost begot the Son and is the Father, as much as the first person in the Trinity. For the angel said to the virgin, ‘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.’ If we take these words as referring only to the production of the human nature, and if it be granted that by the highest, is meant the first person in the Trinity, of which there does not appear to be any evidence, yet the third person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing as much, and being as active in this production as the first person. But if this were no difficulty, and the first person of the Trinity be supposed to produce the human nature, and in this sense to be the Father of Jesus Christ; yet this will make him his Father in no other and higher sense than he is the Father of angels, and of Adam; and Jesus Christ will be the Son of God in no other, or higher sense than they; for they were created and formed in an extraordinary, miraculous way.

“If the Son was begotten by uniting the second person of the Trinity with the human nature, and the filiation of the Son is supposed to consist wholly in being thus united to man; this is attended with the following difficulties, as great, perhaps, if not greater, than those which attend the eternal Sonship of the second person.

“1. This is as different in nature and kind from natural or creature generation, as eternal divine generation; and the one bears no analogy or likeness to the other.

“2. This union of God with the creature so as to become one person, is as mysterious and incomprehensible, as the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Trinity; and as inexplicable: so that nothing is gained with respect to this, by embracing this scheme.

“3. It is not agreeable to scripture to suppose that the first person of the Trinity only, united the second person to the human nature, and so became a Father by thus begetting a Son. The third person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing this, or at least, being active in it; and there is nothing expressly said of the first person doing any thing respecting it as such. ‘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.’ ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, _she was found with child of the Holy Ghost_.’ And the angel of the Lord said unto Joseph, ‘Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: _For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost_.’ Matt. i. 18, 20. And this uniting the divine nature with the human, is expressly ascribed, not to the first, but to the second person. ‘For as much as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same. For verily _he took not on him_ the nature of angels; _but he took on him the seed of Abraham_.’ Heb. ii. 14, 16. Do not they speak not only _without scripture_, but _contrary to it_, who say that the first person of the Trinity became a Father by uniting the second person to the human nature, in the womb of the virgin Mary; by which the latter became the only begotten Son of the Father? That the relation of Father and Son began in the incarnation of Christ, and consists wholly in this? And do they by this supposition avoid any difficulty, and render the filiation of the Redeemer more consistent, intelligible, or honourable to him? Let the thoughtful, candid discerning reader judge.”

HOPKINS.

Footnote 104:

This is an incontestable proof that the Son is God, even JEHOVAH. The Psalmist often says, “Blessed are they, blessed is the man who trusteth in the Lord.” And here he says, Blessed are all they who trust in the Son of God, and yet forbids us to put our trust in any but God. “Put not your trust in princes, or in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God.” Psalm cxlvi. 3, 5. And he says, “My soul, wait thou _only_ upon God; for my expectation is from him.” Psalm lxii. 5. They _only_ are blessed, who trust in God; and all others are cursed. “Thus saith the Lord, Cursed be the man that trusteth in man. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.” Jer. xvii. 5, 7. They are blessed, who trust in the Son of God. Therefore he is the Lord.

Footnote 105:

It has been before observed, that the denial of the eternal sonship of Christ seemed to have a tendency to a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity; and in what way. But what is here observed, shews how the denial of the former tends, _another way_, to the rejection of the latter. For if the former be rejected, because it is incomprehensible, and appears inconsistent, it may be expected that when the doctrine of the Trinity is more particularly considered, it will appear equally unintelligible; and therefore be rejected, for the same reason. Is it not probable, that Sabellius, the ancient Anti-trinitarian, was in this way led to give up the doctrine of the Trinity?

Footnote 106:

_See Dr. Owen against Biddle, p. 362._

Footnote 107:

Ονομα ανεκφωνητον.

Footnote 108:

_Antiq. Lib. III. Cap. 5._

Footnote 109:

_This the Holy Ghost has condescended, for what reason I know not, to give countenance to, in all those quotations in the New Testament, where the name_ JEHOVAH, _is referred to from the Old._

Footnote 110:

_In two places, indeed, it is rendered by_ Θεος, _God, Gen. iv. 1. and Isa. liv. 13. And there is one place in which some think they attempt a literal translation of it, 2 Sam. i. 11. where, instead of the people of the Lord, they translate the text_, επι τον λαον Ιουδα, _in which, some think_, Ιουδα, _is put for_ Ιουα, _or_ Ιουβα, _through the mistake of some amanuensis; but it seems rather to be an explication than a literal translation of the words; and whereas some think, the reason of this method used by them in their translation, is, because the Hebrew letters, of which that name consists, cannot well be expressed by the letters of the Greek alphabet, so as to compose a word like it, that does not seem to be the reason of it, inasmuch as they attempt to translate other names equally difficult; as in Gen. x. 2._ Ιωυαν, _for Javan; and 2 Kings xii. 2._ Ιωδαε _for Jehoiada._

Footnote 111:

See Dr. Allix’s judgment of the Jewish church against the Unitarians, chap. xiii. to xvi.

Footnote 112:

_Vid. Catech. Racov. ad Quest. lix._

Footnote 113:

_It is elsewhere said concerning him, 1 John iii. 5. that he was manifested, &c._ εφανερωθη, _as also in ver. 8. And as for what is said in the last clause of the verse we are considering, that_ he was received up into glory, _it is a very great strain on the sense of these words, to apply it to a mystery, or to the gospel, since the words_, ανεληφθη εν δοξη, _plainly intimate a person’s meeting with a glorious reception when ascending into heaven_; αναλαμβαινομαι _signifies_ sursum recipere, _therefore we render it, received up; and so it is often applied to our Saviour, Acts i. 2, 11, 22. and his ascension is called, Luke ix. 51._ ἡμερα της αναληψεως, _the time in which he should be received up._

Footnote 114:

_See Whitby in loc._

Footnote 115:

_See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 86._

Footnote 116:

_Thus they are four times, Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 5. Eph. i. 3. and 1 Pet. i. 3. wherein_ ευλογητος _is put before_ Θεος.

Footnote 117:

_Dr. Owen against Biddle, page 256._

Footnote 118:

_See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 97._

Footnote 119:

_See Page 307._

Footnote 120:

_It is certain, that_ και _is oftentimes exegetical, as well as copulative; and it appears to be so, by a great many instances in the New Testament; when it is put between two nouns, the first whereof has an article, and the other none; thus it will be acknowledged by all, that it is taken, in 2 Cor._ i. 3. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ὁ Θεος και Πατηρ; _so in_ Eph. i. 3. 2 Thes. ii. 16. 1. Pet. i. 3. Rom. xv. 6. Phil. iv. 20. 2 Cor. xi. 31. _and in_ Col. ii. 2. _In these scriptures, and others of the like nature, the Arians themselves allow that this rule holds good, though they will not allow it, when it proves our Saviour’s Deity, because it militates against their own scheme; as in_ Eph. v. 5. _where the apostle speaks of the_ kingdom of Christ, and of God, _as we render it; but, I think, it ought to be rendered_, even of God; _for it is_, του Χριστου και Θεου _so in_ 2 Thess. i. 12. The grace of our God, and, _or even_, of the Lord Jesus Christ, _the words are_, του Θεου ἡμων και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου. _See among many other scriptures to the like purpose_, 1 Tim. v. 21. _and_ chap. vi. 13. 2 Pet. i. 2. _It is true there are several exceptions to this rule, though they are generally in such instances, in which it is impossible for the latter word to contain an explication of the former, though, in other instances, it, for the most part, holds good; and therefore it will, at least, amount to a probable argument, that the words in this text_, του μεγαλου Θεου και σωτηρος ἡμων Ιησου Χριστου _ought to be rendered_, of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ. _Vide Granville Sharp on the Greek article, and Middleton on the same subject._

Footnote 121:

_See Dr. Clark’s reply to Nelson, page 85._

Footnote 122:

_The words_, ὁ Κυριος _and_ ὁ Θεος _are in the nominative case, which denotes that they are not spoken in a way of exclamation._

Footnote 123:

_See reply to Nelson, page 67._

Footnote 124:

_Acts vii. 43. chap. xiv. 11._

Footnote 125:

_See Matt. xix. 26. compared with Mark x. 27._

Footnote 126:

_See Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 67, 68, and in many other places._

Footnote 127:

_This is the sense of Dr. Clarke’s first section in Part 2, on which the whole scheme seems to be founded; and he speaks to the same purpose in several other places; and, in particular, in his reply to Nelson, page 67, 68, he concludes the word_ Θεος, _God, absolutely taken to import the same, as_ ὁ παντοκρατωρ or ὁ επι παντων Θεος, _by which he always intends the Father._

Footnote 128:

_See Scripture-doctrine, page 3._

Footnote 129:

_See page 120._

Footnote 130:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 176._

Footnote 131:

_Whitby is very particular in laying down this sense of the text, with the defence thereof, in his annotations on this scripture, from Heliodorus, where he finds the words_, ἁρπαγμα ποιειν, _which he renders_, to snatch at; _and_ ἁρπαγμα ἡγεισθαι, _which, he supposes, signifies to pursue, or covet, a thing that is desirable, but, however, the words going before, or following, in that author, may determine that to be his sense thereof, as the sense of particular words is oftentimes greatly varied thereby; yet this will not justify the rendering them in the same sense, in other instances, very foreign thereunto, as certainly the text we are explaining must be reckoned to be; besides, the word is not the same, for it is_ ἁρπαγμα, _which properly signifies a prey, or the thing stolen; and therefore though_ ἁρπαγμα ποιειν ξυντυχιαν _may signify_, to catch an opportunity, _as a person catches at what he thinks for his advantage, yet if the word_ ἁρπαγμον _had been used instead of it, it would very much have altered the sense thereof; also though_ ἁρπαγμα ἡγεισθαι _signifies_, to esteem a thing worthy to be pursued, or catched at, as a prey, _yet_ ἁρπαγμον ἡγεισθαι, _which are the words in the text we are considering, signify no such thing, but rather_ to reckon a thing unlawful to be pursued, as what he has no right to; _and that is the sense thereof in our text_, q. d. _He did not think it unlawful to pursue, or lay claim to that divine honour, of being equal with God, or, as we render it_, thought it not robbery, _&c. For the justifying of this sense, every one, that observes the acceptation of the Greek words, will find that_ ἁρπαγμος _signifies_, the action of robbing, _and_ ἁρπαγμα _the thing stolen, as may be observed in many other words, where the former construction signifies the act; the latter the effect: as in_ λογισμος _and_ λογισμα, κομπασμος, _and_ κομπασμα, κολασμος _and_ κολασμα, ὁρισμος _and_ ὁρισμα, ὁπλισμος _and_ ὁπλισμα, στοχασμος _and_ στοχασμα; _and, in the New Testament_, βαπτισμος _signifies the_ action of baptizing, _and_ βαπτισμα _the ordinance in which it is performed. See Mark vii. 8. compared with Matt. iii. 7. and chap. xxi. 25. Multitudes of instances might have been given, but these are sufficient._

Footnote 132:

_Grotius in loc._

Footnote 133:

“It may readily be granted that any tract published by an apostolick man, in the early Christian church, would be circulated among the Christians of those times, with great dispatch, _immediately_ on its publication. This is a natural and indefeasible position, since it arises from a principle in human nature itself. It is natural, too, that, in those times, it should be copied without delay in such churches as were then extant. And this _first_ edition would be circulated to the widest extent, of course. Churches that were established afterwards were more likely to receive the _second_ edition of such a writer’s works; especially, if they had intercourse with the town where he resided in his latter days, and drew their copies from thence, immediately. But I think we may say, that for one copy of the second edition that was circulated, there would be 20, or 50, or 100 copies of the first edition; since not only would it have the advantage of priority, but not one reader in a hundred would think of the second as different from the first. And this has led our translators to mark, as _doubtful_, the first quotation which I selected from the first Epistle of John, in my last; chap. ii. 23. I have no doubt of the genuineness of the _addition_; but possibly there may be 50 copies without it to _one_ which contains it.

“Admitting, then, the residence of St. John be at Ephesus, or any part of Asia Minor, for the last thirty years of his life, for which we have the testimony of ancient history, we may date his first epistle, early in that period: or even before he came to live there. This would spread _first_, among the neighbouring churches in Asia Minor: _secondly_, eastward, to those countries which professed Christianity, Antioch, for certain: Syria, Cilicia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia, Babylonia, &c. Toward these countries, there are caravans which go every month, or six weeks, from Asia Minor: there is a regular intercourse maintained, between Smyrna, and the internal parts of Asia Minor, and on through Tarsus to Antioch:—from Ephesus to Smyrna was easy. We have every reason to affirm, that it was the same anciently, and therefore, there was an _immediate_ conveyance of such addresses as the apostle John published for the general use of all Christians, from Ephesus, eastward to the oriental provinces of the Roman empire, where Christianity was settled and flourished. In these churches his writings would be in request. Moreover, these churches would be the first to translate his writings into their current language, for the use of the natives of these provinces, who did not understand Greek (which, however prevalent the Greek language was, must have been many) because here was a great number of professing Christians, who desired to be acquainted with their contents.

“It is evident, therefore, that these translations, having for their basis the _first_ edition, can be no evidences of what the apostle thought proper to add in his _second_ addition. The Syriac version, for instance, if we suppose that to be the earliest of all, would represent the _first_ edition, as would also, all versions made from it, and all copies made from those, at that time, received in those parts. Whereas, the Armenian version, because it is much later, would at least stand the chance of obtaining (and being made from) the _second_ edition. The Syriac version, therefore, is no evidence against an _addition_. The Armenian version is an evidence _for_ it. This version contains 1 John v. 7.

“Also, the churches in Africa were not planted till many years _after_ those of Asia; their intercourse with Ephesus, being by sea, was irregular, and could only take place, occasionally, if it was direct. If we suppose it to be, on the subject before us, through Italy, then it was subject to the same circumstances as attended the intercourse between Ephesus and Rome. I say Rome, because we have no reason to think that there was any number of Christians, worth mentioning, in any other city of Italy. The apostle Paul, when travelling from Rhegio upward was met by brethren _from Rome_; which when he saw, he thanked God, and _took courage_. Certainly, then, he had not met with many friends in places that he passed through, and his courage had been somewhat cast down, for that reason. We find no trace of Christianity in Herculaneum, one of the cities of Italy, of the second size, which was destroyed A. D. 79, though we meet with traces of Judaism there; and in short, it must be admitted, that, compared with Asia, the western provinces had but few Christians. We have no reason to think that Rome sent out missionaries early. The south of France was christianized from Asia, though so much further off than Rome. The natural inference is, that these parts would receive _later_ copies of any apostolick writing, published in Asia Minor, than those parts which had a regular intercourse, half a dozen times in a year, at least, but probably much oftener, with Ephesus. And whatever versions were extant in the west, would represent the second edition with its variations, whatever they might be.

“As to Rome itself, I infer, that that capital of the empire had, if any place had, _both_ editions. Suppose, for a moment, that the _first_ edition had reached Rome, when Aristobulus quitted that city for Britain, or that it was sent to Aristobulus, in Britain, from Rome, it will follow, that the ancient British copies would _not_ contain those additions which the apostle John inserted in the _second_ edition. And to this agrees the fact: for Pelagianism could hardly have been repressed by any text more effectually than by the one in question. Yet that errour rose in Britain, and it was not so decidedly opposed then, as it is now, _minus_ the testimony of this text. Moreover, the text is not quoted by the venerable Bede, in a passage of his works, where we should expect to find it, at least, alluded to. He, therefore, might have the first edition.

“In short, almost all the arguments employed against the authenticity of the text may be admitted. They cease to have any great force, after it is once conceded to those who use them, that the _first_ edition, together with all its representatives, in the first century, suppose, had not the words in debate. They are reduced to the infirmity of a negative argument, at best.

“I must now observe, that the African churches being planted long after the Asiatick, they, no doubt, would obtain the best transcripts of the works of any inspired writer, which could be procured about the time of their being founded; _i. e._ the _second_ edition of the letter under consideration. To this agrees the fact; _the African bishops quote the passage_. Tertullian, Cyprian, Eucherius, Eugenius, with his consistory of 400 bishops, Vigilius, Fulgentius, &c. &c. so that it was undeniably extant in their copies from the second century downwards. The argument, then, is reduced to a point: either these divines _found_ the passage in their copies, or they _put_ it there. The latter alternative is so dishonourable to Christians and to Christianity, that one is willing to accept of any hypothesis which may vindicate professors and teachers from such enormous guilt.—But further: