Part 56

“I have said, that Rome might be expected to procure whatever was most excellent in Christian literature, as well as in other studies. It had, then, the _first_ edition, because that was the _earliest_ which could be procured; and the _second_ because the influx of persons to Rome from all parts was so great, that every thing which was portable of a literary nature, might be expected to be brought there. Rome had an ancient version of the scriptures, known under the name of the old _Italic version_. It is not of any consequence to our argument, whether this version contained the text of the _heavenly witnesses_, since it was made very early; but if the _revised_ Roman version of the New Testament contained it, we are reduced to the same dilemma as before, in reference to the African bishops—The reviser of this edition (Jerom) either _found_ it, or _forged_ it. The same arguments that relieve the characters of the African bishops, relieve the character of this father. The accusation is incredible. It is loading the party with a crime so far beyond ordinary culpability, that the mind revolts at the charge. It is admitted, then, that the Latin version reads this verse; that St. Jerome adopted it; that it was adopted by the learned after him; as by our own famous Alkwin, at the time, and in the court of Charlemagne, and has so continued ever since. The inference is, that St. Jerome preferred the authority and text of the second edition, and followed it.

“These, moreover, are _independent_ witnesses; for, the African bishops, who wrote before Jerom, could not receive this passage from his revised version: or, if any choose to affirm that the African bishops received this passage from the old _Italic_ version, then the authenticity of the passage follows of course, in proportion to whatever importance is attached to this increased antiquity.”

SELECT REVIEWS.

Footnote 134:

_Mr. Abraham Taylor, in his true Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity, Part. I. chap. 2. in which we have his own method of reasoning in defence thereof, which is, at least, sufficient to remove the boasts and insults of those who wonder that we should not give up the cause entirely to them._

Footnote 135:

_See Histoire Crit. du. Nouv. Testam. chap. 18. page 204._

Footnote 136:

_See this conjecture of Father Simon learnedly opposed in Smith. Miscellan. contra Simon._

Footnote 137:

_Vid. Epist. lxxiii. ad Jubaianum, & de Unitate Eccl. § v._

Footnote 138:

_See true Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 53._

Footnote 139:

_Contra Praxeam, cap. 25._

Footnote 140:

_See the Author before referred to, in the true scripture-doctrine, &c. as also Trigland de tribus in cælo testibus._

Footnote 141:

Vide Abbadie on the Divinity of Christ, per totum.

Footnote 142:

_See Quest._ vii.

Footnote 143:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture doctrine, page 127._

Footnote 144:

_Reply to Nelson, page 169._

Footnote 145:

_See a parallel scripture, Prov._ xxx. 2, 3.

Footnote 146:

ὁ ων εν τω ουρανω, is admitted by Griesback into his text.

Footnote 147:

By the wisdom of God seems here to be meant the wisdom of God essentially considered. But see Matt. xxiii. 34.

Footnote 148:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 63._

Footnote 149:

_See page_ 344, 345, ante.

Footnote 150:

_Dr. Waterland, Serm. III. in defence of Christ, page 106._

Footnote 151:

“That Christ was not a _mere instrument_ which God used in the work of creation, as the _Arians_ pretend, is plain from this, that the Scriptures not only teach, that Christ was the very supreme God himself that created all things; Psal. cii. 25. Heb. i. 10. but also that _no instrument was used_ in that work. It was wrought immediately by _God himself_. As it is written, ‘God himself formed the earth and made it.’ Isa. xlv. 18. (This, all grant, was the supreme God: And this God was Jesus Christ.) ‘He alone spread out the heavens.’ Job ix. 8. Not by an instrument, but by _himself alone_, Isa. xliv. 24. with _his own hands_. Isa. xlv. 12.”

BELLAMY.

Footnote 152:

δια Ιησου Χριστου are omitted by Griesbach.

Footnote 153:

_Vid. Bez. in loc. Unus Deus omnes populos condidit, sic etiam nunc omnes ad se vocat; condidit autem per Christum, sic per Christum instaurat._

Footnote 154:

_See_ Matt. xii. 32. 1 Cor. x. 11. Eph. i. 21. _and_ chap. ii. 7. Heb. vi. 5. _and_ chap. ix. 26. _the apostle speaking of_ the foundation of the world, _meaning the first creation, uses the word_ Κοσμος; _but when, in the following words, he speaks of_ Christ’s appearing in the end of the world, to put away sin, &c. _he uses the words_ των αιωνων.

Footnote 155:

_See page 304._

Footnote 156:

_See Quest._ lxvii. _and_ lxxv.

Footnote 157:

“The Father, saith he, is greater than I. John xiv. 28. As Christ is the head of the church, so the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. iii. 23. xi. 3. He calleth the Father his God. Matt, xxvii. 46. John xx. 17.—The Father raised him to Israel; Acts xiii. 23. anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power; Acts x. 38. spared him not, but delivered him up for us all; Rom. viii. 32. and raised him from the dead. Acts ii. 24.—God had appointed him to execute his saving designs, sent him into this world, and gave him commandments. John iii. 16, 17. vi. 38-40. The work given him he finished, and in it he was faithful to the Father. John iv. 34. xvii. 4. Heb. iii. 2. x. 9.—Therefore, God hath also exalted him above measure; Phil. ii. 9. set him at his own right hand in heaven; Eph. i. 20. and gave him all power. Matt, xxviii. 18. He hath made him Lord and Christ; Acts ii. 36. exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give to Israel repentance and remission of sins. Acts v. 31. He hath also ordained him to judge the world in righteousness; Acts xviii. 31. and to him, Christ shall then be subject, and deliver up the kingdom. 1 Cor. xv. 24-28.

“To be the true God, and to be under God, to be the Infinite, and to be the subject, are, according to all reason, and the scripture itself, inconsistent properties. By undeniable authority, however, they are ascribed to the same subject; and therefore, there must be a way to solve the difficulty. How often do we meet with particulars in the system of truth, which seem to oppose one another; but when well considered, agree, and even support one another. The human constitution itself, exhibits a clear instance. The grand inquiry is, upon what foundation every different truth is established, and how to reconcile seeming contradictions. Now, while they who attack the Godhead of Jesus, can never in our opinion, answer the multitude of proofs in its favour; there is on the contrary, for the confessors of that doctrine, the greatest store of solutions, as often as something not divine, something beneath the nature and authority of his Father, and something finite are testified concerning him. ‘He who was in the form of God, and counted it not robbery to be equal with God, took upon him the form of a servant.’ Phil. ii. 6, 7. ‘The Word who was with God, and who was God, became flesh; but in that flesh, manifested a glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’ John i. 1, 14.—According to the infallible testimony, he is therefore true God and true man; and his saving mediatory performances are inseparably founded on both natures. While the value of these, the power to save his people forever, and to direct all things in heaven and on earth to that end, as also the fitness to be the object of their grateful confidence, and his capacity for conducting the general judgment, are founded on, and give an invincible proof of his divine perfection; it is at the same time his finite nature, wherein he finished the human ministrations of his teaching office, and of his priestly sacrifice.—And thus it is intelligible, how the glory and majesty with which he governs the kingdom of God, to the mighty ingathering and defence of his people, and to the destruction of all opposition, occur as an _exaltation_; in as far as the human nature, according to its capacity shared therein, obtained the fruit and reward of its labour, and the Lamb that was slain, deserves and receives everlasting honour, because of the works of salvation in both natures. This appears, because every where, his obedience and deepest humiliation are assigned as the reason of his exaltation.—‘I was dead and behold I am alive for evermore, Amen! and have the keys of hell and of death.’ Rev. i. 18. ‘To this end Christ died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord over the dead and the living.’ Rom, xiv. 9. See also Phil. ii. 7-10. Heb. i. 3. John v. 27. Rev. i. 5, 6. v. 12-14.”

WYNPERSSE.

Footnote 158:

_See Quest._ vii.

Footnote 159:

_Creatures are said to be believed, as our Saviour speaking concerning John the Baptist, in Mark_ xi. 31. _says_, Why did ye not believe him? διατι ουν ουκ επιστευσατε αυτω; _and, in Acts_ viii. 12. _the Samaritans believed Philip_, επιστευσαν τω Φιλιππω; _and, in John_ v. 46. _Moses is described as a person who ought to be believed_; Had ye believed Moses, _&c. says our Saviour_, ει γαρ επιστευετε Μωση; _but it is never said that a creature is_ believed in. _This was Augustin’s observation; upon which occasion he says_, In Exposit. Evangel. Johan. Tract. 29. “_Though we may be said to believe Paul and Peter, yet we are never said to believe_ in them.” _But as for our Saviour, we are not only to believe him, namely, what he has spoken, but_ πιστυειν εις αυτον, _to believe in him._

Footnote 160:

_The words are_, ενωπιον του Θεου του ζσττοο ωοποιουντος τα παντα και Χρις του Ιησου; _where_ και _seems to be exegetical, according to the rule laid down, page 318. and therefore I would render the words_, God, who quickeneth all things even Jesus Christ; _and, if this be a just rendering, then the Father is not mentioned in the context; and therefore this doxology is not ascribed to him but to our Saviour_.

Footnote 161:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 58, 77._

Footnote 162:

_The chief opposers of Christ’s being the object of worship, were Jacobus Palæologus, Franciscus Davidus, Christianus Franken, Simon Buduæus; and, on the other hand, it was defended by Socinus, and several others, though not in the same sense in which we maintain it._

Footnote 163:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 132._

Footnote 164:

_See page_ 322, 323. ante.

Footnote 165:

_See Dr. Waterland’s defence of the divinity of Christ, serm._ iv. _pag._ 127. & seq. _where he proves, that the exclusive terms of_ One, only, _&c. do not except the Son, so as to deny him to have the same Godhead with the Father: this he proves from several scriptures_, _viz._ _Mat._ xi. 27. No one knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor any one the Father, save the Son; _it does not follow from hence, that the Father does not know himself nor the Son himself: and when it is said, in 1 Cor._ ii. 11. The things of God knoweth no one, but the Spirit of God; _this does not exclude the Son, for that would contradict the scripture but now mentioned; no more than the Son’s only knowing the Father excludes the Holy Ghost, which would be contrary to this scripture; so in Rev._ xix. 12. _it is said, that the Son had_ a name written which no one knew but he himself: _none ever thought that the Father was excluded by this exclusive term; so when God the Father saith, in Isa._ xliv. 24. I am he that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself: _this would contradict many other scriptures, which speak of the Son as the Creator of all things, if he were to be excluded by it. Again, when the Psalmist saith, concerning the Father, in Psal._ lxxxiii. 18. _that_ his name alone is Jehovah, _we must set aside all those scriptures in which our Saviour is called Jehovah, if he is contained in this exclusive term. See more to this purpose in the said sermon, in which this argument is managed with a great deal of judgment. I shall only take leave farther to cite what is well observed in page 33. “That, perhaps the word God in those places, namely, such in which there are these exclusive terms, is to be understood in the indefinite sense, abstracting from the particular consideration of this or that person, in like manner as the word_ man _often stands not for any particular human person, but the whole species, or human nature; as when we say_, man is frail; man is mortal, _or the like.”_

Footnote 166:

Τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου. _Beza speaks of two or three of the most ancient copies in which this reading is found; and Grotius also adheres to it, from the credit, as he says, of the most ancient and correct copies; and it is also observed, that the vulgar Latin version renders it so; and Augustin read it so in the copy that he made use of: and whereas the evangelists, Mark and Luke, read it_, Why callest thou me good, _he endeavours to reconcile this different reading therewith as supposing there was a seeming contradiction between them which he might better have done, by referring to some copies which had it, as we read it_, why callest thou me good; _from whence, it is probable, he saw none that so rendered it in his time._ Vid. Agust. de Consensu. Evan. _lib._ ii. _cap. 63. It is also thus translated in the ancient Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew._

Footnote 167:

“If Dr. Priestley, in his celebrated efforts to establish the Unitarianism of the primitive church against Dr. Horsley, fell so short of ‘complete victory;’ it may be presumed, that the failure would, in some degree, affect his greater work, The History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ. Many parts of that elaborate performance are merely a republication of the Letters, excluding the personalities. Their merits and their fate must, therefore, be closely, interwoven.

“This large and capital work was given to the world under circumstances which appeared very promising for bringing the controversy to a satisfactory issue. With great and long continued diligence the indefatigable author collected his materials. He digested and arranged them, with that lucid perspicuity for which he was so justly distinguished. He tried every method to call forth into the field of preparatory discussion, some learned and able Trinitarians and Arians. He waited for some years after the publication of the work; and then renewed his public challenge, affording an additional period for the fate of the question. It was, of course, implied, and the obligation was frankly avowed by the Doctor; that he would in proper time duly notice what any fair and candid opponents should produce.

“It is to be lamented, however that the expectations thus excited have not been completely answered; and the decease of Dr. Priestly excludes every hope that they will be so.

“Early in the year 1790, a mild and amiable writer, Dr. Williams,[168] addressed to Dr. Priestley his objections to the whole structure of the argument built on the History of Early Opinions. He offered reasons to shew, that the appeal to the fathers was a method calculated to increase difficulties, and to render the controversy almost interminable; that it has been experimentally proved an insufficient mode of argument; that it has been long ago solidly refuted;[169] that it was plainly reprehended by Jesus Christ; that it is highly untheological in its just consequences; and that it is illogical and inconclusive. This letter breathed the sincere spirit of amicable controversy; and I cannot but think that it deserved the very candid and serious attention of your learned friend. But I believe it was never noticed in any other way than that of private compliment.

“In 1794, Dr. Jamieson published a professed and minute examination of the History of Early Opinions. This elaborate and learned work was the very performance which Dr. Priestley had so long desired and challenged. It surely, then, had a just claim on his particular and public notice. At the time of this work’s appearance, Dr. Priestley was occupied in the important measure of emigration to America. But when that step was accomplished, he enjoyed, for the remaining years of life, a calm and undisturbed retreat. We have, however, yet to be informed of the reason why his former pledge was not fulfilled.

“As the controversy has been thus left open, it cannot be deemed illiberal in me to mention the result of personal observation in reading this large work of Dr. Priestley’s. I am the more inclined to do so, since what I have remarked may be of use in answering a question of some importance; What degree of reliance can be placed on Dr. Priestley’s care and accuracy in his citations of the fathers?

“You, Sir, are well aware of the importance which Dr. Priestley attaches to the position, that the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ were acknowledged by the orthodox fathers to have been most cautiously concealed, in the earlier preaching of the apostles, and not to have been clearly divulged, till John taught them at the close of the apostolic age.

“Dr. Jamieson appears to me to have solidly refuted this assertion.[170] But he has, by no means, proceeded so far as he might easily have done, in shewing Dr. Priestley’s remarkable inattention to rigid accuracy in the allegation of his authorities.

“The instances of this kind which I have observed have given me much astonishment. If they concerned merely the literary reputation of this truly eminent character, to drag them into public notice could only be the work of a petulant and little mind. But they become cases of a very different nature, when conclusions of prime importance on a very interesting subject are inferred from egregious misconstructions of an author’s meaning. In such cases regard to truth must supersede personal delicacies.

“This duty becomes the more urgent when we are told, from high and respectable authority, that, ‘in all the most important controversies in which’ Dr. Priestley ‘was engaged, he had studied the subject thoroughly, and was a complete master of the whole question:’ and that, in his reasoning, ‘there was nothing artificial and ambiguous; no design to slur over difficulties and objections, or to lay greater stress upon a topic than it would well bear.’[171]

“The doctor has selected Chrysostom as the father whose evidence is most ample in support of the opinion, that John first taught the divinity of Christ. ‘Chrysostom,’ says Dr. Priestley, ‘represents all the preceding writers of the New Testament as children, who heard, but did not understand things, and who were busy about cheese-cakes and childish sports, but John,’ he says, ‘taught what the angels themselves did not know before he declared it.’[172]

“At the bottom of the page, Dr. Priestley faithfully transcribes the Greek of this passage, and no one can say that his translation is materially unfair, so far as it goes. The sentence is exactly thus: ‘All the rest, like little children, hear indeed, yet do not understand what they hear, but are captivated with cakes and childish sports.’ The omission of the clause ‘all the rest,’ (οι γε αλλοι παντες) does not _appear_ of much consequence. The insertion of it would only have led the reader to inquire for the antecedent, and Dr. Priestley has provided a ready answer: ‘all the preceding writers of the New Testament.’

“Do me the favour, my dear Sir, to take down the volume of Chrysostom, and turn to the passage. Will you find the antecedent to this relative clause to be any ‘writers of the New Testament,’ or any persons at all connected with the New Testament? No, Sir. You will find it to be _the effeminate and dissipated spectators of athletic games, and the auditors of musicians and oratorial sophists!_[173]”

SMITH’S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.

Footnote 168:

Letter to Dr. Priestley, in vol. i. of Dr. Williams’ edition of Owen on the Hebrews.

Footnote 169:

Dr. Williams refers only to Chillingworth by name. I would take the liberty of adding, that M. Daille’s admirable work _On the Use of the Fathers in Determining Religious Controversies_, is deserving of the most careful perusal with reference to this subject.

Footnote 170:

See his valuable work, Vindication of the Primitive Faith, &c. in Reply to Dr. Priestley’s Hist. of Early Opinions: vol. i. p. 284-313.

Footnote 171:

Mr. Belsham’s Disc. p. 24, 25.

Footnote 172:

Hist. of Early Op. vol. iii. p. 128, 129.

Footnote 173:

Mr. Belsham denies that these characters are the antecedent to the exceptive clause in question, and conceives that it refers to the mass of unlearned Christians, who are placed in opposition to “the spectators and auditors of John, men that are become angels, or are desirous of becoming such.” But the Greek fathers give some additional features of their character. “These,” he says, “are devoted to merriment and luxuriousness, living in riches, honours, and gluttony.” The candid reader will judge whether this description be more applicable to plain and honest christians, than to the gay and dissipated persons mentioned in a preceding part of the discourse.

Footnote 174:

_In this they agree with those who were formerly called Macedonians, from Macidonius, bishop of Constantinople, who lived about the middle of the fourth century, who entertained such sentiments of the Holy Ghost, and had a considerable party that adhered to him, who were also called Pneumatomachi._

Footnote 175:

_See page 249, 250._

Footnote 176:

_See Woltzogen, and other Socinian writers_, in loc. _and Dr. Clarke’s Scripture-doctrine, page 13. where he inserts this among those scriptures; in all which he supposes that the word_ God _is applied to the Father_.

Footnote 177:

_See page 358._

Footnote 178:

_Several of the Post Nicene Fathers have taken the words_, καθαπερ απο του πνευματος, _in the same sense as by the Lord, the Spirit; and, in particular, Basil. de Spirit. Sanct. ad Amphiloc. Cap. 21. & Chrysost. in loc._

Footnote 179:

_See page 249, 250, 251._

Footnote 180:

_See page 359, 360._

Footnote 181:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture-doctrine, page 198._

Footnote 182:

_See Quest._ lix. lxvii. lxxii. lxxv.

Quest. XII., XIII.

QUEST. XII. _What are the decrees of God?_

ANSW. God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will; whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass in time; especially concerning angels and men.

QUEST. XIII. _What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men?_

ANSW. God, by an eternal and immutable decree out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory, and, in Christ, hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof; and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will (whereby he extendeth, or with-holdeth favour, as he pleaseth) hath passed by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.