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:
“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.