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.
Having considered the perfections of the divine nature, and the Personal
glories of the Father, Son, and Spirit, the next thing to be insisted on
is, what God has purposed to do from eternity, or does, or will do, in
pursuance thereof; the former we call his decrees; the latter, the
execution of them. The object of his decree is whatever comes to pass,
which is the most large and comprehensive sense of his purpose: but
whereas his determinations, in a particular manner, respect angels and
men, or the intelligent part of the creation, and more especially the
eternal happiness of some, or the display of his righteous judgments
against others; in these respects, they being taken in a more limited
sense, are called as relating to the former, election, and, with respect
to the latter, reprobation, which is the subject matter of these two
answers. And, before we proceed to insist on this sublime and difficult
subject, it may not be inexpedient for us to premise some things
concerning it in general.
1. It is well known that there is no doctrine, contained in scripture,
which is more contested than this, which lies before us; and it is not
only denied by some, but treated with the utmost dislike or detestation,
and that to such a degree, that we must either wholly forbear to mention
it in public discourses, or writings, or else must be liable to the hard
fate of being censured by those who will not do that justice to the
argument, to consider what may be advanced in defence thereof, as though
it were to be taken for granted that we are maintaining a doctrine that
is not only indefensible, but injurious to mankind, and subversive of
all religion.
2. If there be any who give just occasion to these prejudices, by the
methods which they have used in explaining, as well as the weakness of
their arguments in defending it, or by laying themselves open to those
popular objections, which are usually brought against it, we cannot but
conclude that they are highly to blame; and therefore we are far from
approving of any unguarded expressions, which are to be met with in some
writings, whereby a stumbling-block is laid in the way of those who are
disposed to make men offenders for a word, rather than to judge
impartially of the main drift of their discourse: it is to be owned,
that this has done dis-service to the cause, which might have been
better defended.
3. If these prejudices against this doctrine are ill grounded, and the
objections only founded on the popular cry, by which it is endeavoured
to be run down, and condemned with reproach and censure; and if persons
know not, nor desire to know what may be said in defence thereof, how
such-like objections may be answered; the disgust and opposition is both
unreasonable and uncharitable, and contains a capricious resolution not
to be undeceived, and consequently renders the person thus prejudiced,
highly culpable in the sight of God, especially if there be any ground
to conclude that his cause is therein maintained.
4. Let it be farther considered, that it is not a new doctrine, or such
as was altogether unheard of in the world before; nor has it been only
defended by the more ignorant or licentious part of mankind, or those
who have been bold and presumptuous in affirming that for truth, which
they had not duly weighed, or been convinced of, from the strongest
evidence. Whether it be as ancient as scripture, and, indeed, founded
upon it, we shall leave others to judge, when we have considered what
may be said from it in defence thereof.
5. It was generally asserted, and publicly owned in most of the
confessions of faith of the reformed churches in the last age, and, in
particular, in the church of England, as contained in one of the
articles thereof, and there is no apparent ambiguity in the words
themselves, however, some have endeavoured, of late, to strain the sense
thereof, and put such a meaning on them, as is very different from the
writings of those who compiled them, which might serve as a comment on
them.
And to this we may add, that it was maintained by far the greatest
number of divines, in their public discourses and writings in the last
century, how much soever the contrary doctrines are maintained at this
day: however, we do not insist on this as a proof of the truth thereof,
as though it needed to be supported by numbers of advocates for it, or
were founded thereon; nor do we suppose, that when it has been most
strenuously, and almost universally defended, there were not at the same
time, others who opposed it. This I only mention, that I may, if
possible, remove those prejudices that are inconsistent with persons
judging impartially of it.
Since we are considering the head of prejudices against this doctrine,
we think it necessary to add, that we shall endeavour to vindicate it,
from the reproach that is generally cast on it, by those who suppose
that it cannot be defended, without asserting God to be the author of
sin, or supposing him to be severe, cruel, and unjust to his creatures,
as some conclude we represent him to be, by unjust consequences deduced
from it. We are far from asserting, as will hereafter appear, that God
from all eternity, purposed to damn a great part of the world, as the
result of his mere sovereign will, without the foresight of sin, which
would render them liable to that condemnation.
Moreover, we shall endeavour to make it appear, in opposition to the
calumnies of some, that the decree of God does not destroy, or take
away, the liberty of man’s will, with respect to things, within its own
sphere; or that considered in itself, it doth not lay a natural
necessity on him, to rush into inevitable damnation, as though the
destruction of sinners were only to be resolved into the divine purpose,
and not their own wickedness. In considering which, we shall maintain,
that the decree of God does not lay any force on the will of man, nor
preclude the means of grace, as ordained by him, for the salvation of
them that do, or shall hereafter, believe unto life everlasting; nor
does it obstruct the preaching of the gospel, and therein proclaiming
the glad tidings of salvation, to those who set under the sound thereof,
as an ordinance for their faith.
And inasmuch as many are prejudiced against this doctrine, as being
influenced by that popular out-cry, which is made by some, as though it
were of a very pernicious tendency, either, on the one hand, to lead men
to presumption, as giving occasion to persons to conclude that they may
be saved as being elected though they live as they list; or, on the
other hand, that it leads to despair, as supposing, that if there be
such a decree, as that of reprobation, they must necessarily be included
in it, and, by this means, instead of promoting holiness of life, it is
inconsistent therewith: if we cannot maintain this doctrine, without
giving just ground for such exceptions, we shall not only think our
labour lost, but condemn it as pernicious and unscriptural, as much as
they do, as it must of necessity be, if it cannot be defended from
such-like exceptions; which, I hope, we shall be able to do, and at the
same time, make it appear, that it is not only consistent with, but a
very great motive and inducement to practical godliness: and, if this
can be made to appear, the greatest part of the censorious prejudices,
that are entertained against it, will be removed, and persons will be
better able to judge whether truth lies on that side of the question,
which we shall endeavour to defend, or the contrary.