Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

'N ADONIM is the plural form of 1178 ADON, a Governor. "If I be Adonim, masters, where is my fear?" Mal. i. 6. Many other instances might be given, as "Remember thy Creators in the days of thy youth." "The knowledge of the Holy Ones is understanding." "There be higher than they." Heb. High ones; and in Daniel, "The Watchers and the Holy ones."

Other plural forms of speech also occur when the one true God only is spoken of. "And God said, let us make man in our own image, after our likeness." "And the LORD GOD said, Behold the man is become like one of us." "And the LORD said, let us go down." "Because there GoD appeared to him." Heb. " God they appeared," the verb being plural. These instances need not be multiplied: they are the common forms of speech in the sacred Scriptures, which no criticism has been able to resolve into mere idioms, and which only the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the unity of the Godhead can satisfactorily explain. If they were mere idioms, they could not have been misunderstood by those to whom the Hebrew tongue was native, to imply plurality; but of this we have sufficient evidence, which shall be adduced when we speak of the faith of the Jewish church. They have been acknowledged to form a striking singularity in the Hebrew language, even by those who have objected to the conclusion drawn from them; and the question, therefore, has been to find an hypothesis which should account for a peculiarity which is found in no other language with the same circumstances.(9)

fully to unfold; yet, were these plural titles and forms of construction blotted out, the evidence of a plurality of Divine persons in the Godhead would still remain in its strongest form. For that evidence is not merely that God has revealed himself under plural appellations, nor that these are constructed with sometimes singular and sometimes plural forms of speech; but that three persons, and three persons only are spoken of in the Scriptures under Divine titles, each having the peculiar attributes of Divinity ascribed to him; and yet that the first and leading principle of the same book, which speaks thus of the character and works of these persons, should be, that there is but ONE God. This point being once established, it may be asked, which of the hypotheses, the Orthodox, the Arian, or the Socinian, agrees best with this plain and explicit doctrine of Holy Writ. Plain and explicit, I say; not as to the mode of the Divine existence, not as to the comprehension of it, but as to this particular, that the doctrine itself is plainly stated in the Scriptures.

Let this point, then, be examined, and it will be seen even that the very number three has this pre-eminence; that the application of these names and powers is restrained to it, and never strays beyond it; and that those who confide in the testimony of God rather than in the opinions of men, have sufficient Scriptural reason to distinguish their faith from the unbelief of others by avowing themselves Trinitarians.(1)

The solemn form of benediction, in which the Jewish high-priests were commanded to bless the children of Israel, has in it this peculiar indication, and singularly answers to the form of benediction so general in the close of the apostolic Epistles, and which so appropriately closes the solemn services of Christian worship. It is given in Numbers vi. 24-27.

Jehovah bless thee and keep thee:

Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

Jehovah lift his countenance upon thee, and give

thee peace.

If the three members of this form of benediction be attentively considered, they will be found to agree respectively to the three persons taken in the usual order of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father is the author of blessing and preservation; illumination and grace are from the Son; illumination and peace from the Spirit, the Teacher of truth, and the Comforter.(2)

Some have supposed angels to be associated with God when these plural forms occur. For this there is no foundation in the texts themselves, and it is besides a manifest absurdity. Others, that the style of royalty was adopted, which is refuted by two considerations that Almighty God in other instances speaks in the singular, and not in the plural number; and that this was not the style of the sovereigns of the earth, when Moses or any of the sacred penmen composed their writings; no instance of it being found in any of the inspired books. A third opinion is, that the plural form of speaking of God was adopted by the Hebrews from their ancestors, who were polytheists, and that the ancient theological term was retained after the unity of God was acknowledged. This assumes what is totally without proof, that the ancestors of the Hebrews were polytheists; and could that be made out, it would leave it still to be accounted for, why other names of the Deity, equally ancient for any thing that appears to the "The first member of the formula expresses the becontrary, are not also plural, and especially the high nevolent 'love of God; the father of mercies, and founname of Jehovah; and why, more particularly the very tain of all good: the second well comports with the appellation in question, Aleim, should have a singular redeeming and reconciling 'grace of our Lord Jesus form also,, in the same language. The gramma-solation, and joy, which are received from the commuChrist; and the last is appropriate to the purity, contical reasons which have been offered are equally unsatisfactory. If, then, no hypothesis explains this penion of the Holy Spirit. "(3) culiarity, but that which concludes it to indicate that mode of the Divine existence which was expressed in later theology by the phrase, a Trinity of Persons, the inference is too powerful to be easily resisted, that these plural forms must be considered as intended to intimate the plurality of persons in essential connexion with one supreme and adorable Deity.

This argument, however, taken alone, powerful as it has often been justly deemed, does not contain the strength of the case. For natural as it is to expect, presuming this to be the mode of the Divine existence, that some of his names, which, according to the expressive and simple character of the Hebrew language, are descriptions of realities, and that some of the modes of expression adopted even in the earliest revelations, should carry some intimation of a fact, which, as essentially connected with redemption, the future complete revelation of the redeeming scheme was intended

(9) The argument for the Trinity drawn from the plural appellations given to God in the Hebrew Scriptures, was opposed by the younger Buxtorf; who yet admits that this argument should not altogether be rejected among Christians; "for upon the same principle on which not a few of the Jews refer this emphatical application of the plural number to a plurality of powers or of influences, or of operations, that is, ad extra; why may we not refer it ad intra, to a plurality of persons and to personal works? Yea, who certainly knows what that was which the ancient Jews understood by this plurality of powers and faculties ?"

form of benediction with the Jehovah mentioned three The connexion of certain specific blessings in this flowing from the Father, Son, and Spirit in the apostolic times distinctly, and those which are represented as form, would be a singular coincidence, if it even stood alone; but the light of the same eminent truth, though not yet fully revealed, breaks forth from other partings of the clouds of the early morning of revelation.

the Holy of Holies, that is, the holy place of the Holy
The inner part of the Jewish sanctuary was called
Ones; and the number of these is indicated and limited
to three, in the celebrated vision of Isaiah, and that with
great explicitness. The scene of that vision is the holy
and residence of the Holy Ones, here celebrated by the
place of the Temple, and lies therefore in the very abode
seraphs who veiled their faces before them. And one
cried unto another, and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the
be eluded by saying, that this act of divine adoration
Lord of Hosts." This passage, if it stood alone, might
here mentioned is merely emphatic, or, in the Hebrew
mode of expressing it, a superlative; though that is
assumed, and by no means proved. It is, however,
worthy of serious notice, that this distinct trine act of
adoration, which has been so often supposed to mark a
plurality of persons as the objects of it, is answered by
a voice from that excellent glory which overwhelmed
the mind of the prophet when he was favoured with

second century.
(1) The word тpias, trinitas, came into use in the

(2) Vide JONES's Catholic Doctrine.
(3) SMITH'S Person of Christ.

captiously make objections; and because it would scarcely be fair to adduce it as a proof unless the arguments on each side were exhibited, which would lead to discussions which lie beside the design of this work, and more properly have their place in separate and distinct treatises. The recent revival of the inquiry into the genuineness of this text, however, shows that the point is far from being critically settled against the passage, as a true portion of Holy Writ, and the argument from the context is altogether in favour of those who advocate it, the hiatus in the sense never having been satisfactorily supplied by those who reject it. This is of more weight in arguments of this kind than is often allowed. As to the doctrine of the text, it has elsewhere abundant proof. It has now been shown, that while the Unity of God is to be considered a fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures, laid down with the utmost solemnity, and guarded with the utmost care, by precepts, by threatenings, by promises, by tremendous punishments of polytheism and idolatry among the Jews, the very names of God, as given in the revelation made of himself, have plural forms and are connected with plural modes of speech; that other indications of plurality are given in various parts of Holy Writ; and that this plurality is restricted to

the vision, responding in the same language of plurality | ranks of the orthodox, and among those who do not in which the doxology of the seraphs is expressed. "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send? and who will go for us?" But this is not the only evidence, that in this passage, the Holy Ones, who were addressed each by his appropriate and equal designation of holy, were the three divine subsistences in the Godhead. The being addressed is the "Lord of Hosts." This all acknowledge to include the Father; but the Evangelist John, xii. 41, in manifest reference to this transaction, observes, "These things said Esaias, when he saw his (Christ's) glory and spake of him." In this vision, therefore, we have the Son also, whose glory on this occasion the prophet is said to have beheld. Acts xxviii. 25, determines that there was also the presence of the Holy Ghost. "Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people and say, Hearing ye shall hear and not understand, and seeing ye shall see and not perceive," &c. These words, quoted from Isaiah, the Apostle Paul declares to have been spoken by the Holy Ghost, and Isaiah declares them to have been spoken on this very occasion by the "Lord of Hosts." "And he said, go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed and understand not, and see ye indeed but perceive not,'" &c. Now let all these circumstances be placed together-three. On those texts, however, which in their terms deTHE PLACE, the holy place of the holy ones; the repeti- note a plurality and a trinity, the proof does not wholly or tion of the homage, THREE times, Holy, Holy, Holy- chiefly rest, and they have been only adduced as introducthe ONE Jehovah of hosts, to whom it was addressed, tory to instances too numerous to be all examined, in -the plural pronoun used by this ONE Jehovah, us; which two distinct persons are spoken of, sometimes conthe declaration of an Evangelist, that on this occasion nectedly and sometimes separately, as associated with Isaiah saw the glory of CHRIST; the declaration of St. God in his perfections and incommunicable glories, and Paul, that the Lord of Hosts who spoke on that occa- as performing works of unequivocal Divine majesty and sion was the HOLY GHOST; and the conclusion will not infinite power, and thus together manifesting that triappear to be without most powerful authority, both cir-unity of the Godhead which the true Church has in all cumstantial and declaratory, that the adoration, Holy, ages adored and magnified. This is the great proof upon Holy, Holy, referred to the Divine Three, in the one es- which the doctrine rests. The first of these two persons sence of the Lord of Hosts. Accordingly, in the book of is the Son, the second the Spirit. Of the former, it will be Revelations, where "the Lamb" is so constantly repre- observed that the titles of Jehovah, Lord, God, King, King sented as sitting upon the divine throne, and where he of Israel, Redeemer, Saviour, and other names of God, by name is associated with the Father, as the object of are ascribed to him,-that he is invested with the attrithe equal homage and praise of saints and angels; this butes of Eternity, Omnipotence, Ubiquity, Infinite Wisscene from Isaiah is transferred into the 4th Chapter, dom, Holiness, Goodness, &c.,-that he was the Leader, and the "living creatures," the Seraphim of the Prophet, the visible King, and the object of the worship of the are heard in the same strain, and with the same trine Jews,-that he forms the great subject of prophecy, and repetition, saying, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Al- is spoken of in the predictions of the prophets in lanmighty, which was, and is, and is to come." Isaiah guage, which if applied to men or to angels would by xlviii. 16, also makes this threefold distinction and limit- the Jews have been considered not as sacred but idolaation. "And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath trous, and which, therefore, except that it agreed with sent me." The words are manifestly spoken by Mes- their ancient faith, would totally have destroyed the siah, who declares himself sent by the Lord God, and by credit of those writings,-that he is eminently known his Spirit. Some render it, hath sent me and his Spirit, both in the Old Testament and in the New, as the Son the latter term being also in the accusative case. This of God, an appellative which is sufficiently proved to strengthens the application, by bringing the phrase have been considered as implying an assumption of Dinearer to that so often used by our Lord in his discourses, vinity by the circumstance that, for asserting it, our who speaks of himself and the Spirit being sent by the Lord was condemned to die as a blasphemer by the Father. "The Father which sent me-the Comforter Jewish Sanhedrim,-that he became incarnate in our whom I will send unto you from the Father, who pro- nature,-wrought miracles by his own original power, ceedeth from the Father." Isaiah xxxiv. 16, "Seek ye and not, as his servants, in the name of another, that out of the Book of the Lord, and read, for my mouth it he authoritatively forgave sin,-that for the sake of hath commanded, and HIS SPIRIT it hath gathered his sacrifice sin is forgiven to the end of the world, them." "Here is one person speaking of the Spirit, and for the sake of that alone, that he rose from another person."(2) Hag. ii. 5. 7, "I am with you, saith the dead to seal all these pretensions to Divinity,the Lord of Hosts, according to the word that I cove- that he is seated upon the throne of the universe, all nanted with you when you came out of Egypt, so my power being given to him in heaven and in earth, that Spirit remaineth among you; fear ye not. For thus his inspired apostles exhibit him as the Creator of all saith the Lord of Hosts, I will shake all nations, and the things visible and invisible; as the true God and the desire of all nations shall come." Here also we have eternal life; as the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the three persons distinctly mentioned; the Lord of Hosts, only wise God and our Saviour,-that they offer to him his Spirit, and the Desire of all nations. the highest worship,-that they trust in him, and command all others to trust in him for eternal life,-that he is the head over all things,-that angels worship him and render him service, that he will raise the dead at the last day,-judge the secrets of men's hearts, and finally determine the everlasting state of the righteous and the wicked.

Many other passages might be given, in which there is this change of persons, sometimes enumerating two, sometimes three, but never more than three, arrayed in these eminent and Divine characters. The passages in the New Testament are familiar to every one: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost," with others in which the sacred three, and three only, are thus collocated as objects of equal trust and honour, and equally the fountain and the source of grace and benediction.

On the celebrated passage in 1 John v. 7, "There are three that bear record in heaven," I say nothing, because authorities against its genuineness are found in the

(2) Jones on the Trinity.

This is the outline of Scriptural testimony as to the Son. As to the Divine character of the Spirit, it is equally explicit. He too is called Jehovah; Jehovah of Hosts; God. Eternity, omnipotence, ubiquity, infinite wisdom, and other attributes of Deity, are ascribed to him. He is introduced as an agent in the work of the creation, and to him is ascribed the conservation of all living beings. He is the source of the inspiration of Prophets and Apostles; the object of worship; the efficient agent in illuminating, comforting, and sanctifying the souls of men. He makes intercession for the

saints; quickens the dead, and, finally, he is associated | one to the exclusion of the others. The true Scripwith the Father and the Son, in the form of baptism into the one name of God, and in the apostolic form of benediction, as, equally with them, the source and fountain of grace and blessedness. These decisive points I shall proceed to establish by the express declarations of various passages, both of the Old and New Testament. When that is done, the argument will then be, that as on the one hand the doctrine of Scripture is, that there is but one God; and, on the other, that throughout both Testaments, three persons are, in un-ing, the one living and true God. "Jehovah, our equivocal language, and by unequivocal circumstances, declared to be Divine; the only conclusion which can harmonize these otherwise opposite, contradictory, and most misleading propositions and declarations is, that the THREE PERSONS ARE ONE GOD.

In the prevalent faith of the Christian Church, neither of these views is for a moment lost sight of. Thus it exactly harmonizes with the Scriptures, nor can it be charged with greater mystery than is assignable to them. The Trinity is asserted, but the Unity is not obscured; the Unity is confessed, but without denial of the Trinity. No figures of speech, no unnatural modes of interpretation are resorted to, to reconcile these views with human conceptions, which they must infinitely transcend. This is the character of the heresies which have arisen on this subject. They all spring from the attempt to make this mystery of God conceivable by the human mind, and less a stone of stumbling to the pride of reason. Ou the contrary, "the faith of God's elect," as imbodied in the creeds and confessions of all truly evangelical churches, follow the example of the Scriptures in entirely overlooking these low considerations, and "declaring the thing as it is," with all its mystery and incomprehensibleness, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness. It declares "that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God."(3) Or, as it is well expressed by an eminent modern, as great a master of reason and science as he was of theology, "There is one Divine Nature or Essence, common unto three persons incomprehensibly united, and ineffably distinguished; united in essential attributes, distinguished by peculiar idioms and relations; all equally infinite in every Divine perfection, each different from the other in order and manner of subsistence; that there is a mutual existence of one in all, and all in one; a communication without any deprivation or diminution in the communicant; an eternal generation, and an eternal procession without precedence or succession, without proper causality or dependence; a Father imparting his own, and a Son receiving his Father's life, and a Spirit issuing from both, without any division or multiplication of essence. These are notions which may well puzzle our reason in conceiving how they agree; but ought not to stagger our faith in asserting that they are true; for if the Holy Scripture teacheth us plainly, and frequently doth inculcate upon us that there is but one true God; if it as manifestly doth ascribe to the three persons of the blessed Trinity, the same august names, the same peculiar characters, the same Divine attributes, the same superlatively admirable operations of creation and providence; if it also doth prescribe to them the same supreme honours, services, praises, and acknowledgments to be paid to them all; this may be abundantly enough to satisfy our minds, to stop our mouths, to smother all doubt and dispute about this high and holy mystery."(4)

One observation more, before we proceed to the Scriptural evidence of the positions above laid down, shall close this chapter. The proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, I have said, grounds itself on the firm foundation of the Divine Unity, and it closes with it; and this may set the true believer at rest, when he is assailed by the sophistical enemies of his faith with the charge of dividing his regards, as he directs his prayers to one or other of the three persons of the Godhead. For the time at least, he is said to honour

(3) Athanasian Creed.

(4) Dr. BARROW's Defence of the Trinity.

tural doctrine of the Unity of God will remove this objection. It is not the Socinian notion of unity. Theirs is the unity of one, ours the unity of three. We do not, however, as they seem to suppose, think the Divine Essence divisible, and participated by, and shared among, three persons; but wholly and undividedly possessed and enjoyed. Whether, therefore, we address our prayers and adorations to the Father, Sou, or Holy Ghost, we address the same adorable BeAleim, is one Jehovah." With reference to the relations which each person bears to us in the redeeming economy, our approaches to the Father are to be made through the mediation of the Son, and by, or with dependence upon, the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Yet, as the authority of the New Testament shows, this does not preclude direct prayer to Christ and to the Holy Spirit, and direct ascriptions of glory and honour to each. In all this we glorify the one "God over all, blessed for evermore."

CHAPTER X.

TRINITY.-Pre-existence of Christ.

By establishing, on Scriptural authority, the pre-existence of our Lord, we take the first step in the demonstration of his absolute Divinity. His pre-existence, indeed, simply considered, does not evince his Godhead, and is not, therefore, a proof against the Arian hypothesis; but it destroys the Socinian notion, that he was a man only. For since no one contends for the pre-existence of human souls, and if they did, the doctrine would be refuted by their own consciousness, it is clear, that if Christ existed before his incarnation, he is not a mere man, whatever his nature, by other arguments, may be proved to be.

This point has been felt to press so heavily upon the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ, that both ancient and modern Socinians have bent against it all those arts of interpretation which, more than any thing else, show both the hopelessness of their cause, and the pertinacity with which they cling to oft and easily refuted error. I shall dwell a little on this point, because it will introduce some instances in illustration of the peculiar character of the Socinian mode of perverting the Scriptures.

The existence of our Lord prior to his incarnation might be forcibly argued from the declarations that he was "sent into the world;" that "he came in the flesh;" that "he took part of flesh and blood;" that he was "found in 'fashion as a man ;" and other similar phrases. These are modes of speech which are used of no other person; which are never adopted to express the natural birth, and the commencement of the existence of ordinary men; and which Socinianism, therefore, leaves without a reason, and without an explanation, when used of Christ. But arguments drawn from these phrases are rendered wholly unnecessary, by the frequent occurrence of passages which explicitly declare his pre-existence, and by which the ingenuity of unsubmissive criticism has been always foiled; the interpretations given, being too forced, and too unsupported, either by the common rules of criticism or by the idioms of language, to produce the least impression upon any, not previously disposed to torture the word of God in order to make it subservient to an error.

The first of these proofs of the pre-existence of Christ is from the testimony of the Baptist, John i. 15, "He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me;" or, as it is in verse 30, "After me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he was before me."

The Socinian exposition is, "The Christ, who is to begin his ministry after me, has, by the Divine appointment, been preferred before me, because he is my chief or principal." Thus they interpret the last clause, "for he was before me," in the sense of dignity, and not of time, though St. John uses the same word to denote priority of time, in several places of his Gospel. "If the world hate you, you know that it hated me before it hated you;" and ch. i. 41; viii. 7; xx. 4-8. If they take the phrase in the second clause, εppoεV 8 yeyover in the sense of "preferred," then, by their

it is totally inapplicable to the text in question, and is in fact directly refuted by it.

mode of rendering the last clause, as Bishop Pearson
has observed, "a thing is made the reason of itself,
which is a great absurdity and a vain tautology."-
"He is preferred before me, because he is my chief;""
whereas by taking wowros us in the sense of time, a
reason for this preference is given. There is, how-
ever, another rendering of the second clause, which
makes the passage still more impracticable in the sense
of the Socinians. Eurроσ0εv is never in the Septua-
gint or in the New Testament used for dignity or rank;
but refers either to place or time, and if taken in the
sense of time, the rendering will be, "He that cometh
after me was before me ;" and or, in the next clause,
signifying "certainly," "truly,"(5) the last clause
will be made emphatical, "certainly, he was before
me," and is to be considered, not as giving a reason for
the sentiment in the preceding clause, or as tautolo-
gical, but as explanatory and impressive; a mode of
speaking exceedingly natural when so great a doctrine
and so high a mystery was to be declared, that he who
was born after John, was yet, in point of existence, be-
fore him;-" certainly, he was before me." This ren-
dering of the second clause is adopted by several emi-
nent critics; but whether this, or the common version
be preferred, the verb in the last clause he was before
me, sufficiently fixes poros in the sense of priority of
time. Had it referred to the rank and dignity of Christ,
it would not have been "he WAS," but "he is before
me,” επι not ην.

But the principle is false, and it may be denied, that to ascend into heaven" is a Hebrew phrase to express the knowledge of high and mysterious things. So utterly does this pretence fail, that not one of the passages they adduce in proof can be taken in any other than its literal meaning; and they are therefore, as are others, directly against them. Deut. xxx. 11, is first adduced. "Who shall go up for us into heaven, and bring it unto us?" This, we are told, we must take figuratively; but then, unhappily for them, it is also immediately subjoined, "neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go over the sea for us?" If the ascent into heaven in the first clause is to be taken figuratively, then the going beyond the sea, cannot be taken literally, and we shall still want a figurative interpretation for this part of the declaration of Moses respecting the law, which will not so easily be furnished. The same observation is applicable to Romans x. 6, in which there is an adaptation of the passage in Deuteronomy to the gospel. "Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down from above," &c., words which have no meaning unless place be literally understood, and which show that the Apostle, a sufficient judge of Hebrew modes of expression, understood, in its literal sense, the passage in Deuteronomy. A second passage to which they trust is Prov. xxx. 4, "Who hath ascended and The passages which express that Christ came down descended," but if what immediately follows be added, from heaven are next to be considered. He styles "who hath gathered the winds in his fists, who hath himself "the bread of God which cometh down from bound the waters in a garment," &c., it will be seen heaven. The living bread which came down from that the passage has no reference to the acquisition of heaven. He that cometh from above is above all; he knowledge by a servant of God, but expresses the vathat is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the rious operations in nature carried on by God himself, earth; he that cometh from heaven is above all;" and " Who hath done this? What is his name, and what in his discourse with Nicodemus, "No man hath as-is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" cended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." In what manner are declarations so plain and unequivocal to be eluded, and by what arts are they to be interpreted, into nothing? This shall be considered. Socinus and his early disciples, in order to account for these phrases, supposed that Christ, between the time of his birth and entrance upon his office, was translated into heaven, and there remained some time, that he might see and hear those things which he was to publish in the world. This hypothesis, however, only proves the difficulty or rather the impossibility of interpreting these passages, so as to turn away their hostile aspect from the errors of man. It is supported by no passage of Scripture, by no tradition, by no reason in the nature of the thing, or in the discourse. The modern Socinians, therefore, finding the position of their elder brethren untenable, resolve the whole into figure, the most convenient method of evading the difficulty, and tell us, that as we should naturally say, that a person who would become acquainted with the secret purposes of God, must ascend to heaven to converse with him, and return to make them known, so our Lord's words do not necessarily imply a literal ascent and descent, but merely this, "that he alone was admitted to an intimate knowledge of the Divine will, and was commissioned to reveal it to men."(6)

In Baruch iii. 29, it is asked of Wisdom, "Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds?" but it is here also added, "Or who hath gone over the sea for her?" Wisdom is, in this passage, clearly personified; a place of habitation is assigned her, which is to be sought out by those who would attain her. This apocryphal text, therefore, gives no countenance to the mystical notion of ascending into heaven, advanced by Socinian expositors. If they then utterly fail to establish their forced and unnatural sense of ascending into heaven, let us examine whether they are more successful in establishing their opinion as to the meaning of "coming down from heaven." This, they say, means "to be commissioned to reveal the will of God to men ;"(8) but if so, the phrases, " to ascend up into heaven," and "to come down from thence," which are manifestly opposed to each other, lose all their opposition in the interpretation, which is sufficient to show, that it is, as to both, entirely gratuitous, arbitrary, and contradictory. For, as Dr. Magee has acutely remarked, "it is observed by the Editors of the Unitarian Version, and enforced with much emphasis by Mr. Belsham and Dr. Carpenter, that to ascend into heaven' signifies 'to become acquainted with the truths of God,' and that consequently the correlative' to this (the opposite they should have said), to 'descend from heaven' must mean 'to bring and to discover those truths to the world.' Imp. Vers. p. 208, Calm Inq. p. 48. Now, allowing those gentlemen all they wish to establish as to the first clause,-that to go up into heaven means to learn and become acquainted with the counsels of God,their own principles? Plainly this, that to come down from heaven, being precisely the opposite of the former, must mean to unlearn or to lose the knowledge of those counsels: so that, so far from bringing and discovering those counsels to mankind, our Lord must have disqualified himself from bringing any. Had indeed ASCENDING into heaven' meant BRINGING the truth (any where) FROM men,' then 'DESCENDING from heaven' might justly be said to mean 'BRINGING it back to men.' Whatever, in short, ASCENDING may be supposed to signify in any figure, DESCENDING must signify the opposite, if the figure be abided by: And therefore, if to ASCEND be to learn, to DESCEND must be to unlearn."(9)

In the passages quoted above, as declarations of the pre-existence of Christ, it will be seen, that there are two phrases to be accounted for,-ascending into heaven-and coming down from heaven. The former is said to mean the being admitted to an intimate know-what must follow then, if they reasoned justly upon ledge of the Divine counsels. But if this were the sense, it could not be true that "no man" had thus ascended, but "the Son of man ;" since Moses and all the prophets in succession had been admitted to "an intimate knowledge of the Divine counsels," and had been "commissioned" to reveal them. It is nothing to say that our Lord's acquaintance with the Divine counsels was more deep and comprehensive. The case is not stated comparatively, but exclusively, "No man hath ascended into heaven, but the Son of man;" no man, but himself, had been in heaven.(7) Allowing therefore the principle of the Socinian gloss,

(5) SCHLEUSNER sub voce. (6) BELSHAM's Calm Inq.

(7) "No man, except myself, ever was in heaven."PEARCE.

(8) BELSHAM's Calm Inquiry.
(9) Discourses on the Atonement.

It is farther fatal to this opinion, that "if to come from heaven; to descend from heaven," &c., signify receiving a divine commission to teach; or, more simply, to communicate truth after it has been learned, it is never used with reference to Moses, or to any of the Prophets or divinely appointed instruments who, from time to time, were raised up among the Jews. We may therefore conclude, that the meaning attached to these phrases by Socinian writers of the present day, who, in this respect as in many others, have ventured a step beyond their predecessors who never denied their literal acceptation, was unknown among the Jews, and is a mere subterfuge to escape from the plain testimony of Holy Writ on a point so fatal to their scheme.

The next passage which may be quoted as expressing, in unequivocal terms, the pre-existence of Christ, occurs John vi. 62, and is, if possible, still more out of the reach of that kind of criticism which has just been exhibited. The occasion, too, fixes the sense beyond all perversion. Our Lord had told the Jews, that he was the bread of life, which came down from heaven. This the Jews understood literally, and therefore asked, "Is not this the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know, how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" "His disciples too so understood his words, for they also "murmured." But our Lord, so far from removing that impression, so far from giving them the most distant hint of a mode of meeting the difficulty like that resorted to by Socinian writers, strengthens the assertion, and makes his profession a stumbling-block still more formidable, Doth this offend you?" referring to what he had just said, that he had descended from heaven, "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up WHERE HE WAS BEFORE." Language cannot be more explicit; though Mr. Belsham has ventured to tell us that this means, "What if I go farther out of your reach, and become more perplexing and mysterious!" And, indeed, perplexing and mysterious enough would be the words both of Christ and his apostles, if they required such criticisms for their elucidation.

The phrase to be "sent from God," they think they sufficiently avert, by urging that it is said of the Baptist," There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." This, they urge, clearly evinces," that to come from God is to be commissioned by him. If Jesus was sent from God, so was John the Baptist; if the former came down from heaven, so did the latter." This reasoning must be allowed to be fallacious, if it can be shown that it contradicts other Scriptures. Now our Lord says, John vi. 46, "No one hath seen the Father, save he who is from God, he, oOUTOS, hath seen the Father;" namely, this one person, for it is singular and no one else hath seen the Father. Therefore, if Christ was that person, as will not be disputed, John could not be sent from God," in the same manner that Christ was. What does the Baptist say of himself? Does he confirm the Socinian gloss? Speaking of Christ and of himself he says, " He that cometh from above is above all; he that is of the earth is earthly, he that cometh from heaven is above all," John iii. 31. Here John contrasts his earthly origin with Christ's heavenly origin. Christ is " from above;" John from "the earth," εK TNSYNS. Christ is "above all," which he could not he, if every other prophet came in like manner from heaven, and from above; and therefore if John was" sent from God," it cannot be in the same sense that Christ was sent from him, which is enough to silence the objection.(1) Thus, says Dr. Nares, "we have nothing but the positive contradictions of the Unitarian party, to prove to us that Christ did not come from heaven, though he says of himself he did come from heaven; and though he declares he had seen the Father, he had not seen the Father; that though he assures us, that he, in a most peculiar and singular manner came forth from God (Ek Ts Oεy εnλOεv, a strong and singular expression), he came from him no otherwise than like the prophets of old, and his own immediate forerunner."(2)

Several other equally striking passages might claim our attention; but it will be sufficient for the argument, to close it with two.

"Before Abraham was, I am," John viii. 58. Whe

(1) HOLDEN'S Scripture Testimonies.
(2) Remarks on the Imp. Version.

ther the verb "I am," may be understood to be equivalent to the incommunicable name Jehovah, shall be considered in another place. The obvious sense of the passage at least is, "Before Abraham was, or was born, I was in existence." Abraham, the patriarch, was the person spoken of; for the Jews having said, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?" our Lord declares, with his peculiarly solemn mode of introduction, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." I had priority of existence, " together with a continuation of it to the present time."(3) Nor did the Jews mistake his meaning, but being filled with indignation at so manifest a claim of divinity," they took up stones to stone him."

How then do the Socinians dispose of this passage? The two hypotheses on which they have rested, for one would not suffice, are, first," That Christ existed before the patriarch Abraham had become, according to the import of his name, the Father of many nations, that is, before the Gentiles were called;" which was as true of the Jews who were discoursing with him as of himself. The second is, "before Abraham was born I am he, i. e. the Christ, in the destination and appointment of God;" which also was saying nothing peculiar of Christ; since the existence and the part which every one of his hearers was to act, were as much in the destination and appointment of God as his own. Both these absurdities are well exposed by Bishop Pear

son:

"The first interpretation makes our Saviour thus to speak: Do ye so much wonder how I should have seen Abraham who am not yet fifty years old? Do ye imagine so great a contradiction in this? I tell you, and be ye most assured, that what I speak unto you at this time is most certainly and infallibly true, and most worthy of your observation, which moves me not to deliver it without this solemm asseveration (Verily, verily, I say unto you), before Abraham shall perfectly become that which was signified in his name, the father of many nations, before the Gentiles shall come in, I am. Nor be ye troubled at this answer, or think in this I magnify myself; for what I speak is as true of you yourselves as it is of me: before Abram be thus made Abraham, ye are. Doubt ye not, therefore, as ye did, nor ever make that question again, whether I have seen Abraham.”

"The second explication makes a sense of another nature, but with the same impertinency: Do ye continue still to question, and with so much admiration do ye look upon my age and ask, Hast thou seen Abraham? I confess it is more than eighteen hundred years since that patriarch died, and less than forty since I was born at Bethlehem: but look not on this computation, for before Abraham was born I was. But mistake me not, I mean that I was in the foreknowledge and decree of God. Nor do I magnify myself in this, for ye also were so. How either of these answers should give any reasonable satisfaction to the question, or the least occasion of the Jews' exasperation, is not to be understood. And that our Saviour should speak of any such impertinencies as these interpretations bring forth, is not by a Christian to be conceived. Wherefore, as the plain and most obvious sense is a proper and full answer to the question, and most likely to exasperate the unbelieving Jaws; as those strained explications render the words of Christ not only impertinent to the occasion, but vain and useless to the hearers of them; as our Saviour gave this answer in words of another language, most probaby incapable of any such interpretations: we must adhere unto that literal sense already delivered, by which it appeareth Christ had a being, as before John, so also before Abraham, and consequently by that he did exist two thousand years before he was born, or conceived by the virgin."(4)

The observations of Whitaker on this decisive passage, are in his usual energetic manner:

"Your father Abraham," says our Saviour to the Jews," rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad." Our Saviour thus proposes himself to his countrymen, as their Messiah; that grand object of hope and desire to their fathers, and particularly to this first father of the faithful, Abraham. But his countrymen, not acknowledging his claim to the character of Mes

(3) PEARSON on the Creed. (4) Exposition of the Creed.

« AnteriorContinuar »