that any Jews, who were believers, had any other idea of our Saviour: excepting those called Ebionites, or some of them, who were extremely mistaken in supposing that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary."

The notion of an inferior Deity, pre-existing, and then incarnate, seems to have been brought into the church by some of the learned converts from heathenism, who had not thoroughly abandoned the principles in which they had been educated. Perhaps, likewise, they hoped by this means to render the doctrine of Christ more palatable to heathen people, especially their philosophers. Moreover

ů Athanasius says, That the Jews at that time being in an error, and 'thinking that the expected Messiah would be a mere man, of the seed of David-for that reason the blessed apostles in great wisdom first instructed ⚫ the Jews in the things concerning our Saviour's humanity.' De Sentent. Dionysii, n. 8. p. 248. C. D.

Chrysostom, at the beginning of his fourth homily upon St. John's gospel, says: The other evangelists having chiefly insisted upon our Saviour's hu'manity, there was danger, lest his eternal generation should have been neg⚫lected by some: and men might have been of the same opinion with Paul of Samosata, if John had not written.' In Joh. hom. 4. tom. VIII. p. 27. A. B. Bened.

In his first homily upon the Acts, he expresseth himself again to this purpose: In the discourses of the apostles recorded in this book, little is said about Christ's divinity. But they discourse chiefly of his humanity, and 'passion, and resurrection, and ascension; because his resurrection and as'cension to heaven were the points necessary to be proved and believed at 'that time.' In Act. Ap. hom. i. t. IX. p. 3. A.

Augustine in one of his sermons says, Peter and the other apostles have written of our Lord, but it is chiefly concerning his humanity.' Again, Peter says little of our Lord's divinity in his epistles,' but John enlarges upon that subject in his gospel: Quoniam Petrus scripsit de Domino, scripserunt et alii: sed scriptura eorum magis circa humanitatem Domini est occupata-Sed de divinitate Christi in literis Petri aliquid [al. non aliquid]: in Evangelio autem Joannis multum eminet. Serm. 253. cap. iv. t. V. And in his Confessions he informs us, that for a great while he was of opinion that Jesus was a most wise and excellent man, miraculously born of a virgin, and sent by God, with a high commission, to give us an example of stedfast virtue, amidst the temptations of this world, and to instruct us in the way how we might obtain everlasting salvation. Ego vero aliud putabam, tantumque sentiebam de Domino Christo meo, quantum de excellentis sapientiæ viro, cui nullus posset æquari: præsertim quia mirabiliter natus ex virgine, ad exemplum contemnendorum temporalium pro adipiscendâ immortalitate, divinâ pro nobis curâ tantam auctoritatem magisterii meruisse videbatur. Conf. 1. 7. c. xix. n. 25. Ego autem aliquanto posterius didicisse me fateor-quomodo catholica veritas a Photini falsitate dirimatur. Ibid. But upon reading the works of some Platonic philosophers, which were put into his hands, he altered his opinion. Et primo volens ostendere mihi-quod Verbum tuum caro factum est, et habitavit inter homines, procurâsti mihi, per quendam hominem immanissimo typho turgidum, quosdam Platonicorum libros ex Græcâ linguâ in Latinam versos: et ibi legi, non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino multis et multiplicibus suaderi rationibus, quod in principio erat Verbum, &c. Ibid. cap. ix. n. 13. vid. et cap. xx. n. 26.

the christians of the second century, and afterwards, were too averse to all Jews in general, and even to the believers from among that people. The apostle Paul had seen a temper of pride and insolence springing up in the Gentile christians, in his own time: or he would not have delivered that caution, which we find in Rom. xi. 17-24.

Thus far I have pursued my own thoughts, without consulting any other writer at all, or very slightly, except in But I all those places where I have expressly said so. along intended, before I finished, to observe a part of what is said by Dr. Clarke in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity; which I have now done. And I cannot forbear saying, that his interpretations of texts are generally false, arising, as from some other causes, so particularly, from an aversion to Sabellian or Socinian senses: some of which may be absurd, and unnatural. But I must prefer Grotius's interpretations upon the comparison, above Dr. Clarke's. So far as I am able to judge, Grotius explains texts better than the professed Socinians. The reason may be, that he had more learning, and particularly was better acquainted with the Jewish style. But I am apt to think, that their later writers have borrowed from him, and improved by him.

However, this is said very much in the way of conjecture. For I must acknowledge that I have not been greatly conversant with the writers of that denomination. I have never read Crellius de uno Deo Patre: though I believe it to be a very good book. There is also, in our own language, a collection of Unitarian Tracts in two or three

▾ I take this breach of communion, correspondence, and communication between the Jewish christians that fled from Jerusalem into the east, and the Gentile christians, (which breach continued till the former were totally destroyed, or dissipated,) to have been a great mismanagement, and the greatest misfortune that ever befel the christian church.-St. Paul laboured with all his might, aim, and study, to keep up union, communion, and friendship, between these two bodies of christians. And he did with great difficulty preserve it in some good measure, as long as he lived.-Epiphanius had some knowledge of those of the Jewish christians, which remained to his time, that is, 370, whom the Gentile christians then called Nazarenes. And he styles them heretics; for no other reason, that I can perceive, but that they, together with their christian faith, continued the use of circumcision, and of the Jewish law. Which is a thing, that St. Paul never blamed in a Jewish christian, though in the Gentile christians he did. Dr. William Wall, in the Preface to his Notes upon the O. T. p. xi. xii.

That is a melancholy observation. Let us endeavour to repair the damage here bewailed, by diligently studying, and resolutely adhering to, the doctrine of Christ's apostles, as contained in the books of the New Testament; wherein, I verily believe, are delivered all the truths of religion, and in sufficient perspicuity, if we will but attend.

quartos. But I am not acquainted with it. Nor can I remember, that I ever looked into it. I have formed my sentiments upon the scriptures, and by reading such Commentators, chiefly, as are in the best repute. I may add, that the reading of the ancient writers of the church has been of use to confirm me, and to assist me in clearing up difficulties.

I observe then, that many of the texts in Dr. Clarke's P. I. chap. ii. sect. 3, concerning the highest titles given to Christ, instead of proving his opinion, are inconsistent with it, and confirm that for which I argue. Yea, they prove it, and agree with no other: such as "the Father is in me, and I in him he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me if ye had known me, ye would have known the Father also: I in the Father, and you in me, and I in you: he that hateth me, hateth my Father also: all things that the Father hath, are mine," &c. &c.

Script. Doct. ch. ii. sect. 3. numb. 616. p. 114, 115, is a quotation from Justin Martyr. The Jews,' saith he, are justly reproved for imagining that the Father of all things 'spake to Moses, when indeed it was the Son of God, who is called the angel and the messenger of the Father.' Again, afterwards, from the same Justin. 'Yet it was not ⚫ God the Creator of the universe, which then said to Moses, that he was "the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, ' and the God of Jacob." "

adan 2

This appears to me very strange, that the Jews should not know who was their God, and delivered the law by Moses. And I cannot help wondering, that any learned men of our times should pay any regard to such observations as these. Is it not better to say, that Justin was mistaken, than that the Jewish people were mistaken in such a thing as this? For Justin was a convert from heathenism, and had been a philosopher, and brought along with him many prejudices, which might hinder his rightly under- ? standing the Old Testament.

12

That God, who spake to Moses, and brought the people of Israel out of Egypt, is the Creator of the universe, is S manifest. Exod. xx. 1, 2, 3, " And God spake all these things, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Ver. 10, 11, “But the seventh day is the sabbath of Jehovah thy God-For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." Is. xl. 27, 28, Why sayest thou, O Jacob, My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?

66

2

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, nor is weary?" See also ch. xlv. 11, 12, and elsewhere.

66

Neither our Saviour, nor his apostles, had any debate with the Jews upon this head: but plainly suppose, that they were right, as to the object of worship. Therefore our Lord says to the woman of Samaria, John iv. 22, “ Ye worship ye know not what. We know what we worship. For salvation is of the Jews." John viii. 54," It is my Father that honoureth me: of whom ye say, that he is your God." Acts iii. 13, "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his Son Jesus." Ver. 30, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree." Are not these texts clear? However, see likewise Matt. xi. 25, John xvii. throughout, and xx. 17, 21, Eph. iii. 14, Heb. i. 1, 2, 1 John iv. 14.

Mark xii. 21, 29, " One of the scribes came, and asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? Jesus answered him: The first of all the commandments is: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord," Deut. vi. 4. Tỏ which the scribe assented. And Mark xii. 34, "When Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him: Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." All which supposeth, that the Jews were not mistaken about the object of worship.

Once more. Our Lord's argument with the Sadducees, in behalf of a resurrection, taken from Ex. iii. 6, and recorded Matt. xxii. Mark xii. Luke xx. supposeth "the God of Abraham," &c. to be the one true God, "who is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

In short, if Justin Martyr be in the right, it is not sufficient to say, that the Jewish people were mistaken: but we must say, that the Old and New Testament, and the sacred penmen of them, and all who speak therein by inspiration, are mistaken.

Unquestionably, God may make use of the ministry of angels, as well as of men. But it is not the messenger who is God: but he, from whom he comes, and in whose name he speaks.

I may show this by an instance or two. Gen. xxii. 15-18," And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said: By myself I have sworn, saith the Lord, that because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thy only son; in bless

ing I will bless thee." Here is mentioned an angel. But he is only God's messenger, and God speaks by him. Of this we are fully assured by an argument in the epistle to the Hebrews, Ch. vi. 13, 14, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying: Surely, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee."

For certain, therefore, this was the oath of God Almighty, the one living and true God, and the Creator of all things. For there was "no greater than he." And that this was the one true God, appears, as from many other texts, so particularly from Ps. cv. where the psalmist gratefully commemorates God's wonderful works, and expressly mentions his mindfulness of "his covenant with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac," ver. 9.

St. Stephen speaks of the Jews having received "the law by the disposition of angels," Acts vii. 54, that is, by their ministration, under God the supreme Lawgiver, who at that time had the attendance of a numerous host of angels, Deut. xxxiii. 1, 2. Comp. Heb. ii. 2. And, says the Psalmist very poetically, Ps. lxviii. 17, " The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of thousands. The Lord is among them, in his holy place, as in Sinai." And see Is. xxxiii. 22.

I must take some other things from the above-mentioned learned writer.

Script. Doct, ch. ii. sect. 3. numb. 576. John iii. 13, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came ' down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in hea"ven." The meaning is explained, ch. i. 18, "No man ' hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, which 'is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." Excellently well, in my opinion. That is the whole of Dr. Clarke's note upon that text.

Script. Doct. n. 580. p. 96. John v. 18, " But said also, that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Here Dr. Clarke speaks to this purpose. 'Assuming to

' himself the power and authority of God. It is the same 'accusation with that other. Ch. x. 33, "We stone thee' for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest 'thyself God." And Mark ii. 7, "Why does this man thus speak blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God only?" 'The Jews, it is evident, did not by these expressions mean 'to charge Jesus with affirming himself to be the supreme, 'self-existent, independent Deity: nay, not so much as with taking upon himself to be a Divine Person at all: but