86

But he proceeds with them on grounds which they could not deny. While they believed that Jefus was a man, they could not refufe that he had the most extraordinary atteftations. Therefore he fays; ""Ye men of Ifrael, hear "these words; Jefus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and figns, which "God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves alfo "know; him being delivered,-ye have taken, and by "wicked hands have crucified and flain; whom God hath "raised up." It is remarkable that, in all the places where we have met with this paffage, as quoted by our author, he does not once give the twenty fecond verfe fully. He generally throws out these words, which mark the true defign of the apoftle, as containing his appeal to the knowledge of the Jews themselves. He calls Jefus a man, just as he calls him Jefus of Nazareth; in both cafes, accommodating his language to their apprehenfions. From the mode of expreffion, there is no more reafon to infer that he accounted Jefus a mere man, than that he confidered Nazareth as the place of his nativity, because he uses that phrafeology which was common with the Jews, on this false fuppofition.

He fays that Jefus was approved of God. But this phrase does not convey the full or proper meaning of aπededary

Evov. It is, pointed out in the plaineft manner, fet forth of demonftrated by God to, or among you, (1 Cor. iv. 9.). Had the apostle meant, as he is understood by Socinians, to affure his hearers that Jefus was a mere man, he would have expreffed himself very differently. He does not, in this place, particularly specify what Jefus was demonftrated to be. He either leaves a blank, which he was afterwards to fill up in the progrefs of his discourse; or infinuates that the wonderful works, performed by him, moft clearly, proved his title to all that honour which they knew he

had

had claimed, and for claiming which, they had condemned him, that of being the proper Son of God.

If

The infpired hiftorian Mofes calls those three men, Gen. xviii. 2. to none of whom this character really belonged. For, two of them were angels, and the other was JEHOVAH. Why, then, does he call them men? Because they appeared as fuch; and becaufe Abraham, at firft, confidered them in no other light. In the fame fenfe, he who wrestled with Jacob is called a man, Gen. xxxii. 24. although he had power to bless him, ver. 26. 29. and was truly God. these might be called men, who had nothing more than the appearance of human nature; much more he, of whom it is granted that he was truly man. If JEHOVAH himself might receive this defignation, because he affumed merely the likeness of our nature; it can be no argument against his being God, of whom it is believed that he affumed this nature in reality. Indeed, both Mofes and Peter speak of the fame glorious Perfon.

The apoftle's addrefs is a ftriking example of the argument ad hominem. It is as if he had faid, "To confider "Jefus merely as he appeared to you in human nature, you "cannot deny that he was a great and extraordinary per"fon, and that he had the highest atteftation possible. "Therefore, when you crucified him, it must have been "with wicked bands." His faying that God did these things by him, is no proof that he confidered Jesus as a mere man. For though the works which our Saviour performed, in all their circumstances, were a full demonstration of his Deity; yet the particular relation in which he performed them, was that of a fervant. Dr P. can derive no advantage from this language, unless he beg the question. For the warmest friend of the Deity of Chrift affents to the words in their proper meaning, as truly as he. There was the greatest propriety in saying, that God did these things by him,

because

because the Jews had impiously afcribed his most illustrious works to Belzebub..

But it cannot be proved that the affertion, that God did these things by him, as man, excludes his divinity. For all the fulness of the godhead dwells in him bodily. The human nature of Chrift was the medium of the manifeftation of divine power. It is univerfally allowed by the orthodox, that our Saviour, even in his exalted state, received and receives gifts in the man, Pfal. lxviii. 18. God alfo raised him up. But can our author prove that this general defignation of the Deity excludes God the Son? Did he not declare that he had power to lay down his life, and to take it again?

Little as Athanafius, according to our author's teftimony, could find in favour of the divinity of Christ in the apostle's discourse, he found fomething even here. For, explaining this verfe, he fays; "From thefe figns and mi"racles which the Lord did, he was demonstrated to be, "not a mere man, but God incarnate *." I am not sure, but the language might be properly rendered, which God in the midft of you did by him; as expreffive of that antitypical dwelling as in a tabernacle, of that real incarnation of a divine Perfon, fo long and fo frequently promised to the church, in terms precisely of the fame import. It deferves our notice, that the promise in Joel, which the apoftle illuftrates as the fubject of his difcourfe, is immediately preceded by another, expreffive of God's dwelling in the midst of his church, chap. ii. 27†.

Those conclufions, to which the mind is necessarily led, as the refult of its own principles, or of its previous convictions and operations, have peculiar energy. Here were many.

* Απο γαρ των σημείων και ων εποίει θαυμασιων ο Κύριος, απεδεια χθη εχι απλώς ανθρωπος, αλλα Θεος ων εν σώματι. Contra Arianos Orat. iii. Opera, vol. i. p. 383.

See alfo chap. iii. 17.

A little after he says concerning the language of Peter; "When he spoke these things, he was by no means filent "with respect to the eternal and paternal deity of the "Son; as he had already observed, that he had bed forth "the Spirit on us. But to bestow the Spirit in a fovereign 66 manner, is not the work of a creature, but the preroga"tive of God *." In another place, he observes even concerning

1

αυτον ειναι, αφ' ων εποίησε σημείων και τεράτων, εικοτως ημίν διαμα χεσθεί -και παλιν, αφειλεν ο ΘεΘ-, το δε και τοιαυτα σημεία που ησαι αυτον, οια γεγονε, δεικνυσι, Θεον ειναι τον εν σωματι" και αυτον είναι την ζωην, και Κύριον τε θανατε.επειδη εκ ηθέλησαμεν δια το λογο αυτό επιγνώναι τον Θεον, και δέλευσαι τω φύσει δεσποτη τ μων τω λόγω τε Θε8, ηυδικησεν ο Θεθ, εν ανθρώπω δείξαι την εαυτε κυριότητα και παντας έλκυσαι προς εαυτον δι' ανθρωπε δε ψιλε τε το ποιησαι απρεπές ην ίνα μη ανθρωπον Κυριον έχοντες, άνθρωπο λατραι γενομέθα· δια τότε ο λόγος σαρξ εγένετο και εκαλεσε το όνομα αυτό Ιησουν, και ούτως εποιησεν αυτόν Κύριον και Χρισον ο Πατης— ιν' εν το ονόματι Ιησού, ον ύμεις εσαυρώσατε, ωσπερ παν γονυ καμε πτει, ουτως και Κυριον και βασιλεα αυτον τε τον υιον επιγινώσκωμεν, και δι' αυτό τον πατερα. Ιουδαίων μεν ουν οι πλείσοι ταύτα ακόοντες, ενετράπησαν και λοιπον επέγνωσαν τον Χρισον. Ibid. p. 386, 387.With the fame propriety may we infer from this pal fage, that, according to Athanafius, there Jews did not acknowledge the Chrift for a confiderable time after they were converted, as it is inferred from the other, that, in the opinion of this Father, the Apostles did not divulge the doctrine of the divinity of Jefus for a confiderable time after explaining the doctrine of the Messiah. If, in the one cafe, he means that they confefled Chrift immediately upon their converfion, the fame intimate connexion must be meant in the other. For λοιπον is the term ufed in both places. If there be any difference, it is in favour of the other place. For there Athanafius also introduces vs.

Και γαρ ταύτα λέγων, εκ εσιοπησε περί κης θεότητος τε υικο αλλα και προειρηκως ην

της αιδία και πατρι οτι το πνεύμα εξέχει

concerning these words, Jefus, a man declared by God in the midft of you, ver. 22. "What is faid by the bleffed Peter "proclaims the right and fincere doctrine of the Deity of "the only-begotten, not separating the perfon of God the "Word from the man born of the Virgin +."

From these paffages let the reader judge, if Dr P. can reasonably persist in asserting that in the opinion of Athanafius, neither the apostles preached, nor the primitive Chriftians believed the divinity of our Saviour.

The Doctor, with the fame defign, adds a variety of pas fages from the writings of Chryfoftom and other fathers who lived in later ages. But it would ferve no good purpofe to follow him through this labyrinth. Although it were unquestionably true, that all the fathers, whom he has quoted, were perfuaded that the apoftles were cautious in divulging the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift, because of the prejudices of believing Jews, would we thence be under a neceffity of concluding that the primitive church was ignorant of the Deity of Chrift, or that the apostles never preached this doctrine? The confequence would, indeed, be neceffary, were the opinions of the fathers the rule of our faith. But, bleffed be God, we have the fcriptures of truth: and we are as much bound to fearch them for ourselves, as they were. If we find this precious doctrine in the oracles of God; it does not concern us, what was the opinion of pious, but fallible men. As far as circumftances correfpond, the divine Spirit speaks as directly T 3

εφ' ημας· το δε μετ' εξεσίας διδοναι το πνεύμα, ο κτισματα, ποιήματος εςιν αλλα Θία δωρον. Ibid. p. 388.

to

oude

+ Το τοινυν λεγομενον υπο τα μακαριο Πέτρο, ορθην και ειλικρινή ти Узотита μονογενους κηρύσσει 8 την υποςασιν χωρίζων τα Θεου Moys ATO TE EX Magias andeway. Contra Arianos Oratio V. Op. vol. i. p. 546.