ARTICLE II OF THE WORD, OR SON OF GOD, WHICH WAS THE Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men. 1. This Article, if we were to attempt to treat it fully, would carry us too far, considering that we are not to fix our attention upon any one Article, so as to neglect the rest. The volumes, which have been written upon the Doctrine contained in this second, are innumerable. Our business must therefore be to select such considerations as seem most essential, and belong most immediately to us. In order to do this, we may observe, 1. That what has been said under the preceding Article, need not be repeated under this;—and the Doctrine of the Trinity is so intimately connected with our present Doctrine, that many things have been been said already, which might have been now said with at least equal propriety. 2. That every thing relating to the last clause of this Article, which affirms, that Christ was a victim both for original and actual sin, may properly be omitted till we have gone through the ninth Article: especially as it will have a place under the eleventh. 3. That we may leave the minuter parts of Controversy to those, who make the Doctrine of this Article their sole object, and content ourselves with more general views of the matters, on which disputes are apt to turn. Our plan may nevertheless be the same as in the preceding Article. First, to take an historical view of our subject. Secondly, to give an explanation (which will be chiefly historical) of the expressions of the Article. Thirdly, to prove the truth of the propositions contained in it. And, lastly, to make an Application of the whole to the present situation of things. First then, we are to take an historical view of the Doctrine contained in the second Article of our Church: first, of the Orthodox Doctrine; afterwards, of the deviations from it. The Jews seem to have had some notion of a Son of God before the Christian æra, and to have applied the term Aóyos to him; as also to have, in some way, connected their ideas of their expected Messiah with the same Personage.-It is scarcely to be expected, that their notions should be found definite and distinct, as they had not distinct information, but only obscure intimations: if they only afford a sufficient apology for St. John's mentioning the Word so seldom as he does, that will, I presume, -- a * Four times; or however in only four different verses. John i. 1.-John i. 14.- 1 John v. 7.- Rev. xix. 13. Abp. Tillotson talks of St. John's frequent mention of the Word; he must mean his repetition in John i. 1. surely? I presume, be deemed sufficient;-and for his giving a title to so sublime a character without any preparation, or explanation.-If he addressed himself to those, to whom his term was familiar, he had no need to explain it. Whence we collect what were the notions of the Jews, has been already" shewn. That what I have affirmed is true, must appear from consulting a number of passages in the most ancient Jewish writings; I will therefore content myself with referring to those writers, who have collected such passages; only I will read some of them to those, who may not happen to have the Books in which they are contained. d There are some passages, especially of the Old Testament, which mention the Word of God, so as to give me no idea of that Word's being a Person; and the same of the Breath or Spirit of God: Lardner seems to speak of these, as if there were no others; but there are some passages of the ancient Jews, which I can understand only as making the Word a Person. These may be seen in Allir, before referred to. It must be confessed, that the Jews, in our Saviour's time, when they came to fact and practice, seem to have not been much influenced, at one time, by these habitual notions, received by tradition; they seem to have given themselves up to the Art. i. Sect. 2. Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, might be added. Allix on Unitarians, beginning: p. 2. 102. also Chap. xii. p. 181. Chap. xvi, and xvii. p. 253, and 265. Tillotson, vol. I. Fol. p. 410. Pearson on the Creed, p. 117, Fol. or 233, Quarto. Grotius de Ver. 5. 21. Parkhurst's Gr. Lex. under Λόγος. Psalm xxxiii. 6. Yet those, who were upon the watch for intimations, might consider "Word" as meaning the Son of God; and "breath" as meaning his Holy Spirit. d Works, vol. VI. p. 216. the delusive hopes of being rescued from their state of dependence, by a temporal Prince; but that only proves, that their notions of Logos, and Son of God, as connected with Messiah, were not definite, and distinct, (as was just now allowed) but to be confirmed by facts, like prophecies: and therefore were such as might be set aside, at times, by the force of passion. See Dr. George Campbell's Essay on Kúpios, p. 316; and Waterland's Answer to Dr. Whitby's Reply, p. 51. But we are told, that Jews and Christians have both borrowed notions of Aoyos from Plato :-our answer to this has been already given, under the preceding Article. The opinions of Christians, with regard to the Word, seem to correspond to their several opinions of the Person and dignity of Christ.-Even Dr. Priestley says, "the Word, or Christ," as if he did not disown, that the Word might mean Christ, as Socinus himself supposed; yet he rather follows the more modern Socinian notion, that the Word means only "the Power or Energy of God." -As the word Aóyos may mean either inward reason, or audible speech, two epithets have been added to it, in order to distinguish these senses; Xóyos évStáleTos, or inward reason, has been opposed" to λóyos πроpоρikos, or speech pronounced or set forth; -but using Xóyos in either of these senses, seems to interfere with the Personality of the Word: on which account, I suppose, the Council of Sirmium condemned • Gibbon's Hist. vol. II. Quarto. p. 237, &c. "Verbum vel Filium" Cat. Racov. p. 61. and see Allix, p. 2. See also Lardner's Works, Index Logos: and vol. III. p. 76. vol. VI. p. 215, bottom. h These two sorts of Aoyos are found in the Trinities, Art. i. Sect. 1. condemned both.-"Si quis insitum vel prolativum, verbum Dei, Filium dicat; anathema sit." The orthodox hold the Aoyos and the Son of God to be the same; yet this does not occur in our Creeds. Some writers, as Epiphanius and Philaster, say, there was a sect called Alogians, from their rejecting the Logos, and those parts of Scripture where he is mentioned. Lardner thinks (Her. end) there is not sufficient testimony of the existence of such a sect; it does not in itself seem unlikely; and the evidence is not bad. Indeed, our proper business is now with the orthodox Doctrine; though, that we might not need to return to the History of the Aoyos, I have mentioned some notions of those, who were not orthodox. 2. What was before said of the Doctrine of the Trinity, may be said of that of the Divinity of Christ; which makes a part of it; that it seems, in some sort, to have existed at all times, though not to have been made up into a speculative, systematic form, till it was discussed in controversy. As, in different parts of Scripture, written on different occasions, and in different circumstances, some expressions seem to favour one Doctrine, some another; so it is in the writings of the early Fathers; -and, whilst this was the case, it may either be said, that the Doctrine existed, or that it did not exist; though more properly perhaps, that is, more according to the customary use of words, it might be said not to exist, or at least not to have come to maturity; but then the same may be said of any Doctrine opposed to that of the Divinity of Christ: a C Hilary's Works, p. 1175, 8th Anathema. A. D. 357. b Art. i. Sect. 4. Bingham has collected the orthodox passages. 13. 2. 1, &c. |