Adam unbegotten and Seth begotten were exceedingly alike, and one the express image of the other, notwithstanding so there must be something more than the circumstance before mentioned, to prove a dissimilitude, or inequality d. But this way of prying into what is unsearchable, in order to evade plain Scripture texts, is not treating the Scripture reverently: neither is there any argument in it, any more than in a blind man's reasoning about the nature of colours. A very acute and judicious writer well says, "It is certain we cannot speak of God "with too great moderation. It is better to rest satisfied "with an imperfect knowledge of him, by being content "with general ideas, than to run the hazard of thinking "unworthily of that great Being, by our rashness in pro"ceeding to determinate ideas e." That is to say, by attempting to determine the modus, about which we have properly no ideas; or by turning ideas of pure intellect into ideas of imagination, which is equally absurd. Hitherto we have been considering, whether the Son be another being (by which the author means another God) different from God the Father: which the objector has not proved. 2. We are next to consider whether the Son be inferior, in nature, or perfections, or can be proved to be so from Hebr. i. It is pleaded, that God "appointed him "heir of all things f." Therefore (for that must be the consequence, or none) he is an inferior God. Why then is it not said, that they are two Gods? However, to answer more directly, but withal very briefly; the Son's voluntary condescension neither supposes him inferior, nor makes him so. It is further objected, that since God made the worlds by him, the Father only is efficient, and the Son the instruments. It must be owned, that the Arians, former d See my Answer to Whitby, vol. ii. p. 218, 219. • Crousaz, New Art of Thinking, vol. ii. p. 80. English edit. f Sober and Charitable &c. p. 69. ■ Id. ibid. lyh as well as since, have suggested as much: but it is all fiction and fancy, without support from Scripture, confuted in this very chapter, as we shall see presently. There is no foundation in the text for any such unworthy thought of God the Son. The preposition by proves nothing of it; for it is frequently made use of in Scripture, when the Father himself is the person to whom it is applied. But what room is there for further dispute here upon that head, when the text itself expresses the proper efficiency of God the Son, as fully and clearly as it is possible to be expressed? THOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING HAST LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH; AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF THINE HANDS. This is said of God the Son, who is also Jehovah in the Psalm from whence these words are taken : could there be any words thought on, either plainer or stronger, to express a proper efficiency than those are? And if those are not sufficient to ground our doctrine upon, what can we think of sacred Writ, (with reverence be it spoken,) but as of a book overspread with traps and snares, to deceive the Christian world? It is true, there are tropes, figures, and metaphors in holy Scripture, as when Christ is called a door, a vine, a way, and the like; or when God is said to have eyes, hands, mouth, heart, &c. And, in such cases, every sensible man knows, that a literal construction would be absurd: but in the instance now before us, here is no mark at all of any trope, figure, or metaphor, nor any reasonable objection against interpreting up to the letter. So far from it, that the whole tenor of Scripture confirms us in it, that Christ is Jehovah, and properly Creator: and the worship ascribed to him is another concurring circumstance to complete b Vid. Athanas. Orat. i. p. 430. Orat. ii. p. 498. i Basil. de Spir. Sancto, Opp. tom. iii. c. 5. p. 6, &c. edit. Bened. Taylor's True Script. Doctrine, p. 347. Alexander's Essay on Irenæus, p. 148. Franck's Nucleus, p. 118. Hebr. i. 10. Compare Psalm cii. 25. 1 See my Defence, vol. i. p. 67. Sermons, vol. ii. p. 37. Compare Bull. Judic. Eccl. c. v. s. 8. p. 319. Dr. Knight's Sermons, p. 51, &c. the demonstration. In short then, those Arian salvos come too late the text itself has, in express words, precluded them. The author goes on to object : "Upholding all things, "but by the word of God's power." Dr. Clarke interprets it Father's power: which is a possible, not a certain construction. The text may as probably, or more probably, be understood of the Son's own power. However, be it Father's or Son's, it is all one power, and he and his Father are one. The author m adds, "Seating himself "not in God's throne, but at his right hand "." And what then? Is he not a second Person? But, it seems, that if he had been seated in the same throne, the author would then allow the equality. Turn we therefore to the book of Revelations, and there we find them both in one throne. It is THE THRONE (not thrones) OF GOD AND OF THE LAMB°: and Christ himself declares that he was in his Father's throne P. It is asked, why should angels be called upon to worship him, if he were God equal to the Father?"Can "they be supposed ignorant, if that were the case 9?" To which I reply, that though angels were fully apprised of his high perfection and dignity, yet as to the particular times, places, and circumstances, when, and where, and in what manner, they should pay their homage or devotions, they might wait for special orders. The Father's manifesting his Son to the world was a new and extraordinary occasion: and how should the angels know in what manner they were to behave upon it, without particular direction? They were ordered thereupon to repeat or renew their solemn exercises of devotion towards the Son, now become man, and clothed in flesh: as they had Sober and Charitable &c. p. 69. What the phrase of sitting at God's right hand imports, is very judiciously and carefully discussed by Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. lib. ii. c. 4, 5. • Revel. xxii. 1. Revel. iii. 21. Compare Zechar. vi. 12, 13. and Vitringa, ibid. c. 5. p. 310. 4 Sober and Charitable &c. p. 70, 71. also special directions for celebrating his nativity, or incarnation, in devout doxologies '. It is further pleaded, that the words, GOD, EVEN THY GOD, argue some inferiority of God the Son. Yes, of the Son considered as mans and in his state of humiliation, in which God the Father anointed him with the oil of gladness, with the unction of the Spirit, above his fellows; his partners in the same nature, partakers of the same flesh and blood; on which account "he is not "ashamed to call them brethren "." The author asks, why should not the Apostle roundly assert that Christ was Jehovah, if it were his purpose to set him forth as such? Had he done it ever so roundly, a contentious adversary might still have found fault, and might have required somewhat further. The Apostle has said what is sufficient for the conviction of any reasonable man, by applying what is directed to Jehovah in the Psalm, to God the Son in this chapter. This is saying the thing roundly enough: and we are not obliged to give reasons why he has said no more, if he has said what may suffice with men of ordinary discernment. But I may hint further, that a very probable reason may be assigned why he did not take that precise method which the objector fancies he should have done. It was the Apostle's direct design, as it seems, to prove that the Son was above the angels, in opposition, very probably, to the Simonians or Cerinthians of that time, who attributed the creation of the world to angels, and who looked upon Jesus as a mere man, and as such inferior to angels y. Luke ii. 13, 14. Compare Rev. xii. 11, 12. • Η θεότης οὐ χρίεται, ἀλλ' ἡ ἀνθρωπότης. εἶτα παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου φησί. · τίνες δέ εἰσιν οἱ μέτοχοι, ἀλλ ̓ ἢ οἱ ἄνθρωποι ; τούτεστι τὸ πνεῦμα οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου έλαBevo Xirós. Chrysost. in loc. And so other Greek Fathers, Basil, Theodoret, Theophylact, Ecumenius. * See Dr. Bennet on the Trinity, who explains the text at large, and very justly; excepting that he dislikes the ancient notion of the unction of the Spirit, which yet seems to be the true one, p. 31-35. " Hebr. ii. 11. * Sober and Charitable &c. p. 73. y Vid. Bull. Judic, Eccl. c. v. s. 8. p. 320. Therefore the Apostle chiefly labours these two points, namely, to prove that Christ was really Creatorz, and that he is vastly superior to angels. What he further insinuates of his being Jehovah comes in by the bye: and it would not have been directly to his purpose, to have insisted more particularly upon it because even that would not have proved him (in the opinion of the heretics then prevailing) superior to angels, since they looked upon Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, as no more than angela. However, though I assign a reason, which appears not improbable for the Apostle's saying no more, yet we have a right to insist upon it, that there is no need of assigning any reason at all for his not saying more than was sufficient for every purpose. There is no end of cavils when men are disposed to indulge them. The Jews sought after a sign, but had none more given them, after they had had enough. They demanded that Christ should come down from the cross for their satisfaction: but infinite wisdom would not condescend to satisfy them in their way, when they would not submit to other very sufficient and better evidences. The question therefore is not, whether the Apostle in this place has said all that could have been said, but whether he has said as much as was needful. We conceive that he has; and let those who think otherwise, consider how they can fairly evade the force of what they here find, before they require more. Let them think how it is possible to elude what St. Paul has here said to prove that Christ is Jehovah, though he has proved it only by the bye, and has not largely or directly insisted upon it. I shall only add, that if the point is to be decided by the asking of questions in this way, let leave be given Hebr. i. 2, 10. • Post hunc Cerinthus hæreticus erupit, similia docens : nam et ipse mundum institutum esse ab illis [angelis] dicit: Christum ex semine Joseph natum proponit, hominem illum tantummodo sine divinitate contendens; ipsam quoque legem ab angelis datam perhibens; Judæorum Deum, non Dominum, sed angelum promens. Pseudo-Tertull. Præscript. c. xlviii. Conf. Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. L. |