A LETTER WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1730, CONCERNING THE QUESTION, Whether the LOGOS fupplied the Place of an human TO WHICH ARE NOW ADDED TWO POSTSCRIPTS: The First, containing an Explication of thofe Words, The Second, containing Remarks upon the third Part Search the Scriptures. For in them ye think ye have eternal Life. Ergo nec Parentum, nec Majorum Error fequendus eft: fed Auto- By NATHANIEL LARDNER, D.D. LONDON: PRINTED IN THE YEAR MDCCXCIII. THE PREFACE. THOUGH the names in this Letter are fictitious, (as they always were, and the fame that appear now) it is part of a real correfpondence. Papinian, who was a man of mature age, of great eminence, and a diligent reader of the facred fcrip→ tures, has long fince accomplished his course in this world. Philalethes is ftill living. The letter, fent to Papinian, was never returned. But Philalethes kept a copy of it. Though written almost thirty years ago, it has hitherto lain concealed in the writer's cabinet. Nor has it, 'till very lately, been fhewn to more than two perfons, one of whom is deceased. Whether this will be reckoned full proof, that the writer is not forward to engage in religious disputes, I cannot fay. This however is certain: He would have great reason to think himself happy, if, with the affiftance of others, without noife and disturbance, in the way of free, calm, and peaceable debate, he could clear up a controverted point of religion, to general fatisfaction. If any should afk, Why is this letter published now? I would answer in the words of Solomon: There is a time to keep filence, and a time to speak. But whether the present season has been fitly chofen, the event, under the conduct of Divine Providence, will beft fhew. The reader is defired to take notice, that whatever he fees at the bottom of the pages, is additional. There are alfo fome additions in the letter itself, efpecially near the end, where more texts are explained, than were in the original letter. For better understanding the argument, it may be needful to obferve, for the fake of some, that by divers ancient writers we are affured, it was the opinion of Arius, and his followers: "That [1] our Saviour took flesh of Mary, but not a foul:” “that [2] Chrift [1] σαρκα μόνον τον σωτηρα απο μαριας ειληφεναι, διαCeCareers at x Jux. Epiph. de Arianis in Indic. T. i. p. 606. Αλλά και αρνενται ψυχην αυτον ανθρωπινην ειληφέναι. Ιd. H. 69. n. 19. p. 743• A Conf. n. 48. . 51. [2] Αρειος δὲ σαρκα μονην προς αποκρυφην της θεότητος ομο λογει· αντι δε τα ενωθεν εν ημιν ανθρωπο, τότες» της ψυχης, του λογον εν τη σαρκι λεγει γεγονέναι. x. λ. Athan. Contr. Apollin. 1. 2. n. 3. p. 942. C. In eo autem quod Chriftum fine anima folam carnem fufcepiffe arbitrantur, minus noti funt . . . fed hoc verum effe, et Epiphanius non tacuit, et ego ex eorum quibufdam fcriptis et collocutionibus certiffime inven. Auguft. de Haer. c. 49. Christ had flesh only, as a covering for his Deity: and that the Word in him was the fame, as the foul in us: and that the Word, or the Deity in Christ, was liable to sufferings in the body." Mr. Whifton, in his Hiftorical Memoirs of the Lif of Dr. Clarke, giving an account of the Act in the Divinity Schools at Cambridge, in the year 1709, when Mr. Clarke, then Rector of St. James's, received the Doctor's Degree, fays, at p. 20. 21. "In the courfe of this Act, where I was present, Profeffor James digreffed from one of the Doctor's Questions, and preffed him hard to condemn one of the opinions, which I had just then published in my Sermons and Effays. Which book he held in his hand, when he was in the Chair. I fuppofe, it might be this: that our Saviour had no human foul, but that the Divine Logos, or Word, fupplied it's place. . . . . However, Dr. Clarke, who, I believe, had not particularly examined that point, did prudently avoid either the approbation or condemnation of it. Yet have I reafon to believe, he long afterwards came into it, upon a farther examination: though, I think, he ever avoided, according to his usual caution, to declare publicly that his approbation, even upon the most preffing applications. Which is one great inftance of that impenetrable fecrecy, which Dr. Sykes juftly notes to have been in him, upon many occafions." |