Origen 3, like the rest, quotes the words, not as part of the New Testament, where there is good reason to think he understood them to be applied to Christ; for in one of the places the course of his argument so applies them, in answer to what Celsus had pleaded against our Saviour's divinity. And as to Eusebius, nothing appears in his comment on that Psalm, to determine the sense to any particular Person in the Godhead more than to another, or exclusive of others. But in his Comment on Psalm xcii. (alias xciii.) he quotes part of Psalm cii. the whole 27th verse, and applies it directly to God the Son, p. 617. He makes the same application, more obscurely, elsewhere, viz. p. 584. of the same Commentary. So I leave this writer to argue now against Eusebius, his great favourite. This instance shews us what little credit is to be given to this man's boastings of the ancients; they "are all," he says, " on his side:" and yet consider the words as they lie in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and he has not so much as one on his side. I shall but just take notice further, that Dr. Waterland has shewn " that Athanasius, Chrysostom, Pseudo-Justin, both Cyrils, Greg. Nyssen, Ambrose, and Austin, who considered the words as St. Paul's words, unanimously understood them of Christ; which is sure a consideration of some weight. JOHN X. 30. This text Dr. Waterland and all other catholic writers judge to favour their notion, that Father and Son are one God. But our author pretends, • Contra Cels. lib. iv. P. 510. lib. vi. p. 679. Bened. edit. Sermons, p. 65. See also Whitby on the place. VOL. II. HORBERY. that this invidious inference, drawn by the Jews, our Saviour confutes, ver. 34, 35, 36. It is scarce possible to maintain a due reverence for the holy Jesus and this imagination together. He was the humblest man on earth, and therefore, if he designed to confute this inference, he should and would have done it in the plainest terms, and rejected the imputation even with abhorrence. Instead of this, he confirms rather than confutes the Jews in their invidious inference; and therefore (ver. 39.) they are again enraged at him, and seek to take him *. All the unity which our author will allow in virtue of this text is an unity of concord and power; but I cannot but think that an unity of power must lead consistent men to believe an unity of nature and substance. And whether Chrysostom's infer ence, mentioned by Dr. Clarke, be an explication of this text, or not, it is with me a maxim of indisputable and almost self-evident truth, that, if the power be the same, it is manifest the essence must be so too. In truth, this writer seems no more to believe an unity of power than an unity of substance; for, continues he, "the same unity which "was between our Saviour and his Father, our "Lord prays may be in his disciples," &c. How are we to understand this? That the Father and Son have the same unity, the unity of power, only as the Father, Son, and disciples have it. If his meaning be pertinent, this is it; and if this be it, it is effectually destroying the unity of power between * See Defence, p. 54, 55. y Scripture Doctrine, p. 107. z See Defence, p. 364, 366, 367; Second Defence, p. 274. Father and Son; for have Father, Son, and disciples the same power? But be his meaning what it will, or none at all, it is needless for me to repeat the answers to his borrowed cavils, which it is kind in him indeed to revive once more, before they are finally hissed off the stage, and buried for ever. Neither shall I concern myself with his quotations from Tertulliana, Origen, Hippolytus, Novatian a, and Alexander of Alexandria; but only desire my readers to remember the last article. What he says, "that the ancient church thought an unity of sub"stance was capable of no other but a Sabellian sense," is false and ridiculous; when it is certain the catholics, in answer to Praxeans, Noetians, and Sabellians, did assert "unity of substance" cleared from Sabellian abuses f. a See Defence, p. 362, 364, 366; Second Defence, p. 97. c Compare Defence, p. 363, 366. He has curtailed Hippolytus, "The Son is one with the Father in power and concord."Here he stopped; but Hippolytus adds, eiç yàp vous natpòs o maïs, "for the Son is the one mind of the Father." d Defence, p. 362, 364. e Defence, p. 363. From which, I suppose, he borrowed this passage of Alexander; for it was not offered, amongst the rest, in his Collection of Queries: so that we have here a notable instance of his fairness; instead of replying to what Dr. Waterland says, with regard to the other Fathers, he only picks up a distinct authority to make a show with on his own side of the question. Besides, in the translation, he takes a mean advantage of an unaccurate expression, in order to convey a false idea to the English reader. Alexander means no more by —τὰς τῇ ὑποστάσει δύο φύσεις, than we now do by two personal subsistences; which is the just rendering, though not so literal as our author's. f See Defence, p. 351, 383, 385, 386. ROMANS ix. 5. He here shews his good inclination to throw the word eos out of the text: but as all the manscripts have it, he is forced to condescend to very low work. Some Latin manuscripts of Cyprian wart it," and it is doubtful whether Cyprian read it in "his copy or not." Good man, what a comfort it would be to him, if he could prove this strong testimony of our Saviour's divinity either spurious or interpolated! "The reason which Dr. Mill gives, that "Cyprian must have had it,-is not a good one." Very decisive, truly! But who is most to be credited, Dr. Mill or this writer? Dr. Mill, it seems, thinks that Cyprian and Tertullian followed the same translation of the scriptures; this writer says he has "carefully compared their citations,” and “they did "not follow the same translation." Be this as it will, Dr. Mill offered stronger reasons from the agreement of ancient manuscripts, and from Cyprian's citing the text to prove that Christ is God. Why then does this gentleman dissemble what was most material? as an instance, I suppose, of his honesty, that we might take his word sooner than that of Dr. Mill. But he has not yet done with Dr. Mill; he corrects him for believing his own eyes rather than Ephræm's, the Syrian writer, concerning the word's being in the Syriac version. Ephræm twice cites the text, he says, and in both places omits the word cós. What then? the Syriac version has it, and Dr. Mill saw it there; and must Ephræm's citations make him judge otherwise than his own eyes convinced him? But our author, I suppose, would suggest, that the word was not in the version in Ephrem's time, for this reason, be cause he twice cites the text without it. But, by his leave, his negative argument is a very poor one: Ephræm, in his prayers to Christ, twice addresses him thus; who art over all, blessed for ever. This can scarce be called properly a direct citation of the text; or, however, he might think it needless to say God, having so styled him before in the same prayers, or as thinking it sufficiently implied in what he did cite. But what fine work may people make with such negative arguments! Thus Woolston will prove that there was no such pool at Jerusalem as Bethesda, because Josephus does not mention it; and the atheist will even prove that there is no God, because he does not strike him dead with lightning. Still Dr. Mill is under his rod: for he "pretends "that Irenæus both read the word Oeds in the text, "and withal alleged it in proof of the divinity of "Christ:" which to be sure must incur our author's displeasure, and therefore it is-" a gross mistake." Irenæus cites the passage in proof of Christ's being the Immanuel of the Old Testament, and consequently in proof of his divinity: for there is but 66 one God of the Old and New Testament with" Irenæus, and this he sometimes expressly affirms to be our Lord Jesus Christ 8. He must try his strength again then, before he can prove any interpolation in Irenæus, or any "gross mistake" in Dr. Mill, with relation to this article. He would next intimate, that the word Oeos has crept into the text in the Synodic Epistle of the Council of Antioch; or, however, if it was there then, that they applied it to God the Father. But all this is mere dream. They read eos, 8 Lib. iii. cap. 16. p. 205. Compare lib. iv. cap. 13. and Mr Alexander's Essay, p. 55, 56. |