[164]. See page [322], [323]. ante.
[165]. See Dr. Waterland’s defence of the divinity of Christ, serm. iv. pag. 127. & seq. where he proves, that the exclusive terms of One, only, &c. do not except the Son, so as to deny him to have the same Godhead with the Father: this he proves from several scriptures, viz. Mat. xi. 27. No one knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor any one the Father, save the Son; it does not follow from hence, that the Father does not know himself nor the Son himself: and when it is said, in 1 Cor. ii. 11. The things of God knoweth no one, but the Spirit of God; this does not exclude the Son, for that would contradict the scripture but now mentioned; no more than the Son’s only knowing the Father excludes the Holy Ghost, which would be contrary to this scripture; so in Rev. xix. 12. it is said, that the Son had a name written which no one knew but he himself: none ever thought that the Father was excluded by this exclusive term; so when God the Father saith, in Isa. xliv. 24. I am he that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself: this would contradict many other scriptures, which speak of the Son as the Creator of all things, if he were to be excluded by it. Again, when the Psalmist saith, concerning the Father, in Psal. lxxxiii. 18. that his name alone is Jehovah, we must set aside all those scriptures in which our Saviour is called Jehovah, if he is contained in this exclusive term. See more to this purpose in the said sermon, in which this argument is managed with a great deal of judgment. I shall only take leave farther to cite what is well observed in page 33. “That, perhaps the word God in those places, namely, such in which there are these exclusive terms, is to be understood in the indefinite sense, abstracting from the particular consideration of this or that person, in like manner as the word man often stands not for any particular human person, but the whole species, or human nature; as when we say, man is frail; man is mortal, or the like.”
[166]. Τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου. Beza speaks of two or three of the most ancient copies in which this reading is found; and Grotius also adheres to it, from the credit, as he says, of the most ancient and correct copies; and it is also observed, that the vulgar Latin version renders it so; and Augustin read it so in the copy that he made use of: and whereas the evangelists, Mark and Luke, read it, Why callest thou me good, he endeavours to reconcile this different reading therewith as supposing there was a seeming contradiction between them which he might better have done, by referring to some copies which had it, as we read it, why callest thou me good; from whence, it is probable, he saw none that so rendered it in his time. Vid. Agust. de Consensu. Evan. lib. ii. cap. 63. It is also thus translated in the ancient Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew.
[167]. “If Dr. Priestley, in his celebrated efforts to establish the Unitarianism of the primitive church against Dr. Horsley, fell so short of ‘complete victory;’ it may be presumed, that the failure would, in some degree, affect his greater work, The History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ. Many parts of that elaborate performance are merely a republication of the Letters, excluding the personalities. Their merits and their fate must, therefore, be closely, interwoven.
“This large and capital work was given to the world under circumstances which appeared very promising for bringing the controversy to a satisfactory issue. With great and long continued diligence the indefatigable author collected his materials. He digested and arranged them, with that lucid perspicuity for which he was so justly distinguished. He tried every method to call forth into the field of preparatory discussion, some learned and able Trinitarians and Arians. He waited for some years after the publication of the work; and then renewed his public challenge, affording an additional period for the fate of the question. It was, of course, implied, and the obligation was frankly avowed by the Doctor; that he would in proper time duly notice what any fair and candid opponents should produce.
“It is to be lamented, however that the expectations thus excited have not been completely answered; and the decease of Dr. Priestly excludes every hope that they will be so.
“Early in the year 1790, a mild and amiable writer, Dr. Williams,[[168]] addressed to Dr. Priestley his objections to the whole structure of the argument built on the History of Early Opinions. He offered reasons to shew, that the appeal to the fathers was a method calculated to increase difficulties, and to render the controversy almost interminable; that it has been experimentally proved an insufficient mode of argument; that it has been long ago solidly refuted;[[169]] that it was plainly reprehended by Jesus Christ; that it is highly untheological in its just consequences; and that it is illogical and inconclusive. This letter breathed the sincere spirit of amicable controversy; and I cannot but think that it deserved the very candid and serious attention of your learned friend. But I believe it was never noticed in any other way than that of private compliment.
“In 1794, Dr. Jamieson published a professed and minute examination of the History of Early Opinions. This elaborate and learned work was the very performance which Dr. Priestley had so long desired and challenged. It surely, then, had a just claim on his particular and public notice. At the time of this work’s appearance, Dr. Priestley was occupied in the important measure of emigration to America. But when that step was accomplished, he enjoyed, for the remaining years of life, a calm and undisturbed retreat. We have, however, yet to be informed of the reason why his former pledge was not fulfilled.
“As the controversy has been thus left open, it cannot be deemed illiberal in me to mention the result of personal observation in reading this large work of Dr. Priestley’s. I am the more inclined to do so, since what I have remarked may be of use in answering a question of some importance; What degree of reliance can be placed on Dr. Priestley’s care and accuracy in his citations of the fathers?
“You, Sir, are well aware of the importance which Dr. Priestley attaches to the position, that the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ were acknowledged by the orthodox fathers to have been most cautiously concealed, in the earlier preaching of the apostles, and not to have been clearly divulged, till John taught them at the close of the apostolic age.