Jonathan Edwards · 268 of 409

PART II. Observations concerning the Mysteries of Scripture · Part 5

“Why, therefore, do not these Arians, holding this, reckon themselves amongst the pagans or Gentiles, since they do, in like manner, worship the creature besides the Creator? Greek ” Athanasius’s meaning here, could not well be, that they worshipped the creature more than the Creator; forasmuch as the Arians constantly declared that they gave less worship to the Son than to the Father.

“For though the pagans worship one uncreated and many created gods; but these Arians only one uncreated, and one created, to wit, the Son, or Word of God; yet will not this make any real difference betwixt them; because the Arians’ one created god, is one of those many pagan gods; and these many gods of the pagans or Gentiles have the same nature with this one, they being alike creatures.”

§ 53. It is remarkable, that in so many places, both in the Old Testament and New, when Christ is spoken of, his glory and prerogatives represented, and the respect due to him urged, that the vanity of idols in the same places should be represented, and idolatry warned against. See Psal. xvi. 4. It is manifest, that it is the Messiah that there speaks. See also many prophecies of Isa. and other prophets. 1 John v. 20, 21. 1 Cor. x. 19-22.

“There is not the least intimation, where Christ is styled God, either in the texts themselves, or contexts, that this is to be understood of his office, and not of his person; as is the case where magistrates are styled gods, where the very next words explain it, and tell us what is to be understood by it. And when Moses and angels are called gods, no one who attends to the whole discourse, could easily mistake the meaning, and not see that this term God was there used in an inferior and metaphorical sense.” Letter to the Dedicator of Mr. Emlyn’s Inquiry, &c. p. 7, 8. Matt. xix. 17. “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God.” “Mr. Emlyn affirms it to be evident, that Christ here distinguishes himself from God, and denies of himself what he affirms of God. But the truth of his interpretation entirely depends upon the opinion which the young man had of Christ, who received this answer from him.” Ibid. p. 17, 18.

§ 54. That Christ had divine omniscience, appears from his own words; Rev. ii. 23. “And all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the hearts and the reins.” Now Solomon declares, 1 Kings viii. 39. “Thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men.” And Jer. xvii. 10. God says, “I, the Lord, search the heart; I try the reins.” And Christ does not say, The churches shall know that I search the reins and the heart; but that “I am he,” &c. which, if words have any force in them, yea, if the expression is not altogether unintelligible, implies, ” I am he who is distinguished by this character; or the churches shall know that I am the God who searcheth,” &c. Ibid. p. 43, 44.

§ 55. That the eternal Logos should be subordinate to the Father, though not inferior in nature; yea, that Christ, in his office, should be subject to the Father, and less than he, though in his higher nature not inferior, is not strange. It is proper, among mankind, that a son should be subordinate to his father, yea, subject in many respects, though of the same human nature; yea, though in no respect inferior in any natural qualification. It was proper that Solomon should be under David his father, and be appointed king by him, and receive charges and directions from him, though, even then, in his youth, probably not inferior to his father.

The disciples of Christ, or those that trusted in him, when here on earth, applied to him as trusting in his ability, not only to heal all diseases of the body, and to raise the dead; but as leaving their souls in his hands, and being able to heal the diseases of their minds; as being the author and fountain of virtue. So Luke xvii. 5. “The apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.” So the father of the demoniac, Mark ix. 24. “Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief.”

§ 56. It is a good argument for Christ’s divinity, that he is to be the author of the resurrection. The atoms and particles in one little finger, are capable of so many removes, and such dispersions, that I believe it would surpass any finite understanding, at two or three thousand years’ end, to tell what distinct particles of the universe belonged to it. It would require a vast strength and subtlety of mind, to trace but one atom so nicely, as to know that individual atom in the universe, after so long a time; after it had been a particle of air, water, oil, or animal spirit, &c. and had been transported with prodigious swiftness from place to place, backwards and forwards, millions of times, amongst innumerable others of the same kind. Especially, would it be exceeding difficult, so narrowly to watch two of such at once. If so, what would it be, to follow every atom in a man’s body; yea, of all the bodies that ever have died, or shall die? And, at the same time, to have the mind exercised with full vigour upon innumerable other matters, that require an equal strength of understanding? and all this with such ease, that it shall be no labour to the mind?

§ 57. God would not have given us any person to be our redeemer, unless he was of divine and absolutely supreme dignity and excellency, or was the supreme God; lest we should be under temptation to pay him too great respect; lest, if he were not the supreme God, we should be under temptation to pay him that respect which is due only to the supreme, and which God, who is a jealous God, will by no means allow to be paid to an inferior being. Men are very liable to be tempted to rate those too highly, from whom they have received great benefits. They are prone to give them that respect and honour, that belongs to God only. Thus, the Gentile world deified and adored such of their kings as did great things for them, and others from whom they received great benefits. So Cornelius was tempted to give too great respect to Peter, he being the person that God had marked out to be his teacher and guide in things pertaining to eternal salvation. So the apostle John could scarce avoid adoring the angel that showed him those visions: he fell down to worship him once and again. Though the first time he had been strictly warned against it; yet the temptation was so great, that he did it again: Rev. xix. 10. xxii. 8. This being a temptation they were so liable to, was greatly disallowed of by God. When Cornelius fell down before Peter, he took him up, saying, Acts x. 26. “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” So, when the people at Lystra were about to offer divine worship to Paul and Barnabas, when they heard of it, they rent their clothes, and ran in among them, crying out, “Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you, that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein;” Acts xiv. 15. And when John was about to adore the angel, how strictly was he warned against it! “See thou do it not,” says he, “for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, that have the testimony of Jesus Christ: worship God. ” And God has always been so careful to guard against it, that he hid the body of Moses, that it might be no temptation to idolatry. But if any thing can be a temptation to give supreme respect and honour to one that is not the Supreme Being, this would be a temptation, viz. to have a person that is not the Supreme Being, to be our redeemer; to have such an one endure such great sufferings out of love to us, and thereby to deliver us from such extreme and eternal misery, and to purchase for us so great and eternal happiness. God therefore, in wisdom, has appointed such a person to be our redeemer, that is of absolutely supreme glory and excellency, that we may be in no danger of loving and adoring him too much; that we may prize him, exalt him for the great things that he has done for us, as much as we will, nay, so far as his love to us, his sufferings for us, and the benefits we receive by him, can tempt us to, without danger of exceeding. Christ has done as great things for us as ever the Father did. His mercy and love have been as great and wonderful; and we receive as much benefit by them, as we do by the love and mercy of the Father. The Father never did greater things for us than to redeem us from hell, and bring us to eternal life. But if Christ had not been a person equal with the Father, and worthy of our equal respect, God would not have so ordered it, that the temptation to love and respect the Son, which results from favours that we have by kindness received, should be equal with the inducements we have to love and respect the Father.

§ 58. I shall offer some reasons against Dr. Watts’s notion of the pre-existence of Christ’s human soul. If the pre-existing soul of Christ created the world, then, doubtless, he upholds and governs it. The same Son of God that did one, does the other. He created all things, and by him all things consist. And if so, how was his dominion confined to the Jewish nation, before his incarnation, but extends to all nations since? Besides, there are many things ascribed in the Old Testament to the Son of God, in those very places, which Dr. Watts himself supposes to speak of him, that imply his government of the whole world, and all nations. The same person that is spoken of as King of Israel, is represented as the Governor of the world.

According to this scheme, the greatest of the works of the Son in his created nature, implying the greatest exaltation, was his first work of all; viz. His creating all things, all worlds, all things visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: and this before ever he had any trial at all of his obedience, &c. At least, this work seems much greater than judging the world at the last day; which the Scripture often speaks of as one of the highest parts of his exaltation, which he has in reward for his obedience and sufferings: and Dr. Watts himself supposes his honours, since his humiliation, to be much greater than before.

§ 59. On this scheme it will follow, that the covenant of redemption was made with a person that was not sui juris, and not at liberty to act his own mere good pleasure, with respect to undertaking to die for sinners; but was obliged to comply, on the first intimation that it would be well pleasing to God, and a thing that he chose.

§ 60. According to that scheme, the man Christ Jesus was not properly the son of the virgin, and so the son of man. To be the son of a woman, is to receive being in both soul and body, in consequence of a conception in her womb. The soul is the principal part of the man; and sonship implies derivation of the soul as well as the body, by conception. Though the soul is no part of the mother, and be immediately given by God, yet that hinders not its being derived by conception; it being consequent on it, according to a law of nature. It is agreeable to a law of nature, that where a perfect human body is conceived in the womb of a woman, and property nourished and increased, a human soul should come into being: and conception may as properly be the cause whence it is derived, as many other natural effects are derived from natural causes or antecedents. For it is the power of God which produces these effects, though it be according to an established law. The soul being so much the principal part of man, a derivation of the soul by conception, is the chief thing implied in a man’s being the son of a woman.

According to what seems to be Dr. Watts’s scheme, the Son of God is no distinct divine person from the Father. So far as he is a divine person, he is the same person with the Father. So that in the covenant of redemption, the Father covenants with himself, and he takes satisfaction of himself, &c. Unless you will say, that one nature covenanted with the other; the two natures in the same person covenanted together, and one nature in the same person took satisfaction of the other nature in the same person. But how does this confound our minds, instead of helping our ideas, or making them more easy and intelligible!

§ 61. The Son of God, as a distinct person, was from eternity. It is said, Micah v. 2. “His goings forth were of old from everlasting.” So Prov. viii. 23. “I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” So he is called, Isa. ix. 6. “The everlasting Father.” I know of no expressions used in Scripture, more strong, to signify the eternity of the Father himself.

Dr. Watts supposes the world to be made by the pre-existent soul of Christ; and thinks it may properly be so said, though the knowledge and power of this pre-existent soul could not extend to the most minute parts, every atom, &c. But it is evidently the design of the Scripture to assure us that Christ made all things whatever, in the absolute universality, John i. 33. “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” Col. i. 16, 17. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by Him all things consist.” Now, if we suppose matter to be infinitely divisible, it will follow, that let his wisdom and power be as great as they will, if finite, but a few of those individual things that are made, were the effects of his power and wisdom: yea, that the number of the things that were made by him, are so few, that they bear no proportion to others, that did not immediately fall under his notice; or that of the things that are made there are ten thousand times, yea infinitely more, not made by him, than are made by him: And so, but infinitely few of their circumstances are ordered by his wisdom.

It is said, Heb. ii. 8. “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.” Here it is represented, that God the Father has put every individual thing under the power and government of another person, distinct from himself. Out this cannot be true of the human soul of Christ, as it must be according to Dr. Watts’s scheme, let the powers of that be never so great, if they are not infinite. For things and circumstances, and dependencies and consequences of things in the world, are infinite in number; and therefore a finite understanding and power cannot extend to them: yea, it can extend to but an infinitely small part of the whole number of individuals, and their circumstances and consequences. Indeed, in order to the disposal of a few things, in their motions and successive changes, to a certain precise issue, there is need of infinite exactness, and so need of infinite power and wisdom.

§ 62. The work of creation, and so the work of upholding all things in being, can, in no sense, be properly said to be the work of any created nature. If the created nature gives forth the word, as Joshua did, when he said, “Sun, stand thou still; ” yet it is not that created nature that does it. That being that depends himself on creating power, does not properly do any thing towards creation, as Joshua did nothing towards stopping the sun in his course. So that it cannot be true in Dr. Watts’s scheme, that that Son of God, who is a distinct person from God the Father, did at all, in any manner of propriety, create the world, nor does he uphold it or govern it. Nor can those things that Christ often says of himself be true: as “The Father worketh hitherto, and I work. ” John v. 17,19. “Whatsoever the Father doth, those doth the Son likewise,” John v. 17, 19.; it being very evident, that the works of creating and upholding and governing the world are ascribed to the Son, as a distinct person from the Father.

§ 63. Not only is the word Elohim in the plural number, but it is joined to a verb of the plural number, in Gen. xx. 13. When God caused me to wander from my father’s house. The word hightnu, caused to wander, is in the plural number. This is agreeable to the use of plural verbs, adjectives, and pronouns, in Gen. i. 26. iii. 22. xi. 7. See other instances in Gen. xxxv. 7. Exod. xxxii. ii. 4. compared with Neh. ix. 18., Isa. xvi. 6.

The very frequent joining of the word Elohim, a word in the plural number, with the word Jehovah, a word in the singular number, (as may be seen in places referred to in the English concordance, under the words, Lord God, Lord his God, Lord my God, Lord our God, Lord their God, Lord thy God, Lord your God,) seems to be a significant indication of the union of several divine persons in one essence. The word Jehovah signifies as much as the word Essence, and is the proper name of God with regard to his self-existent, eternal, all-sufficient, perfect, and immutable Essence. Moses seems to have regard to something remarkable in thus calling Elohim, the plural, so often by the singular name, Jehovah; especially in that remark which he makes for the special observation of God’s people Israel, in Deut. vi. 4. “Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord.” In the original, it is Jehovah Elohenu Jehovah Ehadh; the more proper translation of which is, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. The verb is is understood, and properly inserted between Jehovah Elohenu and Jehovah Ehadh, thus, Jehovah Elohenu is Jehovah Ehadh; which, if most literally translated, is thus, Jehovah Our Divine Persons it one Jehovah; as though Moses, in this remark, had a particular reference to the word Elohim being in the plural number, and would guard the people against imagining from thence that there was a plurality of essences or beings, among whom they were to divide their affections and respect.

A further confirmation, that the name Elohim, when used as the name of the True God, signifies some plurality, is, that this same name is commonly, all over the Hebrew Bible, used to signify the gods of the heathens, when many gods are spoken of. See those places in the Hebrew Bible, which are referred to in the English concordance, under the word gods. In Exod. xx. 2, 3. when it is said in the third verse, ” Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” The word is the same as in the foregoing verse, where it is said, “I am the Lord thy god, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. ” It is Elohim in both verses: I am the Jehovah, thy Elohim: Thou shall have no other Elohim. Yet the latter Elohim is joined with an adjective of the plural number; which seems naturally to lead the children of Israel, to whom God spake these words, to suppose a plurality in the Elohim which brought them out of Egypt, implied in the name Jehovah. Ps. lviii. 11. “Verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth; Elohim Shophetim:” Which literally is, Elohim, judges (in the plural number). See the evident distinction made between Jehovah sending, and Jehovah sent to the people, and dwelling in the midst of them, in Zech. ii. 8, 9, 10, 11. and iv. 8, 9, 11. “For thus saith the Lord of hosts, after the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye.” “For behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me. ” “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. ” “And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee. ” “Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you. ” “Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive-trees upon the right side of the candlestick, and upon the left side thereof? ” Josh. xxiv. 19. “And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve Jehovah; for he is a holy God, Elohim Kedhoshim.” He is the holy Gods. Not only is the word Elohim properly plural, the very same that is used, ver. 15. the gods which your fathers served, &c. but the adjective holy is plural. A plural substantive and adjective are used here concerning the True God, just in the same manner as in 1 Sam. iv. 8. “Who shall deliver us out of the hands of these mighty Gods.” And in Dan. iv. 8. “In whom is the Spirit of the holy Gods.” So ver. 9, 18. and chap. v. 11. That the plural number should thus be used with the epithet Holy, agrees well with the doxology of the angels, ” Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts,” &c. Isa. vi. and Rev. iv.

§ 6.4. It is an argument, that the Jews of old understood that there were several persons in the Godhead, and particularly, that when the cherubim, in the 6th of Isa., cried, ” Holy, holy, holy, Lord of hosts,” they had respect to three persons: that the seventy interpreters, in several places, where the Holy One of Israel is spoken of, use the plural number; as in Isa. xli. 16. “Thou shall glory in the Holy One of Israel;” in the LXX it is, Greek. Isa. lx. 14. “The Zion of the Holy One of Israel;” it is Greek So Jer. li. 5. “Filled with sin against the Holy One of Israel;” Greek