Court. That, sir, is sufficient. Belsham. With respect to the words of Thomas, on being convinced that our Lord had actually risen from the grave, by seeing and feeling in Jesus, who addressed him, the wounds which had been inflicted on his body at his crucifixion, I have the authority of Beza for saying, that they are “an exclamation;" as if, in his astonishment, he had said, "My Lord, and my God, how great is thy power ! Witness. I do not remember what Beza says; but the impression on my mind is, that he does not go quite to this length. Att. Gen. Here is the volume of Beza on the table; hand it to the witness. Witness. It is as I thought. Beza says, "These words are not merely an exclamation, but an actual address of Thomas to Jesus, calling him, both his Lord, and his God; an indisputable precedent for invoking Christ as the true God." 2 1 Improved Version, John xx. 28. and note. 2 Hæc igitur verba quæ sequuntur non sunt tantum admirantis Thomæ, ut hunc locum eludebant Nestoriani, sed ipsum illum Jesum et verum Deum ac Dominum suum compellantis. Male igitur vulgate interpretatur hic locus, recto casu Dominus meus et Deus meus; nec alius est locus in his libris expressior, de Christo, ut vero Deo invocando. — Beza, quoted by Nares, p. 181. L 4 Belsham. I am still right in saying that Beza called the passage an exclamation. Witness. Yes; but I must be permitted to add, not right nor honest in stopping there, when he said, this is not only an exclamation, but an address to Christ himself; the WORD who was with God, and was God. same way Belsham. This reminds me of another point. I have already said that the expression "the Word was with God," signifies that Jesus was in retirement with God, qualifying for his ministry; in the that it is said of Moses, that "he was there in the mount forty days and forty nights." Now, in further proof that this does not mean, that Jesus was consubstantial with God, I have this unquestionable evidence. St. John says, "There was a man sent from God whose name was John;". a man sent from God! a plain illustration of the former text, and implies that he had been first with God.' This, I think, makes the speculation of the witness to be of no weight. Witness. Let us adopt this reasoning. Then, because John was sent from God, therefore he was first with God, so that John as truly came from heaven as the divine Logos. John was as truly from above, as truly with God from the beginning, as truly came forth from God when he came into 1 Improved Version, John i. 6. and note. the world, as the blessed Jesus. But what says John the Baptist himself? So far from being on any footing of equality with Him, whose forerunner he was appointed to be,-"He that cometh from above," saith he, " is above all. He that is of the earth, is earthly, and speaketh of the earth; he that cometh from heaven, is above all:"-but how above all, if he himself and every other prophet came from heaven, and came from abote in like manner? But what does the Saviour tell us of those who come from above, in the way that he came?"No man hath seen the Father," he says, "but he that is from God; he hath seen the Father." Can any one say or believe this of John the Baptist and of Christ, indifferently? Assured.y not. Court. Defendants, do you desire to ask any thing further of this witness? Belsham. No, my Lord. Court. Call again the witness Burton. Court. The Defendant Priestley incidentally mentioned, during the cross-examination of the last witness, that Justin Martyr was the first writer who mentions the miraculous conception: do you admit this to be the case? Burton. By no means, my Lord; for Ignatius, half a century previously, warning the Ephesians to beware of those who taught false doctrines, and whom he considered almost incurable, says, "There is one physician, fleshly and spiritual, made and not made, God born in the flesh, true life in death, both of Mary and of God, first capable of suffering, and then incapable:"1—which passage reminds us of the expressions of St. John and St. Paul, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," and "God was made manifest in the flesh.' But in another place, after quoting from St. Paul, "Where is the wise, where is the disputer? where is the boasting of those who are called intelligent?" he adds, "for our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary, according to the dispensation of God; of the seed, indeed, of David, but of the Holy Ghost."- Ignatius, also, alludes to the star which appeared at the birth of Christ, which shows that he believed the beginning of St. Matthew's Gospel to be genuine.3 Court. Call the next witness. What is his name? Att. Gen. Layman Burgh. This gentleman, 1 Εν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεὸς, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινὴ, καὶ ἐκ Mapias kai ir Oɛov.- Epist. ad Eph. c. 7. p. 13. 2 Ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ' οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ, ἐκ στέρματος μὲν Δαβίδ, Πνεύματος δὲ ȧyíov. — Epist. ad Eph. c. 18. p. 15. Burton's Anti-Nicene Test. pp. 22. 28. my Lord, is the author of "A Scriptural Confutation of the Arguments against the One Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, produced by the Rev. Mr. Lindsey in his late Apology." I For, my Lord, I bring no more witnesses, as I intended, in support of the opinions of the ancient Christian writers, nor do I adduce any in support of modern authors, or to show the opinion of the learned from the earliest to the most recent times; but I now go upon the design of showing the errors of the Defendants, simply from the Scriptures themselves. Court. I understand. Att. Gen. Pray, sir, tell us what is the "Apology" or defence which the Defendant Lindsey has published, the arguments of which you have aimed to confute? Witness. It is the defence or excuse for the Defendant's conversion from the faith of the Church of England, to the belief, or, more properly speaking, to the disbelief, of Unitarianism. Att. Gen. What is known of the public character of this Defendant? Witness. He is known to be a conscientious This confutation was written by a layman (said to be Mr. Burgh) in 1774, immediately upon the publication of the Apology. |