Bishop Pearce, and after him Archbishop Newcome, render the words "No man goeth up to heaven," which they explain, No man is to go up thither. "The preter tense," say these learned prelates, "is used for the present, and this again for the future 29." This, however, is not the interpretation generally adopted. The most common and best supported exposition of the phrase No man hath ascended up to heaven,' is this, No one is acquainted with the counsels and purposes of God to mankind 30. To 29 See Pearce and Newcome in loc. So then the words 'No man hath ascended up to heaven' mean 'No man will ascend thither.' Let not the Unitarians be any longer reproached as the only expositors who warp the Scriptures from their plain and obvious sense to serve a hypothesis. The arguments, however, of these learned prelates will not support their conclusion. Bp. Pearce produces passages in which the preter tense may be and is translated in the present. John vi. 69; xi. 27; xx. 29, 17; iii. 18: He also quotes Iliad. a. 37. is Xpvory aμpiCenas. And the archbishop cites John iii. 18, in which the present tense has the force of a future. But no instance is produced in which the preter tense has the force of the future only; and it is apprehended that none such can be alleged. For the preter can only be translated in the present tense when it expresses the continuance of an action, I have been and continue to be,' Thou hast protected and dost continue to protect,' &c. And the present is only used as a future figuratively, to express the certainty of the event, or that it is very near at hand. See Wolzogenius in loc. Campbell and Wakefield both translate the verb in the present tense, < ascendeth;' but without sufficient attention to the connexion, which implies that the Son of Man had himself ascended, though others had not. Erasmus observes, "Græcis præt. temporis est, ne quis putet de futura ascensione intelligi." 30 The agreement of the commentators in this interpretation is very remarkable. "Ascendere in cœlum dicitur qui arcana cœli penetrat. Quantum cœlum a terra distat, tantum consilia divina ab humanis." Grotius."Ascendit in cœlum : i. e. Spiritualis intelligentiæ luce præditus est.” Beza.“ Ascendit in cœlum: i. e. Nemo novit res cœlestes præter me." Vatablus." Ascendere in cœlum, hoc loco, uti intuenti Christi scopum satis liquet, nihil aliud est quam inquirere, aut admitti in conscientiam consilii divini." Cameron." Il faut entendre ces paroles figurément de la connoissance des vérités célestes." Le Clerc." In cœlum ascendere hoc loco significat arcana atque mysteria cœlestia scrutari, • To ascend to heaven' is a Hebrew form of expression to denote the knowledge of things mysterious and remote from common apprehension. Deut. xxx. 11, "This commandment is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say Who will go up for us to heaven and bring it?" Prov. xxx. 4, "Who hath ascended into heaven or descended?" Rom. x. 6, "Say not in thy heart Who shall ascend into heaven," &c. Baruch iii. 29, "Who hath gone up into heaven and taken her, i. e. wisdom, and brought her down from the clouds?" In the preceding verse Jesus says to Nicodemus, "If I have told you earthly things," i. e. things plain and intelligible, "and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things?" i. e. things difficult and remote from your conceptions. It is supposed that our Lord alludes to Moses to the mount to receive the Law. the ascent of This is not im scrutari, ac nôsse." Wolzogenius." No man can acquaint you with these heavenly things, for no other person hath ascended into heaven to learn them there." Whitby." No one ever hath ascended into heaven to search into the secret counsels, and to obtain an intimate and perfect knowledge of the truths of God." Dr. Doddridge: who remarks that the phrase 'ascending up into heaven' is plainly used in this sense, Deut. xxx. 12. Rom. x. 6. Prov. xxx. 4.-Mr. Lindsey in his Sequel, p. 213 et seq. observes, that "in the strict literal sense it was by no means true, that no one had ascended up into heaven but the Son of Man; for Enoch in all probability, and Elijah the prophet had certainly been translated from earth to heaven. Neither is it true, in the direct sense of the words, that the Son of Man had ascended up into heaven. We have no account in Scripture that he ever ascended into heaven but once, when he took his final leave of this earth and of his disciples." Hence he infers that ascending up to heaven' signifies his being admitted to the knowledge of God's counsels. Ludolphus Raphelius, in his preface to his father George Raphelius's Annotations upon the Scriptures, has given a learned and judicious dissertation upon this text; and after a very fair and impartial examination he concludes, " Ex his itaque satis constare arbitror, Christum nihil aliud velle, quam quod nemo consilia Dei sciat, nisi filius hominis, ipse deus, qui ex cœlo ad nos descendit." I add these words, to show that this is not the gloss of a prejudiced Unitarian. probable, probable, as he immediately mentions Moses, and speaks of his lifting up the serpent in the wilderness. Perhaps he might mean to hint at the superior dignity and importance of the Christian dispensation to that of Moses. Moses ascended the mount, but the Son of Man ascended to heaven. The Jews in the Targum say, in honour of Moses, that "he ascended into the high heavens," by which they could mean no more than his admission to the divine counsels. See Whitby in loc. That which is plain and obvious and well understood is said not to be in heaven. Deut. xxx. 11. Rom. x. 6. See above, and Grotius in loc. 2. The meaning of the first clause being thus settled, that of the second is now to be investigated. "But he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man." This clause was understood in a literal sense by the Socinians, who believed in the local ascent of Christ up to heaven, and in his local descent to earth again. It is interpreted literally by the Arians, who believe that the divine Logos who made the world was the spirit which animated the body of Christ. It is interpreted figuratively by the believers in the proper deity of Christ, who do not maintain that the deity locally descended from heaven to become incarnate, because God is omnipresent, but that he manifested himself on earth in the person of Christ. So God is said to have descended to see the tower of Babel, and the iniquity of Sodom. Gen. xi. 5; xviii. 21. See Whitby in loc. It is interpreted figuratively by the Unitarians, who explain the second clause in a similar manner, and as perfectly correlative with the first. "No man hath ascended up to heaven :" i. e. No one is instructed in the divine counsels: " But "But he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man:" i. e. Excepting the Son of Man, who had a commission from God to reveal his will to mankind 31. First, This is a form of expression which is unquestionably used in Scripture to express what is of divine origin or authority. Matt. xxi. 25, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?" This question our Lord put in reply to the question of the chief priests and elders, “ By what authority dost thou these things?" So that in the language of our Lord himself, coming from heaven' is equivalent to coming with divine authority 32. 6 Secondly, This sense best suits the connexion of the words. The second clause, came down from heaven,' is correlate to the first, ascended up to heaven.' It is therefore to be understood similarly. If the first clause is figurative, the second is figurative: if the first is literal, 31 Que celui qui en est descendu. C'est à dire, qui a été envoyé aux hommes par Dieu son Père: ou qui est un présent céleste que Dieu leur a fait." Voyez ch. vi. 58. Jam. i. 17; iii. 15, 17. Le Clerc. "If ascending up to heaven' is not to be taken literally, neither is 'descending from heaven' to be understood of a local descent. For the Son of Man, as it is here asserted, could not come down from heaven, where he had confessedly never been." Lindsey's Sequel, p. 216. 32 Compare James i. 17, "Every good gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of light." iii. 15-17, "This wisdom descendeth not from above; but the wisdom that is from above is first pure," &c. .... "E cœlo descendit yvwb σeauty."-Juvenal. It is observable that Mark and Luke relate this incident of the application of the elders to demand our Lord's authority, and the reply of Jesus concerning John's baptism, in the same words as Matthew, as if they had been solicitous to notify to their readers that descending from heaven signifies nothing more than coming with divine authority. Mark xi. 27. Luke xx. 1. the the second is literal. Good writers do not in grave discourse capriciously change the meaning of their words: and in this case there is no necessity to suppose a change. On the contrary, the sense is perfectly clear, intelligible and apposite without it. It is replied, that it is no uncommon thing, in two antithetic clauses, for the same word to be taken in its primary sense in one clause, and figuratively in the other. Many instances of this kind, it is said, occur in the New Testament, of which 1 Thess. v. 4, et seq. is referred to as an example: "Ye are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief 33," and the like. But it may be answered that such a change, in the meaning of the same word in the same sentence without notice, is not common, nor to be admitted without necessity. 3. "Who is in heaven." This clause is omitted in the Vatican and some other manuscripts, 53 This objection to the common interpretation of the second clause of the text in John, from the change of the sense of an important word without any notice or necessity, though so obvious and forcible, is not, that I recollect, mentioned by any critic but Raphelius, whose words I transcribe. Præf. § 17. "Coronidis loco objectioni cuidam adhuc respondendum est. Scilicet facile quisquam putet, si ascendere in cœlum idem sit quod scire mysteria divina, opposituni descendere, idem fore quod nescire. Ad quam objectionem respondit Dunnhauerus quod ejus nulla sit sequela, quia nihil sit insolitum inter duas voces oppositas, unam proprie, alteram figurate, accipi. Non probavit hanc suam thesin exemplis, quoniam operæ pretium haud esse duxit: cum plurima ejus rei occurrant in S. Codice. Unicum solummodo allegabo, 1 Thess. v. 4. seqq. ubi in una oratione duæ voces nor atque dies modo proprie modo improprie accipiuntur, uti facile intelliget qui verba Pauli debita animi considerabit attentione." It is singular that, if examples are so numerous, only one should be produced. At any rate this change of signification is not to be admitted without obvious necessity. It is a fair remark, that if'ascending to heaven' signifies knowing the divine counsels, descending from heaven' D |