THE BIBLE 
 
 popuLAPv. theology: 
 
 A RE-STATEMExXT OF TRUTHS AND PrJXCIPLES, 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 
 
 RECENT WORKS OF DR. LIDDON, LORD HATHERLEY, 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 G. YANCe'^SMITH, B.A., TilD., 
 
 MINISTER OF ST. SAVIOURGATE CIIAPEL, YoIlK. 
 
 LONDON: 
 L(JNGMANS, GREEN, READER, AND DYER. 
 
 YORK : J. SAMPSOr^. 
 
 187L 
 
LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY ('. QKEKN AND SON, 
 
 STRAND, \y. C. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 It has been my leading aim, in the following pages, to oiler to 
 the reader a concise and simply written exposition of the Biblical 
 teachings, in relation to several of the more important questions of 
 Christian Theology. 
 
 This design I have pursued with a view more especially to non- 
 professional and unlearned readers, — those, that is to say, wlio are 
 not likely to be familiar with theological books, or committed in 
 advance to the maintenance of a particular creed or system of doc- 
 trine. I speak thiis plainly, without the slightest intention to cast 
 any reflection upon the professional clergy or ministers of religion 
 of the different denominations ; but I do not pretend to conceal my 
 conviction that it is chiefly the intelligent laity to whom a theolo- 
 gical writer can look hopefully, for an unbiassed judgment upon the 
 various evidences and arguments here brought forward. It is not 
 difficult to understand that those who, either by subscription or by 
 other equivalent forms of "assent and consent" well known to 
 most of the Nonconformist churches, have virtually pledged them- 
 selves to very definite conclusions on tlie subjects which I have 
 discussed, can hardly be expected to pass an impartial judgment on 
 such a book as this, even if they should be willing to give it the 
 degree of consideration fairly duo to it. 
 
 The character of the volume has necessarily been somewhat affected 
 by a regard to the class of readers for whom I liave chiefly written. 
 
IV PEEFACE. 
 
 Tlie references to autliorities, for example, will be found to be com- 
 paratively few, except in the case of the Scriptures. They are also, 
 for the most part, to works easily accessible. Indeed, I may add, 
 the due exhibition of the positive doctrine of the Bible, on the sub- 
 jects treated of, does not appear to stand in need of the elaborate 
 erudition which, if a judgment may be formed from Dr. Liddon's 
 work, is indi.spensable for the exposition and defence of the popular 
 theology. This, it may be presumed, is some advantage both for 
 author and reader. May it not be reasonably appealed to as afford- 
 ing also something of presumptive evidence in favour of the simj)ler 
 and more unpretending cause ] 
 
 Yet, while admitting and calling attention to this feature of the 
 present work, I am not without the hope that every point of essen- 
 tial importance in the argument will be found to have been ade- 
 quately considered. I have wished that such should be tlie case, 
 and that no evidence of value should be omitted or too lightly passed 
 over. 
 
 It is perhaps scarcely necessary to say that the volume does not 
 jjrofess to be anything like a formal or detailed reply to the treatise 
 of Dr. Liddon. So large an undertaking could not have been brought 
 within the limits which I had to prescribe to myself 'Nor did it 
 appear to be needed for any practical purpose.* I have thought it 
 
 * I take the opportunity of referring the reader to a lately published work which 
 purports to be " A-. Examination of Canon Liddon's Bampton Lectures" — (Triibner, 
 1871). This work came into my hands as the final sheets of my own volume were 
 passing through the press. It appears to be a careful and effective reply to all the 
 pi'incipal portions of Dr. Liddon's Lectures, and so far as may be judged from a 
 cursory perusal of parts, it is one of the most powerful modern treatises on the Uni- 
 tarian side of this controversy. The marvel attending it is, that the author should 
 announce himself, on his title-page, as "a Clergyman of the Church of England." 
 I very willingly admit the force of the testimony which this statement affords 
 against the opinion I have just expressed, to the effect that those who might seem 
 to have committed themselves to foregone conclusions can hardly be expected to 
 give an unbiassed consideration to the contents of my own volume. 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 •well, however, to pursue my principal design with a special I'efereiicu 
 to that treatise, as well as to the work of Lord Ilatherley on the 
 Continuity of Scripture, and to that of Mr. . Gladstone on Ecce 
 Homo. The three writers may properly be considered as " repre- 
 sentative men ;" while they may also be classed among the latest 
 and most interesting expounders of the popular theology. "Without, 
 therefore, attempting a detailed or complete examination of all that 
 they have advanced, I have kept in view some of the moi'e impor- 
 tant and characteristic parts of their several arguments. I have done 
 this the more readily, on account of the eminent station and learning 
 of the two distinguished laymen whose statements I have made the 
 subject of some of my remarks ; and to whom, I may add, I do con- 
 fidently look for a candid and just consideration of Avhat I have said. 
 
 I may further observe, that the present volume is necessarily, to 
 some extent, an arr/)imcnfi(m ad homlnem. It addresses itself more 
 especially to those who are accustomed to a particular idea of the 
 function of the Bible, as the depository and teacher of religious 
 truth ; — to those, that is to say, who accept the Protestant principle 
 of the sufficiency of the Scriptures, and acknowledge the right of 
 private judgment — as Dr. Liddon appears to do, by the fact of 
 having made his appeal so emphatically to the Bible. I have not 
 thought it necessary, however, to enter minutely into impuries 
 respecting the age or authorship of any of the sacred books. These 
 I have been contented to receive under the character usually attri- 
 buted to them ; while yet I have not refrained, in several instances, 
 from noticing the doubt attaching to many of the writings foi-ming 
 our present Canon of Holy Scripture. 
 
 It will not, perhaps, be out of place to mention that these pages 
 were nearly all composed (excepting the last Chapter) early in the 
 summer of the past year, although various circumstances have 
 somewhat delayed their publication. It will therefore be evident 
 that my connection with the New Testament Kevision Company, or 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 the discussions of one kind and another to which tliat circumstance 
 has given rise within the last few months, have had no immediate 
 influence on the preparation of the work. Without this statement, 
 the volume might be supposed to have been occasioned by the dis- 
 cussions referred to. Such is not the case. 
 
 At the close of the last Chapter, I have added a few words on a 
 subject not perhaps included within the scope of this work, but yet 
 not altogether unconnected with it. What I have said is designed 
 to correct certain strange misunderstandings which appear still to 
 prevail, in some quarters, on the points referred to ; and I hope it 
 will answer its purpose ! I have explained both what a Unitarian 
 is, and What Unitarians worship. I venture here to make an 
 addition to these explanations, and to give my own opinion as to 
 what Unitarians should desire, and aim at, as a great end of their 
 denominational existence. It is not, primaiily, to make themselves 
 a numerous and powerful sect, with a carefully defined system of 
 doctrine, negative or positive ; — of which, indeed, there is very little 
 danger at present. It is, rather, first, that they should faithfully 
 help to free the common Christianity, held by themselves as well as 
 by the orthodox churches, from the corruptions of one kind and 
 another which, in the course of ages, have grown up around it and 
 upon it, and the removal of which was by no means completed by 
 the Eeformers of the sixteenth century. It is, secondly, that they 
 should endeavour to hold up to the nation, as a main principle and 
 aim even of its political life, that the people of this kingdom may 
 yet be united together in Christian brotherhood as members of one 
 comprehensive Church of Christ, that thus an end may be put at 
 length to the unseemly divisions which now discredit our national 
 profession of Christianity, and waste both our material and our 
 moral resources. Will the Unitarians of England accept the 
 "mission" which thus seems to be jirovidentially offered to them? 
 AVill they be found equal to the adequate discharge of its duties ? 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 or shall the work pass Irom tlieni to others who are stronger and 
 worthier than they 1 — No doubt most of uiy readers will regard the 
 idea here suggested as perfectly Utopian. So be it. I have faith, 
 nevertheless, in the rightness of what I have proposed on this sub- 
 ject, as well as in the religious feeling and good sense of the great 
 mass of the English people. May it not prove at last, and when 
 too late to be remedied, that, in our perversity and narrowjiess of 
 spirit, we have allowed a great opportunity to come to us in vain ! 
 
 I must not, in conclusion, omit to acknowledge the pecuniary 
 
 assistance which I have received from the Trustees of the late liobert 
 
 Hibbert, Esq., who have defrayed the expenses attending the pulj- 
 
 lication of this volume. I thank them very cordially for it, and at 
 
 the same time I rejoice to think that it should be in my power to 
 
 contribute, in this form, to the objects contemplated by their liberal 
 
 and enlightened Founder. 
 
 G. V. S. 
 
 York, April 2'>, 1S71. 
 
 *^* Tlic inlliiwiiig ;uv the Works rei'eired to on tlie title-page : 
 
 Tlie Divinity of mcr Lord and Saviour Jesus Clirist ; Eight Lectures, &i;. 
 By Henry Parry Liddon, M.A., &c. (Smaller Edition, 1868.) 
 
 The Continuity of Scripture as declared by the Testimony of our Lord, &i-. 
 By William Page Lord Hatherley. (Tliu'd Edition, with additions, 
 1869). 
 
 " Ecce Homo" By the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. (1868.) 
 
 Aids to Faith ; a Series of Theological Essays. By Several Writers. (Fourth 
 Edition, 1863.) Essay on the Death of Christ, by Dr. W. Thoni.son, 
 now Archbisliop of York. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. VAOlt 
 
 I. Miscellaneous and uncertain Character of the Sacred 
 
 Books 1 
 
 II. Unity and Continuity of Scripture — how far admissible 8 
 
 III. Unity and Continuity of Scripture as maintamed by Lord 
 
 Hatherley 18 
 
 IV. The Use of the Old Testament in the New ... 25 
 
 V. Messianic Passages : Isaiah vii. 14 ; lii. 13 — liii. 12 ; xi. ; 
 
 ix. 6 34 
 
 VI. Messianic Passages continued : Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6 ; Daniel 
 vii. 13 ; Micah v. 2 ; Zechariah xiii. 7 ; xii. 10 ; the 
 Quotation in St. John xix. 36 ; Malachi iii. 1 . .51 
 
 VII. The Knowledge and the Ignorance of Christ — Orthodox 
 Excess in the Use of Old Testament Passages — General 
 Result 62 
 
 VIII. The Biblical Doctrine of One God — the Words Elohim 
 
 and Jehovah ........ 69 
 
 IX. The Biblical Doctrine of One God — its continued Develop- 
 ment — the Christian Doctrine . . . .77 
 Pa.ssages supposed to express the Doctrine of the Trinity . 88 
 
 X. The Orthodox Argument from Plural Forms of Expression 92 
 
: CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 XL Jesus of Nazareth — tlie Charge on which he was put to 
 
 Death 100 
 
 XII. Jesus of Nazareth, as lie appeared to his own Contempo- 
 raries — tlie True Import of the Titles Christ and Son of 
 God 112 
 
 XIII. Mr. Gladstone's Testimony to the Humanitarian Charac- 
 
 ter of the Evangelical Narratives — "EcceHomo". . 122 
 
 XIV. The Christ of the Rrst Three Gospels and of the Fourth- 
 
 Differences . . . 129 
 
 XV. The Doctrine of the Logos — Pliilo — Justin Martyr — Ear- 
 lier Tendencies among the Jews ^. . . . . 143 
 
 XVI. St. John's Doctrine of the Logos — its Meaning and per- 
 manent Value . .155 
 
 XVII. Eemarks on Dr. Liddon's Exposition of the Doctrine of the 
 
 Logos .......... 169 
 
 XVIII. Jesus the Spiritual Christ — Christian Faith — Justitication 
 
 by Faith 184 
 
 XIX. The Humiliation and the Glory of the Christ in the Pauline 
 
 Epistles 192 
 
 XX. The Creation of all Thnigs tlnough Jesus Christ . .203 
 
 XXI. The Ajiocalyi^tic Exaltation of Jesus Christ . . . 212 
 
 XXII. The Worship of Christ 215 
 
 XXIII. The Ilcdy Spirit 226 
 
 XXIV. Sacrifices, their Origin and Purpose — the Hebrew System 
 
 —the Epistle to the Hebrews 237 
 
 XXV. The Death of Christ — Popular Theories founded upon it 
 — Archbishop Thomson's Doctrine — that of Broad- 
 Church Writers 24(5 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XI 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 XXVI. The Death of Christ — its Puipose and Effect a.s set forth 
 
 in the New Testament — an Argument of the Past . 262 
 
 XXVII. Relation of the Bible to the Reason and Conscience — Inspi- 
 ration — the Expectation of the Second Coming of Christ 
 — the True Excellence and Authority of Scripture . 277 
 
 XXVIII. Summary of Results with additional Remarks — the Chris- 
 tianity of Christ — his True Dignity — his Death — the 
 Lord's Supper — the Function of the Bible — Priestly 
 Authority — tlie Cliurch and the Churches — Proper Basis 
 of Christian Union — Question of a National Church — 
 Misiuiderstandiiigs and Ex})lanations .... 297 
 
 General Appendix : 
 
 Note A, — Isaiah vii. 14 . 
 
 „ B,— Isaiali lii. 13— liii. 12 
 
 „ C,— 1 Tim. iii. 16 . 
 
 „ D,— Titus ii. 13 ; 1 John v. 20 . 
 
 „ E,— Philip, ii. 5—11 
 
 „ F, — The Instrumental Force of the Preposition Atd 
 
 Passages of Scripture specially noticed 
 
 317 
 318 
 320 
 321 
 326 
 331 
 
 334 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 79, note t, for "xxxvii.," read "xxxii." 
 122, for "Sy-noptical," read "syn-optical." 
 129, for "Mr.," read "Dr. ;" and so in one or two other cases. 
 129, note t, add "15." 
 142, note * for "30," read "31." 
 155, line 8, for "former," read "St. John." 
 199, note t, for "Tit. ii. 3," read "Tit. ii. 13." 
 224, last line, for "sung," read "sang." 
 
 249, head-line, for "Thompson," read "Thomson;" and so in one 
 or two other places. 
 
THE 
 
 BIBLE AND POPULAR THEOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS AND UNCEETAIN CHAEACTER OF THE SACEED 
 
 BOOKS. 
 
 It cannot be unknown to any reader of these pages that the 
 Bible is not, properly speaking, a single book, but a collection 
 of many different books or writings, in number not less than 
 sixty-six, without counting the Apocrypha. Yet this fact, 
 familiar as it may be, is one of which certain classes of popu- 
 lar writers and preachers are a little too apt to lose sight. It 
 may, therefore, be desirable briefly to mention a few of the par- 
 ticulars which it involves, or which stand in immediate con- 
 nection with it. 
 
 The biblical writings, comprising so considerable a number 
 of different documents, come down to us from almost as many 
 distinct points or periods of time, in the long interval of a thou- 
 sand years and more which separates the earliest of them from 
 the latest. They are, moreover, in great part, compositions of 
 unknown authorship. In other words, their writers, in a 
 majority of the cases, are not kno\vn to us even by name ; and 
 we have usually little or no knowledge, as to the sources of 
 their information, when they give us various statements which 
 must have been derived, in some way, from others. 
 
 B 
 
2 MISCELLANEOUS AND UNCEKTAIN CHAEACTER 
 
 As the books now stand, the oldest of them is most probably 
 to be found among the Minor Prophets ; Joel, Amos, and Hosea 
 having lived in or towards the ninth century before Christ. 
 Some of the Psalms are doubtless still older than this ; being, 
 there is sufficient reason to believe, from the pen of King 
 David, "the sweet Psalmist of Israel," who lived in the eleventh 
 century B.C. Others are comparatively modern, and bear upon 
 them traces of the times of the Captivity, or even of a still later 
 age.* The book of Genesis and some other historical books 
 are believed to contain sections, that is, incorporated documents, 
 of a higher antiquity still. Nothing certain, however, is known 
 as to the compiler of the former book. Nor can it be shewn, 
 by any evidence at all adequate to the case, that the Penta- 
 teuch comes down to us from Moses, although it may very 
 probably contain laws and documents from his time, and pos- 
 sibly even from his hand.-f- There is no reliable information 
 respecting the origin of the other historical books, from Joshua 
 to the Chronicles ; while yet certain internal marks, in state- 
 ment or in language, are held to be sufficient to determine the 
 century, if not the king's reign, in which they may have been 
 composed, or, perhaps we should say, compiled and completed. 
 Job and the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Solomon's Song, are in 
 much the same position. The exact age of each and the author, 
 or collector, are alike undeterminable ; in other words, they 
 are largely matters of speculation, conclusive evidence bearing 
 on these inquiries being no longer within our reach. 
 
 The age of Isaiah and of the principal prophetical books is 
 
 * A few of the Psalms are very probably Maccabtean, tliougli this is not univer- 
 sally allowed. 
 
 + " It is certain that the books of Chronicles were thus compiled [i.e. from more 
 ancient documents], and probably most of the Historical books. Many scholars 
 have also held that Moses made use of the primitive records of the House of Abra- 
 ham in composing Genesis. The Book of Psalms too, though not a compilation, is 
 a collection of national poetry from the time of Israel's greatest glory down to the 
 return of the exiles from Babylon." — Dr. Payne Smith, Prophecy a Preparation 
 for Christ (Bampton Lectures, 1869), p. 2. 
 
OP THE SACKED BOOKS. ^ 
 
 much less a matter of question, with the exception of the book 
 of Daniel, — which, nevertheless, there is good reason to believe 
 belongs, not to the time in which the ancient person of that 
 name lived, as given at the commencement of the book, but 
 rather to that of the Maccabees, the second century B.C. 
 
 On the composite character of one or two of the books of 
 the prophets, it is not necessary liere to dwell in detail. It 
 may, however, be noted, that the book of Isaiah consists of at 
 least two principal parts — the earlier and authentic* part, from 
 the pen of the prophet so named ; and the later, or non-au- 
 thentic, extending from chapter xl. to the end of the book. 
 The former (which now contains also a few non-authentic 
 passages-f-) belongs to the last decades of the eighth century 
 B.C. ; the latter, by an unknown author, who is conveniently 
 termed the later Isaiah, was written about two hundred 
 years afterwards, and bears many clear traces of tlie period 
 of the Babylonian captivity. The book of Zechariah is proba- 
 bly the work of that prophet only in its first eight chapters, 
 the rest being of older date, and the work of not less than 
 two unknown writers. These conclusions are, we believe, in 
 the main, among the surest results of modern sacred criticism. 
 Of course, in this rapid summary we have only attempted to 
 state results, and that in the briefest form. The reader is 
 referred for tlie needful investigation to the works of modern 
 authorities, the most important of whom, English and German, 
 will be found abundantly to warrant the statements we have 
 just made.:}: 
 
 In the case of the New Testament, the dates of the larger 
 Epistles of St. Paul, including that to the Galatians, are 
 
 * Authentic, tbat is, from the hand of the person whose name it bears ; — often 
 ConfounJed with f/muhic, wliich properly means unmixed, or uncorrupted, with 
 matter from other sources, not readily or certainly sexiarable. 
 • + E.g., xiii. xiv., also xxiv — xxvii. 
 
 + See in particular Dr. S. Davidson's learned and elaborate Introductions to the 
 Old and New Testaments. 
 
 b2 
 
4 MISCELLANEOUS AND UNCERTAIN CHARACTER 
 
 determinable within a few years, and their authorship is not 
 questioned. Other books are less certain, though nearly the 
 whole of the New Testament belongs, without doubt, to the 
 first century, A.D. If there be an exception to this, the one 
 important instance of it is the Fourth Gospel, the authorship 
 of which is by no means to be considered as determinately and 
 finally assigned to the Apostle John. The tendency of modern 
 criticism has been increasingly to question or to deny such an 
 origin, which is, however, accepted and defended by many 
 excellent authorities. If the Gospel be attributed to that 
 Apostle, its composition can hardly be thought to have been 
 earlier than about the last decade of the first century, or the 
 last but one. 
 
 The question of age is, on the whole, of less importance 
 than that of authorship — though, indeed, the two points are 
 sometimes very closely connected. In comparatively few 
 instances, out of the whole number of biblical writings, is 
 there either any sufficient external evidence as to origin, or 
 any claim or affirmation as to their respective authors, made 
 in the works themselves. This statement is largely true even 
 of New Testament books, as for example the first three Gos- 
 pels ; which, as is well known to theological students, cannot, 
 by means of any positive internal evidence, be connected with 
 the authors whose names are now upon them, and to whom 
 they are assigned by the ecclesiastical Fathers who mention 
 them. Such internal evidence as there is sometimes bears, 
 indeed, against the statements of those writers. For instance, 
 that Mark's Gospel is the substance of the preaching of Peter, 
 written down by the Evangelist : how is this reconcilable 
 with the verbal correspondences between St. Mark and the 
 other two Synoptics ? Again, the statement that Matthew 
 wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic) language : 
 whereas our present Matthew is an original, not a translation, 
 and is in very numerous passages verbally coincident with the 
 
OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 
 
 other Synoptics. Some of the minor Epistles of St. Paul are 
 extremely doubtful, or almost certainly not from the pen of 
 the great Apostle, according to the judgment of the most com- 
 petent and free-minded modern investigators. No one can 
 tell us who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews ; or the Second 
 Epistle of Peter ; or the Second and Third of John. The 
 larger number of the New Testament writings may, in short, 
 be said to be of doubtful or unknown authorship. 
 
 And the same statement holds even more decidedly of the 
 older Scriptures. For, beginning with Genesis, and going on 
 through the list of books till we come to Isaiah, there is no 
 reasonable certainty, on the point of authorship, with the 
 exception only of some of tlie Psalms, and of the books of 
 Ezra and Nehemiah. In the prophets we tread upon firmer 
 ground. In tlieir case there is usually no good reason for 
 rejecting the statement as to authorship made, or implied, in 
 the book itself* In most cases, at the same time, all that we 
 know of a sacred writer is extremely little ; being often limited 
 to his name, and the reigns of the kings under whom he lived. 
 This is the case, for example, with several of the Minor Pro- 
 phets — as Amos, Hosea, Joel, Micah. 
 
 It belongs to our present subject to take notice of another 
 fact of some importance. This is, that no reliable information 
 remains to us as to tlie princij)le on whicli the books of the 
 Old Testament were selected and put together, so as to form 
 the more considerable portion of our existing Bible ; — in other 
 words, we do not really know on what principle the Old Testa- 
 ment Canon was formed. Nor have we any better knowledge 
 as to the men by whose judgment the collection was made, 
 although various conjectures on this point may easily be 
 formed. In all probability, the whole was in great measure 
 
 * This is not always true of some minor sections of a book, as Isaiali xiii. 1 — 
 xiv. 27, where the inscription has probably been added by some collector. So with 
 the inscriptions of various Psalms attributed to David, as acknowledged on all 
 hands. 
 
6 MISCELLANEOUS AND UNCEETAIN CHAEACTEE 
 
 the growth or accumulation of successive ages, without much 
 design on the part of any person concerned. For anything 
 that appears, no definite principle of selection was followed ; 
 except only that all ancient documents relating, or thought to 
 relate, to the national history and religion were preserved, 
 especially those which, when put together, seemed to form a 
 connected historical whole. These, in the course of time, would 
 be accounted sacred, either because of their antiquity, or because 
 written, or believed to have been written, by holy men of old, 
 and in the ancient language of the great lawgivers, heroes, and 
 prophets of the nation ; — a language, which began after the 
 captivity (B.C. 530), to fall into disuse, and to be superseded 
 by the mixed dialects of later times. 
 
 To an early collection, probably made on the return from 
 Babylon, or then already existing,* and comprising books of 
 history, law, and prophecy, which had descended from olden 
 times, would for various reasons, at a later period, be added 
 writings composed by priests and others in the ancient language, 
 such as Chronicles, Nehemiah, Daniel, various Psalms, and 
 some of the later Prophets. Thus the Old Testament comes 
 before us, not as being a collection of writings preserved because 
 they had been well ascertained by duly qualified judges to be 
 " inspired," — in any modern sense of this word, — while others 
 not so inspired were rejected and left to perish ; but simply 
 as being the whole of the remaining literature of the nation, 
 written in their ancient language, -f- the whole that was in 
 existence, so far as we know, when the collection was finally 
 closed. If such were the principle on which the books were 
 preserved, or the great reason for their preservation, it certainly 
 goes far to account for the miscellaneous and, in parts, frag- 
 mentary character of the collection, — although it gives but 
 
 * See Nehemiali viii. siii. 
 
 + The portion in Chaldee found in Ezra and in Daniel is hardly an exception to 
 this statement, special causes, in both cases, accounting for the use of the Chaldee. 
 
OF THE SACEED BOOKS. 7 
 
 little support to the extraordinary claims in behalf of the Bible 
 occasionally piit forth by various modern writers.* Supposing 
 that the book of Daniel and the latest Psalms were not Maitteu 
 until the time of the Maccabees, the addition of these compo- 
 sitions to the ancient collection may, perhaps, be accounted for 
 by the intense religious and patriotic feelings of that period. 
 Writings in the Hebrew language, as well as in harmony with 
 those feelings, and giving them a fitting expression, might well 
 be thought worthy of being themselves included along with 
 the older and more sacred books — an honour, it is known, 
 which was not refused by editors, perhaps by translators, of 
 the Septuagint to books which we now consider only apo- 
 cryphal. 
 
 The New Testament writings were, of course, preserved on 
 their own special grounds. That part of the Bible comprises 
 what was believed to be apostolic, or from apostolic men, and 
 to be, at the same time, in harmony with the catholic faith of 
 the church, as this was developing itself in tlie second and 
 third centuries.-f- 
 
 * Some curious examples may be seen in the Introductory Remarks to Colenso's 
 Pentateuch, Part I., and in the Preface to Part II. 
 
 + These statements may be compared with t£e article on the Canon in Dr. W. 
 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. The learned wi-iter of that article observes, "The 
 history of the Canon of the N. T. presents a remarkable analogy to that of the 
 Canon of the 0. T. The beginnings of both Canons are obscure, from the circum- 
 stances under which they arose ; both grew silently under the guidance of an inward 
 
 instinct rather than by the force of external authority; both gained definiteness 
 
 in times of persecution." — Article Canon, p. 261. 
 
UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCEIPTUEE, 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCEIPTUEE — IN WHAT SENSE 
 ADMISSIBLE. 
 
 In the midst of the uncertainty, or the absohite ignorance, 
 which thus exists respecting the biblical authors, — remember- 
 ing also the vast space of time over which the dates of their 
 writings lie scattered, as well as the marked differences in the 
 contents and tone of the books, — we are scarcely prepared for 
 certain statements which have recently been made concerning 
 them, by writers of very eminent name. We are told that an 
 "organic unity" pervades the Bible from one end to the other. 
 " Beneath the differences of style, of language, and of method," 
 writes Dr. Liddon, " which appear so entirely to absorb the 
 attention of a merely literary observer, a deeper insight will 
 discover in Scripture such manifest unity of drift and purpose, 
 both moral and intellectual, as to imply the continuous action 
 of a single mind." The same thing is afhrmed by another 
 distinguished person : " The volume of God's word is stamped 
 with the same continuous unity of purpose, as that which 
 marks the volume of God's works."* 
 
 The exact meaning intended by these expressions will appear 
 in the next chapter. The general idea which they convey is 
 not a new one. At the same time it is, within certain limits, 
 an interesting and suggestive idea, by no means devoid of 
 truth. "We propose, tlierefore, briefly to notice, first, the sense 
 
 * Liddon, Bampton Lectures, p. 44; Lord Hatherley, Continuity of Scripture, 
 p. xiii. A more recent Bampton Lecturer writes thus: — "St. Paul affirms the 
 prophetic character of the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures. All these 
 writings combine, and were intended to combine, into a concordant body of teach- 
 ing, given to man to set before him one and the same great truth." — Dr. Payne 
 Smith, Prophecy a Preparation for Christ, p. 24. The remark is made in refer- 
 ence to Eomans xv. 4, which obviously does not contain any such meaning. 
 
IN WHAT SENSE ADlVnSSIBLE. 9 
 
 in wliicli the words just cited may be reasonably held to be 
 correct ; and, secondly, that other and inadmissible sense put 
 upon them in the works from which we have taken them. 
 
 That a certain Unity, and therefore Continuity, are traceable 
 in the Scriptures, is a proposition which probably no one who 
 has considered the subject will deny. In the first place, there 
 is an indisputable historical neocus, running through the Old 
 Testament, from the beginning to the close of the historical 
 books. Commencing with the creation of the world, that por- 
 tion of the Bible relates the origin and multiplication of man- 
 kind, the call of Abraham, the increase of the Jewish people, 
 their deliverance from Egypt, and their settlement in the land 
 of Canaan. It proceeds from this point, with details whicli 
 extend through many centuries, giving us a rapid outline, 
 perfectly reliable in its main features, of the foundation of the 
 Hebrew monarchy, the division of the nation into two king- 
 doms, and the parallel histories of these, until the destruction 
 of both, terminating in the Babylonian captivity of Judah. To 
 this, again, follows the restoration of the captive people to 
 their own land, with the re-establishment of their religion and 
 of the temple worship on Mount Zion. 
 
 Throughout the older Scriptures, there is thus an evident 
 historical continuity fairly consistent in its different parts. 
 The historical books now in our hands may, in fact, be con- 
 sidered to have been arranged as they are, with a distinct 
 regard, on the part of the collectors, to such a continuity.* 
 It may even be, as we have formerly noticed, that this was 
 the great consideration which secured the preservation of a 
 large proportion of the older Scriptures, — the consideration, 
 namely, that the books of the collection, as we have it, form in 
 effect a continuous narrative; many of the prophetic writings 
 
 * In the Helirew text, the prophets (except Daniel) and tlie poetical books inter- 
 vene between 2 Kings and the later historical books, Ezra, Nehemiah, Cbronicles — 
 Daniel, Ruth and Esther, being included with the latter. 
 
10 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTUEE, 
 
 serving, again, to illustrate or to confirm the historical repre- 
 sentations given in the other books. 
 
 And there is a continuity of the same kind, not always har- 
 monious, however, in the New Testament, — comprising, as this 
 does, the Evangelical narratives of the life of Christ, followed 
 by the account of the foundation of the primitive church, and 
 of the labours of some of the chief apostles ; the whole being 
 illustrated and confirmed in this case too, by a series of related 
 documents, in the form of the Epistles. 
 
 Again, it cannot fail to be observed that throughout the Old 
 Testament, in nearly all its parts, as throughout the New also, 
 the conception of One God, Jehovah, as the central power and 
 providence of the world, aud the especial protector of Israel, 
 is almost everywhere prominent. Thus the Hebrew Scriptures 
 are strongly monotheistic, although such was by no means 
 always the case with the people whose history they preserve. 
 The books deliver, in effect, a consistent and faithful testimony, 
 varied in form, but continuous in spirit, against the idolatrous 
 beliefs of the heathen world ; and they have, without doubt, 
 been largely the means through which has been handed down 
 to our times the deep-rooted faith in the One God which now 
 exists throughout Christendom. 
 
 Moreover, that He, Jehovah, is a personal Being, of might 
 and wisdom unspeakable, is constantly either taken for granted 
 and implied, or more expressly declared. The same is true in 
 regard to His moral attributes ; He is a God of righteousness ; 
 One who, as the people are often reminded by their prophets, 
 is not to be propitiated by sacrifices, or other forms of cere- 
 monial worship, but who " desireth truth in the inward parts," 
 and requires from His people a character and conduct corre- 
 sponding to the supreme justice and holiness of His own nature. 
 Intermingled often with less exalted ideas, and unquestionably, 
 in the early periods, with many purely traditionary and my- 
 thological details, such thoughts of God as these are yet the 
 
IN "WHAT SENSE ADMISSIBLE. 11 
 
 resulting impression from a fair perusal of the Old Testament 
 books; and it may justly be said that that portion of the 
 Scriptures exhibits, in this respect, qualities of unity and con- 
 tinuity in an eminent degree. 
 
 There is another important subject in which the same fact 
 is seen, although, in tliis case, it is more especially in the 
 prophetical books that it is exemplified. The calamities which 
 from time to time overtake the Hebrew nation are not able to 
 shake the confidence of the more devout minds in the protec- 
 tion of Jehovah. Present evil, they are sure, will lead to 
 future good, to the extirpation of idolatry, to purity of wor- 
 ship, to better times of national prosperity and peace, under 
 the rule of some future Prince of righteousness. Hence the 
 Messianic expectations of the Old Testament, which however 
 natural in their origin, were and have been wonderfully power- 
 ful in their influence, not only upon the Jews, but upon the 
 Christian world, and in our modern times. And such antici- 
 pations are found scattered through the prophetical books, and 
 in various passages of other books, from the beginning ; — not, 
 indeed, in the precise form usually alleged, — the expectation 
 of a definite person like Jesus Christ, — but in a simpler form, 
 one more accordant with the national character, and with the 
 cultivation and circumstances of the Hebrews, in the times of 
 the respective writers.* With Jehovah as their supreme 
 Sovereign and Defender, it could not be that they should sink 
 in despair. Even in the worst periods of Assyrian or Baby- 
 lonian invasion, the comforting thought is present that the 
 season of trouble or of ruin will pass away and better days 
 hereafter appear. And in the later Maccabsean times we 
 know how bravely the nation suffered and resisted, and rose 
 up at last triumphant over the most terrible persecutions. 
 
 Such is undoubtedly the prevailing tenor of many books 
 
 * See, for example, the promises to Abraliam, Geu. xvii. ; those toAhaz, Isaiah 
 vii. 13 — 16 ; those to captive Israel, Isaiah xl., seq. 
 
12 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE, 
 
 and sections of books ; while yet it cannot be said to be uni- 
 formly, or everywhere, present. Jeremiah is very constantly 
 despondent. Some of the Psalms are equally so ;* and even 
 various passages in the later Isaiah are not without their tone 
 of sadness, almost of hopelessness : — 
 
 " Oh that thou wouldest rend the heavens, 
 That thou wouldest come down, 
 
 That the mountains might be shaken at thy presence ! 
 
 * * * * * * * 
 
 " Be not wroth to the uttermost, Jehovah, 
 Neither remember iniquity for ever : 
 Behold, see, we beseech thee, thy people are we all. 
 Thy holy cities are a wilderness, 
 Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation ; 
 Our holy and our beautiful house, 
 Where our fathers praised thee, 
 Is burned up with fire. 
 And all our pleasant things are laid waste. 
 Wilt thou restrain thyself at these things, Jehovah 1 
 Wilt thou keep silence and afflict us to the uttermost V 
 
 Isaiah Ixiv. 1, 9—12. 
 
 The Messianic expectations, in their earlier forms, were, as 
 we have noted, somewhat A'-ague, being fixed upon the thought 
 of national prosperity under a wise and victorious prince, 
 rather than upon any conception of a definite religious leader 
 or Saviour for the world at large. -f- Yet in the course of time, 
 as such expectations remained unfulfilled, the idea of the deli- 
 verer and his work would appear to have been greatly modified, 
 and raised iii character. Continued or often experienced ad- 
 versity might well suggest to the people the futility of ambi- 
 tious hopes, and lead them to look for times of spiritual 
 regeneration, rather than of conquest over enemies and of 
 
 * Psalms Ixxix. Ixxx. 
 
 + Isaiah ix. 1 — 7, xi. xii.; Pan. vii. 9 — 14. 
 
IN WHAT SENSE ADMISSIBLE. 13 
 
 ]iolitica] pre-eminence. Probably a change of this kind had 
 taken place, or had been going on, in many minds long before 
 the Christian era. Hence, although tlie ancient expectations 
 had never been fulfilled, yet they had doubtless served, in a 
 certain sense, to prepare the way for Christ and the Gospel. 
 In this, again, there is clearly a certain "continuity" between 
 the Old Testament and the New. In this sense, too, the pro- 
 position is undoubtedly verified — verified in a higlier and 
 better sense than is usually allowed — that Prophecy was a 
 preparation for Christ.* 
 
 It is difficult, however, to say to what extent the more ele- 
 vated idea of the Messiah and his office was entertained in the 
 time of Christ. Both in the P)Ook of Enoch and in the Gospels 
 themselves, many traces occur of the continued influence of the 
 belief in a temporal Messiah.-f- It cannot, indeed, in any case, 
 be said that special direct, or adequate preparation was made 
 for Jesus Christ, under the influence of the earlier forms of 
 Messianic belief Those forms did not, in fact, prepare the 
 people for the acceptance of a humble and despised Messiah. 
 This we plainly see by the result. The mass of his country- 
 men rejected and crucified the "Nazarene." Even the belief 
 held in later years by the personal friends and early disciples 
 of Jesus, appears long to have included very material ideas — 
 ideas which have never been realized, of his return to take 
 vengeance on his enemies and restore the kingdom to Israel. 
 
 Yet in another sense the Hebrew religion, almost from its 
 origin, may clearly be regarded as a providential preparation 
 for him that was to come. Nowhere else in the world, except 
 among the Jews, trained as they were to a monotheistic faith, 
 
 * This, we apprehend, is the only true sense in which such a proposition holds 
 good. The reader may compare, again, Dr. Payne Smith's work before cited, in 
 which he will find the traditional and dogmatic view of the subject duly stated, and 
 ably defended with the usual arguments. 
 
 + Matt. XX. 20, seq. ; Luke xxii. 24; quotations from the Booh of Enoch, in 
 Colenso on the Pentateuch, Part IV., Appendix. 
 
14 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTUEE, 
 
 and at least influenced, if not powerfully controlled, by the 
 high moral and religious spirit of many of their prophets, — 
 nowhere else in the world of that day but among this people, 
 could such a person as Jesus of Nazareth have made his ap- 
 pearance, or taken his stand to appeal to future generations as 
 the great spiritual teacher of mankind. Nowhere else in the 
 world, it may safely be said, could he have obtained an audi- 
 ence, fit though few, of sympathizing minds, or have found 
 even a small band of ardent and devoted disciples ready to 
 follow him, and to lay down their lives for his sake. This fact 
 certainly forms a valid and remarkable set-off against the nar- 
 rowness and bigotry which led to his destruction. Nor should 
 it be forgotten, as it too often is, by those who are anxious in 
 modern times for the " conversion" of the Jews. 
 
 The New Testament differs from the Old, in as much as it 
 possesses a certain character of completion, or fulfilment, as 
 compared with the latter. Yet in this too there is evident 
 unity as well as continuity of plan. There is a certain prepa- 
 ration and growth in the one, resulting in a corresponding 
 development in the other. The idea of the One Jehovah, the 
 Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, is still there ; but it is 
 under the better name of Father, the Father in Heaven. We 
 are now, under the influence of great Christian minds, fami- 
 liarized with the thought of His universal dominion. He is 
 One who is no respecter of persons ; and Jew and Gentile 
 alike, by receiving the Christ whom He has sent, may be 
 equally His children. Here is a certain diversity, indeed, from 
 the old exclusive idea, but springing out of tliis, nevertheless, 
 by a kind of natural growth and completion. So with the 
 morality of the New Testament. It is the old morality, but 
 raised and purified. In Christ and his Apostle Paul, you 
 have its most perfect expression ; and when separated from 
 the temporary controversies about the claims of tlie Law, and 
 a few of the Jewish ideas of the time, it is a morality as per- 
 
IN WHAT SENSE ADMISSIBLE. 15 
 
 feet as the human mind has yet been able to conceive ; a 
 morality which few, indeed, of the children of men have been 
 able practically to carry out in its perfectness and unselfish- 
 ness, in the whole conduct of a life. 
 
 In the New Testament, moreover, the better Messianic 
 ideas of the Old are realized and fulfilled — fulfilled in a certain 
 Christian sense, though not in the sense in which they were 
 entertained by the ancient Hebrews among wliom they had 
 grown up, or even by the sacred writers by whom they had 
 been put on record. The Messiah, the great leader and prince 
 foreshadowed of old, is not, it is true, the conquering, temporal 
 prince anticipated by them : on the contrary, he is one who 
 has been despised, rejected and destroyed by his own people. 
 But this defeat is only for a time ; he shall come again, to sit 
 in judg!nent on his adversaries, to condemn the ungodly, and 
 drive them from his presence, into the punishment which is 
 their due ; and shall thus introduce the promised reign of 
 prosperity and righteousness.* Those Mdio thus believed had 
 no difficulty in interpreting the great anticipations of the 
 ancient Scriptures. Poetical expressions of confidence in 
 Jehovah, and of deliverance from heathen enemies ; a Psalm 
 of joyful congratulation on the accession of Solomon, or some 
 other king ; a nuptial ode on the marriage of a Jewish prince ; 
 or a passage descriptive of the persecution of a servant of Jeho- 
 vah in the olden times,-f- were now seen, after the manner of the 
 day, to have their true fulfilment in the fate and fortunes of 
 the Christ and his followers. Here, again, there is a manifest 
 unity ; a growth, development, continuity, which correspond 
 
 * Matt. xxiv. 27, seq., xxv. 31, seq. ; Mark xiii. ; Lulce xii. 86—40, xvii. 24 
 — 37. Also pa.ssagcs in the Epistles /iftssm. It is probable that some of the lan- 
 guage attributed to Christ on this subject has been inlluenced and coloured by the 
 expectations of his disciples. Some of his sayings bear a different character, as 
 Matt. xxii. 23 ; Luke xxii. 24—27. Such passages most probably express the 
 genuine feeling of the Master. Compare John xviii. 36. 
 
 •f- Pss. ii. xlv. Ixxii. ; Isaiah liii. 
 
16 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCEIPTUEE, 
 
 in some sense, though not exactly in the sense intended by 
 their authors, to the two expressions before referred to. 
 
 On one great subject, however, there is a notable absence of 
 both the qualities in question, when the Old Testament is 
 compared with the New. The doctrine of a Future Life, so 
 prominent in some passages of the latter, is nowhere set forth 
 in the former. It is very questionable whether that doctrine 
 is even alluded to in the Old Testament,* while in some pas- 
 sages it appears to be denied — as, for example, in Ecclesiastes, 
 and Job, especially in chapter xiv.-f- of the latter, taken in 
 connection with other passages of this book. At all events, the 
 doctrine in question is not expressly or clearly taught in the 
 Old Testament ; in so much that it may be a matter of great 
 doubt whether the ancient Hebrews had any general belief in 
 it or not. Indeed, we know that a distinguished prelate of the 
 English Church, holding that they had not, founded upon that 
 alleged fact an elaborate argument for the " Divine Legation 
 of Moses." This is one respect, therefore, in which neither 
 "unity" nor "continuity" can be affirmed of the Bible; and 
 there are some other points, less fundamental, in regard to 
 which the same admission must be made. 
 
 What, for instance, is the imity, or the continuity, between 
 the book of Leviticus and the prevailing tone of the earlier 
 Isaiah, in particular of his first chapter ? — bfitween the book 
 of Job and Solomon's Song ? — between the Proverbs and the 
 Sermon on the Mount? — the Book of Daniel and the Epistle 
 to the Galatians, or the First Epistle of St. John ? — between 
 the spirit of the various imprecatory Psalms and the spirit of 
 Christ? In what sense can the unity between the books in 
 such cases be said to be " organic" ? The only relation exist- 
 ing is simply one of incompatibility ; or one of marked anta- 
 
 * A few expressions in the Psalms have been tlioiight to imply this belief, but 
 they are very doubtful. Comp. Ps. xvi. 10, 11 ; xvii. 15 ; xxxvi. 8, 9 ; xlix. 15. 
 t Job xiv. 7—12, 14, 18—21. 
 
IN WHAT SENSE ADMISSIBLE. 17 
 
 gonism ; or else, again, there is no sort of describable relation 
 at all, the one book simply standing apart in absolute inde- 
 pendence, and ignoring the existence of the other. To how- 
 many of the books of Scripture this remark is applicable, we 
 need not stop to inquire ; but that the proportion is not small, 
 admits of no reasonable question. 
 
 And yet Dr. Liddon does not hesitate to speak with ap- 
 proval of the old and mischievous practice of " quoting from 
 any one book of Scripture in illustration of the mind of any 
 other ;" as he does of the belief that Scripture contains " an 
 harmonious and integral body of sacred truth"* — a belief 
 which is so palpably inconsistent with the facts of the case. 
 
 In short, the unity and continuity of the Scriptures are 
 very real, very substantial ; but they are such, and only such, 
 as we might expect to find in the somewhat fragmentary 
 remains of the entire literature of an ancient people, which is 
 the true character of the Old Testament. There is in the 
 several parts a certain consistency of historical statement, a 
 certain uniformity of feeling, of religious belief, of prophetic 
 anticipation ; but, at the same time, there is a great amount 
 of very important diversity. The books of the Pentateuch -f- 
 may aflirm the doctrine of temporal retribution in a very 
 material form ; a Book of Job, as its resultant lesson, may 
 deny it. A prophet, like the earlier Isaiah, may. anticipate 
 the time when peace and righteousness shall prevail, and the 
 nation shall be supreme over its ancient enemies, Moabites, 
 I'hilistines, Assyrians, Egyptians;]: while the later course of 
 the history, as recorded in Scripture itself, may shew us that 
 such anticipations have never been fulfilled. One Psalmist 
 may give utterance to the must terrible imprecations against 
 his own, or his nation's enemies, while a chapter in a Gospel 
 or an Epistle may tell us to love our enemies, to bless them 
 that persecute us, to overcome evil witli good. One book may 
 
 * B. L., pp. 4.'), 4(i. t For example, Deut. v. vi. x.xviii. J Isaiah xi. 
 
 C 
 
18 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OP SCEIPTUEE, 
 
 lay a painful stress on the minute observance of outward 
 ceremonies, and the offering of sacrifices, while another, in its 
 predominant strain, may speak with a clear repudiation of 
 such things as utterly unavailing to win the favour of God, 
 or make atonement for a disobedient, idolatrous life. Such 
 diversities are largely seen throughout the books of Scripture 
 — as in truth we ought to expect when we remember their 
 great number and variety, as well as the very dissimilar states 
 of national civilization to which they correspond. Still, with 
 all this rich and various diversity, they present a degree of 
 unity which is sufficiently remarkable, and which has unques- 
 tionably helped greatly to render the Bible capable of being, 
 in an eminent degree, the moral and religious educator of a 
 large portion of the human race. This it has undoubtedly 
 been in times past, and we venture to anticipate and to hope 
 that it "will be so still in days to come, in a better and more 
 rational way than the world has yet seen. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OP SCEIPTUEE AS MAINTAINED BY 
 LOED HATHEELEY. 
 
 The degree or kind of " organic unity," and of " continuity," 
 thus found to exist in the Bible, is not, however, that which is 
 meant by Lord Hatherley and Dr. Liddon. This will be suffi- 
 ciently seen in the course of the present and three following 
 chapters. Our attention is claimed, in the first place, by the 
 careful exposition given in the Preface to the Continuity of 
 Scripture. 
 
 There are three forms, we are here told, under which the 
 unity of the Scriptures is seen : The historical unity of sub- 
 
AS HELD BY LORD HATHEELEY. 19 
 
 ject; the moral unity; the spiritual unity. These three forms, 
 however, under his Lordship's treatment, are really resolvable 
 into o)ie, namely, a theological unity. By " historical unity" he 
 does not mean that consistency or continuity of historical and 
 other statements of which we have spoken as actually exempli- 
 fied in the Scriptures, — but the " Creation, Fall and Eestora- 
 tion of Man." 
 
 " The Bible," Lord Hatherley writes, " contains the history 
 of man's creation, his fall, his miserable degradation, conse- 
 quent on that fall, and his restoration to favour with his Crea- 
 tor, through a sinless Eedeemer."* In unfolding for his readers 
 the character of this unity, he naturally sees and interprets 
 everything included in his survey by the light of his OM'n 
 creed ; and finds, of course, fresh confirmation for the latter in 
 the prevailing strain of Scriptural statements. Yet few readers, 
 we imagine, will be prepared to follow his Lordship, whose 
 minds are as free as they ought to be from prepossessions 
 similar to his own, even though the path which he takes may 
 appear to be the broad and easy one, and very many may be 
 found upon it. It is not an easy path, in reality, but one of 
 very serious difficulty. Thus, for illustration, there is nothing 
 in Genesis iii. to shew that the writer of that passage had any 
 idea of the " Fall," in the usual theological sense of this term. 
 He does not sa)/ — though Lord Hatherley says it for himf — 
 nor is it anywhere said in the Scriptures, that the Serpent was 
 Satan, or that Satan was in the Serpent, this being only a 
 theological gloss put upon the narrative in later times. Satan 
 docs not make his appearance in any of the most ancient 
 books of the Old Testament, as a reader may easily see for 
 himself J Nor does the writer of Genesis say that all the 
 descendants of Adam and Eve " fell" in their progenitors, that 
 
 * Continuity, pp. xiv, xv. + Ibid. p. xvi. 
 
 X The conception of Satan occur.s in tliree 0. T. books, viz., Job (i. ii.), Zecb. 
 (iii. 1, 2), 1 Ciiron. (x.vi. 1), — all of comparatively late origin. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE, 
 
 is, became guilty, because of their transgression. Nor, again, 
 is this supposed fall of the human race ever, we believe, so 
 much as alluded to, in the whole course of the Old Testament 
 history, extending over a long period of many centuries. It 
 is not noticed by the Prophets in the worst periods of national 
 wickedness and idolatry, although, in such times, occasions 
 without number presented themselves, by which the primeval 
 transgression might well have been brought to their minds. 
 It is not mentioned, nor in any way alluded to, throughout 
 the Gospels ; and the only instances in the Epistles, in which 
 it can be supposed to have been in the mind of the writer, arc 
 afforded by two or three obscure expressions* in St. Paul's 
 writings. That Apostle does not, however, say that all became 
 guilty in Adam, but that all became subject to death in him,f 
 inheriting from him the mortality which, according to the old 
 Hebrew idea, was the penalty of transgression. 
 
 Thus the fundamental idea of a fall, which lies at the 
 basis of Lord Hatherley's historical unity, affords the very 
 weakest of foundations for the vast and complicated scheme 
 of salvation which is made to stand upon it. At most, it 
 depends on the construction given to a few difficult expressions 
 of St. Paul ; and it is certainly nowhere in the Scriptures held 
 up to us as the one greatest fact in the primitive history of 
 
 * Rom. V. 12—19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22 ; Ephes. ii. 3. 
 
 f In Rom. V. 15 — 19, the idea appears to be, that condemnation and death 
 ensued on the transgression of one. The same passed to others, and to all, because 
 all have sinned. So "through the offence of the one" many died, hut only by 
 sharing in the mortality introduced, — nothing is said about their sharing in the 
 guilt. The only words which give an apparent support to the latter idea are in 
 V. 19, "were made sinners." The meaning can only be, were condemned, treated 
 as if they were sinners, inasmuch as they became subject to death, the consequence 
 of sin. 
 
 In Ephes. ii. 3, the Apostle is speaking of actual trespasses and sins ; but again 
 says nothing of the imputation of the guilt of others. In their natural state, as 
 Jews or Gentiles before conversion to Christianity, all were "children of wrath," 
 liable to punishment, on account of past sins — but these, the Apostle adds, are 
 now forgiven in Christ. 
 
AS HELD BY LORD HATHERLEY. 21 
 
 man, to which everything else in the Divine plan of restora- 
 tion bears reference — as the popular theology holds it up. 
 
 The "moral unity" is treated in a kindred manner. It 
 would seem to be especially shewn in the fact that, although 
 the design of the Almighty Providence to bring about certain 
 ends usually fails, yet this failure is constantly remedied by 
 some later provision.* Man is created that he may be inno- 
 cent and happy, but he falls from righteousness. " Seth is 
 born that the evil race of Cain may not alone represent the 
 race of man •" yet, nevertheless, in a few hundred years the 
 whole race of man has to be destroyed from the face of the 
 earth, on account of its wickedness. Noah and his family are 
 saved ; but here, alas ! we soon have " shameful drunkenness" 
 on the part of Noah, " .shocking irreverence" on the part of 
 Canaan. Then we have righteous Abraham, guilty of " timid 
 deceit with reference to Sarah ;" we have the usual slighting 
 and hardly just estimate of "profane Esau," "Jacob's fraud," 
 David's crime, Solomon's folly; the whole forcibly shewing 
 that there is a constant failure of events and characters to 
 produce the results which they had been intended to bring 
 about. All goes, of course, to exhibit and illustrate the 
 natural helplessness of man, and his need of a supernatural 
 provision for his "salvation" in accordance with orthodox 
 ideas. We wish Lord Hatherley could have added that even 
 the Christian dispensation had been more successful, from his 
 own point of view, than any of the earlier provisions. But, as 
 is well known, popular preaching does not usually admit this. 
 The devil is still the triumphant power in the universe. We 
 have heard this loudly declared by a much esteemed evan- 
 gelical clergyman, who told his people that even in Christian 
 congregations tlie larger part belong to Satan. And truly 
 there is ungodliness enough in the world, unbelief in the 
 orthodox doctrines of the Church, idolatry, sin and misery in 
 
 * Continuity, pi>. xix — xxii. 
 
22 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTUEE. 
 
 every direction, enough of these to make us fear that the last 
 state of mankind is quite as bad as the first — even when due 
 allowance is made for all those, comparatively few at most, 
 who may happen to be "saved," or to believe themselves 
 saved, according to the scheme of salvation propounded by 
 Lord Hatherley. 
 
 The third species of unity, "the spiritual unity," is of 
 course theological also. It differs from the previous ones in 
 being more specific in its doctrinal statements and allusions. 
 " The atoning sacrifice for the guilt of all mankind," is, we are 
 told, " carried through the whole sacred volume, from Genesis 
 to Eevelation." So is the doctrine of tlie Trinity, mysteriously 
 suggested or involved, as it is, in the " Jehovah Elohim,* the 
 one yet plural Lord God ;" and in some other forms of expres- 
 sion highly significant to ortliodox readers,-f- but in which the 
 doctrine of the Trinity was never understood or suspected to 
 exist, by the Jews, either of ancient or of modern times. So 
 that here, again, it might appear as if the whole providential 
 design of God, in the case even of His own chosen people, had 
 been wonderfully frustrated, and what He intended had never 
 been brought to pass. 
 
 It is not necessary to our present purpose to enter further 
 into the examination of Lord Hatherley 's Preface. Doubtless 
 very many of his readers will entirely sympathize with the 
 devout and earnest spirit in which it is written. But yet, 
 while granting this, it is impossible to lose sight of the grave 
 difficulties of one kind and another which press upon the 
 whole theological scheme set forth, and which are passed over 
 in silence. The learned author, indeed, expressly avoids, 
 almost repudiates, what he terms " the thorny paths of criti- 
 cism." But, on the other hand, it cannot be supposed possible 
 to reach any result satisfactory to an intelligent mind by 
 
 * A double form rarely met with after Genesis ii^iii. 
 t Numb. vi. 22—27 ; Isaiah vi. 3. 
 
AN ALTERNATIVE. 23 
 
 taking everything for granted. If, as the poet tells us, " blind 
 unbelief is sure to err," the same may just as truly be said of 
 blind belief; and it contributes little indeed to the support 
 of rational Christian faith, to begin by giving an unquestion- 
 ing assent to almost every traditional doctrine of the day popu- 
 larly deemed evangelical. 
 
 Into one mode of argument we are especially surprised to 
 find his Lordship so readily gliding. " Assuredly," he observes, 
 " the two Testaments must stand or fall together ; assuredly, 
 if the Old Scriptures be devoid in any part of truth, our Lord's 
 testimony to them must (shocking as it is to say so) be un- 
 truthful ; and if so, then, indeed, tlie moral world is again a 
 chaos, and the Christian's hope a dream."* Such a saying as 
 this appears to us to be, indeed, " shocking." The writer of 
 the words, perhaps, has not realized to himself what they 
 amount to. But it is plainly this, — if the particular view of 
 the subject taken by me, the writer of this Preface, be not 
 correct, "our Lord's testimony" is "untruthful." This is not 
 an uncommon form of orthodox asseveration. Dr. Liddon 
 offends in the same point more than once. " Christus, si non 
 Dens, non bonus," — thus he summarizes the contents of one of 
 his pages, in which occur these words, " If he (Christ) is not 
 God, he is not a humble or an unselfish man. Nay, he is not 
 even sincere ; unless we have recourse to a supposition upon 
 whicli the most desperate of his modern opponents have not 
 yet ventured, and say with his jealous kinsmen in tlie early 
 days of his ministry, that he is beside himself" -f- 
 
 Such is the modesty of modern ortliodoxy ! Either the view 
 which it takes of Christ and his work is the true one, or 
 else the Christian Apostles and Christ himself were little 
 better than deceivers, the Scriptures are without value, and 
 Christianity is an imposition upon the world. We humbly 
 submit that it is not absolutely necessary to accept either 
 
 * Continuiti/, p. Ix. t Liildon, B. L. , p. 203. 
 
24 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCEIPTUEE. 
 
 of these alternatives. We believe that there exists a far truer 
 via media, and this we hope to shew before finishing our 
 present task. 
 
 The prefatory exposition of doctrine referred to in these 
 observations is followed by a series of extracts from the Old 
 Testament, set over against certain New Testament passages 
 in which the former are quoted, or alluded to. Nearly every 
 book of the Old Testament, we are reminded, is referred to in 
 the New, by our Lord himself, or by an Evangelist or other 
 writer. " I believe," says Lord Hatherley, " very few persons 
 know how many books of the Old Testament have been 
 stamped with the approval of this really ' high criticism.' For 
 instance, our Lord has not only recognized the whole body of 
 the Old Testament, included by the Jews in the threefold 
 division of ' the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets,' has not 
 only told us that ' they testify of liim,' but has cited or directly 
 referred to passages from every book of the Pentateuch, and 
 has in like manner borne testimony to the following Books : — 
 the First of Samuel, the two Books of Kings, the Second Book 
 of Chronicles, the Psalms, and to the Prophets Isaiah, Jere- 
 miah, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Jonah, Micah, Zechariah, and Ma- 
 lachi."* A similar statement is made in reference to "the 
 writers of the New Testament as distinguished from Christ 
 himself" Thus, " we have only seven Books, out of the thirty- 
 nine constituting the Old Testament, which are not referred to 
 in the New." But, moreover, Christ himself, and the New 
 Testament writers, refer to the Old Testament as a vjhole ; and 
 hence it is clear, in a word, that a certain "testimony" is 
 •' borne by the New Testament to the Old." 
 
 These are facts which, we apprehend, only require stating to 
 be admitted by most persons. But yet the conclusion to be 
 drawn from the references to the Old Testament in the New, 
 and in general from the use made of it by the Christian 
 
 * Continuity, p. xxxiii. 
 
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 25 
 
 writers, is not ver}' clearly defined by his Lordship. What 
 does the "approval" spoken of amount to? — the "testimony" 
 to the books, what exactly does it attest beyond the fact of 
 their general reception as the sacred books of the Hebrews, 
 perhaps under the name of a particular author, at the time 
 when they were so referred to? Lord Hatherley does not 
 pronounce an explicit judgment on these weighty points. He 
 affirms, however, that " if Christ be Very God, his word must 
 be conclusive on either the authenticity or the value of the 
 writings of the Old Testament."* Doubtless by this proposi- 
 tion the least we can understand is this, that the citation of 
 an Old Testament book by Jesus Christ in the Gospels ought 
 to be regarded as conclusive evidence of authorship and of tlie 
 "value" of the book, whatever difficulties or impossibilities 
 may lie in the way of admitting the conclusion to which that 
 evidence appears to lead. This position, strange as it is, is 
 doubtless held by many religious persons besides the author 
 of the Continuity ; and therefore it will be well, in tliis con- 
 nection, to examine, as briefly as may be, the use made of 
 the Old Testament in tlie New, and how far it bears out the 
 popular ideas on this subject. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the Jews of our Lord's time, as 
 well as their ancestors for many generations, held their sacred 
 books in the greatest reverence. Those books were read in 
 the synagogues, and constituted the chief literary nutriment 
 of the great bulk of the nation. They were to the Jew the 
 
 * Continuity, p. xxxii. 
 
26 USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 depository of almost all knowledge, recording the history of 
 his people, and the wonderful deeds which Jehovah had done 
 for them in times of old. The mind of a devout Hebrew was 
 stored with thoughts and expressions drawn directly from the 
 ancient Scriptures, and the Messianic hopes cherished by the 
 nation were believed to be firmly based upon the words of 
 prophets inchided in the sacred volume. That volume con- 
 tained, moreover, the national code, under the sanction of 
 which the religious institutions of the State existed ; and no 
 better argument or evidence could be adduced in any doubtful 
 case than the citation of its testimony, the statement of any 
 fact which it might afford, or be sujDposed to afford, applicable 
 to a point in discussion. 
 
 That such value as this was attached to the Old Testament 
 by the Jews of the primitive Christian age, there can be no 
 doubt.* But whether or not they were always rigid in their 
 interpretations, in their ascription of a sacred book to an 
 author, or in their application of the words of ancient pro- 
 phecy, — this is another question altogether. 
 
 It is not to be forgotten that the Apostles and Evangelists, 
 and Christ himself, born and brought up as Jews and 
 among the Jewish people, would necessarily share their feel- 
 ings and opinions in reference to the ancient Scriptures. We 
 have no reason to think that on this subject they had any 
 special knowledge. At least they never tell us that they had ; 
 and any one who supposes such a thing is bound to give some 
 positive evidence, beyond mere inferences from his own dog- 
 matic theories, or those of ancient Fathers-i* AVe have, indeed, 
 
 * The liigb terms in which Philo speaks of the Old Testament Scriptures may be 
 seen in Gfrorer's Philo, capp. 4, 5. The words of Josephus are well known. It 
 is natural, he tells us, to all Jews to adhere to their sacred books, and if it were 
 necessary even to die for them. 
 
 + Compare Liddon, B. L., p. 458, seq., and the quotations there given from 
 various Fathers, who were evidently as much perplexed by the ignorance of Christ 
 in Mark xiii. 32, as Dr. Liddon himself — and no more successful in explaining it, 
 on the orthodox supposition of the two natures. • 
 
USE OP THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 27 
 
 positive evidence that Jesus Clirist, and a fortiori his follow- 
 ers, must have partaken of the common views of their coun- 
 trymen, in this respect. We read of his being a child, and a 
 boy, and living with his parents in Nazareth ; and we are 
 told that he "increased in wisdom and in age."* In another 
 Gospel, we read that Jesus himself spoke of the limited nature 
 of his own knowledge. He did not know, he said, of the day 
 of his second coming : " Of that day, and that hour, knoweth 
 no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the 
 Son, but the Father." -|- 
 
 Dr. Liddon is naturally very anxious to make it plain that 
 omniscience and ignorance might co-exist at one time in the 
 same person. The problem, we apprehend, has not yet received 
 its solution, evCn at his hands ; and it will probably still 
 remain, as a test of faith, may we not say, almost as trying 
 to some minds as the Athanasian Creed itself "We need not 
 dwell upon the point, and refer the reader to Dr. Liddon for 
 such alleviation of the difficulty as he has found it possible 
 to offer.J 
 
 There is then, on the face of the Gospels, no reason to sup- 
 pose that eveii the Lord Jesus Christ had any special enlight- 
 enment on the subject of the authenticity and genuineness of 
 the sacred books. It is certain that he never informs us that 
 he had ; and it only tends to involve his character and autho- 
 rity in the gravest doubt, to set up for him claims of this kind, 
 •which he does not make for himself, and which cannot be 
 substantiated. We may reasonably conclude, therefore, that 
 Christ and his disciples would regard and use and speak of 
 the sacred books exactly after the manner of other Jews of 
 their own time. 
 
 * Luke ii. 43, 52. ' 
 
 + Mark xiii. 32. In this verse, a slight variation in the MSS. ("an angel in 
 heaven") does not materially afifect the sense. 
 
 * B.L., pp. 458—472. 
 
28 USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 In those days, it is hardly necessary to say, critical science 
 was little known. A book, especially a sacred book of ancient 
 descent, was usually, so far as we know, received without 
 inquiry under the name of its reputed author. We believe 
 that there is no instance in which the claims, or reputed 
 claims, of any Old Testament writer are called in question, 
 or discussed on critical grounds, by any authority of the time 
 of Christ, or in previous centuries. A book of Moses, a book 
 of Samuel, a book of Isaiah, would be each read and circu- 
 lated, and attributed to the supposed author, without difli- 
 culty, even though it might contain matter which he could 
 not have w^ritten.* Critical investigation in reference to such 
 points was simply not thought of. 
 
 Hence it is not to be doubted that most of the Old Testa- 
 ment books are referred to in the New Testament exactly as 
 Lord Hatherley has stated, and with precisely the same ready 
 acquiescence as to their authorship which is ex^emplified by 
 his Lordship himself But how far this acceptance of the 
 older Scriptures by the personages and writers of the Chris- 
 tian books should be admitted, or can be admitted, by us of 
 modern times, as a substitute for critical inquiry on our part, 
 as a valid reason for shutting our eyes to every literary, or 
 historical, or philological difficulty involved in a given case, 
 and for putting precisely the same meaning upon cited pas- 
 sages which the Christian writers put upon them, — this may 
 still be a very weighty question. Certainly the anxiety 
 usually shewn by orthodox writers to prove, by considerations 
 of every available kind, that the Pentateuch, for example, or 
 the whole Book of Isaiah, is rightly attributed each to the 
 author whose name is now upon it, allows us easily to see 
 that even the most ready faith is not as yet quite satisfied to 
 believe, on such matters, without some show of reasonable 
 evidence. 
 
 * Coiup. for example, Geu. xii. 6 ; xiii. 7 ; Deut. xxxiv. 
 
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 29 
 
 Let US take, in illustration of these statements, one of the 
 simplest forms in which the case occurs, that presented by the 
 I'salms. There is reason to believe that this book was popu- 
 larly received, in our Lord's time, as mainly a book of King 
 David. ]\Iany of the Psalms are ascribed to him by name iu 
 the book itself ; and in the New Testament the collection is 
 sometimes cited under his name, and whether he be spoken of 
 in the original as the author of the Psalm cited or not.* The 
 inscriptions, or titles, of the Psalms are known to be ancient. 
 It is also probable that they were received in the early Chris- 
 tian times as of equal authority with the rest of the Psalm. 
 
 It is well known, however, to the student that it is not 
 always possible to admit the authorship of the Psalms as given 
 in the titles. This is fully admitted by the best modern 
 critics, from De Wette and Ewald downwards, and indeed 
 upwards too ; and so the reader will find it substantially 
 stated, even by the very conservative writer referred to in the 
 note.i* Thus, for example. Psalms xiv. xxv. li. Ixix.;}: contain 
 references to the captivity ; yet the titles attribute them to 
 David. Psalm cxxxix. is also called "a Psalm of David." It 
 belongs to a much later period, containing distinct traces of 
 this in the Chaldaic character of the language. Similar 
 remarks apply to many others in the collection, besides those 
 we have now specified. 
 
 * See Mark xii. 36 (Luke xx. 42) ; Rom. iv. G ; xi. 9 : also Acts i. 16 ; ii. 25, 
 compared with Ps. xvi. 8 ; iv. 25, compared with Ps. ii. 1 ; Heb. iv. 7, compared 
 with Ps. xcv. 7, 8. 
 
 t Article Psalms, in Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 954, 955. It 
 may be observed that the writer of this article contradicts himself, in first declar- 
 ing that the superscriptions are "fully trustworthy," and then telling us that many 
 Psalms with Davidic titles " were written by Hezekiah, by Jcsiah, by Zerubbabel, 
 or others of David's posterity ;" and even saying that many such Psalms are shewn 
 lobe of late origin by their Chaldaisms and other indications. " They cannot, 
 therefore," he adds, "be David's own." Then, surely, their superscriptions are 
 not "fully trustworthy." 
 
 + It has been suggested that the above and other Psalms were altered at, or after, 
 the captivity, to adajit them in use to the altered condition of the people. Such a 
 supposition is uncritical, and in no way necessary except to support a theory. 
 
30 USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 Before passing on to speak more in detail of tlie use made 
 in the JSTew Testament not only of Psalms, but of other Old 
 Testament writings, we may observe that the ancient Scrip- 
 tures are, without doubt, occasionally quoted and referred to 
 by way of accommodation simply. Lord Hatherley, it is true, 
 objects in advance to this idea. "Accommodation or adop- 
 tion," he observes, " has been talked of, as the explanation of 
 our Lord's citations from the Old Testament."* And it is 
 evident that he dismisses such a suggestion as hardly worthy 
 of consideration. Let us, nevertheless, endeavour to ascertain 
 a little more exactly how this matter stands, and how far an 
 adequate explanation arises from a reasonable admission of 
 what is thus so summarily rejected. 
 
 There is a very remarkable series of references to the 
 Old Testament, — forming, in fact, a kind of clue to the diffi- 
 culties of the question, and well enabling us to see the use 
 made of the older Scriptures by early Christian writers. This 
 testing passage consists of no less than three chapters in the. 
 Epistle to the Eomans.-J- It is not, however, necessary for our 
 present purpose to enter minutely into all the cases here pre- 
 sented. We shall limit our remarks to some of those which 
 occur in the tentli chapter, but the rest are equally available 
 for the purpose in hand. 
 
 Christ, then, the apostle writes, " is the end of the law for 
 righteousness to every one that believeth ; for Moses (he goes 
 on to say) describeth the righteousness which is of the law, 
 that the man that hath done them shall live hy them. But the 
 righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not 
 in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven ? (that is, to bring 
 Christ down) : or Who shall descend into the deep ? (that is, to 
 bring up Christ from the dead) : but what saith it? — The luord 
 is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart : that is, the word 
 of faith which we preach." + 
 
 * Continuity, p. xxxiv. *j- Rom. ix. x. xi. + Rom. x. 4 — 8. 
 
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 81 
 
 The sentences here given in italics are quoted partly from 
 Deuteronomy and partly from Leviticus.* They are intro- 
 duced by the Apostle exactly as if he intended to convey the 
 idea that in their original design they were written with a 
 reference to Christ, and the righteousness which is by faith in 
 him, as contrasted with that which came by the law. The 
 words are even explained, in two instances, as expressly refer- 
 ring to Christ (" that is, to bring Christ down ;" or again, " to 
 bring Christ up from the dead"). Probably, however, no one 
 can think, or will allege, that St. Paul thus writes in any other 
 sense than by way of accommodation, taking words as if they 
 originally referred to Christ, although they can have had no 
 such original intention. No one, probably, will go so far as to 
 say that the Apostle himself really believed that the authors 
 of Deuteronomy and Leviticus had Jesus Christ in their view, 
 in the words quoted from their respective books. Or will Lord 
 ILatherley go to this length ? 
 
 Several other quotations occur in the same chapter, from 
 Isaiah and from other books of the Old Testament. An 
 examination of these yields the same result ; and shews that 
 the words cannot possibly have been originally spoken of 
 Christ, or the Gospel, but that they are accommodated -to them, 
 adopted by the Apostle in his own sense, according to the well- 
 understood custom of his countrymen at the time. 
 
 The most remarkable of all these applications is, perhaps, 
 that of the words from Psalm xix. 4. Have not the Jews 
 heard the Gospel message ? the apostle asks : Yes, verily, 
 thoy have heard ; for many preachers have spoken to them ; 
 and he confirms his assertion by quoting words of the Psalm 
 which speak not of any human messenger at all, not of persons 
 announcing to others Gospel tiding.s, or tidings of any kind, 
 but of the heavens which declare the glory of God, and the 
 firmament which shevveth the work of his hands. Their 
 
 * Deut. XXX. 11 — 14; Lev. xviii. 5. 
 
32 USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 sound, said the Psalmist, is gone out into all the earth and 
 their words to the end of the world ; and the apostle takes up 
 this declaration, and employs it to express his own immediate 
 idea, to the effect that the Gospel has been made known by 
 preaching throughout the world. What can more plainly 
 prove that, in such cases, we have simply an "accommodation," 
 an adaptation of Old Testament words to the purpose imme- 
 diately in hand ? — that the language of ancient Scripture was 
 sometimes applied by the Christian writers to events and 
 circumstances of their own time, exactly as if it had been so 
 intended to be taken by the original writer ; while yet it is 
 impossible to suppose that any such intent can really have 
 been in the mind of the original writer ? 
 
 It clearly follows from these facts, that the quotation of a 
 passage, or the application of it to a Christian purpose, is far 
 from being a conclusive proof of the primary intention of the 
 words so employed. This must be ascertained by the exami- 
 nation of the passage itself; its genuine meaning and value 
 being determined by a due regard to its original context. This 
 position, we imagine, will become more abundantly sure as 
 we proceed. 
 
 On looking into the Continuity of Scripture for further 
 illustration of these remarks, we come at once upon a passage 
 taken from the prophet Isaiah, and quoted in St. Luke iv. 
 16 — 21. In this place we read that Jesus went into a syna- 
 gOCTue and bcQ-an to read in the Book of Isaiah, the words 
 which are found at the beginning of chapter Ixi. of that pro- 
 phet.* At the close of his reading, we are told, " he began to 
 say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your 
 ears." On referring to the book from which the words are 
 taken, it is found that they do not correspond to the Hebrew. 
 The passage is probably from the Septuagint. It contains 
 
 * Continuiti/, p. 17. 
 
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 33 
 
 also words from Isaiah Iviii.,* incorporated with those from 
 Ixi., while omitting some words of the latter ; — facts which 
 afford a very significant illustration of the freedom with which 
 these quotations are sometimes made, 
 
 A slight examination of the original passage is sufficient to 
 satisfy the reader that the prophet is speaking, not of a per- 
 sonage like Jesus Christ, who was to arise and become promi- 
 nent in the world five or six centuries, more or less, after his 
 own time, but of the deliverance of his people, then captive 
 before his eyes, or at some time to be so. They shall return 
 home, he says, to rebuild the waste places of Jerusalem, and 
 restore the worship of Jehovah on Mount Zion. The prophet 
 speaks of himself as appointed to announce these tidings to 
 his captive friends and companions, "to proclaim liberty to 
 the captive, and the opening of the prison to them that are 
 bound." These words were, however, applicable, in a certain 
 degree, to the spiritual deliverance wrought by Christ, and 
 they are accordingly taken up and applied by him to himself, 
 as the suitable medium by which to express tlio leading pur- 
 pose and spirit of his own ministry. Is it possible, under such 
 circumstances, to suppose that our Lord intended to claim the 
 words as referring to himself in the original and conscious 
 intention of the prophet who wrote them ? On the contrary, 
 it appears to be almost too evident to admit of an argument, 
 that we have here a true instance of the " accommodation" or 
 "adoption" which Lord Ilathcrley rejects, and that the lieader 
 of the words in the synagogue simply applied them in the 
 usual popular way to the particular case and circumstances 
 then existing — as occurs in another Evangelist, in connection 
 with different words.-f- 
 
 Many additional instances of the same kind readily present 
 themselves, and some of these shall be duly considered in the 
 two succeeding Chapters. 
 
 * The words, "to set at liberty them that are bruised" — from Isaiah Iviii. 6, 
 in the Septuagint version. t Mark xii. 10, 11. 
 
34< MESSIANIC PASSAGES : 
 
 CHAPTEE V. 
 
 MESSIANIC PASSAGES: 
 Isaiah VII. 14; lii. 13 — liii. 12; xi. ; ix. 6. 
 
 In applying the term accommodation to the use of Old Tes- 
 tament language noticed in the preceding Chapter, it is not, as 
 before intimated, intended to affirm that no case occurs in 
 which a passage is conceived by the Christian quoter of it to 
 have been originally written with reference to Christ, or the 
 events and circumstances of his life. Such cases, no doubt, 
 do present themselves ; and this Christian conception and use 
 it is which are urged upon us as the all-sufficient proof of the 
 original meaning and purpose of each given passage. In op- 
 position to this, however, it is alleged that the real and primary- 
 import and intention are to be gathered from the cited words, 
 as these lie before us in their original connection ; and that 
 their use by a Christian writer or speaker, their "adoption" or 
 "accommodation" to express Christian ideas, should not be 
 held to afford conclusive evidence as to their original signifi- 
 cation ; — only exemplifying, in fact, as thus used, the way in 
 which tlie early Cliristians were accustomed to read and apply 
 their ancient Scriptures. 
 
 This position we now propose further to illustrate by the 
 example of several passages in the Book of Isaiah usually con- 
 sidered as Messianic, and adduced as such by Dr. Liddon. To 
 these, for the sake of completeness, shall, in the next Chapter, 
 be added a few instances from the Minor Prophets. 
 
 Isaiah vii. 14. — This verse is quoted by the first Evangelist 
 (i. 23), in terms taken nearly verbatim from the Septuagint 
 Greek, which differs, though not materially, from the Hebrew. 
 We need not dwell upon this difference, further than to make 
 one remark. It is not an uncommon case, and it shews us 
 
ISAIAH VII. 1 4. 35 
 
 that New Testament writers who tlius make use of the Septua- 
 gint, even when it dififerd from the Hebrew, and even when 
 they might have quoted the Hebrew (as doubtless several of 
 them, especially St. Paul, could have done), cannot have held 
 those high notions of the "inspiration" of the words of Scrip- 
 ture which are often put forth in our days.* If they had done 
 so, how could they have left the original text and adopted an 
 imperfect, sometimes corrupted, version, as they occasionally 
 do ? Or are we to understand tliat they thought the Septuagint 
 vei"sion not less inspired than the Hebrev/ original ? 
 
 In the English New Testament (Matt. i. 23) the words of 
 the prophet are quoted thus : — " Behold a virgin shall be with 
 child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name 
 Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us."-}- In 
 this rendering, the definite article has been neglected by our 
 translators. In the Greek, and in both the Hebrew and the 
 Septuagint, tlie words are " tlie virgin." In regard to the latter 
 term, it is by no means clear that the original is rightly ren- 
 dered by the Septuagint TrapdiroQ, and the English "virgin." 
 The idea properly belonging to these words is not in the i-oot 
 meaning of the Hebrew word, and it is at least doubtful 
 whether there is an instance in the Old Testament in which 
 that word ought to be rendered as in the English version. 
 The Hebrew, it is well known, has another term to which the 
 strict sense does belong.^ 
 
 In all probability, therefore, the rendering should be, " the 
 young woman," or "the young wife," with the article, as it 
 stands not only in the Hebrew and Septuagint, but in the 
 New Testament text also, indicating, of course, that a definite 
 person was within the prophet's view at the moment. The 
 verb following is (in the Hebrew) in the past tense ; or, rather, 
 
 * By such writers, for example, as Dr. J. Baylee, Verbal Inspiration (1870). 
 t Most probably the verb should be understood, "God is with us," as the 
 word Emmanuel is rendered, Isaiah viii. 10. Comp. Ezek. xlviii. 35. 
 + See Appendix, note A. 
 
 d2 
 
36 MESSIANIC PASSAGES : 
 
 what is^rendered " shall be with child," may better be regarded 
 as an adjective, denoting a present condition, no verbal tense 
 occurring in the original.* So that even a future, or predictive, 
 meaning of tliese words in their original connection is excluded ; 
 the future intention of the prophet's declaration being first 
 indicated, not in this verse, but in the two following verses 
 (15, 16), which speak of an interval between the birth of the 
 child and the time when he shall be old enough to know to 
 refuse the evil and choose the good. The state of the young 
 wife is a something already existing, and it is to result li«re- 
 after in that whicli shall be a sign of the coming deliverance. 
 
 The words of Isaiah may, therefore, be rendered from the 
 Hebrew thus : — " Behold the young wife is with child, and she 
 shall bear a Son, and call his name Immanuel." The sign 
 referred to is to consist in the presence of the child with a 
 significant name ; the promise of deliverance lies in the state- 
 ment that before this child, yet to be born, has reached a 
 certain age, the land shall be delivered from its invading 
 enemies. 
 
 It is evident, again, that this verse and its context belong 
 solely to the time and circumstances of King Ahaz. There is 
 nothing whatever to shew that the writer was looking forward 
 to a time which lay many hundred years away from him in 
 the distant future, or that he had any hidden meaning in his 
 mind which belonged specially to that remote and unknown 
 period. Everything indicates that he is wholly and exclu- 
 sively in the present, or at least in what immediately relates 
 to the present and is shortly to come to pass.-f- The whole 
 
 * A.S in Gen. xvi. 11, "Thou art with cliild," which, with the following words, 
 is parallel in form to this verse of Isaiah. 
 
 + This is allowed by the writer of the article Isaiah in Dr. W. Smith's Dic- 
 tionary of the Bible. He, however, persisting in applying the verse to the birth 
 of Christ, thinks that the prophet may " have misconceived the relations of time 
 in regard to events." Art. Isaiah, p. 880. That is to say, the prophet made a 
 mistake of several hundred years in regard to the birth of the Messiah ! Of what 
 value, then, was the prophecy to Ahaz or his people ? 
 
ISAIAH VII. 14. 37 
 
 cliaptcr, ill short, from begiuning to end relates and is suited 
 simply to Ahaz and his people, their feelings, their hopes and 
 apprehensions. 
 
 But how, then, does it come to appear as it does in the Xew 
 Testament ? Evidently, in accordance with the usage of the 
 Christian writers ; according to which expressions were applied 
 to events and persons of the later times, just as if they had 
 been originally written with reference to them. "All this 
 was done," says the Evangelist, " that it might be fulfilled 
 which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet." The name 
 Immanuel (God is with us) might also be appropriately trans- 
 ferred to Christ — to whom, however, it is never afterwards 
 applied — in whose birth the presence of God with His people 
 ^vas so especially manifested.* But there is nothing to shew 
 that either child is or was what he is named; that his nature 
 mysteriously corresponded to the appellation put upon him 
 for a special purpose. We may, therefore, reasonably under- 
 stand the quotation as a simple accommodation of the prophet's 
 words to the birth of Jesus Christ, according to the usual 
 manner of the New Testament writers. 
 
 The presence of a secondary meaning in the words of Isaiah, 
 is assumed by Bishop Lowth, as by many other expositors ; 
 but it is a pure assumption. There is absolutely nothing in 
 the context to suggest such an idea, or to render it in any 
 M'ay tenable. Nor is it needed for the full exposition of the 
 prophet's words. What object could he have in announcing so 
 obscurely, to the trembling king and his subjects, that at some 
 indefinite point of time in the remote future a spiritual prince 
 \vould be born in Israel ? What present comfort or encourage- 
 ment could this afford to men terrified at the speedy approach 
 of hostile armios? Or shall we say, with the writer of the 
 article just referred to, that Isaiah's prophecy of the IMessiah 
 was really full of comfort to all who heard it, even though the 
 * Conii). Luke i. 32 ; ii. 29—32; John iii. 2; 2 Cor. v. 19. 
 
38 MESSIANIC PASSAGES: 
 
 prophet made a mistake of seven hundred years in regard to 
 the time of the expected advent ? 
 
 Will it be said, however, in defence of the idea of a double 
 sense, that the deeper secondary meaning may have been 
 intended, not so much for the people of the time of Ahaz, as 
 for later and Christian times, and to assist in establishing the 
 Messianic claims of Jesus of Nazareth ? In the way of such 
 an explanation the difficulty is obvious and insuperable. The 
 words do not answer such a purpose. The very discussion of 
 the subject in these pages shews that they do not ; that their 
 meaning and intention is left in uncertainty, to say the least — 
 uncertainty, however, only inasmuch as they are supposed to 
 have such a purpose ; to the assumption or admission of which 
 the mere fact of uncertainty is altogether fatal. It is needless 
 to add, that Jewish writers of character and learning acknow- 
 ledge no such force or utility in the words, but reject the 
 common Christian use of them as wholly unwarranted.* 
 
 A second passage repeatedly appealed to by Lord Hatherley 
 as " attested" by Christ himself, as well as by the Evangelists 
 and Apostles, is Isaiah liii., or, more exactly, the entire section, 
 Isaiah lii. 13 — liii. 12. These verses are usually cited as 
 affording incontestable proof that the prophet looked forward 
 to the days of the suffering Christ, and described his fortunes 
 in language wonderfully corresponding to what actually took 
 place. The section is thus referred to, for example, by Arch- 
 bishop Thompson, in his Essay on the Death of Christ, -f- and 
 Dr. Liddon is very clear on the same point. "Messiah," he 
 observes, " especially designated as ' the Servant of God,' is 
 the central figure in the prophecies of Isaiah." He at once 
 appropriates the passage as a prophecy of the sufferings and 
 death of Christ.^ 
 
 * Dr. H. Adler's Course of Sermons preached in the Bayswater Synagogue (1869), 
 p. 16, seq. — Comp. Liddon, B. L., p. 88, note. 
 
 t Aids to Faith, 4th edition, p. 325. t Liddon, B. L., pp. 85, 86. 
 
ISAIAH LII. 13 — LIII. 12. S9 
 
 It must be acknowledged that there is a singular degree of 
 correspondence between the prophetic statements and the 
 narratives which have come down to us of the last scenes of 
 our Lord's personal history. There is a remarkable general 
 correspondence. The impression left upon the mind, in read- 
 ing the .prophet, is, in short, strongly favourable to the usual 
 acceptation of his words. 
 
 It is true, however, that, when we come to examine details, 
 that impression is disturbed. As in liii. 10, what is meant by 
 the words, "He shall prolong his days"? — -by the words of 
 verse 9, "He made his grave with the wicked"? — by his 
 " dividing the spoil with the strong," — if these expressions be 
 applied to the crucified Christ? Still, in spite of several 
 obscure or ambiguous plirases like these, we are left with the 
 feeling that those who have been accustomed to accept the 
 passage as a prophecy of the closing incidents of our Lord's 
 career, have not been without a great appearance of reason in 
 so doing. 
 
 Several passages in the New Testament,* as duly cited by 
 Lord Hatherley, appear to justify this application of the words, 
 and clearly shew us that they were thus applied in the early 
 Christian times. One of these passages is Mark xv. 28. AVe 
 speak first of this, because, in the somewhat vague and general 
 form of the reference, it appears to afford a true expression of 
 the idea under which this and similar quotations from the 
 Old Testament are often made. The Evangelist's words are 
 these : "And the Scripture was- fulfilled which saith. And he 
 was numbered with the transgressors."f The Scripture is to 
 be found in Isaiah liii. 12. In this quotation, there is nothing 
 
 * Matt. viii. 17 ; Mark xv. 28 ; Luke xxii. 37 ; John xii. 38 — 41 ; Acts viii. 
 26—35 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24. 
 
 + It is to be noted that the verse of Mark is omitted by Tischendorf ; but it is 
 unquestionably ancient, and .serves equally well to illustrate the Christian applica- 
 tion of 0. T. langiiage. A very similar use is made of the same 0. T. passage in 
 Luke xxii. 37, and here by our Lord himself. 
 
40 MESSIANIC PASSAGES : 
 
 to indicate the Evangelist's belief that the words were origin- 
 ally written with a prophetic foresight of the incidents to 
 which he applies them, and in which he sees that they were 
 " fulfilled." The same remark may perhaps be applied to the 
 use of the words in the third Gospel, and even to the reference 
 made to them in Matthew. ^ 
 
 Some of the other New Testament references, however, 
 probably imply more, and convey the idea that the prophecy 
 was written with a special view to the suffering Messiah. If 
 this be intended, as in the passage in the Acts, and in that in 
 St. John, it is so, we may, nevertheless, reasonably hold, in a 
 kind of subordination to the usual practice of accommodation. 
 The words were seen to be applicable to certain incidents ; 
 they were therefore " fulfilled" in these : they were even writ- 
 ten "that they might be fulfilled."' Such appears to have been 
 the train of thought ; while yet it is true that the real primary 
 meaning is to be found, not in the Christian use made of the 
 cited words, but simply in the original circumstances to which 
 they relate, and in the context from which they are taken. 
 
 Special circumstances in the present case make the conclu- 
 sion untenable that the prophetic writer had Jesus Christ in 
 his contemplation. The passage, in the parts supposed to refer 
 to the sufferings of Christ, is not predictive, but simply his- 
 torical. Various considerations combine to shew that the 
 prophet is speaking of incidents which had already befallen 
 some of the captive people in Babylon, and that the latter are 
 spoken of collectively as the Servant of Jehovah. 
 
 Here, however, we come to a question which Dr. Liddon 
 does not dwell upon, but dismisses with a quotation from 
 Bishop Ollivant. It is the question of the authorship and 
 date of the latter part of the book of Isaiah, from chapter xl. 
 to the end. We take it to be one of the surest results of 
 modern investigation, that this portion of that book comes 
 down from the time of the captivity, and from the pen, not of 
 
ISAIAH LII. 13 — LIII. 12. 41 
 
 tlie prophet who lived in the days of Ahaz and Hezekiah, 
 (B.C. 750 to 700), but of one who was himself among the 
 captives in Babylon, and who wrote with reference to scenes 
 and persons then before his eyes (B.C. 580 to 530). This con- 
 clusion we cannot here attempt to justify in detail, but we may 
 state that it has been accepted by the best Hebrew scholars 
 and critics of recent times — a fact which is sometimes strangely 
 lost sight of by writers of our day.* It is certainly not to be 
 evaded or nullified by the slighting words of Bishop Ollivaiit.-j- 
 The Bishop's remark, to the effect tliat, supposing the as- 
 sumption of a later Isaiah to be true, " this later Isaiah was 
 not only a deceiver, but also a witness to his own fraud," is 
 simply another instance of that form of orthodox argumen- 
 tation, which we have formerly noticed, and which really 
 amounts to this, — Either our view of the matter is correct, or 
 such and such a prophet or apostle, or even our Lord himself, 
 as the case may be, was a deceiver, wrote or said what was 
 untrue.]: 
 
 Let us, however, next observe the connection and substance 
 of this section of Isaiah. The prophet, it will be found, in the 
 chapters which immediately precede, amidst many alterna- 
 tions of hope and fear, anticipates the restoration of his people 
 to their own land. Their enemies the Babylonians shall be 
 
 * Dr. Payne Smith, for example, observes that "the theory of a Babylonian 
 Isaiah is dead." We believe the reverse to be the truth, although that theory 
 has certainly been held along with many critical extravagances, as Dr. P. Sniitli 
 ably points out. — Prophecy a Preparation, pp. 320 — 322. 
 
 t "Supposing this assumption," says the Bishop, "to be true [that, namely, 
 of a later Isaiah], this later Isaiah was not only a deceiver, but also a witness to 
 his own fraud ; for he constantly appeals to prophetic power as a test of truth, 
 making it, and specifically the prediction respecting the deliverance of the Jews 
 by Cyrus, an evidence of the foreknowledge of Jehovah, as distinguished from the 
 nothingness of heathen idols. And yet we are to suppose that when this fraud 
 ■was first palmed upon the Jewish nation, they were so simple as not to have per-, 
 ceived that out of his own mouth this false prophet was condemned." — Charge of 
 the Bishop of LlandatT, apad Liddon, B. L., p. S3. 
 
 + Compare supra, p. 23. 
 
42 MESSIANIC PASSAGES: 
 
 overthrown by the conquering arms of Cyrus, who is men- 
 tioned by name ;* the temple worship on Mount Zion shall 
 be restored ; and viltimately, through the Hebrew people and 
 their faithfulness to Jehovah, the knowledge of true religion 
 shall be diffused throughout the world (ch. xlix.). 
 
 In the earlier verses of ch. lii., we have some of these anti- 
 cipations clearly expressed. In the language of poetry, the 
 prophet speaks of the Messenger bringing to the now deserted 
 Jerusalem tlie good tidings of the return home : 
 
 " How beautiful upon the mountains 
 Are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, 
 That publisheth peace ! 
 That bringeth good tidings of good, 
 That publisheth salvation ! 
 That saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth !" (lii. 7.) 
 
 Again he exclaims : 
 
 " Break forth into singing together. 
 Ye waste places of Jerusalem ; 
 For Jehovah hath comforted his people, 
 He hath redeemed Jerusalem." (v. 9.) 
 
 Then he reverts to the place where he and his people now 
 are, and calls upon them to depart out of the midst of the 
 idolatrous city : 
 
 " Depart ye, dejDart je, come ye out from thence, 
 
 Touch no unclean thing ; 
 
 . Come ye out of the midst of her, 
 
 Be ye pure who carry the vessels of Jehovah : 
 
 For not in haste shall ye come out, 
 
 Nor in flight shall ye pass along ; 
 
 For Jehovah shall go before you. 
 
 And the God of Israel shall guard your way." 
 
 (vv. 11, 12.) 
 * Isaiah xliv. 28 : xlv. 1. 
 
ISAIAH LII. 13 — LIII. 12. 43 
 
 These expressions occur in verses immediately preceding 
 the section more particularly before us. In the verses imme- 
 diately following that section, we find the prophet's mind 
 still full of the same theme. He calls upon Judea, now lying 
 depopulated and barren, to break forth into singing, because 
 its population is about to be increased beyond all former 
 bounds by the return of the captives. In a great variety of 
 beautiful expressions the thought is constantly recurring of 
 the future prosperity and happiness of the restored nation : 
 
 " tliou afflicted, tempest-tossed, disconsolate, 
 
 Behold I will lay thy stones in bright colours, 
 
 And thy foundations with sapphires. 
 
 And I will make thy battlements of rubies. 
 
 And thy gates of carbuncles. 
 
 And all thy borders of precious stones. 
 
 And all thy children shall be taught of Jehovah, 
 
 And great sliall be the peace of thy children. 
 * * * * 
 
 This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, 
 
 Aud tlie reward of their righteousness from me, saith Jehovah." 
 
 (liv. 11—17.) 
 
 And so we might quote verse after verse, all to the same 
 effect, — the restoration of the captives to their own land- 
 When, therefore, we find the prophet, both immediately hefore 
 and immediately after the section under notice, speaking in 
 such terms of circumstances and events then occurring, or 
 about shortly to occur, are we to suppose that he all at once, 
 in the midst of these expressions, abruptly, and without any 
 apparent occasion, sends his thoughts far away, five hundred 
 years or more in advance of his own time, and goes on mys- 
 teriously to speak of the life and death of Jesus Christ? — of 
 one who had no sort of traceable connection with the existing 
 state of affairs, and the introduction of whom in this way 
 could do nothing to encourage or console the captive people. 
 
44- MESSIANIC PASSAGES : 
 
 or lead them the more readily to prepare themselves for tlie 
 labours and liardships of the long march homewards through 
 the desert, from Babylon to Judea? Truly, such a supposi- 
 tion seems but little flattering to the judgment of the prophet, 
 and could scarcely be put forth by reasonable men, except 
 under the pressure of great theological necessity. 
 
 The "servant" (Isaiah lii. 13), or tlie servant of Jehovah, 
 spoken of in this section and in some other places of the later 
 Isaiah, cannot, therefore, be supposed to denote the future 
 Messiah — Jesus Christ — or any personage expected by the 
 prophet to appear some indefinite number of centuries after 
 his own time. There is, indeed, ample evidence in this book 
 itself as to the meaning of the expression referred to. Thus 
 in xlix., at the beginning, we read as follows : 
 " Listen, isles, unto me, 
 
 And attend, ye peoples, from afar ; 
 
 Jehovah called me from the womb, 
 
 From my mother's womb he hath made mention of my name. 
 
 And he made my mouth like a sharp sword ; 
 
 In the shadow of his hand he hid me, 
 
 And he said unto me, Thou art my servant, 
 
 Israel, in whom I will be glorified. 
 
 -X- * -» * 
 
 And now, saith Jehovah, 
 
 Who formed me from the womb to he his servant, 
 * * * * 
 
 Thus he saith, 
 
 It is a slight thing that thou sliouldest be my servant, 
 
 To raise up the tribes of Jacob, 
 
 And to restore the preserved of Israel ; 
 
 1 will also give thee to be a light to the nations, 
 
 That my salvation may be extended to tlie end of the earth." 
 
 Tlie sacred writer immediately adds, 
 " Thus saith Jehovah, the Eedeemer of Israel, 
 And his Holy One, 
 
ISAIAH LII. 13— LIII. 12. 45 
 
 To him tliat is dos])isefl of men, abhorred hy the nation, 
 
 To the servant of rulers, — 
 
 Kings shall see and arise, princes and they shall bow down, 
 
 .Because of Jehovah who is faithful. 
 
 The Holy One of Israel, who shall choose thee." (v. 7.) 
 
 These words are almost parallel to those of Hi. 14, 15, and 
 can hardly refer to a different oljject. Other placfs occur in 
 which the servant of Jeliovah is sufficiently shewn to be 
 the collective Israel, especially the better and more faithful 
 part of the people in captivity, who are to be the means of 
 giving safety and honour to the whole nation.* With these 
 the prophet sometimes identifies himself, speaking in his own 
 name, when he is really speaking in behalf of his people.-f- 
 As, then, these more faithful worshipers of Jehovah, who were 
 eager to return home and rebuild Jcru.salem and the temple, 
 were, probably in consequence of this, subject to persecution 
 at the hands of the more worldly portion of their captive 
 countrymen and perhaps of the Babylonians, | we have at 
 once suggested to us the true explanation of the passage, and 
 of some other related places. 
 
 Having spoken in the preceding verses of the coming resto- 
 ration of the captive people, the prophet goes on to contrast 
 their past helpless and despised condition with their future 
 prosperity. Speaking for Jehovah, he says, — "INIy servant 
 shall be exalted and extolled," whereas he had once been an 
 object of astonishment in his misery :: — " His visage was so 
 marred, more than any man's", (as it is figuratively expressed), 
 — "but he shall sprinkle many nations" — or probably, "he 
 shall cause many nations to spring up," that is, wdtli wonder 
 at the change which has taken place ; " kings shall shut their 
 mouths at him," in ama/cement, when they see the prosperous 
 return of the captives, and behold the re-establishment and 
 
 * Isaiah xlii. 1—9 ; xliii. 8—1.5 ; xliv. 1—5. f xlix. 1—4. 
 
 + Isai.ali 1. f — 11 ; Ivi. 0— Ivii. 11 ; Iviii. 1 — 7. 
 
46 MESSIANIC PASSAGES: 
 
 gradual diffusion of the religion of Jeliovah. This part of the 
 section is predictive ; the tenses used in the introductory sen- 
 tences are appropriately futures, but they change to preterites 
 as soon as the suffering condition of the people is referred to. 
 So it is very regularly throughout chapter liii. " Who," the 
 prophet proceeds, " hath believed our report ?" that is, believed 
 what has been announced : and then he goes on to describe, — 
 not, be it observed, in terms of prediction, but in those of 
 history, and as one speaking of something past,* — the former 
 sufferings of the servant of Jehovah, that is, of the collective 
 Israel, in particular that part of the nation which has been 
 steadfast, and by whose piety and obedience Jehovah's cause 
 is finally to triumph. This representative of the faithful part 
 of the people (idealized as Jehovah's "servant"), has been 
 despised, forsaken of men, wounded, oppressed, afflicted, cut 
 off from the land of the living, and put into the grave among 
 transgressors, though he had done no violence and there was 
 no deceit in his mouth. But in these sufferings there was an 
 expiatory efficacy. They were undergone, not for the sufferer's 
 own sins, but for those of his people, the rest of the people : 
 
 " He was wounded for our transgressions, 
 Bruised for our iniquities : 
 The chastisement of our peace Avas upon him, 
 And with his stripes we are liealed." (hii. 5.) 
 
 These statements, it maybe observed, are in accordance with 
 the ancient Hebrew belief, that misfortune and suffering fall 
 upon men in punishment of sin ; and are also the means of 
 
 * This fact is too rauch overlooked. But any one who will take the trouble to 
 examine the leading tenses of the Hebrew will see that what is here said is fully 
 borne out. In general terms, when the prophet speaks of the sufferings of the 
 "servant"' he does so in words which indicate that he is speaking of something 
 past. When the i-esults are spoken of to which those sufferings shall lead, the 
 form of expression is different (comp. Hi. 13, 14 ; liii. 10 — 12). See Appendix, 
 note B. 
 
MESSIANIC PASSAGES. 47 
 
 expiation and purification for transgression. But, then, in 
 this case, the righteous servant of Jehovah had no sins of 
 his own to deserve such visitations. It was an obvious thought 
 that what has befallen him has been the means of expiation 
 for others, for the rest of the people ; what he has suffered 
 " shall make intercession for the trans<4ressors." Tlie whole 
 conception is in harmony with the sacrificial ideas which 
 would doubtless be familiar to the writer. The section con- 
 cludes with the anticipation of the great results to spring from 
 the patient endurance of wrong, the steadfast adherence to 
 Jehovah, the religious faithfulness even unto death of Jehovah's 
 servant. 
 
 It is only, we venture to add, one who can shut his eyes to 
 the historical exposition of this passage, and its connection 
 with the circumstances of the times in which the writer lived, 
 that will be satisfied to find in it a prophetic description of 
 the last scenes in the history of Christ, — a prophetic descrip- 
 tion, consciously so intended by the Hebrew writer. The 
 references to it in the New Testament are in accordance with 
 the habits of thought of the early Christians. Everything in 
 their sacred books which seemed to correspond to the events 
 and characters of Christian history they were ready to consider 
 as "fulfilled" in those events and characters ;* but no reliance 
 can be placed on this mode of interpretation, whether exem- 
 plified in ancient or in modern times, as evidence that an Old 
 Testament passage originally contemplated that in which it 
 was so deemed to be fulfilled. . 
 
 Such considerations as these are applicable, mutatis mutan- 
 dis, to all the Old Testament passages appealed to by Lord 
 Hatherley and by Dr. Liddon as prophecies of Jesus Christ. 
 
 * There is a cui'ious illustration of this in John ii. 17. Jesus haJ just driven 
 the money-changers from the temple. After this, his disciples, it is siiid, "re- 
 niemWered that it was written, The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up ;" and 
 doubtless we are to understand that they thought the ancient saying "fulfilled" 
 in the incident which brought it to their remembrance. 
 
48 ISAIAH XI. 
 
 In saying this, however, we by no means intend to affirm that 
 various Hebrew writers, and especially the prophets, did not 
 anticipate a future time of national prosperity and peace, and 
 the wide diffusion of the religion of Jehovah. It cannot be 
 doubted that they did so. But it does not appear that they 
 looked forward to a definite point of time so long after their 
 own as that of Christ, or to a definite person like him ; that 
 they ever anticipated such a personage or character as our 
 Lord proved to be. The Messiah expected by the Jews of 
 old, under the influence and training of their own sacred 
 books, was a very different person from Jesus of Nazareth. We 
 see this in many expressions of the New Testament ;* and 
 it is especially evident in various Old Testament passages.-f- 
 
 As an example to this latter effect we may refer to the 
 eleventh chapter of the genuine Isaiah. This is no doubt a 
 true Messianic passage ; but it stands in intimate connection 
 with the destruction of the Assyrian army announced in the 
 preceding chapter. The mighty forest of Assyria (x. 33) 
 shall be hewn down, "And there shall come forth a branch 
 out of the stem of Jesse" (xi. 1). This prince is to be a wise 
 and mighty ruler, who shall conquer the enemies of his peo- 
 ple, Moabites, Edomite.s, Philistines, Egyptians (xi. 11 — 14-). 
 He shall re-unite the divided kingdom of the Hebrews ; Eph- 
 raim and Judah under him shall cease to be rivals ; and the 
 dispersed captives of the nation shall be brought back " from 
 the four corners of the earth" (v. 12). 
 
 Such sayings find no real application in the founder of 
 Christianity -.1 have never been fulfilled, in any intelligible 
 
 * Matt. xvi. 22 ; xx. 21 ; Mark x. 35—41 ; Luke xxiv. 21 ; John xii. 34. 
 
 t E.g., Is. xi. ; Jer. xxiii. 5—8 ; Dan. vii. 13, 14 ; Mich. v. 1—6. 
 
 J Dr. Lidilon, it may here be noted, while citing tliis passage to shew the high 
 moral and religious character of the expected Prince, including his possession of 
 "the infallibility of a perfect moral insight," omits to notice the verses which 
 refer to him as a victorious wan-ior, who shall be able to subdue and despoil the 
 ancient enemies of his peojjle. — B.L., pp. 84, 85. 
 
ISAIAH IX. 6. 49 
 
 sense, in liim ; and so, we venture again to say, it is in each 
 separate case of the kind, when you come to its careful ex- 
 amination. Although, then, it must be admitted that some 
 of the New Testament writers appear to have had a different 
 idea, yet in a question which is so largely critical and his- 
 torical in its character, critical and historical evidence and 
 fact ought to prevail over everything else. We are not obliged 
 to believe that the sun moves round the earth, even though a 
 Scriptural writer may say so, or may take it for granted. 
 
 We come in the next place, and in further illustration of 
 these statements, to a passage to* which Dr. Liddon attaches 
 the greatest importance. He terms it " that great prophecy, 
 the full and true sense of which is so happily suggested to us 
 by its place in the Church services for Christmas day." In 
 this prophecy,* he proceeds to say, "the 'Son' who is given 
 to Isra(.'l receives a fourfold name. He is a Wonder-Counsellor, 
 or Wonderful above all earthly beings ; He possesses a nature 
 which man cannot fathom ; and He thus shares and unfolds 
 the Divine Mind. He is the Father of the Everlasting Age 
 or of Eternity. He is the Prince of Peace. Above all, He is 
 expressly named the Mighty God." So Dr. Liddon ;-f- but 
 now let us refer to the prophet Isaiah, and inquire what he 
 says and what he meant. 
 
 In three instances, in chaptera vii. and viii., the prophet 
 introduces us to children with significant names. The first is 
 his own son, Shear-jashub, a name meaning a remnant shall 
 return, and expressing the prophet's trust that the care of 
 Jehovah will provide for the restoration of Israel. The second 
 is the child Immanuel, God is loith us ; a name, again, denot- 
 ing his confidence that Jehovah will be with His people to 
 deliver them from their invading enemies. The third is the case 
 (viii. 3) of a child of his own, called Maher-shalal-hash-baz ; 
 another significant name, refemng to the circumstances of the 
 
 * Isaiah in. 6. t B. L., i.. 87. 
 
 E 
 
50 MESSIANIC PASSAGES. 
 
 time, and intended to denote the speedy despoiling of Damas- 
 cus and Samaria by the king of Assyria. Yet again, a fourtli 
 time, the prophet gives us the same kind of symbolical jjro- 
 phecy. In ix. 6, another child is announced, who is to sit upon 
 the throne of David, to order and to establish his kingdom, 
 " from henceforth, even for ever," — that is, for a long indefinite 
 period, according to the frequent meaning of such expressions. 
 This child too shall have a significant name. He shall be 
 called, "Wonder, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Duration, 
 Prince of Peace." 
 
 If the English translators had followed the same mode of 
 rendering as with the other significant names in this context, 
 they would have given this name also in its Hebrew form, and 
 would have said, " His name shall be called Peleh Joetz El- 
 gibor Abi-ad Sar-shalom." This long compound name means, 
 without question, what we have given above as the English 
 rendering. We have thus a significant name made up of 
 eight words, just as in the case of Maher-shalal-hash-baz we 
 have one made up of four. But, just as before, what is to 
 shew us that the chikl is or ^vas what he is named ? — that 
 because his name shall be called either "Mighty-God,"* or 
 " Father of Duration," he is to be a person corresponding in 
 nature to these words ? 
 
 But, again, tJiis child, we are told, is Jesus Christ ! Such 
 is the assumption of orthodox writers, — an assumption which 
 is without warrant from the New Testament ; for there is not, 
 we believe, an instance in wliich any New Testament writer 
 refers to this verse as one that was "fulfilled" in the birth 
 or life of Christ. And it is evident from the context that the 
 prophet is speaking of a child of his own time, under 
 whose rule the nation is to become prosperous and happy. 
 The preceding verses relate to an invasion by the Assy- 
 
 * Exactly the same word (El) is used of Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel xxxi. 11, 
 disguised in the English rendering as "mighty one." 
 
MESSIANIC PASSAGES. 51 
 
 rians, which must have fallen especially upon Galilee and the 
 northern parts of the country, " by the way of the sea" (or 
 lake).* Isaiah doubtless refers, therefore, to a prince already 
 born,-!- who shall be mighty and victorious, and give peace to 
 the distracted land under his own government. 
 
 Whether the words were or were not fulfilled in Hezekiah, 
 as many authorities, Jewish and Christian, have supposed, it 
 does not here concern us to determine. There is no proper 
 evidence for understanding the passage of Jesus Christ. On 
 the face of the matter it would seem impossible, except for one 
 who is entirely carried away by a foregone conclusion, to find 
 in the words a reference to a person whose birth was to be at 
 least seven hundred years after the time in which they were 
 written, and whose life could have no imaginable connection 
 with the fear and misery of which the prophet was speaking, 
 and to alleviate which was the very object of his writing. 
 
 CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 MESSIANIC PASSAGES (contimiecl). 
 
 Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6; Daniel vii. 13; Micah v. 2; Zechariah 
 
 XIII. 7 ; XII, 10 ; the quotation in St. John, xix. 36 ; 
 
 Malachi III. 1. 
 
 The words above quoted from Dr. Liddon, in connection 
 with Isaiah ix. G, introduce the following propositions, made 
 
 • See Isaiah viii. 19 — ix. 7. A portion of this pass.age is applied in the N. T. 
 (Matt. iv. 14 — IG) to the commencement of the ministry of Christ, in the same 
 northern part of Palestine. The original reference of the whole is unquestionably 
 to the distress caused by a hostile invasion, and to the subsequent deliverance. 
 The Evangelist's use of the words is surely another suggestive example of the prac- 
 tice of accommodation. 
 
 t The tenses are 2)as< — "is bom," "is given" — literally, has been. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 MESSIANIC PASSAGES. 
 
 in reference to Christ; " Jeremiah calls him Jehovah 
 
 Tsidkenu, as Isaiah had called him Emmanuel. Micah speaks 
 of his eternal pre-existence, as Isaiah had spoken of his end- 
 less reign. Daniel predicts that his dominion is an everlasting 
 dominion that shall not pass away. Zechariah terms him the 
 Fellow or Equal of the Lord of Hosts ; and refers in the clear- 
 est language to his Incarnation and Passion as being that of 
 Jehovah Himself Haggai implies his Divinity, by foretelling 
 that his presence will make the glory of the second temple 
 greater than the glory of the first. Malachi points to him as 
 the Angel of the Covenant, Jehovah, whom Israel was seek- 
 ing, and who would suddenly come to his temple."* 
 
 Of the passages referred to for these assertions, four are 
 quoted by the Evangelists. Of these, therefore, we will more 
 particularly speak : but, before doing so, let us briefly notice 
 the use made, not by any New Testament writer, but by Dr. 
 Liddon, of two of the others. 
 
 Jeremiah (xxiii. 5, 6) writes — " Behold the days come, saith 
 Jehovah, when I will raise unto David a righteous branch, 
 and a king shall reign and act wisely, and shall execute jus- 
 tice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah shall 
 be saved, and Israel sharll dwell safely : and this is his name 
 whereby he shall be called, Jehovah Tsidkenu [Jehovah is 
 our Righteousness]." 
 
 This passage is not referred to in the New Testament. The 
 application of the words to Clirist is simply an assumption of 
 . orthodox writers ; and it is easily shewn that it is wholly 
 unwarranted. The prophet is speaking of a deliverance for 
 his people which was soon to come — a deliverance of captives 
 "out of the north country" (v. 8), referring to persons who 
 had been carried away in those times by Assyrian or Babylo- 
 nian invaders. 
 
 * Liddon, B. L., pp. 88, 89 — referring to Jer. xxiii. 5, 6; Mich. v. 2; Dan. 
 vii. 14; Zech. xiii. 7; ii. 10—13; xii. 10; Hag. ii. 7, 9; Mai. ill. 1. 
 
DANIEL VII. 14. 53 
 
 If the words, however, are referred to Christ, are we again 
 to be told that the prophet was mistaken by five or six hun- 
 dred years in his anticipation of the advent? But, indeed, 
 even supposing that they are to be so referred, how do they 
 shew that Cluist is Jehovah ? They only say tliat the name 
 wherewith lie shall be called is Jehovah is our righteousness ; 
 just as the prophet afterwards says the same thing, in the 
 same words, of Jerusalem — " this is the name wherewith she 
 shall be called, Jehovah is our righteousness."* The Hebrew 
 prophets were evidently fond of these symbolical names — as, 
 indeed, we know that every Hebrew name was significant. 
 If, then, the words in question ought to be referred to Christ, 
 which is a purely gratuitous supposition, still they can prove 
 nothing respecting his nature, any more than do the signifi- 
 cant names given to other persons and objects. 
 
 The passage in Daniel (vii. 13) refers to the Messiah as 
 expected by the writer of that book, probably in the second 
 century B.C. He speaks (v. 13) of "one like a son of man,"-f- 
 who " came to the Ancient of days," and to whom are given 
 
 "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom" "his dominion is 
 
 an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass awa}'." Such is 
 the vision seen by Daniel. Two or three points are noticeable 
 in it. First, the distinction, here as often elsewhere, between 
 the Eternal Being, "the Ancient of days," and every other exist- 
 ence. The " son of man" is clearly one person, the " Ancient 
 of days" another. Secondly, the "everlasting dominion" is 
 said to be "given" to the "son of man." The latter is evidently 
 conceived of, and represented, as the instrument of the awful 
 Being to whom he comes. And, thirdly, this passage is never 
 referred to in the New Testament as a prediction of Christ, to 
 whose life and character it is in fact wholly inapplicable. The 
 Messiah expected by the Jews, under the influence and train- 
 
 * Jer. xxxiii. 16. — More probably, "Jehovah is our deliverance," in both texts, 
 t " A son of man," so the origiual. 
 
54 MESSIANIC PASSAGES. 
 
 iug of that and similar Old Testament passages, was a totally- 
 different personage from Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 The words of the prophet Micah, to which we next come, 
 are, in part, reproduced in the first Gospel.* Herod asks of 
 the "wise men" (or Magians), "where the Christ should be 
 born." They reply, " In Bethlehem of Judea ; for thus it is 
 written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem in the land of 
 Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of 
 thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." 
 It is noticeable that the wise men do not quote the Scripture 
 correctly, and in fact misquote it ; for they insert the negative 
 *'not," which is absent in the Hebrew, as in the Septuagint. f 
 Nor do they (or the Evangelist) exactly give the words of the 
 Septuagint, as we have it. But these variations do not greatly 
 concern our argument. It is clear, nevertheless, that the verse 
 from Micah was considered Messianic in the time of the wise 
 men, and that, in the Evangelist's conception, it had the effect 
 of leading them to Bethlehem to seek for the new-born cliild. 
 But this amount of Messianic prediction, or meaning, does not 
 satisfy Dr. Liddon. He goes beyond the wise men ; and takes 
 the verse as not only foretelling the birth in Bethlehem, but as 
 intimating the "eternal pre-existence" of the child to be born. 
 In this we think he only gives us an example of being wise 
 above what is written ; or, at any rate, above what is written 
 in the New Testament ; for it does not appear that any New 
 Testament writer ever brings forward the words of Micah to 
 prove, or illustrate, or express the "eternal pre-existence" of 
 Christ, or of any one else. 
 
 Nor do the words convey any such meaning. " Out of thee," 
 says the prophet, " shall come forth for me one to be ruler in 
 Israel ; and his comings forth are of old, from ancient days." 
 
 * Matt. ii. 6 ; eomp. Micah v. 2. 
 
 + For modes of explaining away this difficulty, see Turpie's The Old Testament 
 in the Neiv, p. 190. 
 
MIC AH V. 2. 55 
 
 Such is the literal rendering of the Hebrew. The passage is 
 usually admitted to be Messianic ; and taking it in this sense, 
 the character of the expected ruler is here, as elsewhere, very 
 different from that of Jesus Christ. In the verses which imme- 
 diately follow, it is said that after an interval, during which 
 the nation shall be given up to its enemies, he whose coming 
 is spoken of shall " stand and feed in the strength of Jehovah, 
 in the majesty of the name of Jehovah, his God." His people 
 under his protection shall be secure, for he shall be powerful 
 to " the ends of the earth," that is, to the remotest countries 
 known to tlie Hebrews. He shall be able to protect them 
 "when the Assyrian shall come." His princes (v. 5) shall even 
 lay waste the laud of Assyria, with the sword. "Thus," adds 
 the prophet, "he shall deliver us from the AssT/rian."* We 
 would respectfully ask Dr. Liddon, whether, on re-considera- 
 tion, he really thinks this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus 
 Christ? Aud we would appeal to the intelligence of the 
 reader, to say whetlier the whole passage does not manifestly 
 refer to a state of things then existing, or soon to come to pass, 
 — whether the "Assyrian," with his land and his invading 
 armies, were not objects of actual present fear to the prophet 
 aiul those for whom he was writing? How then can this 
 verse have referred to Jesus Christ, or be applicable to him, 
 except by the usual licence of accommodation ? — or how, again, 
 can it avail to shew the "eternal pre-existence" of Jesus Christ? 
 In regard to the words "of old" and "from everlasting," the 
 following statement will scarcely be disputed. The Hebrew 
 words thus rendered do not necessarily express eternity of 
 duration. This is evident from the fact that they are not 
 unfrequently used of limited time past. Thus Job xxix. 2, 
 " Oh that I were as in months past ;" Psalm Ixxvii. 5, " I have 
 considered the dai/s of old, the years of ancient times." In 
 these places the same Hebrew words occur as in Micah. 
 
 * Micah V. 2—6. 
 
56 MESSIANIC PASSAGES. 
 
 They are differently translated to suit the connection ; but the 
 limitation of meaning is clear in all ; and so it is in many 
 other cases. 
 
 As to the meaning of the prophet, it may be that he intends 
 simply to allude to the circumstance that the coming of the 
 person spoken of has been determined upon, from of old, from 
 ancient days, even from everlasting. Or does the expression 
 only convey, that he who is to come forth is one the antiquity 
 of whose descent, in the kingly line of David, is very great ? 
 Neither of these explanations yields us the " eternal pre-exist- 
 ence ;" but we venture to say that they are both quite as 
 probable and quite as suitable to the context. • 
 
 The prophet Zechariah, we are further told, speaks of the 
 Messiah as " the Fellow or Equal of the Lord of Hosts." The 
 words referred to occur in the anonymous and earlier part of 
 the book of Zechariah (xiii. 7) : — " Awake, sword, against 
 my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith 
 Jehovah of Hosts." Of these somewhat difficult and obscure 
 words, it is a very pertinent inquiry. How is it known that 
 they refer to Jesus Christ, or even to the expected Messiah ? 
 They are not so applied in the New Testament, nor are they 
 ever quoted there in any form. So that here, again, we have 
 a gratuitous supposition, viz., that these words should be refer- 
 red to Jesus Christ, and indicate his Divine nature. The 
 note, therefore, which Dr. Liddon quotes approvingly from 
 Dr. Pusey* on this expression, has no force or propriety 
 whatever. 
 
 The words of this verse which arc cited by two Evangelists 
 are these : — " Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scat- 
 tered." The words are used in Matt. xxvi. 31 and Mark xiv. 
 27 ; these Evangelists agreeing with each other in deviating 
 from the Hebrew text of Zechariah, while not agreeing with 
 
 * " The ' Fellow' of the Lord is no other than He who said in the Gospel, ' I and 
 My Father are One.'" — Pusey, apud Liddoa, B. L., p. 89. 
 
ZECHAPJAH XIII. 7. 57 
 
 the Septuagint. Both Evangelists introduce the words thus : 
 " Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because 
 of me this night ; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, 
 and the sheep shall be scattered." Is it possible to regard 
 such a use of the words of Scripture as anything else than the 
 simple vehicle for expressing the thought in the speaker's 
 mind at the moment — the thought of the fear and scattering 
 of the disciples ?* Can we think that he regarded the words 
 of Zechariah as having been written with a conscious looking 
 forward on the part of the prophet to liim ; or could have 
 deemed them capable of supplying a link in the chain of ela- 
 borate argument to prove that he who so used them was one 
 whose "incarnation and passion" were those of Jehovah him- 
 self? Yet even this, it would appear, is what commends itself 
 to the acceptance of Dr. Liddon and Dr. Pusey. 
 
 There is another verse in Zechariah which is similarly made 
 to act the part of an incompetent witness. In xii. ] of that 
 book we read thus : 
 
 " And I will pour upon the house of David, 
 
 And upon the iulmbitants of Jerusalem, 
 
 A spirit of grace and of supplications ; 
 
 And tliey shall look upon me M'hom tliej' have pierced, 
 
 And they shall mourn for liim, 
 
 As one mourneth for his only son." 
 The prophet is speaking, it is plain, of evil days which were 
 to come upon Judah and Jerusalem, followed, however, by a 
 great deliverance to be wrought by Jehovah for His people. 
 This result shall be accompanied by penitence and supplica- 
 tion on the part of the people. Jehovah shall pour upon them 
 " a spirit of grace and of supplications," insomuch that they 
 shall look to (or toward-s) Jehovah, against whom they have 
 formerly transgressed : " they shall look towards me whom 
 they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him." 
 
 * Coinp. Matt. xxvi. 56, "Then all the disciples forsook him ami lied." 
 
68 MESSIANIC PASSAGES. 
 
 A sudden change of person like tliis is not uncommon in 
 the prophetical books,* the subject spoken of remaining, never- 
 theless, the same. Grammatical exactness is not so carefully 
 attended to in a primitive and simple language like the He- 
 brew, as in our modern and more elaborate forms of speech. 
 Jehovah is doubtless meant both by the " me" and the " him ;" 
 but in the one case it is Jehovah himself that is conceived of 
 as the speaker, in the other it is the prophet. " They shall 
 look towards me," Jehovah says ; " and they shall mourn for 
 Him," adds the prophet. The people then, saved from their 
 enemies, and touched with gratitude and penitence for their 
 deliverance, shall look towards Jehovah whom they have 
 offended, and shall mourn for their transgressions against Him 
 with a great mourning. 
 
 The fourth Evangelist -f- cites the words, and applies them 
 to the literal piercing with the soldier's spear — an instance, it 
 is observable, in which an original metaphorical sense is 
 changed in the application into a literal sense. Can we rea- 
 sonably suppose that to the Evangelist's mind the crucified 
 man, to whose case he applies the prophet's words, was Jeho- 
 vah ? — can we suppose this on the ground of his use of these 
 words ? — or is not the case to be simply considered as one of 
 those many instances in which the expressions of the ancient 
 Scriptures, being found to be applicable to a modern event, are 
 used to describe or illustrate the latter, or also said to be 
 " fulfilled" in it ? After the instances we have had before us 
 of the way in which the Old Testament language is applied, 
 it is impossible to think that so great a conclusion as tjiat of 
 the Deity of Christ ought to be drawn from this kind of evi- 
 dence. It is impossible to think that such a conclusion could 
 have been left in any degree dependent on so daring and ques- 
 
 * E.g., Isaiah 1. 2—4. 
 
 f John xix. 37 : "And again another Scripture saith, They shall look on him 
 whom they pierced." 
 
ST. JOHN XIX. 3G. 59 
 
 tionable an argument as Dr. Liddon's way of putting the case 
 really amounts to. 
 
 The Evangelist, it may be observed, takes no notice, in 
 quoting the words, that the speaker in the Old Testament is 
 Jehovah. It was evidently beside his purpose to do so, and 
 inconsistent with it. An apt quotation of Scripture words, 
 suitable to the particular case, was what he desired to give — 
 and he found (as it were) on the surface all that he required, 
 without looking deeper, to see the true connection and mean- 
 ing of the passage. 
 
 How entirely this was the case, may be seen in the verse of 
 the Gospel immediately preceding that under notice. " These 
 things were done that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone 
 of him shall not be broken."* It has iiot suited Dr. Liddon's 
 arcjument to refer to this verse, but it is deservimr of our 
 especial notice in this place. It is not clear what scripture is 
 thus referred to. It has been supposed to be Exodus xii. 46 ; 
 Numbers ix. 12 ; Psalm xxxiv. 20. In the two places in the 
 Pentateuch, it is the Passover lamb that is spoken of ; in the 
 Psalm, it is a righteous man whose bones Jehovah keepeth, so 
 that " not one of them is broken." The words in the Evangelist 
 are not an exact quotation from any of these : but yet they serve 
 well to shew how an Old Testament passage could be applied to 
 Christ, or to incidents in his life, and could be said to be thus 
 " fulfilled," while yet it is clear that the original writer cannot 
 have had Jesus Christ in his mind when writing the words. 
 In this case, it is certain, what the ancient scripture speaks 
 of is either the literal Passover lamb, or a righteous man 
 delivered out of his afflictions by Jehovah. In neither case, 
 can it be thought that the future Messiah was contemplated ; 
 while yet the words are introduced in the New Testament nar- 
 rative just as if this had been the purpose for which they were 
 primarily written. 
 
 * John xix. 36. 
 
60 MESSIANIC PASSAGES. 
 
 The last of the Old Testameut passages belonging to the 
 present Chapter is Malachi iii. 1: — "Behold I will send my 
 messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me" (or, 
 "before my face"). The words are quoted in each of the 
 Synoptics ;* but St. Mark, according to Tischendorf s text, 
 introduces them as " written in Isaiah the prophet ;" — a singu- 
 lar error on the part of the Evangelist. -f* This case also exem- 
 plifies the somewhat loose way in which these quotations were 
 occasionally made, — the words of two different prophets being 
 joined together and cited as if they belonged to one. It is 
 not the only example of the kind. | 
 
 The three Synoptics agree closely in their quotation, which 
 yet does not .correspond either to the Hebrew or to the Septua- 
 gint.§ Passing over this difference, we notice that in each 
 Gospel the words are given as fulfilled in John the Baptist — 
 that is to say, they are applied to him, as if they had been 
 originally intended to speak of him. He is the messenger 
 sent before the face of him " that should come," to prepare the 
 ■way before him. This is the extent to which the Evangelists 
 represent our Lord as appropriating the words, or applying 
 them either to himself or to the Baptist. They do not give 
 us to understand that they conceived of him for whom John 
 has prepared, as being Jehovah, nor do they say anything 
 about Jehovah coming to His. temple in the person of Jesus 
 Christ. This is only Dr. Liddon's construction of the words 
 of Malachi ; or, perhaps we should say, it is only an inference 
 of his by no means infallible judgment. 
 
 * Matt. xi. 10 ; Mark i. 2 ; Luke vii. 27. 
 
 + The English version of Mark i. 2 reads, "As it is written in the prophets ;" 
 — following a correction probably introduced into the manuscripts by some cojiyist. 
 X Heb. ii. 12, 13, and others. 
 
 § In particular, they change the pronouns : instead of the Prophet's " the 
 ■way," they write " my way ;" and instead of " before me," they write "before 
 thee." They also insert the words, " before thy face," which are neither in the 
 Hebrew uor iu the Septuagint. 
 
MALACHI III. 1. 61 
 
 But thp verse, it is certain, can have had no original refer- 
 ence to Christ — in the intention, that is to say, of IMalachi. 
 In a later passage of the prophecy (iv. 5), the messenger to 
 come is named by name, and is designated as Elijah the 
 prophet. Hence the passage before us (Malachi iii. 1 — G) 
 cannot originally refer to the distant coming of Jesus of 
 Nazareth, and cannot, therefore, be properly used as revealing 
 anything about his rank or nature. 
 
 It refers, indeed, manifestly, to some judgment upon the 
 wicked and rebellious nation, anticipated by the prophet as 
 coming to pass in his own generation. Everything in the 
 book of Malachi shews that it was a speedy visitation for 
 which the writer was looking.* A messenger, then, namely 
 Elijah (raised from the dead), is to come and prepare the way 
 before Jehovah, who shall appear in judgment (iii. 5) "to 
 purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver is 
 purged" (v. 8). Jehovah is thus Himself the "Lord" of v. 1, 
 who shall suddenly come to His temple : as in verse 5 also 
 He says, " And I will come near to jou to judgment, and I 
 
 will be a swift witness against the sorcerers For I am 
 
 Jehovah, I change not" (v. 6). 
 
 The messenger (angel) in the second clause of the verse, is 
 the same, there is no reason to doubt, as the one in the first, 
 and the word rendered " even" in the English version should 
 be rendered and. There is thus an obvious parallelism of sense 
 in the three clauses of the verse, which alone might be sufii- 
 cient to determine its interpretation. Thus : 
 
 " Behold I, Jehovah, will send my messenger, Elijah, 
 And he shall prepare the way before me ; 
 And the Lord, Jehovah Himself, whom ye, the people, seek, 
 
 shall suddenly come to his temple, 
 And the messenger of the covenant whom (which) ye delight in ; 
 Beliold, he shall come, saith Jehovali of hosts." 
 
 * See the whole of Mai. ii. 
 
62 KNOWLEDGE AND IGNOEANCE OF CHRIST : 
 
 111 the second part of the verse, Jehovah speaks of Himself, 
 in the third person, as the " Lord" whom the people " seek" — 
 the latter perhaps alluding to their seeking Him in worship.* 
 The change of person, from the first to the third, affords no 
 objection to this exposition. It is not an uncommon change, 
 as we have noticed before. The last clause of the verse of 
 course refers to the prophet Elijah, who is to be sent as Jeho- 
 vah's messenger. It follows, therefore, as the result of the 
 inquiry, that words spoken by the prophet Malachi of Jeho- 
 vah and his messenger Elijah, are applied by the Evangelists, 
 in the usual way of accommodation, to Jesus Christ and his 
 forerunner John the Baptist, as though fulfilled in them. 
 Does it follow that the Lord Jesus Christ is Jehovah, any 
 more than it follows that John the Baptist was Elijah? 
 
 CHAPTEE VII. 
 
 THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE IGNOEANCE OF CHEIST — OETHODOX 
 EXCESS IN THE USE OF OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES — GENERAL 
 RESULT. 
 
 If the cases already examined may be deemed to establish 
 anything like a general principle, in the use made of the Old 
 Testament in the New, it will be unnecessary to dwell at 
 greater length on this part of our subject. It would be easy 
 to multiply examples ; and in every instance, we believe, 
 similar considerations would be found to apply. This will be 
 the case even in such passages as those referred to in the 
 note.f These too must be accepted as exemplifying, more or 
 
 * As, e.g., in Ps. xl. 16 ; Ixix. 6. 
 
 f John V. 39 ; xii. 37—41 ; Luke xxiv. 44 ; Heb. i. 5—11, in reference to 
 Pss. ii. and xlv. ; Matt. xxii. 41—44, referring to Ps. ex. Comp. Liddon, B.L., 
 pp. 79—83. 
 
BISHOP COLENSO ON THIS SUBJECT. 63 
 
 less directly and completely, tlie kind of accommodation of 
 which we have spoken. And it is the easier, or rather the 
 more necessary, to say this, even in reference to cases in which 
 our Lord himself is the speaker, because however exalted in 
 one sense may be the nature or dignity attributed to him, it is 
 yet on all hands admitted that he was truly a man, possessed, 
 like others around him, of a genuine human nature. He was, 
 therefore, subject to the same laws and conditions of growth, 
 instruction, progress, knowledge or ignorance, which affected 
 other men. He shared in these. As Bishop Colenso has 
 observed, — in words noticed by Dr. Liddon, but certainly not 
 refuted by anything he has advanced, — " he took our nature 
 fully, and voluntarily entered into all the conditions of human- 
 ity, and among others, into that which makes our growth in 
 all ordinary knowledge gradual and limited. We are expressly 
 told, in Luke ii. 52, that 'Jesus increased in wisdom,' as well 
 as in ' stature.' It is not supposed that, in his human nature, 
 he was acquainted, more than any educated Jew of the age, 
 with the mysteries of all modern sciences ; nor, with St. Luke's 
 expressions before us, can it be seriously maintained that, as 
 an infant or young child, he possessed a knowledge surpassing 
 
 that of the most pious and learned adults of his nation "* 
 
 From whatever point of view, therefore, the subject may be 
 regarded, there can be no good reason to think that the know- 
 ledge or the ignorance of Christ was not of the same character 
 which belonged to his age and country, or that he did not 
 participate in the prevailing ideas and feelings respecting the 
 ancient Scriptures and the use that might be made of them. 
 Everything in his recorded history points clearly to tliis con- 
 clusion, j- 
 
 * Colenso, Pentateuch, I. p. xxxi. 
 
 + E.g., the anticipations, more than once expressed, of his own second coming 
 within tliat generation : Afatt. xvi. 27, 28 ; Luke xvii. 22, seq. Do not these 
 anticipations remain unfulfilled ? 
 
64 KNOWLEDGE AND IGNOEANCE OF CHRIST. 
 
 Hence, again, it may reasonably be inferred that he too 
 would accept the statements of the Old Testament in popular 
 senses ; would take passages as Messianic, because such was 
 their usual acceptation, and because, as the son of devout 
 parents, familiar with the sacred books of their people, be had 
 been educated to do so. We may further understand how it 
 was that he could apply passages usually considered Messianic 
 to the incidents of his own career. So to do was in accord- 
 ance with the common habit of the time, was justified by it, 
 was its inevitable consequence. It was, we may believe, with 
 Jesus Christ much as with a religious man of our own day 
 and nation. Such a person, trained from childhood to believe 
 the popular theology of the time, will necessarily express 
 himself on religious subjects in accordance with his belief, 
 and quote the words of either Testament according to the 
 meaning which he has been taught to put upon them, and this 
 he will do with perfect truthfulness and innocence. It is far 
 from reasonable, however, to conclude that such a use of the 
 older Scriptures in the New Testament is to bind their read- 
 ers, for all ages to come, to accept without inquiry either the 
 authorship or the interpretation popularly attributed to them 
 in the time of Christ. It ought not to be deemed essential to 
 good Christianity to suppress critical investigation into the 
 origin of a sacred book, or into the original meaning of an 
 Old Testament passage, or to discuss such questions with a 
 foregone determination to believe only in one way. It cannot 
 be necessary to good Christianity to do this, any more than it 
 can be so to receive the Christ on false pretences, or to insist 
 on attributing to him a knowledge, or a character, which he 
 does not claim, or even disclaims, for himself On this sub- 
 ject, as on every other, doubtless the simple truth is what we 
 ought to seek ; and this, we may be well assured, can alone be 
 acceptable to Him whose name is Truth. 
 
 It remains to notice another point, more expressly than has 
 
UNDUE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. G5 
 
 yet been done. We have seen how Dr. Liddon takes occasion 
 to quote from Old Testament Scriptures, referred to in the 
 Gospels, a larger portion than is really brought forward in the 
 latter. He is not contented to go as far as an Evangelist, and 
 to take the alleged prophecy as it is used by him, but adds to 
 it something beyond this, so far as it suits his argument to do 
 so. 
 
 For example, in Zechariah xiii. 7, the prophet's words are 
 these : 
 
 " Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, 
 
 And against the man that is my fellow, 
 
 Saith Jehovah of Hosts : 
 
 Smite the shepherd, and the flock shall be scattered ; 
 
 And I will turn my hand against the little ones." 
 
 The portion of this verse quoted in the New Testament and 
 applied to the circumstances of Jesus Christ, is the phrase, 
 "Smite the shepherd, and the flock shall be scattered." liut 
 this is not enough for the quoter of our day : he brings for- 
 ward the earlier part of the verse also, as though this too, in 
 the Evangelist's conception, had necessarily the same reference. 
 Wo cannot but ask why he should stop where he does. Why 
 not similarly urge upon his reader the latter part of the verse ? 
 — or the preceding verse, or the following one ? Of course, 
 he does not do this, because those other verses would not suit 
 his purpose, or might perhaps be unfavourable to it. But 
 such words of the passage as seemed to be available, these he 
 picks out. Not contented witli the quotation actually given 
 in the Gospel, he adds the further expression as to " the man 
 that is my fellow" (or associate). And this expression, too, 
 he tells us, means Jesus Christ, and the latter is therefore the 
 " fellow" of Jehovah. But what is the value of this assertion ? 
 Is not its real foundation an assumption ? Because certain 
 words are quoted in the Gospels as applicable to circumstances 
 spoken of by the Evangelists, does it necessarily follow that 
 
 F 
 
66 OETHODOX EXCESS IN QUOTING 
 
 other words in the same context which are not quoted may be 
 equally so applied, at will, by the modern reader ? 
 
 It is perfectly gratuitous to suppose that the idea in each 
 Evangelist's mind, in citing the prophet's words, was that of 
 Jesus Christ being the " fellow," or equal, of Jehovah, seeing 
 that the quoted words express a totally different idea ; namely, 
 that of the scattering of the disciples at the crucifixion. Had 
 the former been intended, we must believe that the Evangel- 
 ist would have done what Dr. Liddon has done ; that is to 
 say, he would have introduced the words which might at least 
 bear such a construction. 
 
 And not only is this an obvious remark, but let it be further 
 observed, in several of these cases, that part of an Old Testa- 
 ment verse which would seem most especially available for 
 the orthodox argument, is precisely that which the Christian 
 Evangelist does not bring forward. This will be seen in the 
 passages noted below.* Thus, for example, in Micah v. 2, a 
 l^art of this verse is referred to, as we have seen, in the New 
 Testament as indicating the place where the Messiah is to be 
 born. That part of it which might have served more certainly 
 to express what Dr. Liddon terms " the eternal pre-existence," 
 that part of the verse which the modern orthodox theory can- 
 not fail to adduce, is not quoted or appealed to in the Gospel. 
 So that here, again, what to a mind pre-occupied with the 
 popular theory, is necessarily the most prominent thing in the 
 original verse, is, by the Evangelist, passed over in silence. 
 
 It may, indeed, be replied, that an Evangelist is not to be 
 expected to cite more of a passage than his immediate purpose 
 required. Just so, it may be answered ; and therefore his 
 immediate purpose was not that which is attributed to him. 
 It was not to suggest the Deity of Jesus Christ, or to help in 
 
 * E.g., Hag. ii. 6, in Heb. xii. 26 — while verses 7 and 9 are not noticed ; 
 Isaiah xl. 3, in Matt. iii. 3, Mark i. 3 — while the words of the prophet, " make 
 straight in the desert a highway for our God," are not quoted ; so in Luke iii. 4, 
 John i. 23 ; Mic. v. 2, comp. Matt. ii. 6. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 67 
 
 building up an argument for that doctrine. If such had been 
 his intention, he would have brought forward the words which 
 would best have served such an end. But these are just the 
 words which he passes over. Ought we not, therefore, from 
 the Evangelist's non-use of the words, to conclude that he 
 could not have had the intention to convey or to suggest the 
 doctrine supposed ? 
 
 If, however, it be urged that the citation of some of the 
 words of a verse shews that the luhole verse must have been 
 in the Evangelist's mind, and must on his authority be under- 
 stood to have referred originally to Jesus Christ, — this, we 
 reply, is evidently the point to be proved. And it cannot be 
 proved, because it may be shewn in each case, as we have 
 seen in the cases actually examined, that the passage could 
 not in its first intention have had any connection with Jesus 
 Christ, but had an entirely different reference — relating, if truly 
 Messianic, not to Jesus of Nazareth, but to the personage antici- 
 pated, under the character of Messiah, by the ancient Hebrew 
 writers. The words, therefore, as before, can be applied to the 
 former only by a kind of accommodation. 
 
 ]\Ioreover, if the application of some words of a verse in a 
 Hebrew prophet to circumstances in the life of Christ shews 
 that the rest of the verse also related originally to him, why 
 stop at a single verse ? The modern division into verses and 
 chapters is an arbitrary one. Why not, therefore, take the 
 whole chapter, or the whole book ?* And so we reach a result 
 which is clearly equivalent to a case of rcductio ad ahsurdum; 
 — a result at which the most determined upholder of this kind 
 of argument may well be disposed to pause, asking himself 
 whether a doctrine, or a mode of proof, which puts so severe a 
 strain upon common sense can indeed be true. 
 
 It follows from the foregoing considerations that there was 
 
 * Thus, in Micah v., verses 5, 6 must ovidently be included with v. 2, materially 
 affecting the character of the passage. 
 
 f2 
 
68 GENEKAL RESULT. 
 
 nothing in the ancient anticipations of a Messiah, to lead to 
 the expectation that that personage would be " divine," in the 
 sense which is commonly given to this word. He was indeed 
 to be a wise and righteous sovereign and warrior, especially 
 Tinder the protection of the Almighty, and enabled by His aid 
 to overcome his enemies. He was one, to whom the highest 
 epithets, short of those reserved for the ineffable Being, might 
 be properly given, whose right it was to have such epithets 
 conferred upon him. But, at the same time, there is no pas- 
 sage producible from the Old Testament, in which he is really 
 described or conceived of as Supreme God, or as, in any 
 sense, equal to Him ; there is no evidence producible to this 
 effect, which will stand the test of cross-examination. One 
 only, to the ancient Hebrew mind, as to the modern, could be 
 so designated ; and He it is of whom Jesus himself teaches us 
 to think as "Our Father" in heaven ; of whom he himself said, 
 " The Lord our God is One Lord ;" of whom he spoke as " My 
 Pather and your Father, my God and your God ;" and whom 
 he is also recorded to have addressed in prayer as " the Only 
 True God."* Such words as these are very plain indeed. Their 
 meaning does not wait to be determined by obscure and doubt- 
 ful arguments from Old Testament prophecies ; and it may 
 well be a question whether not only our own reason, but our 
 loyalty to God and to Christ, does not require that we should 
 accept and act upon the conclusion which such language, taken 
 in its plain and obvious sense, so clearly conveys and urges 
 upon us. 
 
 * Mark xii. 29 ; John xx. 17 ; xvii. 3. 
 
BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD. 09 
 
 CHAPTEi: VIII. 
 
 THE BIBLIC.VL DOCTRINE OF ONE OOD — THE WORDS ELOHIM 
 AND JEHOVAH. 
 
 Our purpose leads us now to speak more iu detail of the 
 positive teaching of the Scriptures on some of the principal 
 subjects of theological interest. We begin with a doctrine 
 which unquestionably holds the chief place among the fun- 
 damental doctrines of the Bible, that of the Divine Unity. 
 This is presented to us by the sacred writers in a peculiar and 
 interestiug manner. They give us especially to see how, from 
 obsciu-e beginnings, it gradually grew up and assumed a com- 
 manding influence among a people long unable to receive it 
 with a cordial assent ; and how, finally, it was established 
 after centuries of conflict with idolatrous tendencies, and 
 became the abiding possession first of the Jewish people and 
 then of the Christians. Thus the Bible leaves this doctrine, 
 as it were, to speak for itself, and win its own way to tlie 
 sympathy and faith of devout minds. It places before us, not 
 so much a creed as a great historical drama, the scenes of 
 which run through many ages, and commend themselves to us 
 by their simplicity, by their truthfulness to human nature, 
 and by the power with which the final result appeals to reli- 
 gious feeling, and vindicates its claims on our acceptance. 
 
 Of the two principal terms, Elohim and Jehovah, by 
 which the Hebrew writers denote the Supreme Being, the 
 former was the older, as it was also the more general in mean- 
 ing and application. By its etymology, the word Elohim was 
 expressive of power ; as though God were thought of as pre- 
 eminently the ^Mighty One ; nuich, indeed, as we now employ 
 the term Almighty. It was used, iiowevcr, not only of Clod, 
 
70 THE WOED ELOHIM. 
 
 as known among the Hebrews, but also of " other gods."* It 
 is also applied even to human beings, as, for example, princes 
 and judges, and others occupying an eminent position. Thus 
 we read, " And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made 
 thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh ; and Aaron thy brother shall 
 be thy prophet."-f- 
 
 It has been inferred from the plural form of this word, that 
 in the early, or ante-Mosaic, times it was employed in its 
 proper sense, as a true plural, and that the people among 
 whom it was in use were polytheists. This, however, does 
 not appear in the sacred books. In these, the term in ques- 
 tion is usually, and from the first, though with a few rare 
 exceptions,! employed with singular verbs and adjectives, 
 and denotes everywhere as thus used the One Divine Object. 
 Yet that such is the case affords no conclusive argument 
 against admitting the very imperfect, and perhaps polytheistic 
 character of the religion of the early Hebrews. The ancient 
 documents which form the basis of the Mosaic books,§ were 
 probably most of them written after the Exodus. Their 
 writers thus lived at a time when the belief and worship of 
 the One God were beginning to prevail among the Hebrews. 
 Hence those writers, and much more the still later compilers 
 of the Pentateuch, and of other historical books, would natu- 
 rally accommodate their language to the religious belief of 
 their own time. It is, nevertheless, clear from their history, 
 that the Plebrew people were long excessively prone to idola- 
 trous practices and to the acknowledgment of many gods. It 
 is difficult to think that they could have been so had anything 
 like a pure monotheism come down to them, and been firmly 
 
 * Exod. XX. 2 ; xxiii. 13 ; Deut. v. 7. 
 
 t Exod. vii. 1 ; xxi. 6 ; xxii. 8, 28 ; Ps. viii. 6 ; xlv. 6 ; Ixxxii. 1, 6 ; John 
 X. 34, 35. In some of these, Elohim is rendered "judges" in the English Bible. 
 
 t E.g., Gen. xx. 13 ; xxxv. 7 ; Exod. xxxii. 4, 8 ; 2 Sam. vii. 23. 
 § Comp. supra, p. 2. 
 
IMPERFECTION OF THE EARLY IDEAS. 71 
 
 established among them, from the early days of patriarchal 
 history, as this is represented in the Book of Genesis. 
 
 The low state of religious belief prevailing in the most 
 ancient times is not, however, a matter of merely conjectural 
 inference from their oldest word for God. Other and direct 
 indications are not wanting to the same effect. 
 
 On the face of the narrative which relates the events of the 
 primitive biblical history for many Imndred years, it is plain 
 that the Israelitish people during the whole of this period 
 could have had only gross unspiritual ideas on all religious 
 subjects. Doubtless, there were exceptions among the better 
 minds of the nation, including leaders and prophets eager for 
 the acknowledgment and service of the One God ; but the 
 statement just made is probably correct of the great majority, 
 even though the people may have been brought at times 
 to believe in their own Elohini as the sole Being entitled to 
 worship and obedience from themselves. 
 
 In the books relating to the earliest history, all that is said 
 respecting the Deity and his intercourse M-ith man is highly 
 anthropomorphic in its character. Jehovah Elohim walks 
 in the garden of Eden, and enters into conversation with the 
 primitive pair, as He does afterwards with many of their 
 descendants. After the deluge, when Noah o lie red his sacri- 
 fice of burnt offerings, "Jehovah smelled a sweet savour," 
 and " said in his heart," that he would not " again curse the 
 ground any more for man's sake." It is plain that, in the 
 conception of the writer of such words. He is a God of very 
 liuraan tastes and ideas. So, lie speaks face to face with 
 Abraham and Sarah, and goes down from his interview with 
 them to " see whether" Sodom and Gomorrah are as wicked as 
 the cry which had come unto Him had indicated, " and if 
 not," He adds, " I wHl know."* 
 
 In the Book of Exodus, the Almighty converses with INIoses. 
 
 * Gen. viii. 21 ; xviii. 21. 
 
72 IDOLATROUS TENDENCIES 
 
 He gives him tables of stone, containing the commandments 
 which He has Himself written. It is even said respecting 
 Moses and others of the elders and nobles of Israel, that they 
 went np to the mountain, "and they saw the God of Israel, 
 they saw God, and did eat and drink."* 
 
 It is needless to add that these representations continue 
 through later books, — that is to say, books recounting later 
 events. Hence it is evident that for many ages, according to 
 the biblical narrative itself, essentially rude and material ideas 
 of the Almighty Being prevailed among the Israelites, and we 
 cannot wonder that they fell away as they did, from time to 
 time, into positive idolatry and the belief in strange gods. 
 To the great bulk of such a people even Jehovah, it would 
 appear, could only be a national god, the one who favoured 
 and protected them more especially — ideas which are certainly 
 very nearly akin to polytheism, if not identical with it. 
 
 This conclusion might easily be contirmed by various other 
 considerations drawn from the books of Genesis, Joshua and 
 Judges. On these, however, it is hardly necessary here to 
 dwell at any length.-f- 
 
 Subsequent historical books present many similar traces of 
 the same disposition. They reveal, in fact, a long continued 
 series of vacillations between the worship of Jehovah and that 
 of the gods of the surrounding nations. Of king Ahaz we 
 read, that " he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus which 
 smote him, and he said. Because the gods of the kings of 
 Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they 
 may help me."^: 
 
 Later kings, as Manasseh, and earlier ones also, were equally 
 prone to idolatrous worship. The " high places" and sacred 
 groves and gardens, are often referred to ; and it is clear that 
 
 * Exod. xxiv. 9—12. 
 
 + See Gen. xxxi. 19, 30 — 34 ; xxxv. 2, 3 ; Jos. xxiv. 14 — 23 ; Jud. xvii. xviii. 
 
 J 1 Kings xii. 28—33 ; xviii. 13, 21 ; 2 Kings xxi. 3—6. 
 
AMONG THE HEBREWS. 73 
 
 the people, as well as their rulers, were continually guilty of 
 the same great apostasy. Even in the later Isaiah, there are 
 plain allusions to idolatrous practices among the captives in 
 Babylon.* 
 
 This tendency to false worship appears to have prevailed in 
 spite of the prophets who came forward from time to time 
 with their faithful warnings and expostulations. It may doubt- 
 less be accounted for, in part, by the intermixture among the 
 Hebrews of some of the ancient idolatrous inhabitants of 
 Canaan ;-f- in part, and perhaps more fully, by the fact that 
 the Hebrews were surrounded as they were by tribes and 
 nations addicted to very gross and sensual religions — as, 
 for example, the Syrians, the Phoenicians and the Egyptians. 
 Ignorant and uncultivated men, little given to reflection, are 
 easily attracted by outward and visible rites, appealing to 
 them in the sacred name of religion. Such persons among the 
 Hebrews, — that is, indeed, the great mass of the nation, — would 
 be constantly liable to be drawn away from a system which, 
 like their own, furbade the making of any sensible image of 
 God, and was, in other respects, of a higher and severer cha- 
 racter than the religions of adjoining nations. 
 
 Of this statement we may find ample illustration in the 
 religious world of our own day ; in the influence of what is 
 termed Ritualism, for example, over certain classes of minds ; 
 and in the prevalence of Roman Catholicism among the great 
 masses of the people of many countries, for whom, it is not 
 to be doubted, such forms of Christian faith and worship have 
 far stronger attractions than a simple and comparatively cold 
 and rational Protestantism. 
 
 Another and more general cause of the same tendency may 
 of course be found in the endless variety and diversity seen in 
 the world around us, both in the visible phenomena of nature 
 and in the occurrences . of human experience. Even in our 
 
 * Isaiah i. xxix.; Jer. vii. 17, seq.; Isaiah Ivii. f See Psalm cvi. 34 — 38. 
 
74 BIBLICAL DOCTEINE OP ONE GOD. 
 
 Christian times, the belief in Satan is, to many persons, a 
 relief; inasmuch as it seems to take away from God the 
 responsibility for much of the seeming evil that exists in the 
 world. It takes the responsibility from Him, and puts it 
 upon the prince of evil. But this, like polytheism itself, is 
 only a temporary and superficial relief. True science and true 
 religion unite to force the mind onward and upward to the 
 thought of One all-sufficient Cause, the central Power, the 
 controlling Providence, of the entire universe — helping us to 
 think and say of Him, with the Hebrew prophet of old, " I 
 form the light and create darkness ; I make peace and create 
 evil ; I, Jehovah, do all these things." 
 
 The word Jehovah differs from the word Elohim in being 
 a singular in form, and in being applied only to one definite 
 object. It is a proper name, and, like other proper names 
 found in the Old Testament, it has a distinct meaning of its 
 own. It was probably expressive of eternity of existence ; 
 and accordingly, in some recent versions of the Old Testament 
 into English, the word is rendered " the Eternal," as it is by 
 the equivalent phrase in various foreign versions. 
 
 This name, it is well known, is esteemed so sacred among 
 the Jews, that, for many ages past, they have refrained from 
 uttering it ; and always, in reading their Scriptures, substitute 
 another word, namely, either Lord or God. The true pro- 
 nunciation of the sacred name is not certainly known to us. 
 It has been long lost, and different accounts have been given 
 in recent times as to what it was, and ought now to be.* 
 This is easily understood when it is mentioned that the word 
 which we pronounce "Jehovah," properly consists of only 
 four consonants, without any original vowel sound to guide us 
 
 * See the excellent Short Dissertation on tliis subject by Prof. R. Martineau 
 — 1869. While largely concurring in what is there said, we yet hope that we are 
 not to lose the familiar and euphonious word Jehovah, for the poor-looking and 
 ill-sounding Jahvch —especially when it is not absolutely certain that the latter is 
 the correct form. 
 
THE NAME JEHOVAH. 75 
 
 in pronouncing them. The vowel sounds whicli we now attach 
 to them are comparatively modern — that is, they have been 
 added to the word most probably since the commencement of 
 Christian times, and are, in fact, borrowed vowels.* 
 
 There is reason to believe that the name Jehovah was not 
 yet known in the most ancient times of Hebrew history to 
 which we can ascend. At what period it was first introduced, 
 is, however, a doubtful point. We need not dwell upon the 
 considerations which bear on this question ; but we may note 
 that they tend to establish the position that the name in ques- 
 tion was not in use before the time of Moses. It was long 
 ago pointed out, by an eminent German author, that there is 
 no instance in the Pentateuch of a proper name formed by 
 composition with a syllable derived from the word Jehovah — 
 no instance until we come to the time of Moses, whose 
 mother's name was Jochebed, and whose successor's name was 
 Joshua. Many names, on the other hand, occur formed from 
 the syllable El, derived from Elohim, or its kindred forms. 
 Hence the inference that while El and Elohim were common 
 in the pre-Mosaic times, the term Jehovah was as yet un- 
 known.-f- 
 
 The absence of the word from the ante-lMosaic history 
 appears, indeed, to be recognized in the Bible itself. In the 
 Book of Exodus we read, " God spake unto Moses and said 
 
 • It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader that, in the English Bible, the 
 word Lord (in small capitals) represents, the original Jehovah, while the form 
 " Lord" is the rendering of a different original word. In so rendering "Jehovah," 
 our translators followed the Septuagint, the Jewish authors of which naturally 
 refrained from repeating or writing the sacred name. Hence the confusion between 
 the word Lord in the Old Testament, and the word Lord in the New, as used of 
 Jesus Christ. The two are by no means equivalent. Tlie one represents the 
 ancient and venerable Hebrew name Jehovah, the other the common Greek word 
 KvpiOQ, — a word often applied to others besides Jesus Christ (e.g., Matt, xviii. 
 26 — 34). It is to be hoped that, in the version of the English Old Testament now 
 being made, the name Jehovah will be everywhere introduced where the original 
 has it. 
 
 f Ewald, Gcschichte d. Volkes Israels (\Si'3), II. pp. 145 — 148. 
 
76 BIBIJCAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD : 
 
 unto him, I am the Lord ; and I appeared unto Abraham, 
 unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty ; 
 but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them/'* It is 
 true, nevertheless, that this name constantly occurs in the 
 Book of Genesis ; — a fact which is appealed to as one of the 
 evidences of the composite structure of that book, and as 
 indicative also of the comparatively late origin of many por- 
 tions of it. 
 
 It is possible, as Bishop Colenso maintains, that the name 
 Jehovah was not known so early as Moses ; or was not, at 
 least, in common or familiar use in his time, or, indeed, until 
 many hundred years after him.-|- But, however this may be, 
 we shall probably not be far wrong, if we regard the intro- 
 duction of it, whenever that took place, as indicating a step 
 forward on the part of the Hebrew people, or their leaders, 
 towards better ideas of the Eternal Being. Their Elohim is 
 now Jehovah, and no other. He is henceforth to be their sole 
 God, their national God ; not probably, as yet, in their con- 
 ception, the One Only Being entitled to that highest of appel- 
 lations, but at least Supreme among gods, God of gods ; — 
 the additional advancement towards the idea of His sole Deity 
 being gradually made and completed at a yet later period in 
 the nation's history. 
 
 In the Book of Genesis and throughout the historical books, 
 the two names of Elohim and Jehovah appear together from 
 the first, much as if they had been in use in the earliest times. 
 It is Elohim who " created the heavens and the earth," in the 
 first verse of the Bible ; and it is Jehovah Elohim who, in the 
 second chapter, carries on and completes the work of creation. 
 The two words constantly occur afterwards, thougli not in 
 such close conjunction as this, making a kind of compound 
 
 * Exod. vi. 2, 3 : "tlie Lord," in v. 2, represents the original Jehovah, 
 t Colenso, Pentateuch, Part II. c. viii. seq. 
 
ITS CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT. 77 
 
 form, which is seldom found beyond the second and tliird 
 chapters of Genesis.* 
 
 It has been supposed that the one word or the other is 
 afterwards used from time to time, according as the sacred 
 writer deemed the one or tlie other more suitable to his sub- 
 ject. There is doubtless truth in this supposition ; but it has 
 been pushed further than the evidence will warrant. Many 
 cases occur in which the words seem to be used quite in- 
 differently, and without any particular reference or special 
 fitness to the requirements of the context, or to the ideas ex- 
 pressed in it, so far as we can now judge. The term Jehovah, 
 however, is of course generally employed when tlie Divine 
 Being is spoken of as the protecting God of Israel, who had 
 entered into special covenants with them, and made them His 
 chosen people. 
 
 CHAPTEE IX. 
 
 THE BIBLICAL DOCTKINE OF ONE GOD — ITS CONTINUED DEVE- 
 LOPMENT — THE CHRISTIAN DOCTPJNE. 
 
 The imperfect religious belief of which we have spoken 
 prevailed in the nation down to the time of the captivity. 
 The writings of Jeremiah are sufficient evidence to this effect. 
 He frequently speaks of the grievous apostasy of his country- 
 men, and repeatedly threatens them with captivity and destruc- 
 tion, as the consequences of their " sin." Several other pro- 
 phets, both of earlier and of later date, bear the same unfavour- 
 able testimony respecting their people.-f- 
 
 * This remark does not apply to such forms as "Jehovah, God of Israel," which 
 is not uncommon. 
 
 t Jer. vii. 17, 29—31; xi. 11—13 ; xv. 6, 7 ; xviii. 1, 2 ; Hosea i. 2 ; iv. 
 12, 13, and passim ; Amosii. 8, and pussim ; Micah i. 5 — 7 ; v. 12 — 14; Zeph. 
 i. 4—6 ; Mai. ii. 11. 
 
78 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD: 
 
 But, while this is true, it is equally clear that higher and 
 better ideas were now also asserting their sway, and long had 
 done so. In Isaiah, for example, while Jehovah is probably still 
 thought of as the special Protector and God of Israel, it is, 
 nevertheless, evident that the prophet conceived of Him as the 
 One true and living God ; nor is there anything to indicate 
 that he looked upon the idols to which he refers as other than 
 the mere creatures of the foolish imaginations of their wor- 
 shipers.* Indeed, some of his expressions respecting God, 
 and the obedience which is acceptable to Him, are of the 
 highest character ; hardly inferior to anything of the same 
 kind to be found elsewhere in the Scriptures. His first chap- 
 ter is a passage of this kind, and so is much in his second, 
 and in his fifth. The Book of Jeremiah is equally decided, 
 not only in its denunciation of idols, but also in the distinction 
 which it draws between the false gods and Him whose name 
 is "Jehovah of Hosts," who is "the true God," even "the 
 living God, and an everlasting King."-f- 
 
 Similar remarks are true, in perhaps a less degree, of several 
 of the Minor Prophets ;J and thus it is clear that, for a long 
 period, and contemporaneously with the often prevalent ido- 
 latry, there existed in the nation a powerful tendency of an 
 opposite character. The origin of this is doubtless to be 
 referred to a time long anterior to that of the prophets just 
 mentioned. Not to speak of the Mosaic teaching and legisla- 
 tion, — which, however, no one can doubt were purely mono- 
 theistic, — the names of Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, and 
 others, readily occur to us in this connection. All that is 
 known of these venerable men indicates their zeal for Jehovah, 
 as the God of Israel ; and if they had not altogether reached 
 an elevation from which they were enabled to look to Him as 
 
 * Is. xvii. 7, 8 ; i. 29—31 ; xix. 3 ; xsx. 22. 
 
 t Jer. X. 10, IC. 
 
 t Amos iii. v. ; Hosea xi. xiii. ; Micah vi. ; Hab. iii . 
 
ITS CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT. 79 
 
 the Only Divine Existence, and to think of the gods of the 
 nations as altogether vanity and "the work of men's hands," 
 yet their labours and prophetic teaching must have contributed 
 essentially to this final result. 
 
 The hard experience of the captivity, and the lessons which 
 it taught, would tend in the same direction. The unknown 
 author of the latter part of the Book of Isaiah is remarkable 
 for the power with which he proclaims the nothingness of the 
 idols, and the sole Deity of Jehovah.* The Book of Deuter- 
 onomy, also, the composition of which may belong to the age 
 of Jeremiah, contains passages which fully correspond to that 
 more advanced period of national intelligence, i* The same is 
 evidently true of the probably contemporaneous Book of Job, 
 and of many of the later Psalms. :|: The latter have frequent 
 passages in which the writer gives utterance to the loftiest 
 conceptions of the greatness and power, as well as of the good- 
 ness, holiness and mercy, of Jehovah ; passages which, for many 
 ages past, have served as appropriate forms of expression for 
 the best and highest thoughts of Christian devotion. Here 
 is a portion of one of the most remarkable of these : 
 
 " "Whither shall I go from thy spirit 1 
 Or whither shall I flee from thy presence 1 
 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; 
 If I make my bed in tlie grave, behold, thou art there ; 
 If I take the wings of the morning, 
 And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 
 Even there shall thy hand lead me, 
 And thy right hand shall hold me." (Ps. cxxxix. 7 — 10.) 
 
 AVe feel, at once, that men who could write thus respecting 
 the All-pervading Presence, that men who could worthily 
 
 • Isaiah xliv. 9—20 ; xlv. 5—7. 
 
 t Deut. iv. 35—39 ; vi. 4 ; vii. 9 ; xvii. 2 — 5 ; xxxvii. 39, 40. 
 i Job xi. 7, 8; xxviii. ; xxxiv — xxxix. ; Pss. xcv. ; xcvi. ; xcix. ; c. ; ciii. ; civ.; 
 . cxxxix. 
 
80 ■ BIBLICAL DOCTEINE OF ONE GOD. 
 
 appreciate such writing, could never be led away to the wor- 
 ship of imaginary deities. In this higher faith, an immense 
 step has been secured in the progress of religious knowledge ; 
 and good soil has been prepared in which to sow still better 
 seed of Divine truth, whenever any servant of God, even 
 greater than Moses and the prophets, shall be raised up to 
 guide and enlighten mankind. 
 
 In the diffusion of such ideas as these we have, therefore, 
 a true "preparation for Christ" — far better, and more real, 
 than any consisting in supposed predictions, often of myste- 
 rious import and doubtful interpretation, to say the least ; and 
 which, moreover, from the nature of the case, could be known 
 to comparatively few readers, and were liable to be misunder- 
 stood and perverted even by the most intelligent. 
 
 The advance in religious knowledge which these ideas in- 
 dicate was doubtless, on the whole, well maintained during the 
 long interval between the close of the captivity and the com- 
 mencement of the Christian literature. To this period belong 
 a few Hebrew books, the testimony of which, so far as it bears 
 upon the subject, goes to shew that, in the midst of nmch of 
 mere ceremonialism, the higher faith in Jehovah was by no 
 means lost sight of. Evidence of this may be seen in the 
 prayer of the Levites in the book of Nehemiah ; in one or two 
 places even of tl^ke apocalyptic book of Daniel ;* in the prevail- 
 ing tone of the prophet Haggai ; and in that of the first eight 
 chapters — that is to say, the later portion — of the book of 
 Zechariah. 
 
 To the period of which we are now speaking belong also 
 the Apocryphal writings of the Old Testament, including the 
 Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus — works of great beauty, 
 and abounding in just and noble sentiments respecting both 
 God and man — works, in short, which, although not written in 
 Hebrew and originating under Hellenistic influences, are wholly 
 
 * Neh. ix. 4—38; Dan. ii. 20—23; ix. 3—19. 
 
ITS CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT. 81 
 
 worthy, not mere!}'', in Dr. Liddon's words, to " lie outside the 
 precincts of the Hebrew canon," but to occupy an honourable 
 place within it. To the same space of time belongs the great 
 struggle, under the Maccabsean princes, against the house of 
 Antiochus. Terrible as this was to the Jewish people, it 
 tended, without doubt, in its after-influences, to consolidate 
 their attachment to their religion, as this now existed among 
 them, in the purely monotheistic form wliich they had for- 
 merly been so unable, or so slow, to receive. This result is 
 seen in expressions occurring both in the Sapiential books 
 and in the books of the Maccabees.* 
 
 Still, even with this establishment of a better faith, the 
 whole process is not yet completed. The prevailing tone even 
 of the higher passages of the ancient Scriptures represents the 
 Almighty more especially in the light of Creator and Euler. 
 The remembrance of His greatness, power and majesty is pre- 
 dominant ; althuugli it is also in many cases qualified by the 
 thought of his more beneficent and attractive moral attributes. 
 This necessarily arises from the radical conception of the He- 
 brew religion, that of a Law imposed b}^ the will of a sovereign, 
 enforced by sanctions of reward or punishment, as the conse- 
 quence of obedience or of disobedience. Nor were the people 
 themselves prepared to receive anything higlier. They have, 
 therefore, only to obey the law which is given to them, and to 
 obsen'^e the appointed rites of worship, simply because they 
 are enjoined by their invisible Lawgiver and King. The con- 
 science and the affections are btit little appealed to, and little 
 cultivated. It is rather the fear of punishment. God is a 
 jealous God, who will visit iniquity to the third and fourth 
 generation, and shew mercy to them that love Him and keep 
 His commandments. -f- 
 
 Such ideas are not the liighest which it is given to man to 
 
 * See the beautiful prayer of Solomon, Wisd. of Sol. ix. ; also Ecclus. xlii. 15, 
 seq.; 2 Mac. i. 24 — 29. t Comp., however, Ezek. xviii. I'J, seq. 
 
 G 
 
82 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD. 
 
 entertain concerning God. They belong to the earlier rather 
 than the later stages of religious knowledge ; and accordingly 
 in the "fulness of time" a better revelation of the Infinite 
 Being is given in the teaching and influence, more especially, 
 of Jesus Christ and of his great Apostle, St. Paul. This appeals 
 more directly to the moral nature of man, and altogether comes 
 nearer to us than anything contained in the older dispensa- 
 tion. The latter, we feel, was but as a step, slow and hesitat- 
 ing, though firmly made in the results, — a step towards the 
 more perfect knowledge ; and it is not until we come to the 
 life and words of the great Teacher, and to the influences 
 immediately springing from them, not until we come to him, 
 and learn from him and see in him* how to think of God as 
 the merciful Father of all, who is to be worshiped " in spirit 
 and in truth," that we have obtained the full sum and sub- 
 stance of the biblical revelation. God is now no longer, as in 
 the ancient times, only Elohim, a Being of inexpressible might 
 and greatness ; nor only Jehovah, the true eternal existence, 
 before wliich everything else is changeable and perishable ; 
 but He stands in a far dearer and more intimate relation to 
 us, as the great Parent Spirit, the Heavenly Father of all. 
 
 The conception of God as a Father is not unknown to the 
 Old Testament ; but it is there usually limited in its applica- 
 tion to the chosen people alone.-f- In the Christian teachings, 
 the term is one of wider sweep, and greater depth and richness 
 of meaning. And from this, the characteristic Christian idea 
 of God, a new and clearer light breaks forth upon the path of 
 life, shewing the relations in wliich men stand not only to 
 God, but to each other. They are placed now, as it were, 
 under a more penetrating and spiritual law, and bound over 
 to live together in peace and mutual goodwill and service, as 
 the children of one family, members of the great Christian 
 
 * John xiv. 9, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." 
 f Isaiah xlv. 11 ; Ixiv. 8. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 83 
 
 brotherhood. " There is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision 
 nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free," but 
 all are as " one in Christ Jesus."* So writes the great Apostle 
 of the Gentiles, indicating that now, " in Christ," the grosser 
 distinctions of class and nation are to count for nothing ; well 
 applying and developing the idea contained in the words of 
 his Master, as addressed to his immediate disciples, when he 
 told them to aim at being " the children of their Father which 
 is in heaven." 
 
 Within the long period over which we have now so rapidly 
 passed, we have seen the gradual establishment among a par- 
 ticular people of the true idea of God. We have seen them 
 advancing, by slow and painful efforts and with a constant 
 tendency to fall back, from the rude beginnings of their early 
 history, and from very unworthy conceptions of the Almighty, 
 to the belief in His eternity. His universal power and domi- 
 nion, His sole Godhead. We have seen this ancient Hebrew 
 belief resulting in the still more spiritual conception of the 
 Christian Master and his disciples, even in the great faith in 
 " One God and Father of all, who is above all and through all 
 and in you all" 
 
 And, throughout this vast space of time, in all the biblical 
 writings belonging to it, where is there any trace of a radical 
 change in the mode of conceiving of the Oneness of God ? In 
 reply to this question, it is not enough to refer, as Dr. Liddon 
 does,-|- to " hints," " suggestions," " adumbrations," symbolical 
 "unveilings," not understood at the time by those to whom they 
 are supposed to have been given, and often matter of contro- 
 versy since. Dark inuendoes of this kind are not what may 
 reasonably be expected, but some positive declaration, plainly 
 announcing the new doctrine. But where is this, or anything 
 like this, to be found in either Testament ? When and where, 
 precisely, in the teaching of Scripture, is the new idea of 
 
 * Coloss. iii. 11 ; Gal. iii. 28. + B.L., p. 43, seq. 
 
 ■ G 2 
 
84 BIBLICAL DOCTEINE OF ONE GOD. 
 
 a divine plurality, a divine tlireeness, first distinctly intro- 
 duced, as the correction or completion of the older doctrine ? 
 "Where is the ancient idea of One Jehovah, besides whom there 
 is no other God, modified and changed into a trinity of persons, 
 each of which is God as much as either of the others ? Can 
 Dr. Liddon, or any other person, confidently lay his hand upon 
 tJie place, and say, Here the doctrine of the threefold nature 
 of the Godhead was first revealed ? — or. Here we see the inte- 
 rest and astonishment it aroused in the minds of those who 
 first received it ? — or. Here, again, it is clearly, fully declared, 
 finally established ? 
 
 What answer Dr. Liddon can give to such questions as these, 
 we shall presently see more fully. Meantime we venture 
 to say that, within the pages of the Bible, an affirmative 
 answer cannot be found. And this w^e say, not forgetting 
 the passages which are usually thought definitely to express 
 the doctrine of the Trinity.* An answer to such questions is 
 easily found, when we reach the second and following centuries 
 of the Christian era. Then we find that Gentile converts to 
 Christianity brought with them into the new religion certain 
 ideas of their philosophy, and elaborated from tliem mucli of 
 the system of the modern orthodoxy. Among these men, we 
 can easily see when and where the doctrine of the Trinity 
 began to be, and how it gradually assumed its now prevailing 
 form.-f- But this is not to be seen within the pages of Scrip- 
 ture. Here, we have One God at the beginning, and One God 
 at the end, without any limitation or qualification whatever. 
 As, for example, we read in the words of Moses, " Hear, 
 Israel, Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one." Christ takes up 
 the same strain, and when he was asked by the scribe which 
 was the first commandment of all, Jesus, we are told, answered 
 
 * Matt, xxviii. 19 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 14 ; 1 Jolm v. 7. See Appendix to this Chapter. 
 
 + See a clear and concise historical account in Reville's Histoire du Dogme de 
 la Divinite de Jesus Christ, English translation, 1870 : compare also Donaldson's 
 Christian Literature, Book ii. See infra, Chapters XVI. to XIX. 
 
NO TRACE OF TRINITY IN UNITY. 85 
 
 him in the same ancient words, " The first of all the command- 
 ments is, Hear, Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord ; and 
 thou shalt love the Lord thy God MJth all thy heart, and with 
 all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength : 
 this is the first commandment."* The Apostle Paul re-echoes 
 this declaration: "To us," he says, "there is one God, the 
 Father, of whom are all things, and we in him."-f- 
 
 Where, then, does it appear that Jews or Christians were 
 ever taught a different doctrine respecting God from that of 
 the great founders respectively of Judaism and Christianity? 
 — where does this clearly and explicitly appear? — until in- 
 deed, as before observed, we come far down into the post- 
 apostolic times, when there is no doubt whatever either as to 
 the fact of a new doctrine having been introduced, or as to 
 the source from whence it was immediately derived ? 
 
 In itself, and apart from the necessities of controversial 
 explanation or defence, Christianity is usually declared to be 
 as truly a monotheistic religion as the ancient Judaism. Few 
 persons will deny that such a statement is correct in regard 
 to the Christianity of the New Testament. It ought then to 
 be a matter of the gravest consideration to every Christian 
 mind that the doctrine of the Trinity, as popularly held, — as 
 defined, for example, in the Athanasian Creed, — practically 
 and logically amounts to tritheism. It makes Jesus Christ to 
 be God, as much as the Almighty Father. It constantly 
 speaks of him as such, and so addresses him in the language 
 of prayer, in a manner which is without precedent in the 
 Scriptures. The popular Christianity, again, makes the Holy 
 Spirit to be God, a distinct and personal being, as much as 
 the Father and the Son ; telling us that each of the Three, 
 separately and apart, is God, exactly as either of the others 
 is so. And if this does not amount to the assertion of three 
 co-equal beings, each of which is God, it is surely impossible 
 
 * Dent. vi. i ; Murk \n. 20, :50. t 1 Cor. viii. G. Comp. Ephes. iv. 5, (i. 
 
86 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OP ONE GOD: 
 
 to find language in which to make such an assertion. Nor 
 can this conclusion, however unacceptable or repulsive it may 
 be to the devout mind, be effectually hindered or nullified by 
 the few words with which the creeds and their defenders 
 endeavour to protect themselves from the imputation of tri- 
 theism, when they append the proposition, or explanations 
 which are equivalent, that " yet there are not three Gods, but 
 only one God." In thus proceeding they simply exemplify 
 the absurdity of saying that a thing is, and is not, at one and 
 the same time.* 
 
 This tritheistic element, however, or anything really like it, 
 is not to be found in the pages of the Scriptures, — any more 
 than is the worship of the Virgin Mary. The one, in truth, 
 we must say, has much the same foundation as the other ; 
 that is to say, it is equally founded, not in the teaching of the 
 Bible, but on Church authority, and on creeds which have 
 come to us from comparatively ignorant and corrupt ages — 
 ages too of subtle and daring speculation on divine things. 
 
 The quality of unreasonableness, therefore, let us finally 
 observe, which any one may see in the ecclesiastical doctrine 
 of the Trinity, he ought not to impute to the Bible. That 
 volume is not really to be charged with it. The Scriptures, it 
 is needless to observe, do not contain the word Trinity, nor can 
 the idea be expressed in Scriptural terms, or by any combi- 
 
 * Eminent Trinitarian writers have expressed themselves in very similar terms 
 on the great mystery of their religion. Thus : — "When it is proposed to me to 
 affirm, that 'in the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, 
 power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;' I have difficulty 
 enough ! my understanding is involved in perplexity, my conceptions bewildered 
 in the thickest darkness. I pause ; I hesitate ; I ask what necessity there is for 
 
 making such a declaration But does not this confound all our conceptions, and 
 
 make us use words without meaning ? I think it does. I profess and proclaim 
 my confusion in the most unequivocal manner : I make it an essential part of my 
 declaration. Did I pretend to understand what I say, I might be a Tritheist, or 
 an infidel ; but I could not both worship the one true God, and acknowledge Jesus 
 Christ to be Lord of all." — Dr. Hey, Lectures on Divinity, apud Wilson, Conces- 
 sions of Trinitarians (1842), p. 34. 
 
ITS EEASONABLE CHARACTER. 87 
 
 nation of Scriptural words. It would perhaps be as easy to 
 describe the electric telegraph, or the parts of the steam-engine, 
 in biblical language, as to describe the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 How therefore can the latter be really a doctrine of the Bible ? 
 That book puts no such strain upon devout faith. On the 
 contrary, in its record of the development of the Theistic 
 belief of the Israelites, it is in remarkable harmony with the 
 dictates of reason and the analogies of human experience. 
 
 And not only so : — in that ancient and simple doctrine of 
 one God, the Heavenly Father, " in whom we live and move 
 and have our being," which is the final result yielded by the 
 ages of varied experience through which the sacred history 
 runs, we have that which is in harmony not only with our 
 reason, but with one of the marked tendencies of modern 
 science. For the latter, we know, is constantly seeking and 
 striving to reduce the number of Causes which are at work in 
 producing the visible phenomena of the universe ; to rise up, 
 in fact, to One Great First Cause ; and to shew that all the 
 various powers and laws of nature are but simple manifesta- 
 tions of that. Natural philosophers will tell us that such 
 things as heat and light and electricity are most probably but 
 various developments, or applications, of one and the same 
 inscrutable primary force. Some may even add to this that 
 the principle of life, and even Thought itself, can be only forms 
 of the same all-pervading original cause. What that Great 
 First Cause may be, they do not presume to define, hardly 
 even to conjecture. 
 
 The Bible would lead us to believe that, in the last resort, 
 it is the Living God, or the intelligent, conscious Will of the 
 one Almighty Creator. And tliis proposition, we venture to 
 say, however difficult it may be to any one to receive, is 
 neither opposed to reason nor condemned in any way by our 
 moral sense. On the contrary, the rational and spiritual part 
 of our nature will gladly, in most cases, respond to that pro- 
 
88 APPENDIX TO CHAPTEK IX. 
 
 position ; and in it, therefore, the devout man may well be 
 contented to rest, until the day conies, if that is ever to be, 
 when scientific research shall be able to give us something 
 better — a day, we must add, which we do not expect, and can 
 hardly desire, to live to see ! 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES SUPPOSED TO EXPRESS THE DOCTRINE OF 
 THE TRINITY. 
 
 Op such passages the luimber is three ; — oue of them being, how- 
 ever, the worthless interpolated verse in the First Epistle of John, 
 1 John V. 7, 8. This passage runs as follows : " There are three 
 that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy 
 Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that bear 
 witness in earth] the Spirit, the water and the blood ; and these 
 three agree in oue." The words in brackets are now generally 
 known and acknowledged to be spurious. On this point it is 
 sufficient here to cite the testimony of Dean Alford. He observes 
 that the words " are omitted hy all Greek MSB. (till the sixteenth 
 century); all the Greek Fathers; all the ancient versions ; and most 
 of the Latin Fathers." (Revised Version of N. T., note in loc). 
 The words are evidently without value fur any dogmatic purpose. 
 
 There are left two other passages which are usually supposed 
 cleaily and unquestionably to express the doctrine of three Divine 
 persons — two only, be it remembered, out of the whole extent of 
 the Bible. They are found in Matt, xxviii. 19, and 2 Cor. xiii. 14. 
 
 The former of these, in a corrected translation, reads thus : " Go 
 ye, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In judging 
 whether or not we have here, as alleged, a clear statement of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, it should be remembered that, througliout 
 the whole Gospel of Matthew, there is no expression or word, in 
 
INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 19. 89 
 
 which that doctrine can be supposed to be alluded to, until we come 
 to this, the last verse but one of the Gospel. So far, therefore, as 
 this Gospel is concerned, it would appear that throughout all the 
 ministry of Christ, in all his discourses, parables and saj'ings of 
 A'arious kinds here recorded, there is nothing to shew that the 
 trinity of Persons was ever spoken of between our Lord and his 
 disciples, until we come to the latest moments of his life on earth. 
 And then (we arc asked to believe), by using the words now under 
 notice, he revealed the truth to the disciples and to the Christian 
 world of future ages. 
 
 Is the supposition a probable one 1 Could such a doctrine have 
 been withheld by the Master from the disciples and from the world 
 in such a manner — left to be revealed to them only in this slight 
 and accidental kind of way, — and that too, not directly, or as a 
 doctrine of supreme importance offered to their faith, but, after all, 
 only as something implied or deducihle by Avay of inference from 
 the words employed 1 
 
 For, it will be observed, even this verse does not explicitly declare 
 Three Persons and One God. It does not say that the three are 
 each equally God, one as much as tlie other ; it does not saij that 
 the Son is God, or the Holy Spirit, but simply " Go and baptize 
 into the name" of the Three, whatever these may each severally be. 
 
 But what, then, is the meaning of the injunction ] To be bap- 
 tized into the name of any person (or into that person) does not 
 presuppose that he is accepted as an object of worship, but as one 
 of religious faith. Such baptism makes him the subject of recog- 
 nition and belief, under some implied or imputed character, whatever 
 that may be. St. Paul says of the fathers of his nation that they 
 were "all baptized into Moses" (1 Cor. x. 1, 2). lie does not 
 mean tliat they had been tauglit to consider Moses as God, or to 
 make him an object of their worship. He can only mean that 
 they recognized and had faith in him as their leader, and adopted 
 the religious system whicli lie gave them. The same Apostle even 
 speaks of baptism into his own name as a possibility. (1 Cor. i. 
 13 — 15). Whatever his definite meaning may have been, he could 
 not intend to imply that those who might have been so baj)tized 
 
90 APPENDIX TO CHAPTEK IX. 
 
 would by the act have recognized him as God, or made him an 
 object of religious worship. 
 
 Thus, then, it is clear that, although the Father, the Son and the 
 Holy Sjiirit, are here placed together in one form of words, as 
 objects into which baptism shall take place, it by no means follows 
 that the three are each a Divine Being, and each equally God. It 
 does not follow, therefore, that we have here any statement of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, or any allusion to it. The most that can be 
 said is this : If that doctrine were certainly established and known 
 by other evidence, this verse might be interpreted in accordance 
 with it. But is it certainly established and known by other evi- 
 dence 1 We submit that the contrary is the case ; — and that there 
 is in fact no passage of Scripture whatever in which the doctrine of 
 the Trinity is either clearly stated, or even clearly implied. 
 
 Baptism " into the name of the Father," was baptism into the 
 confession of the One God, the Heavenly Father : — no unimportant 
 article of faith to a convert from heathenism, who had perhaps 
 been a believer in many gods, or in none. Baptism into the name 
 of the Son was the distinctively Christian part of the rite. It was 
 baptism into the belief and reception of Jesus as Christ, the Mes- 
 siah, or " Son of God." This was evidently an essential part of the 
 new disciple's confession. Neither Jew nor heathen could become 
 a Christian without it. Baptism into the Holy Spirit was, to the 
 convert of those days, baptism into the confession and participation 
 of those gifts of the Spirit, which in the Book of Acts are stated to 
 have been shed upon the disciples, and are often referred to in the 
 course of that book. 
 
 We must not forget that in the early Christian times it was a 
 disputed question whether the Messiah (the Son) had come or not. 
 Jesus of Nazareth the Jewish nation did not receive in that cha- 
 racter. They rejected and crucified him. Hence it was indispen- 
 sable that converts should make a distinct confession of what was 
 thus denied, and should be baptized into the name of the Son ; 
 that is to say, into the belief in Jesus, not as God, but as Christ.* 
 In regard to the Holy Spirit, it will be remembered that there is a 
 * See ivfra, Chapters XI. XII. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF 2 CORINTHIANS XIII. 14. 91 
 
 passage in the Acts where Christian disciples, imperfectly instructed, 
 are said to know notliing of that object of faith. " We have not so 
 much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit" (Acts xix. 2). 
 It is imposssible to tliink that they could have been left in such 
 ignorance, when they became Christians, hatl the term " Holy 
 Spirit" really denoted the third co-eijual member of a Divine 
 Trinity, into the confession of which converts were received by 
 baptism. We see what is meant (v. 5) when it is said that they 
 were " bai)tized into the name of the Lord Jesus" — and that the 
 gifts of the Holy Spirit then " came on them" (v. 6). The form of 
 baptism here spoken of, " into the name of the Lord Jesus," is the 
 one which, being indispensable, alone occurs in the Book of Acts. 
 What is termed the baptismal fornnila (i\Iatt. xxviii. 19) is nowhere 
 met with in that book ; shewing us plainly that a confession of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, so far as can be learnt from the New Tes- 
 tament, was never made ; that, for some reason not stated, the sup- 
 posed " formula" was not used, and that Christian baptism in the 
 Apostolical age, was baptism into the name of Jesus alone. 
 
 The second instance in whicli the doctrine of the Trinity is 
 thought to be clearly expressed in the New Testament occurs again 
 in an accidental kind of way, in the last verse of one of St. Paul's 
 Epistles (2 Cor. xiii. 14) : — " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with 
 you alL" The words are easily shewn to be inconsistent with the 
 doctrine they are supposed to express. For it is plain that the 
 Almighty Being is separated, in the writer's conception, from Jesus 
 Christ and from the Holy Spirit. " The grace of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Spirit:" — three objects of thought, God being one of them, dis- 
 tinctly apart from the others. What the Apostle wishes for his 
 Corinthian friends is simply this, that the grace (or favour) of Jesus 
 Christ (their expected Judge*) may be with them, and God's love, 
 and a participation in the g<io(l gifts and influences, constantly 
 denoted in the New Testament l)y the phrase Holy Spirit. t 
 
 • Acts xvii. 31. t See infra, Chapter on the Holy Spirit. 
 
92 AEGUMENT FEOM PLURAL FOEMS. 
 
 CHAPTEE X. 
 
 THE OETHODOX AEGUMENT FEOM PLUEAL FOEMS OF EXPEES- 
 
 SION. 
 
 The plural form in the word Elohim has been brought 
 forward as affording evidence in support of the doctrine of a 
 plurality of persons in the Godhead. This appeal to that 
 word we had thought obsolete, like some other arguments for 
 the same doctrine ; or, if not obsolete, available only among 
 ill-informed persons.* It has, however, been revived in the 
 present instance, by one who certainly cannot be classed among 
 such persons ; and it may therefore be desirable here to notice 
 the use which he has made of the word in question. 
 
 Dr. Liddon ascribes great significance to this plural, as 
 giving us " intimation of the existence of a plurality of Persons 
 within the One Essence of God."f It was only in modern 
 times that its full importance to this effect was pointed out. 
 " It was not insisted upon by the primitive Church," as Dr. 
 Liddon admits. He does not tell us whether it merely escaped 
 the observation of earlier Christian writers, or whether they 
 passed it over because it is simply and really devoid of value, 
 and could never, by the nature of the case, have occurred to 
 men who lived nearer to the ages when Hebrew was a living 
 language. The scholastic subtlety of later times, however, 
 easily found the doctrine of the Trinity in the peculiarities of 
 Hebrew syntax ; and following such guidance Dr. Liddon 
 gravely informs us that when "Moses" relates "the primal 
 
 creative act of God," "he joins a singular verb to a plural 
 
 noun."J 
 
 * Bishop Colenso observes that it is "quite a mistake to think of proving the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, as some do, from the fact that Elohim is a plural name." 
 Pentateuch, IL p. 256. 
 
 t B.L., p. 48. t B.L., Ibid. 
 
HEBREW USE OF THE PLURAL. 93 
 
 It is a very largo assumption, in the face of modern inves- 
 tigations wliich we cannot suppose to be unknown to tlie writer 
 of these words, to say that it is " INIoses" who does tliis. But 
 letting that pass, it may he observed that the circumstance 
 referred to does not appear to be perfectly satisfactory to Dr. 
 Liddon himself " The analogies of the language," he candidly 
 says, " may indeed prove that the plural form of the word 
 had a majestic force ;"* but then, he suggests, would it not 
 have been dangerous, in connection with a monotheistic reli- 
 gion like the Hebrew, to use a plural form to express the 
 sacred name ? — and could so great a risk have been run, except 
 for some mysterious purpose of foreshadowing the higher truth 
 to come ? So easy and self-evident is the orthodox meaning 
 of these forms to one who brings to them a mind already full 
 of the doctrine they are supposed to teach, as it may be learnt 
 from the Creeds and Articles, or from the decrees and specu- 
 lations of ancient Councils and Fathers. To such a mind it 
 is useless to point out that plural forms occur in Hebrew, in 
 other cases in which a singular might have been expected. 
 For example, when Abraham is spoken of as the Master of 
 Eliezer, the word rendered Master is sometimes in the plural. 
 So with the word rendered Wisdom in Proverbs, and tlie word 
 Behcvioth in Job.f These are plural in form, while evidently 
 used each of a single ol>ject of thought ; and otlier cases of 
 the same kind are easil}'^ found. 
 
 But these simple and obvious explanations are little suitable 
 to the genius of the popular theology. Dr. Liddon accordingly 
 urges that the plural was " necessary in order to hint at the 
 complex mystery of God's inner life." He omits to explain 
 how it was that the hint was so entirely lost upon the Hebrew 
 people, botli in ancient and in modern times. For is there 
 anything more certain in their history than that they have 
 always, both in the later Biblical times and since, clung to the 
 * B.L., p. 49. t Gen. xxiv. 9, 10 ; Proy. ix. 1 ; Job xl. 15. 
 
94 AEGUMENT FROM PLUEAL FOEMS. 
 
 belief in Jehovah as the One only God, and have never ad- 
 mitted the idea of a distinction of personal existences in His 
 nature ? 
 
 In regard to such expressions as, " Let us make man in our 
 image," "Let us go down," "become as one of us,"* Dr. 
 Liddon reminds us that the Church Fathers detected the 
 plurality of persons in these too, and he is again willing to 
 follow their example. It would not be correct, however, to say 
 that the earliest Fathers regarded such passages as implying 
 the doctrine of a Trinity. Justin Martyr explained them of 
 the Word or Logos, but says nothing about a third person. 
 It is nevertheless perfectly reasonable to regard these forms of 
 speech as having been used by the ancient Hebrew writer, 
 who was evidently not afraid of anthropomorphism, simply 
 from his conception of the Deity as surrounded by angels ;-|- 
 or, again, even to regard them as employed much as similar 
 forms are used in modern times, in documents issued by, or 
 in the name of, sovereign potentates.^ At all events, we think 
 the judgment of the ancient writer of Genesis greatly to be 
 commended, when, in speaking of the Deity, he used his 
 plural forms of expression, and avoided the corresponding sin- 
 gulars. Literary taste alone, to say nothing of religious feel- 
 ing, might well lead him to prefer the former as alone suitable 
 to the greatness of his theme. How then can a theological 
 argument be built with any confidence upon so slight a foun- 
 dation ? 
 
 Some difficulty, however, is felt, and not unnaturally, in 
 regard to the words " our image," or " likeness," in which man 
 is said to be created. How could it be a likeness common to 
 God and angels? It can only point, therefore. Dr. Liddon 
 thinks, both to a plurality of persons in the Godhead and 
 
 * Gen. i. 26 ; xi. 7 ; iii. 22. t Comp. Job i. 6—12 ; xxxviii. 7. 
 
 X Examples of this use of the plural occur in tlie Bible. See Ezra iv. 18 j vii. 
 21, 24. 
 
THKEEFOLD REPETITIONS. 95 
 
 also to "Their participation in an Undivided Nature." But 
 ■what if it appears tliat the sacred writer conceived of a like- 
 ness between God and man of the literal kind? That lie did 
 so, may be gathered from another passage in Genesis, in which 
 it is said that God created Adam " in the likeness of God," and 
 that Adam " begat a son in his own likeness." The phrase is 
 here the same as in the first chapter of Genesis.* So that 
 there can be no doubt that the resemblance meant was one of 
 form and feature ; that the ancient writer regarded man as 
 having been literally made in the likeness of God, as Adam's 
 son was in that of his father ; and that he conceived of Elohim, 
 as Hiruself in bodily form and organs, like the man whom He 
 had called into existence. There is excellent Scriptural war- 
 rant for thus thinking. For, as we are told, the Deity " walk.s" 
 in tlie garden of Eden, Adam and Eve hear his " voice" speak- 
 ing to them, and He also " made coats of skins" for them and 
 clothed them.-f- 
 
 But Dr. Liddon has another great class of plural forms of 
 expression, by which the future unfolding of the nature of 
 God is foreshadowed, though here too, alas ! to blind eyes ; 
 for there is nothing to shew that the expressions in question 
 were ever understood in this way, until the later days of Tri- 
 nitarian speculation. The priest is directed to repeat the Holy 
 Name three times, in the blessing which was to be given to 
 the children of Israel : so in some of the Psalms there is, we 
 are told, a threefold rhythm, or recurrence of prayer or praise.J 
 It will be found, however, that in some of the passages refer- 
 red to, the rhythm is only twofold, or that it is also fourfold 
 or more.§ 
 
 But the crowning significance of such passages is discover- 
 able in the vision of Isaiah. || Here we have unquestionably 
 
 • Gen. V. 1—3 ; i. 26, 27. t Gen. iii. 8, 21. 
 
 t Num. vi. 23—26 ; Ps. xxix. 4, 5, 7, 8 ; xcvi. 1, 2, 7, 8. 
 
 § E.g., Ps. xxix. 1, 2; also vv. 10, 11 ; xcvi. 11, 12. || Is. vi. 2—8. 
 
96 AEGUMENT FROM PLURAL FORMS. 
 
 the threefold cry, " Holy, holy, holy ;" and in a subsequent 
 verse does not Jehovah say, " Who will go for us ?" " What a 
 flood of almost Gospel light," Dr. Liddon exclaims, is here 
 "poured upon the intelligence of the elder church"* — only 
 as:ain, as before, the elder church did not. could not, see it ! It 
 is reserved for the modern church alone, it would seem, to read 
 these passages in their true sense, and the modern church, in 
 the abundance of other instruction, does not need that ancient 
 light ; so that it really appears to have been shed upon the 
 world in vain. 
 
 The argument advanced is, in any case, so purely " subjec- 
 tive," that we have difficulty in meeting it, except with the 
 remark that we do not see or feel its force. We must there- 
 fore be contented to make Dr. Liddon, and such of his readers 
 as are satisfied with it, a present of it, such as it is. He has 
 certainly the merit of having put it extremely well, and drawn 
 from it as much support probably as any one would venture 
 to do.-f- 
 
 Similar considerations apply to what Dr. Liddon next says 
 about the "Theophanies" of the Old Testament. These re- 
 markable appearances of the Divine Being to the patriarchs 
 and others, are very curiously related in the books of Genesis 
 and Judges. There is in one place some little confusion of 
 persons, it is true ; but this may not amount to much in a 
 theological argument : as where " Jehovali appeared to Abra- 
 ham" in the plain of Mamre, "and he lifted up his eyes and 
 looked, and lo, thixe men stood by him." The narrative goes 
 on to tell us how Abraham and Sarah prepared food for these 
 men, and stood by them under a tree, in the heat of the day, 
 
 * B. L., p. 5L 
 
 •f- It may be well to remind the reader that the monotheistic Koran frequently 
 attributes to the Almighty a similar plural form of expression. The repetition of 
 the word Holy (Lsaiah vi. 3) is doubtless simply emphatic ; and may be equivalent 
 to the superlative most holy. — Comp. Jer. xxii. 29, "0 earth, earth, earth, hear 
 the word of Jehovah :" also Ezek. xxi. 27 ; Rev. viii. 13. So Num. vi. 23 — 26. 
 
THE THEOPHANIES. 97 
 
 "and they did eat." One of the men proves to be Jehovah, 
 or, at least, speaks under His name ; and after giving the 
 promise of a son to Abraham, and rebuking Sarah for hiugh- 
 ing, the same speaker says, in reference to Sodom and Gomor- 
 rah, " I Avill go down, now, and see whether they have done 
 altogether according to the ciy of it, and if not I will know."* 
 
 It would have been more consistent, theologically, if the 
 speaker had here said We ; especially as three persons are 
 present.f To this extent, therefore. Dr. Liddon's argument 
 from the passage unquestionably fails ; but he has an abun- 
 dance of instances at command to make up for this,:}: and to 
 establish the conclusion to -which he desires to lead us. Grant- 
 ing the large, and really inadmissible, assumption that there 
 is no legendary element in these narratives of the early He- 
 brew history, let us notice the inquiries which Dr. Liddon 
 founds upon them. Do not these remarkable apparitions, he 
 asks, " suggest, as their natural climax and explanation, some 
 personal self-unveiling of God before the eyes of His crea- 
 tures ? Would not God appear to have been training His 
 people, by this long and mysterious scries of communications, 
 at length to recognise and to worship Him when hidden under, 
 and indissolubly one with a created nature ? . . . . Is there any 
 other account of them so much in harmony with the general 
 scope of Holy Scripture, as that they were successive lessons 
 addressed to the eye and to the ear of ancient piety, in antici- 
 pation of a coming Incarnation of God?"§ 
 
 Such is the conclusion. The difficulty in admitting it is 
 obvious, and to our minds insuperable, — although, strangely 
 enough, it remains unnoticed by its eloquent expounder. This 
 training of the ancient generations of the patriarchs, two thou- 
 
 * Gen. xviii. 1—21. 
 
 ■j- The conception of tlie sacred writer surely is that Jehovah was accompanied 
 by two attendants. 
 
 + B.L., pp. 52-56. § Ibid., pp. 58, 59. 
 
 H 
 
98 ARGUMENT FROM PLURAL FORMS : 
 
 sand years before Christ, how could it prepare the people of 
 his far distant time to receive the doctrine of the incarna- 
 tion of a divine person of the Godhead in Jesus of Nazareth ? 
 And if such were its purpose, did it not entirely fail t — for 
 did not the great mass of the Jewish people, including their 
 rulers and leading men, reject Jesus Christ, deny that he was 
 the Messiah, and put him to death ? We cannot, therefore, 
 see the utility of the Theophanies, in the sense alleged, nor 
 how they served as " successive lessons addressed to the eye 
 and to the ear of ancient piety," in preparation for that which 
 they so entirely failed to produce. 
 
 Similar remarks must be made on what Dr. Liddon next 
 advances respecting the personification of "Wisdom in the Book 
 of Proverbs ; respecting the Sapiential Books, the Logos of 
 Philo, and the anticipations of Messianic glory scattered 
 throughout the Prophets. So far as these were designed, as 
 we are told that they were, to prepare the Jewish people for 
 the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity in Jesus 
 of Nazareth, they manifestly did not attain their object. The 
 only alternative to this will be to say that, while so failing in 
 regard to the Jews, they have succeeded as regards the Chris- 
 tians. But is even this correct? If it were so, it would 
 scarcely have been necessary for Dr. Liddon to have constructed 
 the elaborate argument contained in this volume, or to have 
 tasked his ingenuity and his learning as he has found it 
 necessary to do, in order to remove the objections and diffi- 
 culties to which his fundamental proposition is open ; nor 
 should we, with many others, have found ourselves, as earnest 
 inquirers, so unable to assent to his conclusions, — impeded or 
 repelled, as we are, by something doubtful, or wrongly pre- 
 sented, on almost every page of his book. This position of the 
 question, we submit, is undeniable ; and forms, in itself, a con- 
 clusive answer and refutation to this part of the case, ingeni- 
 ously reasoned as it is. 
 
ITS MANIFEST FUTILITY. 99 
 
 Before leaving the subject, we may briefly notice, from ano- 
 ther point of view, the extreme difficulty of believing that 
 these peculiar forms of expression can have had the prepara- 
 tory purpose attributed to them. 
 
 We have seen that, during many centuries, the Hebrew 
 nation was extremely prone to v(5ry gross "backsliding," to 
 apostasy, that is to say, from their faith in Jehovah — and that 
 rulers and people alike were from time to time guilty of this 
 devotion to strange gods, to Baal, Moloch, Chiun, the " queen 
 of heaven," Gad and JNIeni.* Is it not incredible that it should 
 have been sought or intended to exercise upon such a people, 
 by these refinements of phraseology, the erdighteuing, elevating 
 influence which is supposed ? They were unable to maintain 
 a firm grasp even of the simple doctrine of the Divine Unity, 
 as inculcated in their own law, by their own prophets and 
 legislators. Yet we are asked to believe that, in the midst of 
 their gross idolatries, they were being trained for the reception 
 of Trinity in Unity ! We are asked to believe that by the 
 plural form of a word for God, by the threefold rhythm of a 
 Psalm, by the utterance, as many times repeated, of a priestly 
 blessing, or of the word Holy, in the little known writings of a 
 prophet, that, by such impalpable means as these, such a people 
 were being led on to think of a mysterious plurality in the 
 nature of the Godhead ! We are asked to believe that such 
 a people were being prepared, centuries in advance, by such 
 delicate refinements of expression, for the future reception of 
 doctrines, on the right understanding of which the salvation 
 of the world, a thousand years afterwards, more or less, was 
 mainly to depend ! 
 
 The climax of the argument is not reached, until we remem- 
 ber that we are asked to believe all this, in the face of the 
 fact that the alleged prc]iaration proved in the end a manifest 
 failure, and never had the effect among the Hebrews which is 
 
 * Jer. ii. 19; vii. 17; Isjiiah Lxv. 11 ; Amos v. 26. 
 H 2 
 
100 JESUS OF NAZARETH : 
 
 attributed to it.* Truly the faitli is very great, very enviable, 
 at least very wonderful, which can really attribute weight to 
 this argument from plural forms. 
 
 CHAPTEE XI. 
 
 JESUS OF NAZARETH — THE CHARGE ON WHICH HE WAS PUT 
 
 TO DEATH. 
 
 In approaching the subject now before us, we are reminded 
 both of its difficulty and of its importance, by the controver- 
 sies to which it has given rise, in ancient and in modern 
 times ; — in the former case, among the Christians of the third 
 and fourth centuries ; in the latter, between Socinian and 
 Unitarian writers on the one side, and orthodox, that is to say 
 Trinitarian, and also Arian, writers on the other. And yet it 
 is, in truth, a subject to the settlement of which a few consi- 
 derations, and those of a simple and even obvious character, 
 would appear to go a very great way. If it were only possible 
 
 * This failure is sometimes -very fully and candidly admitted. Thus the present 
 Bishop of Lincoln has said — "It cannot be denied that the Jews ought to have 
 deduced the doctrine of the Messiah's divinity [deity] from their own Scriptures, 
 
 especially from such texts as Psalm xlv. 6, 7 But the question is not, whether 
 
 the Jews miyht not and ought not to have inferred the Divine Sonship of the Mes- 
 siah from their own Scriptures, but whether for the most part they really did 
 deduce that doctrine from those Scriptures ? They ought doubtless to have been 
 prepared by those Scriptures for a suffering Messiah ; but this we know was not 
 the case ; and the cross of Christ was to them a stumbling-block (1 Cor. i. 23) ; 
 and one of the strongest objections which they raised against the Christians was 
 that they worshiped a man who died a death which is declared to be an accursed 
 one in the law of Moses, which was delivered by God Himself." — Bishop Words- 
 worth, article Son of God, in Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. In reference 
 to the last sentence of the above passage, we may observe that there is no evidence 
 whatever in the New Testament of any objection having been brought against the 
 disciples on the ground that they worshiped their departed Master. See infra, 
 Chapter on the Worship of Christ. 
 
THE QUESTION STATED. 101 
 
 that old and accepted doctrines could be freely held ; if, that 
 is, they could be detached not merely from the prepossessions 
 of education, but also from manifold interests of a more taufri- 
 ble kind which are now legally bound up with their mainte- 
 nance, in this country and in others, — we venture to say tliat 
 a rational and really Scriptural form of belief in regard to the 
 person and work of Christ would speedily win its way through- 
 out the churches, — or would, at least, have a far betteV chance 
 of doing so than it has at present. 
 
 The question before us is briefly this : Who, or rather 
 What, was Jesus of Nazareth ? — more definitely still, AVas he 
 the Almighty Being in a human form ? — he who was born of 
 a human mother, and lived as an infant, a child, a youth, in 
 his parental home ; who perhaps, according to the ancient 
 ti-adition, followed his father's trade of a carpenter ; who lived 
 thus as a man among the people of his time, ate and drank, 
 talked and slept, was hungry, thirsty and weary, and wor- 
 shiped and prayed, and went about as they did, finally ending 
 his brief career by an ignominious death at the hands of 
 Eoman soldiers, — was the person who thus lived and died 
 under the name of Jesus of Nazareth, the Almighty Being 
 Himself, and was this familiarly known to many around him, 
 and by them openly acknowledged and acted upon ? Truly it 
 is a proposition hard to receive, and one that should have 
 clear and cogent evidence, to carry conviction of its truth to 
 the thoughtful, reasonable mind, 
 
 Let us, with the view of answering our question, take one 
 of the most prominent scenes in the life of Christ, — that of his 
 accusation before the authorities who condemned him to death. 
 As this occurs near the close of his career, it is a scene which, 
 of course, comes after, and not before, any peculiar claim of his 
 to be a Divine person incarnate must have been made, and 
 well known to those among wliom he lived. It is, therefore, 
 a scene in which such a claim may reasonably be expected to 
 
102 JESUS OF NAZARETH: 
 
 appear, either by express statement or by implication, in the 
 account of what took place. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to observe that our only original 
 sources of information are the evangelical narratives ; such 
 slight and incidental notices of the origin of Christianity as 
 are found in one or two of the Latin historians being wholly 
 insufficient for our information. The Gospels are not, indeed, 
 the oldest part of the New Testament, a distinction which 
 belongs, as we have seen, to St. Paul's Epistles. But then it 
 is equally true, that the latter would not at all adequately 
 afford us the details which we need. That Apostle did not 
 know our Lord personally, had never seen him in " the flesh." 
 The allusions which his writings contain to the events of the 
 life of Jesus, or to his teachings, are therefore both rare and 
 slight. The whole interest of the Apostle seems to have been 
 fixed upon the risen Christ, his present exaltation, his future 
 coming in his glory.* He does not even allude to the miracu- 
 lous birth, suitable as this would have been to illustrate some 
 of Paul's own statements respecting the Messianic character 
 and dignity of Jesus — provided only it had been the reality 
 which is commonly supposed. 
 
 And this remark is even more strikingly true, as we may 
 here notice, in connection with the opening chapter of the 
 fourth Gospel, where nothing could have been more appro- 
 priate, in speaking of the incarnate Word, than to have at 
 least alluded to the mode or medium by which the incarnation 
 had taken place. But neither here nor anywhere else in the 
 New Testament, except in the two introductions of Matthew 
 and liuke, is there any use. made of the miraculous conception 
 and birth of Jesus ; nor can any reference to it, even the 
 slightest, be anywhere found. Those two introductions stand 
 wholly unsupported, in all their inconsistency or contradiction 
 to one another. They are indeed most probably to be regarded 
 
 * Kom. i. 3, 4; 1 Cor. xv. 20—28. 
 
THE ACCUSATION AT HIS TRIAL. 103 
 
 as non-autlioiitic additions to the original form of the two 
 Gospels — although it is, nevertheless, true that they are found 
 in all existing manuscripts and versions of those Gospels. For 
 this negative conclusion, it is well known to tlie learned, tliere 
 is not wanting very important and independent evidence, on 
 which, however, it does not concern us to dwell minutely in 
 the present connection.* 
 
 It is evident, then, to return to our principal argument, 
 that the writings of St. Paul afford little information, either as 
 to the birth or any other recorded event in the life of Christ. 
 We are thus necessarily thrown back upon the historical por- 
 tions of the New Testament, and more especially upon the 
 three Synoptical Gospels, which in point of time come nearer 
 than the Fourth to the actual generation in which Jesus lived. 
 It may, however, be observed that all the four Evangelists 
 agree substantially with one another, as regards leading facts, 
 in their respective accounts of the trial of Jesus, and of the 
 charge brought against him. Hence it will be sufiicient for 
 our present purpose to take their statements much as they lie 
 before us in the foar Gospels. 
 
 The first Evangelist speaks of tlie accusation in the follow- 
 ing terms : — " Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the 
 council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to 
 death ; but found none ; yea, though many false witnesses 
 came, yet found they none. At the last came two, and said. 
 This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to 
 build it in three days. And the high-priest arose, and said 
 unto him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it that these 
 witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the 
 high-priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the 
 living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the 
 
 * See Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, 2ml ed., I. pp. 204 — 210. Comp. 
 Schleiermacher mi Luke, pp. 44 — 52, in the English translation of this work made 
 by the present Bishop of St. David's, when (a.s he has explained) he was "a young 
 law student." 
 
104 JESUS OP NAZAEETH: 
 
 Son of God. Jesus saith uuto him, Thou hast said : neverthe- 
 less I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man 
 sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds 
 of heaven. Tlien the high-priest rent his clothes, saying, He 
 hath spoken blasphemy ; what further need have we of wit- 
 nesses ? Behold now ye have heard his blasphemy ? What 
 think ye ? They answered and said. He is guilty of death."* 
 
 Mark gives the same account ; while Luke and John omit 
 to notice the charge respecting tlie temple, and confine them- 
 selves more especially to the allegation that Jesus had claimed 
 to be the Christ— the latter Evangelist, moreover, saying little 
 of the accusation as brought before the high-priest, and speak- 
 ing mainly of what took place before the Eoman tribunal. 
 - When Jesus is brought before Pilate, a similar charge is 
 made against him, but it is necessarily a little altered in the 
 terms, so as to be more comprehensible to the Eoman. He is 
 now accused of having made himself a king, " perverting the 
 nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caisar." So the Evan- 
 gelist Luke. The other Evangelists substantially agree, as we 
 learn from the question of Pilate to Jesus, recorded in each, 
 "Art thou the king of the Jews?"i- Thus it is clear that, 
 while before the Jewish Sanhedrim the religious aspect of the 
 charge is made prominent, before the Eoman procurator it is 
 the political ; but the crime imputed is essentially the same 
 in the two cases. 
 
 In the accusation thus brought there was certainly a degree 
 of truth. Jesus had said that he was Christ, and had spoken 
 of the kingdom upon which he was to enter. The " kingdom 
 of God," and the " kingdom of heaven," were no uncommon 
 expressions on his lips ; but we have no reason to think that 
 he used them in any political or temporal sense ; while he 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 59—66; Mark xiy. 55—64; Luke xxii. 66—71; John xviii. 
 19—23 and 28—40. 
 
 + Luke xxiii. 2; Matt, xxvii. 11; Mark xv. 2; John xviii. 33. 
 
ACCUSED OF CLAIMING TO BE CHRIST. 105 
 
 expressly declared to Pilate himself, " My kingdom iy not of 
 this world."* Nor was it true that he had forbidden to pay 
 tribute to Coesar. This could only be a false inference from 
 his claim to be "the Christ," as the latter was understood, or 
 misunderstood, by those around him. It was a false inference ; 
 and doubtless many of those who now urged it knew it to be 
 false, for Je.'ius had really said in public, " Eender unto Csesar 
 the things that are Caisar's, and unto God the things that are 
 God's." 
 
 There was a mixture, therefore, of truth and falsehood in 
 the charge brought against him by his adversaries. And the 
 falsehood predominated, in so much that these unscrupulous 
 men would not have hesitated, we may be sure, to lay hold of 
 any plausible means of securing the death of the accused man. 
 This being the case, we cannot but be struck with one thing, 
 which is that they do not accuse him of having claimed to be 
 God ! Supposing it to be true, as now usually alleged, that 
 Jesus had made himself known among his foHowers as being 
 the Almighty in a human form, liow is it that his enemies, or 
 liis judges, Jewish or Eoman, make no allusion to this? They 
 had difficulty, it would appear, before the Sanhedrim, in find- 
 ing a sufficient accusation, until they found two witnesses Avho 
 charged liim wath speaking against the temple. How then 
 was it that no witness came forward to speak of that far 
 greater blasphemy, the claim not only to be able to destroy 
 and rebuild the temple in three days, but even to be God 
 Himself ? 
 
 It is impossible that such a claim should have escaped the 
 keen eyes and ears of Jewish accusers. We have seen with 
 what reverence the Israelites were accustomed to regard the 
 name of Jehovali, and that they would not even permit them- 
 selves to pronounce the word ; as also it is a chief command- 
 ment of their Law to make no image or likeness of God, in 
 
 * Matt. xvi. U) ; Mark iv. 11, scq ; Luke xii. 31 ; .xiii. 28, 29; John xviij. 36. 
 
106 JESUS OP NAZARETH: 
 
 any visible form. Hence, to give that sacred name to any 
 other, to attribute the Divine nature to a human being, — 
 even to say that he was God Himself in the visible form of a 
 man, — would have been looked upon as blasphemous in the 
 highest degree. Yet here, we are told, was Jesus of Naza- 
 reth, brought up before the Jewish and the heathen tribunal, 
 on a charge partly political and partly religious ; here was he 
 who had gone about among his disciples and his countrymen 
 in Galilee and in Jerusalem, claiming the very name and glory 
 of the invisible Jehovah ; saying that he and the Almighty 
 Father were, in the now popular orthodox sense. One God ; 
 here is he standing before enemies who, obviously, could not 
 have admitted these claims, who were eager for his destruction, 
 and ready to say everything in their power to prove the object 
 of their ill-will worthy of death — and yet they leave out of 
 sight that greatest presumption and blasphemy of all, that he, 
 being a man, had made himself God. 
 
 Such an omission, on such an occasion, affords a conclusive 
 reply to the allegation that Jesus was accustomed to represent 
 himself as the Almighty Being, the second member of a 
 Divine trinity of Persons in the Godhead. Had he done so, 
 the fact could not have failed to make its appearance on his 
 trial, and must have been urged with all the vehemence of 
 angry and determined opponents, to the greater injury and 
 condemnation of their innocent victim. 
 
 This difficulty in the way of the popular doctrine of the 
 deity of Christ has not escaped orthodox writers — although, 
 we are bound to add, we have not met with anything in what 
 they have said which avails to remove it out of their way — 
 indeed, we have scarcely met with an instance in which it is 
 fairly looked in "the face. Dr. Liddon, with all his versatility 
 and eloquence, makes no direct attempt to meet it — all that he 
 says in allusion to it amounting only to one or two assump- 
 tions which are really surprising. 
 
NOT ACCUSED OF CLAIMING DEITY. 107 
 
 Nothing is more certain, he tells us, than that the Sanhedrim 
 condemned Jesus, "because he claimed Divinity" — that is, 
 because he claimed Deity, claimed to be God. Nothing is more 
 certain, we reply, from the Evangelical narratives, nothing is 
 more certain from the words of all the four Gospels relating to 
 the trial, than that Jesus was condemned because he claimed 
 to be the Christ, or Messiah, or Son of God, in the jMessianic 
 sense of this last expression. " Tell us," the high-priest 
 said, " whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus 
 saith unto him. Thou hast said." That is, Jesus answered 
 affirmatively, or assented. And " then the high-priest rent his 
 clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy."* 
 
 It is admitted by Dr. Liddon that the Jews were looking 
 " for a political chief, victorious but human, in their expected 
 ]\Iessiah." But hence, he adds, the claim of Jesus to that 
 character would not of itself "have shocked the Jews; they 
 would have discussed it on its merits."-|- It might have been 
 so, perhaps, had the outward circumstances of the claimant 
 corresponded, in their estimation, to the gj^atness of his claim, 
 and if Jesus had stood, at the moment, before friends, not 
 before enemies. But he was one of lowly condition, destitute 
 of political power ; they were unscrupulous men, eager for 
 his death. Their course was plain ; namely, at once to con- 
 strue as blasphemous the reply of their victim. This, accord- 
 ing to the Evangelical record, they did, and this was amply 
 sufficient for their purpose. But it nowhere appears that he 
 was accused of making the incomparably greater claim alleged 
 by orthodox writers ; nor did the possibility of bringing such 
 a charge enter into the mind of any one concerned, so far as 
 can be gathered from the account of tlu? transaction.;]: 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 63—65, and parallels. + B. L., p. 187. 
 
 J Bisbop Wordsworth meets the difficulty, by telling us that Jesus claimed to be 
 "the Messiah and Son of God." This improvenicut upon the sacred narrative is 
 one which the Bishop will hardly expect us to receive, even on episcopal authority. 
 Article Sun of God, Diet, of the Bible. So ajiparently Archbishop Thompson, 
 article Jesus Christ, iu tlie same work, I. p. 1066. 
 
108 JESUS OF NAZARETH : 
 
 The exposition on which we are commenting goes yet a step 
 further. It expressly holds that " the blasphemy did not consist 
 either in the assumption of the title Son of Man, or in the claim 
 
 to be the Messiah It was the further claim to be the Son 
 
 of God, not in any moral or theocratic, but in the natural sense, 
 at which the high-priest and his coadjutors professed to be so 
 deeply shocked."* The question is obvious, How does Dr. 
 Liddon know this? Where is it said that Jesus was con- 
 demned because he claimed to be the Son of God, " in the 
 natural sense"? And what is meant by the words, "in the 
 natural sense"? 
 
 For it is, in truth, one of the very clearest things in the New 
 Testament that the expression Son of God, as used among the 
 Jews and Christians in the New Testament times, simply 
 denoted and meant the Christ, — or, in other words, was a usual 
 appellation of the expected Messiah. The two expressions 
 appear to have been perfectly equivalent. Thus Nathanael 
 says to Jesus, " Thou art the Son of God, the King of Israel." 
 The devil says to him, " If thou be the Son of God," evidently 
 meaning, If thou be the Messiah.^- " Tell us," the high-priest 
 exclaimed, " whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." 
 Martha exclaims, "Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of God." And the Evangelist declares, "These 
 things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the 
 Christ, the Son of God.":]: In 1 John v. 1, we read, "Whoso- 
 ever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." In the 
 same chapter, v. 5, we read, " Who is he that overcometh the 
 world but he that believeth that Jesus is tlie 8on of God V 
 Thus the two phrases are manifestly, in the New Testament 
 
 * B.L., p. 191. — Archbishop Thompson also observes, " The question was really 
 twofold, ' Art thou the Christ, and in that name dost thou also call thyself the Son 
 of God V Thei-e was no blasphemy in claiming the former name, but there was in 
 assuming the latter." Art. Jesus Christ: ibid. 
 
 t John i. 49 ; Matt. iv. 3. 
 
 J Matt. xxvi. G3 ; John xx. 31 : compare John vi. 69 ; xi. 27. 
 
CLAIMED TO BE THE CHEIST OR SON OF GOD. 100 
 
 usage, of identical import, or rather, we should say, the words 
 Son of God are used simply as a well understood appellation 
 of the expected ]\Iessiah. 
 
 Yet there are instances, we freely admit, in which the fourth 
 Evangelist, writing in accordance with his peculiar conception 
 of the Logos in Jesus, attributes to the latter the use of the 
 words Son, and Son of God, in a sense corresponding to that 
 conception, and going beyond that of the "theocratic son- 
 ship,"* — the relation borne by kings and saints of old, and 
 thought to exist in an especial degree between Jehovah and 
 the Messiah. This point will engage our attention hereafter. 
 But meantime we may observe, the mode of representation 
 now referred to will not be found in the Synoptical Gospels, 
 hardly, we believe, anywhere in the New Testament, exce[)t in 
 St. John and the introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 In the Synoptics, indeed, Jesus is rarely designated as the 
 Son, or the Son of God,-f- but only as " Son of Man." This 
 
 * John V. 19 — 23 ; — tliere are various other instances, altliough, even in John, 
 the words "Son of God" are often used simply as equivalent to Messiah, e.g. , i. 49 ; 
 ix. 22, 35 ; x. 24, 36. 
 
 t In the Synoptics he is addressed as "Son of God" in a few cases by others : 
 that is to say, they address him as the Messiah. It is impossible, in some of these 
 instances, to think that the speakers regarded him as the Divine Being, and there- 
 fore termed him Son of God : e.g., Matt, xxvii. 54, where the words are used by 
 the Roman centurion in command of the soldiers at the cross. See Matt. iv. 3, 6 ; 
 viii. 29 ; .\iv. 33 : also xxvii. 40, 42, 43 — in this latter passage the words " King 
 of Israel," are clearly parallel to the words "Son of God," exactly as in John i. 49, 
 — both phrases, again, designating the Messiah. In Mark i. 1, the words "Son 
 of God" are doubtful, and are rejected by Tischendorf. The rest of this Gospel, 
 and the Gospel of Luke, are in close agreement with the first Gospel on this par- 
 ticular point. In one instance only in two of the Synoptics is there a deviation 
 from their ordinary usage, and an apjiroximation to what we may term the Johan- 
 nine form of expression resjiecting the Son and his relation to the Father. In 
 JIatt. xi. 27, we read, "All things are delivered to me of my Father ; and no man 
 knoweth the Son but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the 
 Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." The words are reproduced 
 in Luke x. 22, with a slight variation. The verse in both Evangelists interrupts 
 the strain of the Gospel, .and looks strangely out of place, though it would have 
 been perfectly suitable to John. Whatever interpretation any one may put upon 
 the words, they cannot be held to be intended to contradict the uniform tenor of 
 the fii-st three Gospels. See infra, Chapters XIV. to XVII. 
 
110 JESUS OF NAZARETH: 
 
 expression occurs also in St. John, and is an appellation of 
 the Messiah derived most probably from its use in the Book 
 of Daniel. * Accordingly, this phrase, " Son of Man," does 
 not require or justify the explanation sometimes met with, — 
 to the effect that Jesus by his constant use of it intended, in 
 the conception of the Evangelists, to designate himself as the 
 model of a perfect human character, or even to refer to his 
 own humble and despised condition. It is used, in all pro- 
 bability, as simply equivalent, in the ideas of the time, to the 
 title of Messiah, i" 
 
 There are a few passages which might at first appear to 
 indicate that "Christ" and "Son of God" are not simply 
 equivalent and convertible e:jCpressions. On examination, how- 
 ever, the contrary clearly appears. Thus, for example, Acts 
 viii. 37, "I believe that Jesus Christ j is the Son of God." 
 This verse is altogether omitted, on sufficient critical evidence 
 by Tischendorf, and by Dean Alford. Similarly in Acts ix. 20, 
 " He preached Christ in the synagogues that he is the Son of 
 God." The critical authorities tell us here to read "Jesus,' 
 instead of " Christ." It is evident that what St. Paul preached 
 in the synagogues was what, in common with the unbelieving 
 Jews, he had previously denied, viz., that Jesus of Nazareth 
 was the Christ. Here and elsewhere we read of their having 
 denied that Jesus was Christ ; we never read of their having 
 denied that he was God. The same thing is evident, again, 
 
 * Dan. vii. 13. 
 
 + The title Son of God may have originated from Ps. ii. 7, as applied to the 
 Messiah. (Comp. Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5.) Being thus of Hebrew origin, it 
 coincided, however (accidentally), with one of the appellations given, as we shall 
 see to the Logos, thongh in a very different sense. From both points of view, 
 therefore, the Hebrew and the Greek, Jesus would be the Son. Comp. infra, 
 Chapters XV. XVI. In Ps. ii. 12, the words, " kiss the Son," should be rendered, 
 " kiss sincerelj'," i.e. render homage to the exalted personage spoken of (probably 
 Solomon), by humbly kissing the hem of his garment. 
 
 X ' ' Jesus Christ" early became a personal name. The above verse, therefore, 
 means, " I believe that the person called Jesus Christ is the Messiah." A similar 
 remark applies to Mark i. 1, if the words "Son of God" be authentic. 
 
NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD. Ill 
 
 from Acts ix. 22, where we are told, lie " confounded the Jews 
 that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ" — 
 or, more simply rendered, " proving that this [man] is Christ." 
 What he is said to have preached in the one case (in the 
 synagogues) and proved in the other (at Damascus), is evi- 
 dently the same thing, viz., that Jesus was the Son of God, in 
 other words, that Jesus was the Christ. 
 
 The alleged blasphemy, then, we again submit, consisted in 
 the claim to be the Christ, the Messiah, or Son of God, and 
 this latter in no mysterious, incomprehensible " natural sense," 
 but in the theocratic, and also the moral sense, in which the 
 Messiah was usually conceived of as being pre-eminently a 
 Son of God. Before Pilate the same charge was differently 
 expressed, as seen in the words of the accusers, to the effect 
 that Jesus had said that he was " Christ, a king ;" and as seen 
 also in Pilate's question, " Art thou the king of the Jews ?" 
 But neither before the Sanhedrim, nor before Pilate, does the 
 accusation, or anything else, indicate that Jesus had made the 
 claim to be God : — a claim which the Jews could not but 
 have held to be blasphemous in the highest degree, and which 
 the narrative of the trial and condemnation could not have 
 failed to disclose. Such a claim, therefore, as we shall further 
 and abundantly see, our Loi'd did not make ; nor is it ever 
 attributed to him by any New Testament writer. If the case 
 be otherwise, let the passage be produced, and let it speak for 
 itself* 
 
 * John X. 30, "I and my Fatlier are one," will not answer tlie purpose, for it is 
 explained by Jesus himself iu verses 35, 3G, as meaning simply "I am the Son of 
 God." 
 
112 JESUS OF NAZARETH: 
 
 CHAPTEE XII. 
 
 JESUS OF NAZARETH, AS HE APPEARED TO HIS OWN CONTEM- 
 PORARIES — THE TRUE IMPORT OF THE TITLES CHRIST AND 
 SON OF GOD. 
 
 The impression as to his own character and claims which 
 Jesus really made upon those among whom he lived, may be 
 learnt from many places of the Gospel narratives. For exam- 
 ple, we read : " Now Herod the Tetrarch heard of all that was 
 done by him ; and he was perplexed Ijecause it was said of some 
 that John was risen from the dead ; and of some that Elias 
 had appeared ; and of others that one of the old prophets was 
 risen again."* It would not have lessened Herod's perplexity, 
 if he had been told that it was the Divine Being Himself that 
 was going about among the people in the person of Jesus. 
 But among all the things that were said, as they have been 
 recorded for us, there is no trace of this, — the one thing above 
 all others that could not have failed to be said, had there been 
 any real ground for saying it. 
 
 Later in the same chapter, we read that Jesus asked his 
 disciples, " saying, Whom say the people that I am ? They 
 answering said, John the Baptist, but some say Elias ; and 
 others say that one of the old prophets is risen again. He 
 said unto them. But whom say ye that I am ? Peter answering 
 said, the Christ of God." In these replies we see the ideas 
 that were aroused in the popular mind by the life and deeds 
 of Jesus Christ. He had gone about doing many wonderful 
 tilings among them ; he had spoken with a wisdom and power 
 which made them exclaim, " Never man spake like this man." 
 In these and other ways, he had awakened the attention and 
 interest of the people, and they followed liim in crowds, and 
 * Luke ix. 7, 8. 
 
ACCEPTED AS CHRIST, NOT AS GOD. 113 
 
 when they saw liis wonderful works they " marvelled and 
 glorified God who had given such power unto men" — they 
 glorified the invisible God who had given to Jesus his power 
 to do such deeds. But do they ever say, Lo, here is God, 
 Jehovah Himself, come down from heaven in the likeness of 
 men, as happened to I*aul and Barnabas at Lystra ? Did the 
 people who knew Jesus personally, and saw his deeds, ever 
 say this, or an^'^thing equivalent to this ? Did his own more 
 intimate disciples ever say this? So far as appears in the 
 Gospels, or in the New Testament, they never did so ; but 
 simply that God had given power to his chosen servant,* his 
 well-beloved Son, and enabled him to do the mighty works 
 M'hich were done in their sight. Such is clearly the concep- 
 tion of the New Testament, and here was explanation enough 
 for the people of Christ's own day, thougli not, it would seem, 
 for those of ours. 
 
 They thought, indeed, some of them, that perhaps one of 
 their ancient prophets had been restored to life. But still 
 Mie Jewish people, with few exceptions, did not admit that he 
 whom they saw among them, gifted with such powers, was to 
 be accepted even as the Christ. Some of them even said that 
 he acted by the power of Beelzebub. And " could there any 
 good thing come out of Nazareth ?" Such was the feeling and 
 the doul)t of the many, when they remembered the origin of 
 Jesus, and saw his lowly condition, and his deficiency in the 
 power of this world. The true Messiah, they expected, would 
 not be such as he : and hence neither his wonderful works, 
 nor the eloquence with which he spoke, nor the purity and 
 devoutness of his life, could lead them to receive him in that 
 exalted character, but only as perhaps a forerunner of the 
 Christ, or one of the prophets come back from the dead. 
 
 But some of the apostles, the immediate companions and 
 
 * Jesus is termed the " sen-ant" of God, Acts iii. 13, 26 ; iv. 27, 30 (not Son 
 or child, .1.S in tlie English N.T.) ; Matt. xii. 18. 
 
 I 
 
114 JESUS OF NAZAEETH : 
 
 friends of Jesus, had evidently learnt better. In reply to his 
 question, " But whom say ye that I am ?" they were able to 
 answer, "The Christ of God."* In the first Gospel the same 
 incident is related somewhat differently. Jesus asks, " Whom 
 say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, 
 Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And he 
 answered and said unto him. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, 
 for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my 
 Father which is in heaven." f That is to say, Peter was led 
 by divine illumination so far to triumph over the prejudices 
 of his people, that he could recognize the true character of 
 Jesus, in spite of the outward circumstances in his condition 
 which made it so difficult for the common people to see in 
 him the exalted personage for whom they were looking. And 
 we observe that, while in the one Gospel the answer simply 
 is, " the Christ of God," in the other it is, " the Christ, the Son 
 of the living God." The phrases are, we have seen, of equiva- 
 lent value ; only the one is somewhat fuller than the other. 
 And, at any rate, we see that Peter does not confess that his 
 Master was God ! He says simply that he was " the Christ," 
 repeating this acknowledgment, and rendering it more empha- 
 tic, in the added words, " the Son of the living God." 
 
 In this case, the Apostle Peter shews himself more enlight- 
 ened and open to conviction than the fellow-townsmen and 
 neighbours of Jesus, of whom we read in the Gospel that 
 "they were offended in him."| Thus we see, again, how far 
 these persons were from believing even that Jesus was Christ ; 
 much less could it have entered into their thoughts that he 
 was God. Por what does Jesus say in reply to their objec- 
 tions ? He said to them, " A prophet is not without honour, 
 save in his own country, and in his own house." The Messiah 
 he was and claimed to be ; a prophet he also called himself; 
 
 * Luke ix. 20. f Matt. x^Ti. 16, 17, comp. ibid. v. 20. 
 
 t Matt. xiii. 54, seq. Comp. x.\:i. 11, 46 ; Luke vii. 16 ; x.xiv. 19. 
 
HIS RELATION TO GOD. 115 
 
 fvnd again tlie Christ, the Son of God, the highly favoured, 
 highly gifted and well beloved of the Almighty Father. But 
 God Himself he nowhere says that he is ; nor do any of his 
 immediate friends and disciples say it for him ; nor do we 
 really meet with such a statement until we reach a time some 
 generations after his death, — when, as before observed, cer- 
 tain Gentile converts and writers, looking back upon the 
 wonderful life of Jesus, and the mighty results which had 
 sprung from it, thought they could best account for tlie whole 
 by saying not only that God was in him and with him, not 
 only that he was the brightest manifestation upon earth of 
 the Heavenly Father's glory, but even that he was God Him- 
 self.* 
 
 In the Xew Testament, the conception entertained by the 
 Evangelists of the relation between the Lord Jesus Christ and 
 Almighty God, comes out into view at many points in the 
 history. Jesus prays to God ; — nay, even, as we read, he goes 
 apart into a mountain or a desert place, to pray alone. Here, 
 there is directly revealed to us the very same relation wliich 
 exists between ourselves and God, and which is repeatedly 
 recognized by Jesus in express terms — as where he teaches his 
 disciples when they pray to say, " Our Father which art in 
 heaven ;" and when he sends word to his " brethren" after his 
 resurrection, " I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and 
 to my God and your God."-f- In the moment of his great trial, 
 when he saw the near approach of a terrible death, although 
 with natural human feeling he did not wish to die, and shrank 
 
 * We again refer to Reville, Jlisfoire, kc, for a concise but ample justification 
 of these statements. See also Donaldson, Ilixtonj of Christian Literature and 
 Doctrine, Vol. II. i. iii. 12. The latter writer observes in regard to Justin : — 
 "Justin liad simply to api)ly Philo's method, Christianised, or, in other words, the 
 Christian method ; and all he has done is to apjdy that method most fully and 
 minutely. The result is, that an xmqaestionahlij new mode of speak in f/ of Christ 
 is introduced. He is now for the firet time recognised fully and clearly a.s God ; 
 not merely the Son of God, but God." — Donaldson, II. p. ISl. 
 
 t Matt. vi. 5, 6, 9; John x.\. 17. 
 
 I 2 
 
116 JESUS OF NAZARETH. 
 
 from the dread moment, yet with words of perfect submission 
 he resigned himself to the Divine will—" my Father, if it 
 be possible, let this cup pass from me ; nevertheless, not as I 
 will, but as thou wilt ;" and at the last moment of all he still 
 commeuded himself to God : " Father, into thy hands I com- 
 mend my spirit."* Thus, we repeat, the relation between 
 Christ and God comes distinctly into view at many points, 
 and is seen to be exactly the same as that in which we, of 
 ordinary human kind, ourselves stand. 
 
 In one instance, noticed by Dr. Liddon, our Lord draws the 
 very strongest distinction which it is possible to draw between 
 himself and God. When the young man comes to him and 
 addresses him as " Good Master," Jesus replies, " Why callest 
 tliou me good ? None is good but one, tliat is God."-f- Here 
 the distinction suggested between Jesus and the Heavenly 
 Father is one not merely of power, wisdom, greatness ; it is a 
 moral distinction. The expression is such as we should anti- 
 cipate from the humility and piety of the speaker ; but if he 
 were himself consciously God as he uttered such M'ords, how 
 are we to understand them ? Did he intend to mislead that 
 young man, and others who heard him, by declining for him- 
 self tlie epithet " good," and ascribing it to God alone ? 
 
 The force of this difHculty, Dr. Liddon seeks to evade, in 
 one of the most singular of his expositions. He thus repre- 
 sents the reply of Jesus, " Why callest thou me good ?" — as 
 though it were the " unreal and conventional manner" in which 
 tlie epithet was addressed to him to which he objects. | But 
 the inaptness of tliis explanation is evident, when it is observed 
 that the pronoun thou, thus emphasised, does not exist as a 
 separate word in the original. It is as little prominent or 
 emphatic as it is possible that it should be in a Greek sen- 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 39 ; Luke xxiii. 46. 
 
 + Luke xviii. 18, 19, and the parallels. The peculiar reading which Tischen- 
 doif gives in Matthew only can hardly be the original form. 
 I Liddon, B.L., p. 193. 
 
THE TITLE CHRIST. 117 
 
 teiice, being, .simply included or implied in the form of the 
 verb. The wliole empliasis is clearly on tlic two words " me" 
 and "good;" especially on the former, because of its position 
 in tlie sentence. The epithet gouJ, accordingly, Jesus a])So- 
 lutely disclaims for himself, pointing out that it is applicable 
 to One alone, and that He is God. 
 
 If, again, we consider the principal names or titles by which 
 Jesus is designated, the same relationship between him and 
 God comes clearly into view. 
 
 He is the Christ. This word literally means "the anointed," 
 and the idea conveyed by it is derived from the ancient cere- 
 mony of consecrating a king to his kingly office. In coimec- 
 tion with Jesus it is, of course, a figurative term, involving, 
 liowever, the idea that he who bore it had been called and 
 appointed to his office ; intimating, therefore, the existence of 
 a higher power which had chosen him. Hence Peter terms 
 liim " the Christ of God" — God's Christ, that is, one anointed 
 of God, or appointed by Him to be what he was.* 
 
 This word, we need scarcely remind the reader, is the same 
 in meaning as the Hebrew word "Messiah," and the same 
 explanation holds good of both. We learn the true value 
 and import of the latter, when we find that it is applied, in 
 the Old Testament, to a heathen king, one who is made the 
 instrument of executing a particular purpose of Jehovah. 
 Cyrus, the king of Persia, was the means of putting an end 
 to tlie captivity of the Jews. Hence the later Isaiah says of 
 him, " Thus saith Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus." Literally 
 this might be rendered " to his Messiah," the same word 
 which in Christian times is applied to Jesus under the Greek 
 furm of Christ. 
 
 Jesus, indeed, was Christ pre-eminently and permanently. 
 He is also now, according to the Christian conception, the 
 risen and spiritual Christ, by our faith in whom we are Chris- 
 
 * Couij). 1 Cor. iii. 23 ; xl. 3, "the Lead of Christ is God." 
 
118 JESUS OF NAZARETH. 
 
 tians. Thus the term which was applied to Cyrus only in- 
 cidentally and because of a particular purpose, is used of 
 Jesus as his usvial and abiding designation ; and he is, there- 
 fore, Jesus the Christ,* an appellation which soon passed into 
 a personal name, and became Jesus Christ. But this fact does 
 not alter the relation between him and the Creator which the 
 word denotes. That was the same, in truth, as for the time 
 existed between the Almighty Being and His chosen instru- 
 ment the king of Persia. The one was the Anointer and the 
 other the anointed ; the one the Sender and the other the 
 sent ; the one was the Creator and the Source of power ; the 
 other the creature, and the recipient of any authority or power 
 which it pleased the Father to confer upon him.-f- 
 
 The term Son leads us to the same conclusion. According 
 to our usual ideas and experience of human relationships, a 
 so)i is, indeed, of the same nature with his father. The same 
 or like mental and bodily powers belong to both ; and there- 
 fore it might be inferred, in the case of Jesus, that he, being 
 said to be the Son of God, is in all respects of the same essen- 
 tial nature as the Being of whom he is so often termed the 
 Son. And this is constantly either expressly affirmed, or 
 tacitly assumed, by orthodox writers. But even granting this, 
 there is at least one important point in which the word 
 necessarily implies inferiority, according to all ordinary ideas 
 and the usual force of human language — except, indeed, among 
 persons who are satisfied to set human language at defiance, 
 and speak of " Eternal Sonship," and pledge their ministers 
 at ordination to believe in it. | A son, at all events, is younger 
 than his father, so that to speak of eternal sonship is some- 
 thing like speaking of an eternal fifty years. Hence, then, if 
 any one would insist with strictness on this term as denoting 
 
 * Matt. xvi. 20. + Comp. Eplies. i. 20—22 ; Colo.ss. i. 19. 
 
 + See Grindrod's Laws and Rer/ulaliuns of Wedeyan Methodism,, pp. 14, 15 
 (5tli ed.). 
 
THE APPELLATION SON. 119 
 
 a perfect sameness of nature in Christ and in God, he must, 
 to be consistent, admit that it also indicates the inferiority of 
 the former in regard to one of the essential attributes of Deity, 
 that of eternity. 
 
 But, in truth, it is well understood that the words Father 
 and Son are used in Scripture with far more latitude than 
 with ourselves at the present day. In Job, for example, we 
 read that " the morning stars sang together, and all the sons 
 of God shouted for joy" — the latter words probably denoting 
 the angels. " Son of peace," " son of perdition," " sons of tlie 
 stranger," and similar forms, are common Hebrew idioms, 
 familiar to all readers of the Scriptures. The prophet Ezekiel 
 is repeatedly addressed as " son of man" in the book which 
 bears his name. "I will be to him a father, and he shall be 
 my son," Jehovali says to David by tlie prophet I^athan, in 
 reference to David's successor upon the throne.* 
 
 Such e>xpressions, as used in Scripture, imply sometimes 
 creation and dependence, sometimes favour and protection 
 bestowed, approval or love manifested, on the one side, and 
 th(? same received on tlie other. Hence the ]\Iessiah, the 
 Christ, as being pre-eminently the appointed, the protected 
 and inspired of God, is also pre-eminently the Son of God ; — 
 while yet it is to be observed, that the title is not limited to 
 Jesus, for Cliristians in general are also, according to the same 
 idiom, called "sons of Go(l."-|- ' 
 
 It is true, however, that the. title is applied to Jesus far 
 more frequently and emphatically than to any one else. He 
 is the " beloved Son," " the only begotten Son" (the latter only 
 in St. John), terms of high endearment applicable to him as 
 the Christ ; for in this character he was conceived to be the 
 most gifted, the most highly favoured and approved, of all the 
 servants of God. But still the use of such terms does not at 
 all imply that he was looked upon, by those who applied 
 
 * 2 Sam. vii. 14. + (ial. iv. 6 ; Rom. viii. 14, 15. 
 
120 JESUS OF NAZARETH. 
 
 them to liim, either as God Hunself or as equal to God, or of 
 the same nature as God. Tliere is nothing in the well known 
 Scriptural use of such words which can justify lis, on their 
 account, in exalting Jesus, the " meek and lowly," to that high 
 eminence. He, we may be sure, would have shrunk from the 
 idea of being made equal to God, as, indeed, he did shrink 
 from it ; for when the Jews in their malice brouglit against 
 him the accusation that he, " being a man, made himself God," 
 he immediately disclaims such an intention, and puts himself 
 in his right position by explaining tliat he meant only to say, 
 " I am the Son of God."* 
 
 Yet, clear as this is, the constant tendency of Protestant 
 theology, as popularly taught, has been to forget the position, 
 thus so emphatically assumed by Christ. It has been almost 
 uniformly to exalt and glorify liim, by putting him in the 
 very place of the Heavenly Father, while at the same time 
 leaving out of sight the latherly love and mercy. In the 
 Roman Catholic communion, the same tendency has gone even 
 further ; for there the Virgin Mary has been raised to the 
 highest honours, and all but made a member of the Godhead 
 — a final result which it is not unreasonable now to anticipate, 
 as a fitting sequel to the new dogma of the personal infallibility 
 of the Pope. Among Protestants, it is true, the Virgin mother 
 is scarcely heard of, — as in Scripture she is hardly mentioned, 
 except in innnediate connection with the birth of her son. 
 Nevertheless, the Protestant sects, especially the more popular 
 of them, seem to delight in attributing to her Son an absolute 
 equality with God. This they do, in formal creeds and for- 
 mal acts of worship paid to Jesus Christ, manifestly with- 
 out warrant from the Bible, and simply on the strength of 
 their own inferential and disputable reasonings from its lan- 
 guage. 
 
 In thus proceeding, the bodies referred to camiot allege that 
 
 * Joliu X. 33 — 36. 
 
PROTESTANT INCONSISTENCY. 121 
 
 tlipy are acting faithfully on their own avowed principle of 
 deference to the Scriptures alone. For these clc^arly tell us, 
 in express terms, of "one God the Father," and represent 
 everything as dependent solely on His supreme will. It is 
 He who "sent" Jesus Christ into the world; who "for His 
 great love wherewith he loved us," raised up Jesus and 
 exalted him " to be a Prince and a Saviour :" it is He who 
 did this of His own "grace ;" for "it is the gift of God," that 
 men may Lecome " the children of God by faith in Christ 
 Jesus."* Such is the primitive and genuine sentiment of 
 Christianity in relation to God and Christ. The latter is 
 always the creature, the servant, the beloved son, endowed 
 with power and wisdom from on high, exalted by the Divine 
 choice to the office which he held and holds, as " head over 
 all things to his church." i* 
 
 And this relationship to God, all the words and acts of 
 Jesus most simply and naturally accept or imply. He prays 
 to God in private, as in public ; he instructs his disciples to 
 do the same, while he never tells them to pray to himself;}: 
 He said to his adversaries that it was God's power in him that 
 enabled him to do his "works," as, indeed, in all things he 
 devoutly referred to Him whom he expres.sly termed " my 
 Father and your Father," " my God and your God ;" declaring 
 that the very words which he spake were not his own, but the 
 Father's who sent him.§ 
 
 If, then, a man will be contented to accept the teaching of 
 the Scriptures — if he will follow the precepts and the example 
 of Christ ; if, in other word.s, he will manifest a true faith in 
 Christ by obeying him, and duly disregarding later doctrines 
 of human devising, it is evident to Whom he will look, to 
 "SVhom he will pray, Whom he will worship as the "One 
 
 • Acts V. 30, 31 ; Eiihcs. ii. 4-9 ; Gal. iii. 2G. 
 
 t Acts ii. 22 ; Eplies. i. 22. 
 
 X He rather tells tliein the cvntrarij, John .\vi. 23. § John .\iv. 24 ; .x.v. 17. 
 
122 JESUS OF NAZAEETH. 
 
 God and Father of all." It is evident that, however highly he 
 may " honour tlie Son" as the founder of our Christian faith, 
 and the Spiritual Head of the Christian Church, to whom is 
 given " a name that is above every name," — every other human 
 name, — he will yet do this " to the glory of God the Father,"* 
 reserving still his highest reverence and honour for Him who 
 is and shall be " all in all." 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 MR, GLADSTONES TESTIMONY TO THE HUMANITARIAN CHAEAC- 
 TER OF THE EVANGELICAL NARRATIVES — " ECCE HOMO." 
 
 The representation of the two preceding Chapters is mainly, 
 though not entirely, founded upon the statements of the Sy- 
 noptical Gospels, with some corroboration from other parts of 
 the New Testament. The peculiar portraiture of Jesus con- 
 tained in the fourth Gospel stands so much alone, that it must 
 of necessity be considered by itself That this course is dic- 
 tated by the nature of the case, will be abundantly seen in 
 the sequel. 
 
 So far, however, as regards the information we have drawn 
 chiefly from the Synoptics respecting the person and the 
 teaching of Christ, although this, as we imagine, speaks suffi- 
 ciently for itself, and needs no illustration from without, yet 
 we are glad to have the opportunity of citing in its behalf a 
 witness who will generally be considered unexceptionable, as 
 he is certainly not in any way prepossessed in favour of the 
 views expressed in these pages. He is one, therefore, whose 
 testimony should serve all the more to corroborate what we 
 have said as to the silence of the three Evangelists respecting 
 
 * Ephes. iv. 6 ; Philip, ii. 9—11. 
 
MH. GLADSTONE ON ECCE HOMO. 123 
 
 the supposed deity of Jesus Christ. We allude to what I^Ir. 
 Gladstone has written in his volume on Ecce Homo.* 
 
 In this work, the distinguished statesman comes forward in 
 vindication of the course taken by the author of the book just 
 named, in confining his narrative almost exclusively to the 
 "human side" of our Lord's life and character. It is well 
 known that author and book were severely criticised and 
 blamed in certain quarters on this account, i* The book 
 professes, indeed, to be "a Survey of the Life and Work 
 of Christ." But what are the life and work of Jesus Christ, 
 with his Deity left out? And yet, replies Mr. Gladstone 
 in substance, the autlior of this book, in his treatment of 
 his subject, has only done very much what our Lord him- 
 self and the Synoptists have done. " L'ndoubtedly," he ob- 
 serves, the book " exhibits the character of our Lord on the 
 human side. It purports to show, and actually shows Him 
 as man : and it leaves us to see, tlirough the fair curtain of 
 His manhood, what we may. The objection taken to this 
 mode of treatment, in substance, perhaps amounts to this : 
 that our Saviour is not a mere man, but is God made man ; 
 and that He ought not to be exhibited in any Christian work 
 as a man only, but as God and man. And justice compels us 
 to add, that those who challenge the author of 'Ecce Homo' 
 on this ground are not always persons whose judgment can be 
 summarily put aside on the score of bigotry and blindness." + 
 
 Such is the substance of the charge against which My. 
 Gladstone undertakes to defend the writer of Ecce Homo, as 
 we may see again, in a later passage: "He is principally 
 charged with this, that he has not put into his foreground the 
 full splendour and nrajesty of the Eedeemer about whom he 
 
 • "Ecce Homo,'" by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. 18G8. 
 
 + By Lord Shaftesbury, for exainijle, wlio chanictorizod it even as "diabolical," 
 or worse, 
 it "Ecce Ilomo" pp. 8, 9. 
 
124 ME. GLADSTONE'S TESTIMONY 
 
 writes." But Mr. Gladstone immediately adds : " If this be 
 true of him, it is true also thus far of the Gosj)els."* 
 
 The words " thus far" refer to the picture of the life of Christ 
 drawn by the Evangelical writers. In contradistinction to 
 that picture, Mr. Gladstone goes on to speak more especially 
 of the method which Christ himself followed in his teaching. 
 " If we pass on," he says, " from the great events of our Lord's 
 personal history to his teachings, as recorded in his discourses 
 and sayings by the Synoptic writers, we shall find that they, 
 too, are remarkable for the general absence of direct reference 
 to His Divinity, and indeed to the dignity of his person alto- 
 gether."-!- In another place Mr. Gladstone writes : " It appears, 
 then, on the whole, as respects the Person of our Lord, that its 
 ordinary exhibition to ordinary hearers and spectators was 
 that of a Man engaged in the best, and holiest, and tenderest 
 ministries, among all the saddest of human miseries and trials ; 
 of One teaching in word, too, the best, and holiest, and tender- 
 est lessons ; and claiming, unequivocally and without appeal, 
 a paramount authority for what He said and did ; but, beyond 
 this, asserting respecting Himself nothing, and leaving Him- 
 self to be freely judged by the character of His words and 
 deeds.":]: 
 
 Again, Mr. Gladstone writes : — " If the reader has patiently 
 followed the argument to this point, it is now time to release 
 him by proceeding to apply it to the case of ' Ecce Homo.' 
 Supposing, then, that the author of that work has approached 
 his subject on the human side, has dealt with our Lord as with 
 a man, has exhibited to us what purport to be a human form 
 and lineaments, is he therefore at once to be condemned? 
 Certainly not at once, if it be true, as it seems to be true, that 
 in this respect he has only done what our Lord himself, by his 
 ordinary and usual exhibition of himself, both did and encou- 
 
 * ''Ecce Homo;' p. 52. t I^id-, IT- Gl, G2. X Ibid., p. 103. 
 
TO THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 125 
 
 raged the common hearer of his addresses and beholder of his 
 deeds to do."* 
 
 How perfectly true these statements are, we will take the 
 liberty of illustrating in a way which has not occurred to tiie 
 able and candid writer of the quoted words. Let us for this 
 purpose refer to another of the great scenes in the history of 
 Christ, as set forth in the Gospel narratives, including the 
 fourth as well as the Synoptical writers. Let any one read the 
 accounts of the crucifixion, and observe how entirely wantinfr 
 is each narrative in the smallest allusion to the most astonish- 
 ing and marvellous circumstance of all — if it were only real — 
 the circumstance that in that crucified Jesus, who is there 
 nailed to the cross, and there bows his head and dies, just like 
 one of the malefactors beside him, that in his person, thus 
 lifted up and crucified, it is not simply a hnman being that 
 we look upon, l)ut even God Himself! The writers of these 
 narratives well knew this, it is alleged, but they say nothing 
 about it, make no allusion to it whatever ; and throughout the 
 whole of their account, from beginning to end, there is the 
 same extraordinary silence ; no word occurs about that greatest 
 fact of all, compared with whicli everything else sinks into 
 litter insignificancc.-f- 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, as we have seen, fully admits, strongly 
 maintains, that there is silence, reserve, limitation, in the 
 
 * "Hcce Homo" p. 108. — The reader may compare these remarkable admis- 
 sions with the very different tenor of Dr. Liddon's representation in his fourth 
 Lecture. He repeatedly declares that our Lord "revealed his divinity (deity) to 
 his disciples, to the Jewi.sh people, and to his embittered opponents, the chief 
 priests and Pharisees." B.L., p. 177. See also the headings of Dr. L.'s pages, 
 from p. 177 to p. 179, which run thus: — "Our Lord reveals His Godhead ex- 
 jilii-itiy :" — "Christ reveals His Godhead to the Apostles :" — "Christ reveals His 
 Godhead to the Jewish people." 
 
 t How differently modern writers proceed may lie illustrated by a single instance. 
 M. de Pressense in his recent work, "The Early Years of Christianity" (18(39), 
 sjjeaking of the siege of Jerusalem, observes that in that terrible time, "Jerusalem 
 was expiating a yet darker crime, and its soil, once sacred, had been stained by the 
 hhod of Ood" ! 
 
126 MR. GLADSTONE EEALLY ILLUSTRATES 
 
 teaching of Christ himself in regard to his own person. He 
 takes care, however, to point out that there were good reasons 
 for this, in the unprepared state of the Gentile world, and of 
 the people who witnessed our Lord's ministry. But now, 
 granting that, during his own life, there was every reason why 
 Jesus should not have spoken of his deity, yet how does such 
 a consideration apply to narratives that were written thirty, 
 forty, fifty years after his death — to writers who must have 
 been desirous, surely, to exhibit to the world the full glory 
 of the great subject of their narrative ? They need not have 
 continued the reserve from any of the motives which are said 
 to have influenced hhn; but, on the contrary, they owed it to 
 the world to set forth the simple truth, tlie marvellous truth. 
 
 Tims, in effect, the popular theory of the Godhead of Christ 
 receives no support, but rather a decided injury, from the 
 argument of the eminent man who has come forward so re- 
 markably in its defence — or rather, as we should say, in 
 defence of what may be termed the humanitarianism of Ecce 
 Homo. 
 
 In one respect, nevertheless, Mr. Gladstone has brought to 
 our notice what might seem to be a new consideration. He 
 thinks tliat the reticence of our Lord in speaking of himself 
 in the Gospels, is not quite so great as might at first be 
 thought. In some of his parables, he at least implies that he 
 is a personage of great importance. He is the central figure 
 of a new dispensation ; he is the Sower of the seed ; the 
 Owner of the vineyard ; the Householder in whose field of 
 wheat the enemy had intermixed the tares ; he is the Lord of 
 the unforgiving servant ; the Nobleman who went into a far 
 country ; and, lastly, he is the Bridegroom among the wise 
 and foolish virgins. In all these instances, Mr. Gladstone 
 urges, our Lord "appears in the attitude of kingship. He 
 rules, directs, and furnishes all ; he punishes and rewards." 
 These instances, he adds, " must be considered, surely, as very 
 
THE MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS. 127 
 
 nearly akin, if they are not more than nearly akin, to declara- 
 tions of His Deity."* 
 
 Now, accepting all these instances as fairly put, we, never- 
 theless, submit that it will be much nearer the truth, to say 
 that they are declarations, express or implied, not of his Deity, 
 but of his Messiahship. It was in his character of Messiah that 
 he did, or assumed to do, all the actions attributed to him. 
 This fact is constantly overlooked, or lost sight of, by popular 
 preachers and writers; and we regret to find that it has escaped 
 even so good an eye as Mr. Gladstone's. The Messiahship of 
 Jesus is everywhere the most characteristic feature through- 
 out the New Testament ; and has never been questioned as 
 the great fact of primitive Christian history, except, indeed, 
 by the unbelieving Jews. Can the same be said of his alleged 
 Deity? Has not this been denied and controverted almost 
 from the first ; and does not Mr. Gladstone himself admit that 
 it cannot be said to make its appearance, except perhaps in 
 obscure implications, throughout the Synoptical Gospels ? 
 
 Jesus, then, as the Chkist, is undoubtedly sometimes spoken 
 of in terms which could not be applied to ordinary men. It 
 does not follow that he is God; and as such the Evangelists 
 never represent him. It follows, simply, that he is the Christ ; 
 and we know how he himself said, and how every statement 
 of the New Testament on the subject declares, that whatever 
 he was, and whatever he had, he was and he possessed by the 
 giving of the Father who " sent" him.-f- 
 
 AVe submit, therefore, again, that Mr. Gladstone in writing 
 as he does on this subject, has too readily fallen into a very 
 common and popular error ; he has lost sight of the distinction 
 between the Messianic character, unquestionably attributed 
 by the Evangelists to Jesus of Nazareth, and the unapproach- 
 able supremacy of the One Almighty Jehovah, which is never 
 attributed to him. It may, indeed, be perfectly true, as ]Mr. 
 
 * "Ecce Homo,'' p. 83. t Johu v. 10 ; vii. IG ; xiv. 10, 24. 
 
128 MESSIANIC AUTHORITY OF JESUS. 
 
 Gladstone and Dr. Liddon respectively insist, that Jesus speaks 
 with great dignity and authority ; that he exercised powers 
 which could not belong to any ordinary man ; that " his 
 recorded teaching is penetrated by his self-assertion ;" that, as 
 spiritual lawgiver and king, he claims the unreserved obedi- 
 ence and self-surrender of his followers ; nay, that he thus 
 not only asserts his right to " rule the whole soul of man" in 
 this life, but also "literally and deliberately puts himself 
 forward as judge of all the world," in the life to come.* All 
 this may be perfectly true, as well as the further statement 
 that Jesus said he was Lord of the sabbath, that he had a 
 right to do his works on that day, and that even as the Father 
 worked, so he, the Son, had authority to work also. But yet 
 all this does not establish the Deity of him who thus spoke, 
 taught and acted. What it proves is, in the language of the 
 New Testament, simply this — this and no more, and no less — 
 namely, that Jesus Christ was "a man approved of God by 
 miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him ;" 
 that the Heavenly Father had " anointed Jesus of Nazareth 
 with the Holy Spirit and with power ;"-|- giving him authority 
 and power to be and to do all that is spoken of him. Dr. 
 Liddon himself observes, " Certainly our Lord insists very 
 carefully upon the truth that the power which he wielded, was 
 derived originally from the Father." | The New Testament 
 writers tell us exactly how it was that Christ was what he 
 was : " God had given such power unto men." Jesus himself 
 declares the same thing: " If I by the finger of Beelzebub cast 
 out demons, by whom do your children cast them out?" — 
 meaning obviously by this question that it was by the "finger 
 of God" that he acted. The statements even of the fourth 
 Evangelist are to the same effect. The incarnate Logos there 
 tells us, "The Son can do nothing of himself;" and of the 
 
 * Liddon, B.L., p. 174. f Acts ii. 22 ; x. 38. J B.L., p. 81. 
 
ITS DERIVED CHARACTER. 129 
 
 Father lie says that as He " hath life in himself, so he hath 
 given to the Son to have life in himself."* 
 
 Similarly, too, St. Paul on INIars' Hill, when he alluded to 
 the future judgment of the world, spoke of a day in which 
 God will "judge the world in righteousness by that man whom 
 he hath ordained ;" and, both in this place and elsewhere, the 
 same Apostle directly attributes to God the raising of Jesus 
 from the dead : " Yea, and we are found false witnesses of 
 God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ ; 
 whom he raised not up if so be that the dead rise uot."f 
 
 The possession of miraculous powers could not imply, as 
 Mr. Liddon would represent, the deity of the possessor ; for, 
 according to the Acts of the Apostles, miracles were wrought 
 by St. Paul and by others. In short, it is clear from the usual 
 tone and tenor, as well as the express statements, of the Evan- 
 gelical history, that Jesus Christ was not thought of by the 
 writers as possessed of power and wisdom independently, or 
 in himself, but only by the giving of One greater than he. 
 It is plain, therefore, as before, that he was not thought of as 
 himself the original source of divine gifts, but simply as the 
 receiver, the instrument, the faithful servant of God, whose 
 "meat" it was, as he said of himself, "to do the will of Him 
 that sent him, and to finish his work." 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE CHRIST OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND OF THE 
 FOURTH — DIFFERENCES. 
 
 AVe read in the Book of Acts that the Apostle Peter ad- 
 dressed an assembled body of his countrymen on the day of 
 Pentecost. Speaking of his departed ^Master, he describes him 
 
 * John V. 19, 26. t 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 K 
 
130 THE FIEST THREE GOSPELS 
 
 in the following terms : "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved 
 of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs which God 
 did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know."* 
 This description given by an Apostle, a companion and friend 
 of Jesus, so shortly after the crucifixion, probably represents 
 the earliest idea of his person and work left to us in the New 
 Testament. At least, it may be taken faithfully to preserve, 
 in several important respects, the impression of himself which 
 the subject of it had made upon his immediate disciples. And 
 this remark is confirmed by what we are told respecting our 
 Lord in the first three Gospels. Both in the details given, 
 and in the resulting impression arising from them, their 
 representation, as we have already seen, agrees in a remarkable 
 manner with that early description of Peter. 
 
 One who goes with us to this extent will probably have no 
 difficulty in seeing, that in the synoptic Gospels we have 
 what may properly be regarded as the most original and 
 literally faithful picture of the life and character- of Christ 
 anywhere to be found. We say this without any conscious 
 desire to depreciate the fourth Gospel, or the peculiar idea of 
 Christ which it gives us, and solely with the intention of 
 expressing the simple facts of the case. 
 
 There are several considerations by which our statejnent may 
 be illustrated, and its correctness very conclusively shewn. 
 
 In the first place, in the three Gospels we have a three-fold 
 exhibition of the life of Christ, and one which undoubtedly 
 comes down to us from the remotest period of Christian an- 
 tiquity to which we can ascend for the details given. We 
 have, therefore, the authority of three witnesses for what is 
 there reported, and for the particular form and manner in 
 which it is reported. This remark applies more especially to 
 all matters in^which tliere is a substantial agreement between 
 the three Evangelists. We always ascribe a preponderating 
 
 * Acts ii. 14—22. 
 
AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 131 
 
 weight to a decided majority of testimonies, even in the case 
 of persons who may, in other respects, be perfectly eqiial to 
 each other. 
 
 In the second place, the character or quality of what is 
 reported, tends to the same result. The three Gospels agree 
 very completely with each other in regard to the substance, 
 as well as the form, of our Lord's teaching, and in regard to 
 what is, perhaps, of less essential importance, the principal 
 incidents of his career. In these Gospels he often speaks, for 
 example, in short parables ; many parables occur in each of 
 them, and they are among the most simple and effective of his 
 modes of teaching. 
 
 But, moreover, the three synoptists also preserve for us 
 many longer, as well as shorter, discourses and sayings of 
 Christ. These are usually of a very practical kind, setting 
 forth various moral and religious duties or principles, in appli- 
 cation mostly to the men and circumstances of that day. 
 Throughout the three Gospels, a very graphic picture is pre- 
 sented to us, both of the actions and of the teaching of Christ 
 — shewing us how he went about among the people, speaking 
 to them constantly as occasion arose, healing diseases, casting 
 out demons, everywhere taking the opportunity of uttering 
 some little practical lesson of moral or religious value ; or 
 else teaching the same things, even more impressively, by his 
 own example. 
 
 Now, while the synoptics agree so constantly witli one 
 another in these respects, such features are, to a great degree, 
 absent from the fourth Gospel. In this, for example, there 
 are no parables whatever, nor a single instance of the casting 
 out of demons ; the miraculous birth of Christ is never alluded 
 to, not even in the opening chapter, which speaks of the incar- 
 nation of the Word ; nor the temptation of Christ ; nothing 
 like the Sermon on the Mount occurs, nothing like it either in 
 manner or matter ; neither does the institution of the Lord's 
 
 Jv 2 
 
132 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ST. JOHN 
 
 Supper ; nor tlio agony in the garden of Gethsemane. There 
 are other important omissions of a similar kind — shewing ns, 
 at least, that the respective Evangelists were, for some reason, 
 led to take and to give a radically different view of the life 
 and teaching of the great subject of tlieir narratives. 
 
 But it is not only that we find such omissions in John, as 
 compared with the other Gospels. What does occur in the 
 former is to a large extent different in its kind and in the 
 manner of its expression, from what occurs in them. Doubtless 
 there are some resemblances, for how was it possible that there 
 should not be ? — while yet it is true that it requires careful 
 attention to find them ; and of these resemblances, such as 
 they are, it will be seen that Dr. Liddon has made the most. 
 But still the statement is valid, that the fourth Evangelist 
 differs extremely from the others not only in what he omits, 
 but in what he records. 
 
 For example, the teachings of our Lord are here often 
 delivered in discussions with hostile Jews. In the other Gos- 
 pels tliey occur more in intercourse with his own friends and 
 disciples. In John, he appears everywhere anxious, above 
 all things, to assert and vindicate his own divine origin 
 and dignity as the Messiah. So it is in the interview with 
 Nicodemus ; in that with the woman of Samaria ; in the case 
 of the Samaritans in the same chapter ; in that of the Jews 
 who seek to kill him ; of those to whom he said he was the 
 " bread of life ;" of those who took up stones to stone him ;* 
 and in other instances. On the contrary, in the synoptics, 
 he repeatedly enjoins upon those who are with him not to tell 
 any one of his wonderful character and deeds.-f* Various pas- 
 sages occur in John which are, more or less, difficult to follow 
 and understand, the great end of which seems to be, not, as in 
 the earlier Gospels, the moral and religious instruction of his 
 
 * John iii. ; iv. ; v. 18 ; vi. 28, seq.; x. 24, seq. 
 
 t Matt. xvi. 20 ; xvii. 9 ; Mark viii. 30 ; Luke ix. 21, 22. 
 
AND THE OTHER EVANGELISTS. 133 
 
 auditors, so much as the assertion of the speaker's own autlio- 
 rity, of his descent from the Father, and his intimate commu- 
 nion with Him. * 
 
 Moreover, all this is presented in very peculiar language. 
 If we compare the Gospel with the first Epistle of John, we 
 find that the style is the same ; and that the Evangelist has 
 represented our Lord too as speaking in the same style in 
 which he has written his own Epistle. The same characteristic 
 words and phrases occur in Gospel and Epistle, shewing us 
 that the writer of the former cannot have put down the exact 
 words of Christ ; or, at least, that if he has done so, the three 
 synoptists have not, and that the utmost which can with any 
 probability be alleged is, that the former has embodied in his 
 own form of words the substance of the ideas uttered by Jesus. 
 
 In the first three Gospels, however, it cannot be questioned 
 that we have actual words of Christ. Strauss-f- long ago com- 
 pared his sayings to fragments of granite, wliich, though they 
 may sometimes have been detached and carried away from 
 their original position, yet could not be dissolved, by the flood 
 of oral tradition, but still retain their native coherence and 
 force. So, for example, we must believe it is in the case of 
 the Lord's Prayer. Have we not here the very words of Jesus 
 Christ ? — allowing, of course, for the change from the language 
 which he used to the Greek form in which we now have them, 
 and allowing also for the circumstance that the .prayer, in its 
 separate sentences, may not be,' strictly speaking, original. 
 But this prayer is not found in St. John, nor anything at all 
 resembling it. So, again, it must be with the parable of the 
 Good Samaritan ; with that of the Prodigal Son ; that of tlie 
 Talents, and many others ; witli tlie words used at the insti- 
 tution of the Lord's Supper,:]: an incident which, important as 
 it is, does not occur at all in the fourth Gospel. 
 
 • E.g., V. 32—47 ; viii. 52—59 ; xv. 1—8 ; xvi. 28—31 ; xvii. 
 
 f Life of Jesus, § 70. J Malt. xxvi. 20 — 28; Luke x.xii. 17 — 20. 
 
134) DIFFEEENCES BETWEEN ST. JOHN 
 
 The differences which we have now pointed out "between 
 tlie three and the one are such as cannot be denied ; nor does 
 Dr. Liddon attempt to deny them. He seeks, however, to lessen 
 their amount and significance, and is anxious to shew, differ- 
 ences notwithstanding, that the " divine Christ of St. John is 
 identical with the Christ of the synoptists." * How far this is 
 so, the reader will judge for himself ; and we readily leave the 
 matter to the intelligent verdict of any candid person who will 
 take the trouble carefully to weigh the facts of the case. 
 
 On two points only, in Dr. Liddon's discussion of the sub- 
 ject, would we here, before proceeding further, offer a brief 
 comment. He lays great stress on the " history of the nati- 
 vity" in Matthew, and 5n tlie "Evangelical Canticles" in 
 Luke,-f- as containing expressions in substantial harmony with 
 the introductory statements of St. John's Gospel, inasmuch as 
 they point to the " entrance of a superhuman being into this 
 our human world." | The question inevitably presents itself 
 whether the learned writer really receives the " history of the 
 nativity," with the poetical utterances of Mary and Elizabeth, 
 and the announcement of the angel Gabriel, as truly historical, 
 and with the feeling that he is treading on solid ground in his 
 reliance upon such details — details to which he appeals as 
 guarding the Evangelical narratives "against the inroads of 
 Humanitarian interpreters." Such questions he would doubt- 
 less answer in the affirmative ; for he accepts without question 
 all the statements that occur respecting the " annunciation," 
 the " miraculous conception," " the virgin mother." We can 
 only express our admiration, even our amazement, at a faith 
 so undiscriminating and comprehensive ; while we do not 
 doubt, nevertheless, that the judgment of all free and instruct- 
 ed minds will sooner or later pronounce very differently on 
 this, as on other material points in this inquiry. 
 
 Dr. Liddon further observes that the agreement between the 
 
 * B.L., pp. 2U, 245. t Matt. i. ii.j Luke i. J B.L., p. 249. 
 
AND THE OTHER EVANGELISTS. 135 
 
 syiioptists and John is also seen in tlieir accounts of the teach- 
 ing of our Lord, " and in the pictures which they set before 
 us of his life and work."* How exceedingly different this is 
 from the facts, we need not further attempt to illustrate. ]'Hit 
 in connection with one point in Dr. Liddon's representation, 
 we must notice the incorrectness of his statement. The syn- 
 optists, he says, often present Jesus to us as " the Son," and 
 in this title he naturally sees, not merely a usual Jewish 
 designation of the jNIessiah, as especially and before all others 
 the protected and beloved of God, but also an allusion (even 
 in the synoptios) to an " original nature," in which of neces- 
 sity ordinary men have no share. " Accordingly," he observes, 
 Jesus " never calls the Father our Father, as if he shared 
 his Sonship with his followers. He always speaks of mi/ 
 
 Father." t 
 
 In reply to this statement, we would ask, did not our Lord 
 teach his discijples when they prayed to say, " Our Father 
 which art in heaven" ? — and, although he is not himself said 
 to have joined with them in the use of this prayer, are we to 
 suppose that he intended them to employ the word "Father" 
 in some special and limited sense, which was not applicable 
 to himself? When, as so often occurs, in addressing his dis- 
 cii)ics, he uses the words "your Father," apparently in the 
 most direct, simple and natural manner, are we to suppose 
 that he consciously meant to employ those words with a cer- 
 tain reserve, or, as we may almost say, with a kind of double 
 meaning, and that his hearers too were aware of this, although 
 there is no statement to such an effect throughout the New 
 Testament? For, even in John, where, as we have already 
 admitted, the " Son.ship" has most probably at times a meta- 
 physical sense, not elsewhere found, does not Jesus say, " I 
 ascend unto my Father and your Father, and unto my God 
 and your God" ? Here, again, is it possible to think that he 
 
 * B.L., i>. 249. t Ibid., p. 250. 
 
136 HOW ARE THESE DIFFERENCES 
 
 uses the word " Father" within the space of this short verse 
 in two different senses? — that God was, in his own concep- 
 tion, God and Father to those whom he was addressing, quite 
 otherwise than he was to the speaker himself? 
 
 Such questions must surely be answered in the negative, by- 
 one who has any regard to the truthfulness and sincerity of 
 Jesus Christ ; and that answer is virtually the confutation of 
 the assertion that Christ never spake "as if he shared his 
 Sonship with his followers." In one sense, indeed, this asser- 
 tion might be true, but it is not the sense intended by Dr. 
 Liddon. Jesus could not share his Messiahship with his fol- 
 lowers ; and so far as this is involved in the Sonship, or iden- 
 tical with it, the latter may be regarded as necessarily limited 
 to Jesus alone. But it is quite evident that he often speaks of 
 and to the Heavenly Father in no such artificial sense. " 
 my Father, if it be possible, let tliis cup pass from me." Was 
 this an outburst of true natural feeling, such as any human 
 being might utter before the ever-present Spirit, or was it 
 only a kind of official address to Him, whether implying the 
 metaphysical " Sonship," or only the relationship of Messiah ? 
 The general strain of the New Testament ought surely to be 
 sufficient to answer this question for us ; for example, those 
 words of Paul to the Galatians, " God has sent forth the spirit 
 of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father," — making 
 them too sons (the Apostle means), even like Christ himself, 
 as also the New Testament repeatedly declares.* 
 
 It is clear that the use by Jesus of the form "your Father," 
 arose mainly from the fact that his teachings consisted so 
 largely of direct and familiar conversations with those around 
 him. He naturally addressed them in the second person — and 
 used pronouns suitable to that form of address. 
 
 Eeturniug, however, to the principal subject of the present 
 
 * Gal. iii. 26.; iv. 7. Comp. John viii. 41, 42 ; Matt. v. 48 ; Mark xi. 2.5, 26; 
 Luke vi. 36. 
 
TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR? 137 
 
 Chapter, we have next to inquire, how are the remarkable 
 differences, above described, between tlie one C4ospel and the 
 three, to be accounted for ? Most probably the explanation 
 lies in the circumstance that in the latter we have the simple 
 facts, incidents, sayings and discourses of Christ's ministry 
 very much as they actually occurred ; as they were preserved 
 and cherished for long years by faithful friends and disciples, 
 until finally written down from the oral traditions, much in 
 the form in which we now have them. The Gospel of John, 
 on the other hand, was written considerably later, as the 
 ancient authorities agree in telling us, and as modern inves- 
 tigators mostly allow. It was written also, not in Palestine, 
 by one intimately connected with Jewish scenes and usages 
 at the moment of writing, but most probably in the distant 
 city of Ephesus, and by one who, even if by birth a Jew 
 and a native of Palestine, must have been long separated 
 from his early home, and unfamiliar with the associations 
 of his younger days. Few, probably, can read wliat has been 
 said on this point by Bretschneider, and others after him, 
 without being convinced of this, although they may not go 
 to the length of saying that the Apostle John, the beloved 
 disciple and friend of Jesus, could not have been the author 
 of the Gospel. 
 
 If this Evangelist, again, were acquainted with the three 
 older Gospels as works of Apostolical authority, or with one 
 of them, he would seem to have carefully avoided going over 
 the same ground ; while yet it is remarkable that he should 
 not have intimated in any way that he had done so, or intended 
 to do so. So far as any express statement is concerned, he 
 leaves us in ignorance as to his plan in writing, for he merely 
 intimates, in one place, his desire to shew that Jesus was the 
 Christ, the Son of God.* 
 
 Having this object in view, it would seem that he pursued 
 
 * John XX. 31. 
 
138 PEOBABLE EXPLANATION 
 
 it in his own manner, without regard to the accounts given 
 by the Evangelists who had preceded him, even if he were 
 acquainted with tliem, of whicli we cannot be certain. And 
 not only was this the case, but the fourth Evangelist evidently 
 wrote with a certain freedom ; that is to say, in his own style 
 and words simply. Hence the sameness of manner observable 
 in the Gospel and the Epistles ; and this too even in words, 
 or discourses, attributed to Christ ; — although we can hardly 
 suppose that our Lord expressed himself in the peculiar style 
 of the Epistles of John, especially when this is so different 
 from what is reported of his words in the synoptics. 
 
 It will illustrate and account for this peculiarity in the 
 lanffuage of John, if we remember that it was the custom 
 with ancient historians to ascribe to the personages of their 
 histories such speeches as they thought suitable to their par- 
 ticular characters and circumstances. Writers, we know, who 
 were probably the contemporaries of the fourth Evangelist, and 
 doubtless subject to the same literary rules and influences, 
 have followed this method of composition. The fact alluded 
 to is familiar to all who have the slightest knowledge of the 
 ancient historians.* 
 
 The question, then, is inevitable. Did the author of the 
 fourth Gospel follow the same plan, and is this the cause of 
 the remarkable difference between the words of Christ as 
 found in that Gospel, and as found in the others ? That is to 
 say, have we in the three Gospels the genuine words, or nearly 
 so, much as they fell from the lips of the Teacher, treasured in 
 the memory of devoted and affectionate followers, until at 
 length committed to Avritiug and left as we now read them ; 
 and in the fourth Gospel have we only the substance of 
 what Jesus said, re-called by the Evangelist after the lapse 
 
 * We need only mention here the names of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Tacitus, 
 Josephus, alaundantly to justify the statement in the text. The last of these 
 authors attributes speeches of his own composition to various biblical persons. 
 
OF THESE DIFFEEENCES. 139 
 
 of many years, and clothed not at all in the original words of 
 the speaker, which were long ago forgotten, but in sucli lan- 
 guage as occurred to tlie writer, and seemed to him fitted to 
 embody the ideas which he wished to make known to his 
 readers, of the teaching and the actions of Clirist ? 
 
 Into this important question it is not necessary that we 
 should here enter further, except only to express the convic- 
 tion that it ought to be answered affirmatively, even on the 
 supposition that the fourth Evangelist was the Apostle John. 
 Those who are unable to admit the identity of the Apostle 
 and the Evangelist will the more readily assent to it ; and if it 
 be the truth, it will abundantly explain the fact that the Gospel 
 of John is so different from the other three ; — different in its 
 facts, in its style, in the actions attributed to Christ, and iu 
 the very subject matter of the thoughts reported to have been 
 expressed by him. 
 
 But leaving this point, we are brought back to our former 
 position, and may see, even more clearly than before, that it 
 is to the Gospels of Matthew, JMark and Luke, that we must 
 look for the most original and faithful picture of our Lord's 
 life and character ; while St. John's Gospel, on the other hand, 
 is a composition of later date, and of such a character that its 
 testimony can only be received so far as it is in substantial 
 agreement with that of the other Gospels. 
 
 The relation subsisting between Christ and God which is 
 set forth or implied in the synoptical accounts, is the point 
 which now claims our attention. What that relation is, is 
 sufficiently declared, and has already in fact been described. 
 The Almighty Being, it is throughout implied, or expressly 
 stated, is the original Source of the divine gifts possessed by 
 Jesus. He is everywhere represented as a distinct personality ; 
 one living consciousness and will ; a Being of unspeakable 
 might and holiness ; our Father in heaven. And this great 
 Parent Spirit it is who gives to Jesus the wisdom and the 
 
140 THE CHRIST OF THE FOUETH GOSPEL, 
 
 power which he manifests. " If I by the power of Beelzebub 
 cast out demons, by whom do your children cast them out ?" 
 — thus Jesus asked on one occasion. It was not by the 
 help of Beelzebub, he meant to assert, but by a greater and 
 better power, that he acted, even by the power which he had 
 from God. And so, on another occasion, as we have noted 
 before, the people, on witnessing the cure of the palsied man, 
 are said to have "marvelled and glorified God which had 
 given such power unto men." 
 
 The relation, then, subsisting between Christ and God is 
 clearly revealed to us in such expressions. Christ is the 
 recipient, and God is the Source and the Giver. How this 
 intercommunion took place we are not informed ; but that it 
 was thus conceived of by these Evangelists is more or less 
 distinctly declared throughout their three Gospels. The in- 
 visible Deity is, in all this, revealed to us as a definite personal 
 existence, as much as Jesus himself; and from Him it is that 
 our Lord, amidst the changing scenes of his human life, derives 
 the power, the eloquence and the wisdom which attract to 
 him the crowds of his countrymen, and make them exclaim, 
 " Never man spake like this man." 
 
 Much of what has just been said we have noted before ; 
 but the reader will forgive the repetition, as it is necessary 
 here to bring out the contrast between the synoptics and the 
 fourth Gospel. On turning to the latter, we find that Jesus 
 is all that he is represented in the others, but apparently also 
 he is something more. He is, in particular, the personal 
 incarnation of the Divine Word, or Logos : — "In the begin- 
 ning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the 
 Logos was God ;" — " And the Logos was made flesh and dwelt 
 among us."* Such, in few words, is this Evangelist's state- 
 ment ; a statement which recurs, at least by implication, in 
 the course of the Gospel. 
 
 * John i. 1 — 18 — " became flesh'' is the more literal rendering. 
 
THE SUPPLEMENT THEORY. 141 
 
 The question then arises, What is the probable meaning of 
 this language ; and does the Evangelist John really place 
 ])efore us a view of the person of Jesus, and of his relation 
 to God, essentially different from that which we have found 
 in the other Gospels, and in the speech of Peter on the day of 
 Pentecost ? 
 
 It is the statement of Clement of Alexandria, repeated 
 by others in succession after him, that this Gospel was written 
 as a kind of supplement to the other three. John, he relates, 
 observing that the things concerning the bodily or human life 
 of Christ liad been recorded, determined, at the instigation of 
 friends, to compose a spiritual Gospel. This view of the matter 
 is greatly approved by Dr. Liddon, while yet he remarks with 
 some truth, that the Gospel " is rather a treatise illustrated 
 by history than a history written with a theological purpose."* 
 lie would, probably, have been still nearer the truth if he had 
 said, that it is substantially a " treatise" written with a distinct 
 " theological purpose." It is easy, in fact, to gather from the 
 Gospel itself, as will hereafter be clearly seen, that the Evan- 
 gelist lias gone upon the simple plan of giving mainly such 
 details and discourses as might serve to confirm and illustrate 
 his doctrine of the Logos in Jesus, and that he has probid^ly 
 omitted from his narrative whatever may liave seemed to him 
 unnecessary to that doctrine, or inconsistent Avith it. 
 
 At all events, the Supplement theory is not borne out by 
 the facts of the case. The Gospel does not, in truth, supj)le- 
 ment the other Gospels. It simply differs from them, and 
 that to such a degree that it has always been felt to be one of 
 the most didicult of problems to harmonize the two forms of 
 representation ; to shew that they are not absolutely exclusive 
 the one of the other. Nor is the ancient idea borne out, but 
 strongly discountenanced, by the particular statement before 
 referred to, of the Evangelist himself, who tells us expressly 
 
 * B.L., pp. 219, 220. 
 
142 DESIGN OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 
 
 for what purpose he wrote his Gospel : — " Many other signs 
 truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are 
 not written in this book ; but these are written, that ye might 
 believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that 
 believing ye might have life through his name."* 
 
 And yet the object thus declared is manifestly the same 
 object which the other Evangelists had in view. To shew 
 that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, was indeed the 
 great aim of all the teaching and preaching of the primitive 
 Church. To bring men to believe this, Paul too toiled and 
 suffered ; so that the primary design of John's Gospel, as 
 stated by the writer of it himself, was the common aim and 
 endeavour of the first Christian disciples, to " bring all men, 
 everywhere, to the knowledge of the truth," that " the promise 
 which was made unto the fathers God had fulfilled the same," 
 " in that he had raised up Jesus again."-f- Such, then, being 
 the agreement between the first three Gospels and the Fourth, 
 in regard to the leading purpose for which they were severally 
 composed, the presumption arises, that the apparent divergence 
 of John from the others, which in the first instance so much 
 strikes the reader, is not in reality expressive of any substan- 
 tial difference of belief in the respective writers in regard to 
 the person of Christ or the relation between Christ and God, 
 but only a variation in the mode in which the later Evangelist 
 has been led to express himself ; and that a due attention to 
 the subject will shew that these seemingly disagreeing forms 
 of representation in reality set forth one and the same essen- 
 tial truth. To test the correctness of this presumption will 
 be the purpose of the next two Chapters. 
 
 * John XX. 30. The Evangelist doubtless intended his readers to understand that 
 Jesus was the Christ by the indwelling of the Logos. Comp. infra, Chap. XVI. 
 + Acts xiii. 32. 
 
THE DIVINE LOGOS. 143 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS — PHILO — JUSTIN MARTYR — 
 EARLIER TENDENCIES AJMONQ THE JEWS. 
 
 The inquiry before us is, in substance, this — whether there 
 is an essential harmony between St. John and the Synoptics, 
 in the accounts which they respectively give of the relation 
 between Jesus Christ and God. To answer the question it is 
 necessary to ascertain in what sense the former may have 
 employed the term Word (Logos), which he introduces so con- 
 spicuously at the beginning of his narrative. The use of this 
 expression constitutes the great peculiarity of this Gospeh 
 It is not found in any other, and indeed hardly occurs any- 
 where else in the New Testament, with the exception of the 
 first Epistle of John. The idea of the Logos is introduced, 
 however, at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 although the word itself is not there used.* We do not, 
 therefore, find any material assistance in the New Testament, 
 in the inquiry as to what exactly may be meant by this 
 expression. It is evident, however, that, employing the term, 
 as he does, in the very first sentence of his Gospel, the Evan- 
 gelist must have taken it for granted that his readers were 
 already familiar with it. He gives no explanation of it, but 
 introduces it at once, as though it were well known to those 
 for whom he was writing. 
 
 And siich, there is no reason to doubt, was the case. For, 
 let us observe, this Evangelist, although the only New Testa- 
 ment writer who makes so prominent an object of the Logos, 
 is by no means the originator of the term, or of the peculiar 
 
 * Comp. also Heb. iv. 12. It lias been supposed that St. Paul introduces the 
 Logos idea at the comnienceineut of the Epistles to tl:e Ephesians and Colossians. 
 On this question, see infra, Chap. XIX. 
 
144 PHILO. 
 
 mode of represnntation of which it is a part. On the contrary, 
 he only adopts a well known, long used expression of his 
 time — a term, with its connected ideas, widely employed in 
 the age and region in which the Evangelist lived ; and one, 
 therefore, which he might properly regard as sufficiently fami- 
 liar to all who were likely to read his Gospel, without any 
 explanation from him.* 
 
 To understand, then, what this term may have meant, as 
 used by the Evangelist, we have to look beyond the New 
 Testament, to any contemporary sources of information left to 
 us ; and these may be found principally in the writings of the 
 Jewish author, Philo of Alexandria. In his works abundant 
 materials are met with for illustrating the use of the term in 
 question. Philo was probably about sixty years of age at the 
 time of the death of Christ. His chief works, it is well ascer- 
 tained, were composed not later than that event — a fact from 
 which it is easy to infer that Philo cannot have borrowed from 
 the Christian teachers, much less from the Gospel of John, 
 which could not have been in existence for several decades 
 after he wrote. He was, however, an elder contemporary of 
 the reputed author of that Gospel ; and we may consequently 
 expect that, if the two are found to use the same words and 
 expressions in connection with a given subject, they will throw 
 light upon each other. 
 
 The same remarks are in some respects applicable to Justin 
 Martyr, a Gentile philosopher converted to Christianity, who 
 suffered martyrdom at Rome about the year 165. His writings 
 also contain much that throws light on the subject of the 
 
 * This statement may be illustrated by the following passage from a learned 
 Bampton Lecturer of a past generation : — " One of these jEous was termed Logos ; 
 and we may say with truth that between the genuine followers of Plato and the 
 corrupters of his doctrine, the Gnostics, the whole learned world at the time of 
 our Saviour's death, from Athens to Alexandria, and from Rome to Asia Minor, 
 was beset with philosophical systems in every one of which the term Logos held a 
 conspicuous place."— Dr. E. Burton, Bampton Lectures, 1829, p. 215. 
 
JUSTIN MARTYK. 145 
 
 Logos ; but it is a later phase of the subject than that pre- 
 sented by Philo. Justin wrote at a time when some progress 
 had certainly been made by the doctrine of the deity of Christ. 
 iMoreover, the period of his literary activity lies at some inter- 
 val after that of the Evangelist, while between Justin and 
 Philo the space is still longer, and is probably not less than a 
 century, or even more. It is in the works of the latter, 
 therefore, that the doctrine of the Logos may be found still 
 unaffected by later Christian influences ; and as the writer 
 of the Gospel cannot have drawn anything from the works 
 of Justin, while it is possible, if not probable, that he was 
 acquainted with those of Philo, it is to our purpose to seek 
 the information and illustration we need from the earlier 
 author, rather than from the later. * 
 
 It is necessary to commence with the fact that the idea of 
 the Logos was intimately connected with the peculiar mode 
 of conceiving of God which was widely prevalent in the 
 period to which Philo's life belongs. In the philosophical 
 systems of the time, derived partly from Plato and partly 
 from oriental, sources, the Deity was conceived of as having 
 existed from eternity, the absolute fulness and perfection of 
 being, withdrawn and apart by Himself, and incomprehensible 
 to man. He stands out of and above the sphere of matter. 
 l>cing, in His essence, an absolutely perfect and immaterial 
 Spirit, He could have no immediate contact with that grosser 
 world which is accessible to human sense. But how, then, 
 is He to be the Creator and Lord of the universe? In this 
 essential disconnection or antagonism between the Self-exist- 
 ent jNIind and things material, how are these to be acted upon 
 and reduced to obey the will of the Supreme ? 
 
 It was by means of His Bwanei^, or powers, and by the 
 Logos most especially among these, that this was conceived to 
 be effected, and the connection maintained between the hidden 
 
 * For the sources of information here used, see Appendix to this Chapter. 
 
 L 
 
146 THE DIVINE LOGOS. 
 
 and far-off God and the visible world. Without attempting 
 to enter into tlie obscurities of the subject, or to trace the 
 idea of the Logos to its origin in Platonism, it is necessary to 
 state that the term has a double meaning, namely, thought 
 and speech, — denoting, in other words, that which exists in 
 us first as thought, and also goes forth from us as words 
 spoken. Again, after this human analogy, a distinction was 
 made between the Logos, as in God, and with God, — the 
 Divine reason, intellect, thought, also the Divine idea accord- 
 ing to which the visible world was created, — and the Logos, 
 as it came forth from God to be the instrument of His su- 
 preme will. Thus, from the one point of view, it is the 
 thought or idea in the Divine Mind, or it is even the Divine 
 Mind itself; from the other, it is the same thought or idea 
 manifesting and realizing itself outwardly, — seen, for example, 
 in what we usually speak of as design, in the works of nature, 
 — coming forth from Him whom it thus revealed, and embody- 
 ing itself in the life, order, beauty and grandeur of the mate- 
 rial universe. 
 
 According to this latter conception, the Logos is, properly, 
 the self-revealing and creative activity of God. It is the 
 manifestation of the One God, but is not itself a personal 
 being, although, as we shall see, the tendency was to regard it 
 in the latter character. It comes forth from God, just as a 
 word uttered issues, as it were, from the mind within, and 
 produces its effect. So, for illustration, when God said, " Let 
 there be light," the word came forth, the instrument, and was 
 followed by its effect, — " there was light." In this conception 
 of the Logos coming forth from the otherwise invisible and 
 unknown Source of all, was comprehended not only creation, 
 but every active relation of God to the world, every manifesta- 
 tion of Him in outward things. Tliere is a great deal that is 
 obscure and fluctuating in the conception ; but this is clear 
 and constant, namely, that the Logos holds an intermediate 
 
VARIETIES OF EXPRESSION. 147 
 
 place between God and the world, as the active and efficient 
 instrument of the Divine power. It is, therefore, in effect, 
 the true mediator, or medium of communication between God 
 and man, and not only between God and man, but between 
 Him and everything that is external to His own Divine 
 nature. 
 
 The step was not a great one, nor difficult to take, to the 
 personification of this medium of the Divine activity. That 
 step is already virtually taken by Philo. His idea of the Logos, 
 in truth, varies between that of a person and that of a mere 
 attribute of the Infinite ]\[ind, or manifestation of God's hid- 
 den energy. Nevertheless, the language in which he speaks of 
 it as a distinct personal being is at times so strong, that it is 
 difficult to think that he did not in reality look upon the 
 Logos in that light. Accordingly, some authors of high autho- 
 rity have decided that Philo did conceive of the Logos, not 
 merely as an imaginary being, a manifestation of divine power, 
 poetically clothed with personal qualities, but as a real per- 
 son.* 
 
 As examples of the varieties of expression which have 
 caused doubt on this point, the following may be mentioned. 
 As just noticed, the Logos bears the same relation to the 
 Supreme j\Iind that speech does to the human ; or it is only 
 the idea or purpose of the Creator, after the pattern of which 
 the external world was formed. It is the Divine power, or 
 energy, in the world ; maintaining all things together in har- 
 mony, and being their bond of law and order. It is the per- 
 vading providence which rules and controls among nations ; 
 the giver of good gifts to men. It is spoken of as law ; as 
 the moral sense in man ; as the indwelling reason : wisdom 
 
 * Speaking of tlie Logos of Pliilo, Professor .Towett observes that with that 
 writer " the idea of tlie Xoyog just ends with a person, or rather leaves us at la.st 
 in lioulit whether it is not a quality only or mode of operation in the Divine 
 Being." — Epistles of St. Paul, I. p. 414. 
 
 L2 
 
148 THE DIVINE LOGOS. 
 
 and goodness especially are its gifts ; and sometimes it appears 
 to be identical with wisdom, this term being used for it. In 
 one remarkable passage, in which Philo allegorizes the six 
 cities of refuge, the Logos clearly appears as one among other 
 attributes of the Almighty. 
 
 In several of these particulars the idea would seem to be 
 nearly the same with tlie ancient Hebrew conception of the 
 Holy Spirit. Elsewhere, however, the Logos is spoken of in 
 very different terms. It is the agent or instrument by which 
 God created the world. Philo names it the first begotten Son 
 of God ;* the image of the Divine perfections ; the mediator 
 between God and men. He regards it as a substitute and 
 ambassador for God ; a hvrepoQ Oeoc, or second God ; a God to 
 those imperfect creatures that are incapable of the knowledge 
 of the Supreme. The same being, he also tells us, in various 
 phrase, was the soiirce of the inspiration of the propliets ; 
 and in all the theophanies of the Old Testament, it was not 
 Jehovah Himself that appeared. For it would have been 
 
 * Here, in connection with the Alexandrine philosophy, we come to an expres- 
 sion, "Son of God," employed also in the New Testament to designate the He- 
 brew Messiah, and derived, as we have seen, in the latter case, from Old Testament 
 sources. (Comp. supra, Chaptei'S XI. XII.) This coincidence, in the application 
 of the epithet Son of God to the Christ on the one hand and to the Logos on the 
 other, would no doubt facilitate the transference of the latter terra to Jesus, with 
 all that it involves. In what sense the application was made in the first instance 
 (i.e. in the fourth Gospel), will be considered in the next Chapter. The tendency, 
 in Philo and subsequently, was constantly to personify and hypostatize the Logos ; 
 and this later import and acceptation of the latter term speedily displaced and 
 prevailed over the old Hebraic meaning of the words Son of God. A step or two 
 further, and, in the Fathers, Jesus is the Son in the new sense of being God ; 
 01', as Mr. Donaldson has expressed the same thing, Jesus "is now for the first 
 time recognized fully and clearly as God ; not merely the Son of God, but God." 
 (Ubi supra, p. 115.) 
 
 It is evident that the phrase Son of God was used of the Logos long before the 
 latter term was applied to Jesus. The same jjhrase is also constantly applied to our 
 Lord by the Apostle Paul, who does not, however, make use of the term Logos. 
 All the Evangelical narratives clearly pre-suppose and assume that the phrase was 
 in use in connection with Jesus as the Christ, during his own life-time ; and this 
 we take to be the most probable conclusion from the evidence relating to the 
 point. 
 
PEESONAL USE OF THE TERM. 149 
 
 impossible to Him, and beneath Him, to come into any sucb 
 close contact with gross matter and sinful men. It was, there- 
 fore, the Logos that was thus manifested, the second or repre- 
 sentative God, taken by ignorant men for the Highest Being. 
 He it was who not only formed the world out of matter, but 
 also spoke with INIoses in the bush, was present in the pillar 
 of cloud, and conducted the Israelites from Egypt to the 
 promised land. 
 
 In such expressions as these the distinct personality of the 
 Logos would seem to be clearly conveyed ; and hence the 
 conclusion that Philo did really believe in it as a kind of 
 inferior God, who stood between the incomprehensible Parent 
 ]\Iind, and formed the medium of communication between 
 Him and the visible world. 
 
 But, on the other hand, Philo was a Jew, and must have 
 shared the strict belief of his people in the absolute oneness 
 and sole deity of Jehovah. Is it possible, then, that he 
 can really have regarded the Logos as a separate personality, 
 a second God ? Justin and later Fathers doubtless did so ; 
 but they were men of different birth and education, and be- 
 longed to a very different class as regards religious belief and 
 feeling. If, under certain philosophical and semi-pagan influ- 
 ences, they could without difficulty forget their monotheistic 
 faith, and go to the verge or into the depths of ditheism and 
 tritheism, there appears to be no necessity to suppose that 
 Philo could do the same. The latter was most probably nothing 
 more than inconsistent and self-contradictory, and this periiaps 
 only on the surface, or in his forms of expression.* 
 
 One thing appears to be quite certain, and that is, that he 
 
 * The question whether the Logos in Philo is " a personal being," or only "a pure 
 abstraction," is somewhat iloulitfully decided by Dr. Liddon, in the latter sense. 
 He observes, however, tliat a study of certain passages will "convince any unpre- 
 judiced reader that Philo did not know his own mind ; that his Logos was some- 
 times impersonal and sometimes not, or that he sometimes thought of a personal 
 Logos, and never believed in one." — B.L., j'p. 66, 67. 
 
150 EARLIEK JEWISH TENDENCIES 
 
 did not intend to recognize a second, co-equal God. The Logos, 
 even in the personal conception of it, was, at all evants, re- 
 garded by him as subject^aud inferior to the Supreme Being ; 
 as His representative or substitute, indeed, in the government 
 of the world, and in communication with men, but as being 
 so only by a kind of delegation or appointment, not by any 
 natural, independent right or power. And even when he calls 
 it a God, he could do so, in full accordance with ancient 
 Hebrew usage ; for we have before noticed that, in the Old 
 Testament, the word Elohim is applied even to kings and 
 judges, simply, perhaps, because they were representatives of 
 Jehovah. This character, and others equally divine, were 
 borne by the Logos, which indeed, it must be evident, stood 
 in a relation to God far more intimate than could be conceived 
 to belong to any mundane existence, however mighty, however 
 exalted. 
 
 Such, then, is a rapid outline of the doctrine of the Logos, as 
 it was held long before the fourth Gospel was written, and, 
 indeed, before Christ himself was born. As to the immediate 
 influences which might lead a Jewish mind to follow this mode 
 of speech respecting God and His revelation of Himself in the 
 world, it is not necessary here to speak at any length. The 
 following poilits, however, may be noticed. 
 
 We know that the Jews had long refrained from pronouncing 
 the sacred ISTame. In the Targums, or paraphrases of the Old 
 Testament in Chaldee, made about the time of the birth of 
 Christ, or within the century following, they have omitted the 
 word Jehovah altogether, and have substituted for it the phrase 
 " Memra of Jah," or Word of Jah. This expression coincided 
 in a remarkable way with both the meaning and the use of 
 the term Logos ; of which, as we have seen, the radical idea was, 
 that it served as the outward representative of God, and pre- 
 served Him, as it were, from contact with gross matter. Simi- 
 larly the Memra would conceal and protect the divine Name. 
 
TO THIS DOCTRINE. 151 
 
 Again, Jews scattered throughout the East, those living in 
 Alexandria in particular, necessavily came under the immediate 
 influence of the Gentile philosophy — that peculiar compound 
 of oriental and Platonic mysticism in which the Logos doctrine 
 held so prominent a place. Thus in a large degree Hellenized, 
 they were ready and anxious to prove that their own sacred 
 Scriptures were also in harmony with true philosophy, or might 
 rather, indeed, he considered as the primary fountains of it. 
 Hence their painful efforts, by means of allegorical interpreta- 
 tions, to spiritualize the ancient Mosaic history, and to shew 
 that its representations of the Divine Being and His intercourse 
 with men, as related in the Old Testament, were such as even 
 a votary of the high philosophy of the day need not despise.* 
 
 In the Hebrew Scriptures themselves various passages may 
 be pointed out which would directly favour both the allegoriz- 
 ing tendencies of the later Jews, and their disposition to adopt 
 the new way of speaking of God and His manifestation of 
 Himself in the world. For example, in Psahn xxxiii. 6, — " By 
 the Word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the host 
 of them by the breath of his mouth." Yet this alludes, we 
 need scarcely observe, not to the Logos, but only to the account 
 of the creation, at the beginning of Genesis. In the Book of 
 Proverbs, again, chapter viii., the Divine Wisdom is spoken of 
 poetically as a person. It is with God at the creation of the 
 world, perliaps as his darling child -|- brought up beside Him, 
 and playing before Him. A similar personification of Folly J 
 occurs in the following chapter of the same book. Dr. Liddon 
 is very careful to point out that Wisdom in the former passage 
 " is personal." Doubtless it is so, exactly as Folly is ; and, in 
 both instances, by the poetical licence so natural to an oriental 
 imagination. Had it suited Dr. Liddou's purpose, he might 
 
 * See the remarks of Trofessor Jowctt on this subject, iu lli^s dissertation before 
 referred to. Siqira, p. 147, note. 
 
 t Trov. viii. 22—30. t Prov. ix. 13. 
 
152 PEESONIFICATION OF WISDOM 
 
 have informed his readers that Wisdom in tliis place is not 
 only "personal," but also of the feminine gender, and in one 
 instance* even plural in form ; —a piece of information, how- 
 ever, which would scarcely have recommended his singular 
 suggestion that the personification of this Divine attribute in 
 the Book of Proverbs was an anticipation of " our Lord's Divi- 
 nity." Similar personifications of wisdom were very familiar 
 to the later Jewish writers.-f- 
 
 In the Apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon, we have 
 the Divine word itself personified in a remarkable manner ; and 
 perhaps here it is the Greek doctrine of the Logos tliat was in 
 the writers' mind : — " Thine almighty Word leaped down from 
 
 heaven out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war and 
 
 standing up filled all things with death ; and it touched the 
 heaven, but it stood upon tlie earth." In the same book we 
 
 have the following : " God of my fathers who hast made 
 
 all things with thy word, give me wisdom that sitteth by 
 
 thy throne." J 
 
 Various other expressions to the same effect might be cited 
 from the Apocryphal books. They concur in shewing us that, 
 some generations before the birth of Christ, this peculiar way 
 of speaking of God and His attributes, and of conceiving of 
 Him as acting upon the world by powers going forth from Him 
 and often conceived of as personal beings, was beginning to 
 prevail even among the Jews. In some cases, these forms of 
 thought and speech may have been folloM^ed independently of 
 the influence of the Greek philosophy. Tlie ancient Hebrew 
 belief in Angels, as servants and instruments of Jehovah, was 
 evidently related to them ; as was also the later idea of ema- 
 nations and Sbons, so widely accepted tln-oughout the East, in 
 the centuries immediately before and after the birth of Christ. 
 
 The point, therefore, at which we have arrived is briefly 
 
 * Prov. ix. 1. + Wis. Sol. vi. 12—16; vii. 11, 12; x. 
 
 t "Wis. Sol. xviii. 15, 16 ; ix. 1—4. 
 
AND OTHER DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 153 
 
 this : at tlie time when the Evangelist wrote his Gospel, and 
 long previously, it was a common and well understood mode 
 of expression, to speak of the Deity as manifesting Himself in 
 the world, putting forth His creative and inspiring energy, not 
 by His own immediate presence and action, but by His Logos. 
 By this term, however, was not meant an independent sub- 
 stantive being, much less a separate or second God. The 
 essential idea conveyed by it was simply this — tliat the Logos 
 was the manifestation of God ; in other words, that it served 
 as the medium of communication between Him on the one 
 hand, and man and the world on tlie other. 
 
 Tlius, as before, the Logos was simply a name for the thought 
 and volition of God Himself in action.* It was indeed called 
 the Son of God, the eldest and first begotten Son ; but even this 
 probably denoted, at first, an imaginary or figurative person- 
 ality — just as we also know that the thoughts and determina- 
 tions of men were sometimes, in a similar way, personified 
 and spoken of as their children. 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XV. 
 
 SOURCES OF INFORMATION RESPECTING TUE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 
 
 The account which we have given of this doctrine is founded 
 cliietly upon the collection of the principal passages from Philo re- 
 lating to tlie subject, puhlislied by the late Dr. Pye Smith, in ]iis 
 Scrqyture Testimony to the Messiah (Book ii. Chap, vii.), with some 
 addition from the sections of Gfrbrer on the same subject (Philo 
 und die Alexandrinische Tlieosophie, Capp. 7, 8). We have thouglit 
 it expedient, in the present work, to take the evidence bearing on 
 this subject principally from a writer at once so learned and so 
 orthodox as the author of the Scripture Testimony. No objection, 
 we appreliend, will be made by any one to his summary of Pliilo's 
 doctrine of the Logos as given in the following passage, — in which, 
 * Tliis, as we sliall sec, is clearly ailmitted by Dr. Liddou, B.L., p. 228. 
 
154! APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XV. 
 
 however, the term "Logos" should be substituted for "Word," the 
 latter being evidently an inadequate representative of the former : 
 
 " To this object he [Philo] gives the epithets of the Son of God, the 
 First-begotten Son, the Eldest Son, the Word, the Divine Word, the 
 Eternal Word, the Eldest Word, the Most Sacred Word, the First- 
 begotten Word, the Offspring of God, as a stream from the fountain, 
 the Beginning, the Name of God, the Shadow of God, the Image 
 (eiKiov) of God, the Eternal Image, the Copied Image (aTreiKovicrna), 
 the Express Image (^apafcrz/p) of the seal of God, the Branch or Rising 
 Light {araroXi)), the Angel, the Eldest Angel, the Archangel of many- 
 titles, the Inspector of Israel, the Interpreter of God, a Representa- 
 tive God, a Second God, a God to those creatures Avhose capacities 
 or attainments are not adequate to the contemplation of the Supreme 
 Father. 
 
 " This Word is described as presiding over all things ; superior to 
 the whole universe ; the eldest of all objects that the mind can 
 perceive, but not comparable to any object perceptible by sense, nor 
 capable of being presented in a visible form ; next to the Self-existent, 
 
 " To this Word are ascribed intelligence, design, and active powers; 
 he is declared to have been the Instrument of the Deity in the crea- 
 tion, disjjosition and government of the universe, and in holding all 
 its component parts in their proper order and functions, clothing 
 himself with the universe as with a garment : he is the instrument 
 and medium of divine communications, the High Priest and Mediator 
 for the honour of God and the benefit of man, the Messenger of the 
 Father, perfectly sinless himself, the Beginning and Fountain of 
 virtue to men, their Guide in the path of obedience, the Protector 
 and Supporter of the virtuous, and the Punisher of the wicked. 
 
 " Yet, the Word is also represented as being the same to the 
 Supreme Intellect, that speech is to the human ; and as being the 
 conception, idea, or purpose, of the Creator, existing in the Divine 
 mind previou^sly to the actual formation of his works."' — Scripture 
 Testimony, I. pp. 566, 567. 
 
 With this summary the reader may compare what Prof. Jowett 
 has written on the same subject in his "St. Paul and Philo." — 
 Episthti uf St. Paul, I. p. 363, aeq. 
 
THE LOGOS OF ST. JOHN, 155 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 ST. JOHN'S DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS — ITS MEANING AND PER- 
 MANENT VALUE. 
 
 On turning to the words of tlic last Evangelist, our first and 
 inevitable inference from the facts just recounted must be, 
 that his doctrine or statement respecting the Logos is not 
 offered to us as a revelation of new truth. The Evangelist's 
 doctrine of the Logos cannot be regarded in the light of a 
 divine revelation, as Dr. Liddon regards it, because it was 
 already in the world long before St. John wrote his Gospel ; 
 and absolutely notliing is said by the former concerning the 
 origin, the nature, the action, or even the personality, of the 
 Logos, which had not already been said by others before him. 
 
 One thing, however, is peculiar to John, and had never been 
 said by any one, so far as is now known, before he said it ; 
 and that is, that " the Logos became flesh and dwelt among 
 us," and that it did so in Jesus Christ.* 
 
 And in saying this we may now perhaps perceive, this 
 Evangelist states in substance what the synoptics state also, 
 though in different terms ; namely, that there was a manifes- 
 tation of the invisible Being to the world in Jesus Christ : 
 that is to say, the wonderful powers of Jesus, his wisdom, and 
 the holy spirit which he possessed, were from God. The infi- 
 nite and incomprehensible Being revealed Himself among men 
 in Jesus Christ. " The Logos became flesh," became man, in 
 him ; the Logos which was in the beginning with God and 
 was God, being indeed, as we have seen, the Divine tliought 
 itself, by which all things were conceived and called into 
 being, in which was the life aud the light of men, — this re- 
 vealer and instrument of the great Parent Mind was mani- 
 fested among men in a human form in Jesus Christ. 
 
 * JoLu i. 11. 
 
156 USE OF THE WORD LOGOS 
 
 Here, then, is unquestionably a doctrine of incarnation ; but 
 how different it is from the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Creeds, 
 as commonly received, it is unnecessary to point out. And 
 yet the objection may be raised, that the words of the Evan- 
 gelist, Kal 6 Xoyoe aapl, iyivtro (and the Word became flesh), 
 are too express and definite to allow us to think that he in- 
 tended only to convey the idea of a mere indwelling of God, 
 by the Logos, in the person of Jesus ; for that these words, in 
 truth, go far beyond the statement that Jesus was a man spe- 
 cially inspired and " approved of God," through whom divine 
 powers and qualities were manifested among men. But, in 
 reply, to this it may reasonably be urged that the words in 
 question ought not to be understood too literally. They cannot 
 really mean what they appear to convey, namely, that the 
 Logos, the exalted spiritual conception so called, was actually 
 converted into " flesh." Nothing so grossly material as this 
 can reasonably be attributed to the writer. He cannot then 
 mean anything more than that the being or power called Logos 
 was the animating, inspiring presence in the man Jesus ; and 
 that this being or power was in him in some special and 
 extraordinary manner. 
 
 The idea of incarnation, in very material forms, was indeed 
 a familiar one in the days of the Evangelist. But this was 
 not among either Jewish or Christian writers. It was among 
 those who had been brought up to believe, or to despise, the 
 Greek and lioman mythology. We cannot for a moment sup- 
 pose that any Christian Evangelist has intended us to believe 
 that the Logos " was made flesh," became man, in that heathen 
 sense, much less in the still grosser sense which the words of 
 St. John might seem at first to convey — the literal conversion 
 of the spiritual essence of the Logos into palpable flesh and 
 blood. 
 
 Thus, so far as we have gone, the doctrine of the Evangelist 
 may be fairly understood to mean simply this, that the Spirit 
 
BY ST. JOHN. 157 
 
 or energy of the One Incomprelien.sible God was specially 
 manifested among men in a hnniun being, in the man Jesus 
 Christ. But here tho question may be asked, If the Ev^angelist 
 represents the Logos as incarnate even in this sense, is not this 
 in fact equivalent to saying that Jesus Christ was God ? This 
 question, in its turn, may be answered by another. When it 
 is said that tlie Holy Spirit was given to an Apostle or a Chris- 
 tian convert, or was in some way manifested in or by a human 
 being,* does the writer mean to represent that Apostle, or 
 convert, or holy man of old, as God incarnate? Considering 
 alwa3's what was meant by the term Logos, the cases appear 
 to be strictly parallel ; and consequently it cannot be main- 
 tained that the representation of the presence or incarnation 
 of the Logos in Jesus Christ can have been intended to lead 
 us to look upon the latter as the Divine Being Himself in a 
 human form. This idea is, in truth, iinwelcome or even revolt- 
 ing, not only to the coldest reason, but also to our natural 
 sentiments of reverence towards God. These prompt the 
 thoughtful mind to shrink from every attempt to conceive of 
 Him under a material form ; and such sentiments, it may well 
 be believed, nothing but a long training from early years, and 
 the constant repetition of established creeds and forms, could 
 avail to overcome, or expel from tlie mind. 
 
 It would therefore appear that the fourth Evangelist, in 
 speaking of the Logos as incarnate in Jesus Christ, tells us in 
 effect what is- equivalent, in the older Hebrew phraseology, to 
 tlie statement tliat the Holy Spirit was possessed by him ; 
 that the Spirit was given to him without measure ; or, in the 
 language of Peter at the Pentecost, before cited, that "Jesus 
 of Nazareth" was " a man approved of God," by miracles and 
 wonders and signs, " which God did by him." 
 
 But why, it may next be asked, should this Evangelist em- 
 ploy so uncommon a mode of stating so simple a fact, when 
 
 * Actsii. 17, 22; iv. 31; ix. 17; x. 44—17; xix. 2, 6 ; 2 Pet. i. 21. 
 
158 WHY ST. JOHN ADOPTED 
 
 he might have used the same form of expression as other 
 speakers and writers of the New Testament? The answer 
 will, of course, be found, partly in the consideration that the 
 Evangelist had now himself been led to abandon the older 
 Hebrew mode of thought on these subjects ; partly in that of 
 the regard which he would naturally have to the persons for 
 whom, and amidst whom, he composed his Gospel. In Ephe- 
 sus, where the Gospel, according to ancient testimony, was 
 most probably composed, and, indeed, throughout all the Hel- 
 lenized East, the peculiar philosophy and modes of expression 
 respecting God and His relation to the world, of which we 
 have spoken, were well known and prevalent among cultivated 
 persons. One, therefore, who wished to convey to readers 
 familiar with such conceptions and forms of expression that 
 the power and wisdom of Jesus were from God, would natu- 
 rally do so in the language most readily conveying this fact to 
 them. 
 
 A reader of the present time cannot, perhaps, fully enter 
 into the case, for such forms of thought and expression are 
 essentially remote from our own. The latter are founded 
 largely upon the more usual tenor of the Scriptures, which 
 teach us to think and speak of God as of a personal Existence, 
 as One who is not far removed from the world, but, on the 
 contrary, ever near us, and without whom not a hair of our 
 heads can fall to the ground. It is probable, however, that had 
 it been stated to one imbued with the spirit of the ancient 
 philosophy now alluded to, that the Invisible Being was in 
 immediate contact and communion with Jesus of Nazareth, as 
 represented and implied by the first three Evangelists, such 
 a person would have regarded the statement as simply an 
 absurdity, and the alleged fact as an impossibility ; whereas 
 were it stated that the Divine Logos was in him, this would 
 have appeared to be in harmony with the nature of things, 
 easily possible and comprehensible. 
 
THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. loO 
 
 To this, however, it may seem to be an objection that St. 
 John constantly speaks of Jesus as in intimate imion with 
 the Father : the Father is said to dwell in him, and the works 
 which he does, as well as the words which he speaks, are the 
 Father's. In all probability we ought to understand such 
 expressions in subordination to the declaration at the begin- 
 ning of the Gospel, that " the Logos was God." It was God 
 Himself all the time, for that expression was but a name for 
 the self-revealing activity of the One Supreme. In such ex- 
 pressions, therefore, as those just referred to, it is everywhere 
 implied, though it was unnecessary to be constantly repeating 
 it, that it was by the medium of the Logos that the Father 
 was in Jesus, and did the works and spake the words which 
 Jesus ascribes to Him. 
 
 We may, indeed, even believe that the venerable writer of 
 the Gospel, in so frequently referring to the intimate union 
 between Jesus and the Father, was really desirous to guard 
 himself against being supposed to intend to represent the 
 Logos as a separate being from God, a " second God," although 
 he adopted the current phraseology respecting it. The Evan- 
 gelist, accordingly, says repeatedly that it was, in truth, the 
 Almighty Father that was with Jesus and in him, enabling 
 him, as He did, to manifest the power and presence of God 
 among his fellow-men. Hence our Lord could even say, " He 
 that hath seen me hath seen the Father ;" — while yet the 
 Evangelist declares also, " No man hath seen God at any time, 
 the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he 
 hath declared him."* The sense in which men could "see 
 the Father" in Christ cannot be doubtful. It was in no mate- 
 rial, literal sense ; but in his power, in his gracious and 
 merciful spirit, in the love towards men which he manifested. 
 It was especially in those Divine moral attributes and qualities 
 of which the Christian mind usually rejoices to consider Jesus 
 
 ♦ Joliu xiv. 9 ; i. 18. 
 
160 THE evangelist's MEANING WHEN HE SAYS 
 
 Christ as the personal eiabodimeut, and as, in regard to these, 
 the " beloved Son," in whom the Heavenly Father was " well 
 pleased." It was,, and is, in these that Jesus Christ may be 
 thought of as the true moral image and representative of God 
 to man, and in him we see the Father. * Certainly it is not 
 in any grosser sense that he is so, or that the Evangelist can 
 have intended us to believe that he is so. 
 
 We may express what has just been said in different words. 
 The strong monotheistic faith of the Evangelist would neces- 
 sarily lead him, notwithstanding the introduction of the Logos 
 idea, still from time to time to refer all that Christ was and 
 did to the Father who sent him. If this be true, it leads 
 at once to the further conclusion, that the real, permanent, 
 underlying belief of the Evangelist's mind, upon which he 
 raised, as it were, the superstructure of his Gospel narrative, 
 was a belief in the simple humanity of Jesus Christ ; and 
 that the whole representation amoimts to this, that the man 
 Jesus was the human medium through which the Almighty 
 Being revealed Himself to the world. And this simple view 
 of the subject certainly liarmonizes in a remarkable manner 
 the claims of Reason and the statements of Scripture, while 
 it fully accounts for the origin and growth of the orthodox 
 doctrine of the deity of Christ. 
 
 And yet the question must now be more definitely asked, 
 
 Does the Evangelist, in liis first verse, represent the Logos as 
 
 God, or, after the manner of Philo, as " a God" ? The same 
 
 question may be expressed in a different way, thus : Does the 
 
 Evangelist, even in the first verse of his Gospel, so positively 
 
 assign a separate personality to the Logos, that he there speaks 
 
 of it as " a God," after the manner of Philo ? — or does he only 
 
 say that the Logos is not different from God, but that it is 
 
 God, although he also personifies it, and speaks of it, and 
 
 makes Jesus speak, as if it were a distinct personal being, 
 
 present in him ? 
 
 * Com II. Heb. i. 3 ; Coloss. i. 15. 
 
THAT THE LOGOS WAS GOD. 161 
 
 The tenor of the foregoing remarks would lead us to adopt 
 the latter supposition as the true one. "We have Seen the doubt 
 which attaches to the representation of Philo, the doubt whe- 
 ther or not he really regarded the Logos as a distinct personal 
 being, a second and subordinate God. If, on account of his 
 Jewish monotheism, that writer cannot be supposed to have 
 done this, of course there is the same reason for tliinking that 
 an Evangelist of Jewish birth cannot have done so. Hence, 
 if this be true, when the latter says, " the Logos was God," he 
 simply intends us to understand that, although, in accommo- 
 dation to prevailing modes of thought, he wrote of the mani- 
 festation of God in Christ in accordance with the Logos doc- 
 trine, he yet did not mean that the Logos was a separate being 
 from the One God, but only the medium, or manifestation, of 
 the Divine activity ; for that, in truth, " the Logos was God." 
 
 According to this interpretation of the Evangelist's meaning, 
 the word God, deog, in the final clause of his first verse, is 
 exactly equivalent to the same word as it is used immediately 
 before. There is, however, this difference : in the one case we 
 have the article, and in the other it is absent. The difference is 
 not without importance, for it was noted by Origen and Euse- 
 bius that the absence of the article before Oeog, in the second 
 clause of the verse, indicates that this word may be used here 
 in a secondary sense ; and that the Logos accordingly is not 
 represented as Supreme God.* But this, again, is not absolutely 
 certain, although, according to the testimony of these Fathers, 
 it is perfectly admissible. The word deog, being in the predicate 
 of the sentence, would grammatically stand without the arti- 
 cle, and maij, therefore, be simply equivalent to the preceding 
 
 Toy dtoy. 
 
 In the presence of this doubt, we can only have recourse to 
 
 * Passages to tbis effect from the two Fathers are given by Tiscbendorf, crit. 
 note, John i. 1. (N.T. , 8th ed.) Philo has a similar remark as to the subordinate 
 force of 0t6f without the article. Comp. Meyer on the words Otbs »}»' o \6yoQ. 
 
 M 
 
162 PECULIAE EXPRESSIONS 
 
 expressions which occur later in the Gospel, and allow them, 
 if they will, t6 throw light on the point in question. And it 
 must be admitted that various passages occur which tend 
 strongly to shew that the Evangelist did, at least occasionally, 
 give himself up to the conception of the Logos as a real per- 
 sonal existence, separate from God, and become flesh in Jesus 
 Christ ; that he did so quite as decidedly as Philo might have 
 done ; and that he, therefore, in his first verse intended only 
 to say " the Logos was a God." 
 
 For example, the following passages : " No man hath as- 
 cended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven ;" 
 " I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the 
 will of him that sent me ;" " Jesus said unto them, Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you. Before Abraham was, I am ;" " Now, 
 
 Father, glorify thou me with the glory which I had with 
 
 thee before the world was ;" the exclamation of Thomas, " My 
 Lord and my God." * It may be observed that this last pas- 
 sage is the only instance in the Gospel in which the term 
 " God" is apparently addressed, or applied in any way, to Jesus 
 personally. The Logos is said to be God, but Jesus is not. 
 As, however, the conception of the Evangelist is that the 
 Logos was in him, the application of the words Lord and God 
 to him in this instance is accounted for. " My Lord," might 
 even be considered as addressed to the human person ; " My 
 God," to the Divine power present in him ; for this, being 
 essentially God's power, or even God, might appear to warrant 
 such an application of the term. 
 
 Such expressions, then, and some others which occur, would 
 appear to indicate that the Evangelist at times conceived of 
 the Logos, not as a mere power or manifestation, but as a 
 personal being, present in Jesus ; and that he also represents 
 the latter as speaking in accordance with this conception, as 
 he would naturally do. 
 
 * John iii. 13 ; vi. 38 ; viii. 58 ; xvii. 5 ; xx. 28. Comp. viii. 42 ; xiii. 3 ; 
 xvi. 27. John iii. 13 may be a parenthesis, added by the Evangelist. 
 
OF THE FOUETH EVANGELIST. 163 
 
 Those readers who take this view 0/ the subject, and who 
 also consider this Evangelist's representation as that which 
 they ought to receive, rather than that of the Apostle Peter 
 and the other Evangelists, will adopt in substance the Arian 
 doctrine of the person of Christ and his relation to God — 
 according to which he was the incarnation upon earth of a 
 great pre-existent spirit, of angelic or divine nature, the first 
 of all created existences, and the instrument of the Almighty- 
 power in the creation of the universe. 
 
 One thing, at all events, is very clear. There is no evidence 
 in the fourth Gospel, when read, as it ought to be, in the light 
 of those local and contemporaiy considerations to which we 
 have referred, — there is no evidence in this Gospel for the 
 popular view of the person of Christ ; — according to which 
 he is not the Son of God, but " God the Son," an expression 
 never found in the Bible ; — according to which, again, he is 
 co-eternal with the Father, in all respects His equal, one God 
 with Him, in a sort of incomprehensible co-partnership of 
 Deity, while yet in some inexplicable sense distinct from Him, 
 and from the Holy Spirit — as much so, according to the com- 
 parison of Bishop Sherlock, as three human beings, Peter, 
 James and John, are separate and distinct from one another. 
 Explain it away, as some may seek to do, such appears to 
 be the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity as set forth by the 
 Church of England and understood by ordinary people, in 
 accordance with the obvious meaning of the words employed. 
 In St. John's Gospel, there is clearly nothing to justify such 
 a doctrine as this ; for everywhere throughout this Gospel, the 
 Father is the One Supreme, and the Son, or divine Logos in 
 Jesus, is the subordinate, whose very words are not his own, 
 and who can do nothing of himself. 
 
 There is, however, another conclusion, which perhaps brings 
 us more nearly to the truth. We have seen that the idea of 
 the Logos was by no means a constant quantity, but variable, 
 
 M 2 
 
164 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
 
 and sometimes almost self-contradictory. This is without 
 doubt the case in the various expressions of Philo, according 
 to whom it is sometimes a power, an inspiration, and some- 
 times a person, a second God. Is there not something of the 
 same indefiniteness and variableness of conception in the Evan- 
 gelist's statement also ? May he not, in short, while usually 
 conceiving of the Logos as simply the Divine power and 
 wisdom in Jesus, yet at times also allow himself to speak of 
 it as a substantive being, living and acting among men in the 
 human personality of the man Jesus ? 
 
 If sucli be the case, we should still observe that this latter 
 mode of conception is only exceptional and temporary ; and 
 that the Evangelist constantly recurs to the true and natural 
 relation subsisting between God and Christ,* — agreeing in 
 substance with the synoptics in representing the Father as the 
 original Source and Sender, and Jesus the Christ as the reci- 
 pient and the sent. 
 
 But here it is necessary to acknowledge, more distinctly 
 than we have yet done, the difference which there is, in some 
 important respects, between the Jewish Philo and the Chris- 
 tian Apostle, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the 
 agreement of which we have spoken. Some amount of differ- 
 ence, more or less decided, was clearly to be expected, considering 
 the character and the circumstances of the two writers. What 
 we refer to has been recently pointed out by M. Pressense, as 
 it is by Dr. Lid don, by each in terms which are, we think, 
 a little stronger than strict accuracy would warrant. -f- But 
 difference, nevertheless, there is. While Philo is so purely 
 metaphysical and allegorical, the Evangelist is far more prac- 
 
 * See, for example, the narrative of the interview with the Samaritan woman ; 
 that of the restoi-ation to sight of the blind man, and that of the raising of Lazarus. 
 John iv. ix. xi. 
 
 t Pressense, Jesus Christ, Book i. Chapters iii. iv. Liddon, B.L., pp. 68, 
 229. 
 
ST. JOHN AND PHILO. 1G5 
 
 tical and moral. Above all, he sets forth the possibility of 
 man's communion with the unseen God, and the possibility 
 also of the direct action and influence of the Divine Spirit 
 u])on our human life. This he does in a manner with which 
 the Alexandrine philosopher would have had little sympathy,* 
 Nevertheless, in regard to the subject of the Logos, the same- 
 ness of the representation in the Evangelist and in Philo is 
 not to be denied. Everything that is said by St. John in his 
 proem had already been said by Philo, and a great deal more. 
 What he does not say, we have duly pointed out, namely, that 
 the Logos became flesh in Jesus of Nazareth ; and the exact 
 meaning and purpose of this language we have endeavoured 
 to ascertain. And here, as before, and indeed at every point 
 in the discussion, we are forcibly reminded that the doctrine 
 of the Logos was not introduced, but only adopted, by the 
 Evangelist, as a convenient medium of expression. An old 
 doctrine of the Graeco-oriental philosophy cannot with any 
 reason be regarded as a Divine revelation, being, in trutli, the 
 mere product of human speculation, and, shall we not add, of 
 human error? 
 
 We may now briefly recapitulate what has been said in this 
 and the two or three preceding Chapters. It is evident that 
 at an early period — that is to to say, in the latter half of the 
 first century, and probably for long afterwards — the relation 
 between God and Christ was contemplated under two very 
 different aspects, according to the education and the habits of 
 thought of the disciple. One of these aspects we find in the 
 three Gospels of Matthew, jMark and Luke, in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, and in most of the Epistles.f It is also represented 
 by wliat Peter said of his departed JNIaster on the day of 
 Pentecost, as before pointed out. It is the more literal and 
 
 * See John x. 38 ; xiv. 9, 10, 23 ; xvi. 3 ; xvii. 3, 21. 
 
 + We have elsewhere noticed that the doctrine of the Logos does not occur in 
 St. Paul's Epistles. 
 
1G6 THE REAL CHARACTEE 
 
 simple view of the case, closely corresponding to the facts. It 
 shews us clearly all that Jesus was in his human life, and 
 gives us the first fresh impression which he left on his im- 
 mediate friends and disciples. It is also in true harmony 
 with the natural or Christian mode of thought and speech 
 respecting God, that, namely, which is exemplified by Christ 
 himself; according to which the Infinite is not a Being 
 that dwells far apart from the children of men, bearing no 
 direct relation to them, the fundamental idea of the Logos 
 pliilosophy — but One who is near to us when we call upon 
 Him, who is merciful and gracious, and not only Creator and 
 God, but also the Heavenly Father and Friend of man. 
 
 The other aspect is that which we find in the fourth Gospel 
 most conspicuously; though it is not confined to that, but 
 most probably appears in the first Epistle of John, and also in 
 the introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews. This second 
 form of belief arose after Jesus had passed away from the 
 earth. It does not represent so directly and freshly the im- 
 pression of what Christ was, as left by him on his immediate 
 companions. It is the product rather of those obscure philo- 
 sophical ideas respecting the nature of God, and his manifes- 
 tations of Himself, which so widely prevailed both before and 
 after the commencement of the Christian era, and which ori- 
 ginated much that is still retained in the popular theological 
 systems of the preaeiit day. For it is, in truth, to the same 
 source that the world owes the doctrine of the Trinity, — of 
 which, as already shewn, there is no real trace in the New 
 Testament, not even in connection with the doctrine of the 
 Logos. 
 
 From special causes, again, this view of the subject was 
 adopted by the fourth Evangelist. Yet this came to pass 
 in so purely accidental a way, that the new doctrine can 
 only be regarded as an extraneous element, introduced into 
 the primitive Christianity. It will therefore of necessity be 
 
OF THE LOGOS CONCEPTION. 167 
 
 dropped again, as the progress of knowledge brings men 
 back to simpler and truer ideas of the historical Christ, and 
 of the relation between him and God, and between God and 
 the world. In all probability, however, the same element 
 materially assisted the early diffusion of Christianity, render- 
 ing it possible for the Hellenized world of the first and fol- 
 lowing centuries after Christ to admit the divinity of his 
 mission, without contradicting the established principles of 
 human knowledge. 
 
 Still, the doctrine referred to is not in itself a permanent ex- 
 pression of divine trutli. It stands in the same relation to us as 
 the ancient belief in the stability of the earth and the motion of 
 the sun. This belief and similar things (for example, diabolical 
 possessions), are also found in the Bible, assumed and implied 
 in the Christian teaching, mere relics of the imperfect natural 
 philosophy of early times. But we can now separate such 
 ideas from what is truer and more permanent, and lay them 
 aside in our estimates of the character and value of Christianity. 
 And so we should endeavour to do, in regard to that peculiar 
 mode of expressing the relation of Jesus to God on which we 
 have been dwelling. We must allow for that also as a human 
 and non-essential product of the times. And when we have 
 done so, the substantial residue of truth that remains is this, 
 that Jesus of Nazareth was one " approved of God," in the 
 estimation of those who were the eye-witnesses of his life, by 
 the possession of special gifts arid graces ; that the Holy Spirit 
 was poured without measure upon him ; that Jesus has " shewn 
 us the Father." There is still left to us, indeed, all that is 
 necessary to form the basis of Christianity, regarded as a reve- 
 lation of the Divine will, and of the paternal love and mercy 
 of tlie invisible Creator, through and in the life and mind of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 A final consideration remains. It relates to the more special 
 practical value for our later times of the doctrine of the "NVord 
 
168 PEEMANENT VALUE 
 
 made flesh in Christ. This doctrine has still a great and an 
 abiding value. For it bears witness to the extraordinary moral 
 and spirtual pre-eminence of Jesus Christ. It shews us how 
 lofty and holy a person the actual living Saviour must have 
 appeared to those who knew him, and to the generations 
 which came immediately after him ; and what an impression, 
 notwithstanding his brief career and his premature death, his 
 life must have left upon the people who witnessed it. 
 
 This is clearly seen when we recall what is implied in the 
 statement that the Logos became flesh in Jesus ; that this 
 exalted being, the image and glory of the invisible God, the 
 life and light of the world, was incarnate upon the earth in 
 Jesus. Granted, indeed, that this mode of speaking has no 
 actual foundation in the nature of things ; that the Infinite 
 Spirit exists and manifests Himself to the human soul quite 
 otherwise than was thought by the early philosophizing con- 
 verts to Christianity ; and that the representation of the 
 fourth Evangelist is altogether remote from the simpler and 
 more literal account of the synoptics. Nevertheless, that the 
 Evangelist has made such a representation, while it certainly 
 does not shew that he looked upon Jesus as personally God, 
 implies, of necessity, the extraordinary character of his life, 
 his moral and spiritual greatness, his divine wisdom and won- 
 derful works. 
 
 Such being the estimate of the personal life and character 
 of Jesus Christ, known to have been entertained by minds 
 like those of the fourth Evangelist and the writer of the Epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews, and received so readily as it was by 
 many other good and truthful men of the second century, we 
 easily see how improbable it is that Jesus could have been 
 any ordinary person of the time— whether a Jewish Eabbi of 
 eminent wisdom and knowledge, as some would suggest, or 
 only a sweet-tempered Galilean peasant, according to the 
 romantic version of the sacred story with which the world 
 
OF THE LOCOS DOCTRINE. 1G9 
 
 has recently been lavoiued by the inventive genius of M. 
 Eenan. 
 
 Such, in few words, is the practical lesson derivable from 
 the doctrine of the Word made flesh. It lielps to shew us 
 the more distinctly and impressively, even as the history 
 of the world ever since he lived may shew us, that Jesus of 
 Nazareth was God's highly distinguished minister to sinful 
 men ; that we, therefore, should give " the more earnest heed" 
 to what he has said on many points : respecting our Father in 
 heaven ; His providence over us ; flis divine will that we 
 men should make the cultivated sense of Duty the supreme 
 Law of our lives, living together as His children, and therefore 
 as brethren, ready to help and benefit one another in all good 
 works ; His merciful design to lead us on, even by the trials 
 and conflicts and sorrows of this life, to a better life in heaven ; 
 that we should give the more earnest heed to all that Christ 
 has thus taught us and shewn us, — for that he spake " as one 
 having authority," not only to those who immediately heard 
 him, but to us also of these later generations. 
 
 CHAPTER XYII. 
 
 REMARKS ON DR. LIDDON S EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 THE LOGOS. . 
 
 The exposition above given of the meaning and use of the 
 word Logos, and of the ideas connected with it, will be suffi- 
 cient to shew how futile the attempt must be to construct the 
 ordinary ecclesiastical doctrine of the deity of Christ upon tlie 
 representations of the fourth Gospel. It is, nevertheless, to 
 be noticed that, in Dr. Liddon's judgment, this Gospel is the 
 great stronghold of that doctrine. " It is undeniable," he says, 
 
170 QUESTION OF THE AUTHENTICITY 
 
 " that the most numerous and direct claims to Divinity [deity] 
 on the part of our Lord are to be found in the Gospel of St. 
 John ;" and again, " St. John's Gospel is the most conspicuous 
 written attestation to the Godhead" of Christ* Doubtless it 
 is so — to this extent, namely, that if the deity of Jesus Christ 
 cannot be conclusively established from the fourth Gospel, it 
 will be in vain to attempt to prove it out of any other book 
 of the New Testament. 
 
 With the evidence, therefore, which we have laid before the 
 reader that this Gospel is not really to be cited as a witness 
 for the orthodox side of this great argument, we might now 
 leave this part of the subject. There are, however, a few pas- 
 sages of the Gospel which have not yet come specially before 
 us, and to which Dr. Liddon attaches great importance. It 
 will, therefore, be desirable that we should briefly notice these 
 in the light of the preceding exposition, as well as in connec- 
 tion with Dr. Liddon's own account of the Logos, and should 
 thus ascertain how far the preceding statements help us to 
 their adequate interpretation. 
 
 On the question of the authenticity of this Gospel, it is not 
 perhaps, necessary here to express any decided opinion. Dr. 
 Liddon gives a rapid summary of the evidence which tends to 
 attribute the work to the pen of the Apostle John. He brings 
 forward, it will be seen, such evidence as belongs to the posi- 
 tive side of the question. The very grave difficulties which 
 -attach to some of that evidence, and the very strong case 
 which may be presented on the other side, he does not at all 
 adequately notice. It would be much out of place to enter 
 minutely into the question in these pages. It is sufficient for 
 our purpose to observe, that there can be no reasonable doubt 
 as to the existence of the Gospel in the first quarter of the 
 second century. There is no direct evidence, however, to shew 
 that it was at that time spoken of, or known, as a work of the 
 
 * Liddon, B. L., rP- 207, 208. 
 
OF THE FOUETH GOSPEL. " 171 
 
 Apostle John.* Nevertheless, it is evidently a document 
 wliich comes down to us from the heart of Christian antiquity. 
 It is a witness, therefore, of the greatest weight to the belief 
 of the Christian community in the latter part of the first cen- 
 tury and the century following. Tlie question as to the actual 
 person of the autlior is one, perhaps, of only secondary import- 
 ance ; inasmuch as the real value of the Gospel must depend 
 largely upon its internal character, and the possibility of re- 
 conciling its statements with those of the synoptics. 
 
 And this reconciliation can evidently be effected in the way 
 wliich we have pointed out. The two modes of representation 
 may be harmonized, by accepting the narrative of the fourth 
 Gospel as substantially equivalent to the statements of the 
 synoptics — to the effect that Jesus was the possessor of special 
 gifts conferred upon him from on high ; that it was God's 
 power and wisdom in him, — in other words, that it was " God 
 in Christ," that enabled him to be what he was, and to do 
 what he did. But the fourth Evangelist cannot be truly har- 
 monized with the synoptics, if the Logos doctrine be taken, as 
 it is by orthodox theologians, as anything more than a peculiar 
 mode of conceiving of the same relation between God and 
 Christ which the synoptics exhibit. The two forms of state- 
 ment cannot be truly harmonized, if the conception of the 
 Logos as a distinct personality be admitted to correspond to 
 anything that is real in the nature or mode of the Divine 
 existence ; if, that is to say, the Gospel be supposed to repre- 
 sent the incarnate Logos not merely as the manifestation of the 
 "Only true God," but as a second person of the Godhead, vir- 
 tually, in other words, as a "second God." There is nothing that 
 corresponds to this in the synoptics, but much that is strongly 
 opposed to it. Moreover, in the latter case, the Christian M'orld 
 would evidently owe the revelation of the Divine nature, not 
 to Christianity at all, but to Philo and Greek philosophy — 
 
 * See J. J. Tayler on the Fourth Gospel, 2nd cJ., 1870, §§ vii. and xi. 
 
172 DE. liddon's account 
 
 a consideration which ought to be a fatal objection to the ordi- 
 nary view of this subject with all who receive Christianity 
 as a divine revelation. In the presence, too, of so strong a 
 disharmony between John and the synoptics, it would be very 
 safe to say that the fourth Evangelist must, sooner or later, be 
 looked upon as the less credible witness in the inquiry as to 
 the person and work of Christ. 
 
 In accordance, however, with the foregoing exposition, this 
 Evangelist's evidence as to the character and influence of 
 Christ is of equal weight and compass with that of the syn- 
 optics. It follows also that the various expressions in which 
 St. John's idea of the relation between Christ and God is 
 conveyed should receive careful consideration, and should have 
 due importance attached to them. A few of these, not as yet 
 adequately noticed, will now come before us. 
 
 In the first place, let us observe that the account we have 
 given of the conception of the Logos is in essential harmony 
 with that of Dr. Liddon, although the conclusions we have 
 drawn are so different from his. This will be seen from 
 the following passage, which contains probably as good a de- 
 scription of the Logos idea as it is possible to give in so few 
 words : " St. John's doctrine of the Logos has from the first 
 been scrutinized anxiously by the mind of Christendom. It 
 could not but be felt that the term Logos denotes at the very 
 least something intimately and everlastingly present with 
 God, something as internal to the Being of God as thought is 
 to the soul of man. In truth, the Divine Logos is God reflected 
 in His own eternal Thought ; in the Logos, God is His own 
 Object. This Infinite Thought, the reflection and counterpart 
 of God, subsisting in God as a Being or Hypostasis, and having 
 a tendency to self-conmiunication — such is the Logos. The 
 Logos is the Thotight of God, not intermittent and precarious 
 like human thought, but subsisting with the intensity of a 
 jjersonal form. The very expression seems to court the argu- 
 
OF THE LOCOS DOCTRINE. 173 
 
 ment of Athenagoras, that since God could never have been 
 aXoyoe, the Logos must have been, not created, but eternal. 
 It suggests the further inference, that since reason is man's 
 noblest faculty, the Uncreated Logos must be at least equal 
 
 with God But was the Logos then an independent being, 
 
 existing externally to the One God? To conceive of an incle- 
 pcndent'hcing, anterior to creation, would he an error at issue 
 with the first truth of monotheism ; and therefore Gtcc riv 6 
 Aoyoe. The Word is not merely a Divine Being, but He is in 
 the absolute sense God."* 
 
 Now these statements are doubtless substantially correct ; 
 and they clearly amount to the Evangelist's proposition that 
 the Logos was God. The Logos, as we have formerly seen, and 
 as Dr. Liddon here expressly says, is " the thought of God :'" 
 "subsisting in God," he adds, "as a Being or Hypostasis." 
 What is meant by these extraordinary words ? What can they 
 mean, except that the Logos, being simply " the thought of 
 God," was yet .speculatively conceived of and reprt'.sented as " a 
 being or hypo.stasis"? Dr. Liddon cannot surely intend to 
 speak of the Divine mind as containing " a being or hypos- 
 tasis"? — or to affirm that the Divine "thought" was some- 
 thing personal, otherwise than by a kind of poetical licence of 
 conception? His words, therefore, so fur as tliey have a defi- 
 nite sense, mean that the Logos was no other than the thought 
 of the Divine mind ; and this, within the limits which we 
 have formerly pointed out, we conceive to be a true account 
 of it. It plainly follows, that the Logos was eternal, — in 
 accordance with the self-evident proposition quoted by Dr. 
 Liddon, that " God could never have been ixKoyoq." It follows 
 also that " the uncreated Logos must be at least equal with 
 God." It could not well be more. The simple truth is better 
 stated in the Evangelist's own words, Kai 9eoc i)v 6 Aoyoc : — the 
 
 * Liddon, B.L., pp. 223, 229. We b;ive emphasised the more important 
 admissions in this passage. 
 
174 DR. liddon's account 
 
 Logos was really God Himself, in His outward manifestation 
 by the words and deeds of the human Christ. 
 
 In another passage Dr. Liddon speaks of the terms Word 
 and Son as "metaphors."* This, doubtless, they are essen- 
 tially ; but, as he thinks, they counterbalance and correct each 
 other. " Each metaphor reinforces, supplements, and protects 
 the other."-f- It may be asked, Can any combination of two 
 "metaphors" make up a "personal subsistence distinct from 
 that of the Father," such as Dr. Liddon claims for the " Son- 
 Word"? And how can that which the Word, according to 
 Dr. Liddon himself, really denotes, namely, the "Eternal 
 Thought or Eeason," be taken in any rational sense whatever 
 as a separate " personal subsistence," so as to be conceived of 
 and worshiped as a distinct being under a different name, as 
 a second and co-equal God ? For if the eternal Thought or 
 Eeas( n be thus taken, as it were, from the Father, and re- 
 garded as a separate being, what is there left to the Divine 
 mind itself? This most weighty question, we venture to say, 
 is not duly considered by Dr. Liddon. The statement of it is 
 in effect, a virtual refutation of this part of the orthodox 
 scheme, according to Dr. Liddon's exposition of it ; and, until 
 a satisfactory reply can be furnished, will it not be best to 
 adhere very closely to the words of the Christian Master, and 
 to remember still that with him, as with Moses of old, the 
 "first of all the commandments" includes the proposition that 
 " the Lord our God is One Lord"? 
 
 We have formerly seen that the Evangelist, by his mode of 
 speaking, probably guards against the possibility of being sup- 
 posed to imperil his monotheistic faith. " The Father" is 
 everywhere supreme, the true original source of power and 
 
 * B.L., p. 234. It will not be forgotten that Dr. Liddon has formerly urged 
 that Jesus Christ is the Son in a "natural sense." Here he tells us, "Son" is 
 a metaphor. The latter is essentially the truth, but is the one statement con- 
 sistent with the other ? 
 
 t Liddon, B.L., p. 235. 
 
OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 175 
 
 thought even to the incarnate Logos. " The words which ye 
 hear are not mine, but the Father's which sent me :" and the 
 works which Christ does are equally by the power of the 
 Father. "My Father is greater than I" — Logos incarnate 
 though he was ; and we know that the Evangelist depicts him, 
 in solemn and private prayer, as addressing the Heavenly 
 Father as "the Only True God." In reference to such expres- 
 sions, Dr. Liddon justly observes that it would have been 
 something strange and monstrous to represent a mere man 
 as saying of the Infinite, "My Father is greater than I." 
 We fully assent to the remark. Nor does the Evangelist say 
 this of any ordinary man. He says it of one whom, for the 
 moment, he conceives of as the Christ, by virtue of the indwell- 
 ing in him of the divine Logos. He, therefore, in effect, gives 
 us to understand, that even the Logos, conceived of as come 
 forth from God and present in Christ, is less than the Father, 
 subordinate to the Father, from whom he is come. 
 
 In this way of speaking, it may be urged, is there not some 
 degree of inconsistency on the part of the Evangelist, espe- 
 cially if he says, in the first verse of his Gospel, that the 
 Logos is God Himself? For in that case, does he not, in one 
 sentence, represent the Logos as no other than God — therefore, 
 of course, equal with God, and to be honoured as God ; and 
 in another, does he not speak of it as if it were a separate 
 being present in the person of Jesus, and inferior to the Father; 
 the latter, again, being in another passage the "only true 
 God," whom the true worshipers are to worship "in spirit and 
 in truth"? Such questions may without doubt be asked ; for 
 difficulties of this kind appear to be inherent in the subject ; 
 and they are certainly not relieved by " hypostatizing" the 
 Logos into a divine person, the second and co-equal member 
 of a triple Godhead. 
 
 In the next place, it is observable that Dr. Liddon fails to 
 distinguish sufficiently between the Logos, conceived to be in 
 
170 DE. liddon's account 
 
 Jesus, and the person of the latter. He says, for example : 
 "Taking the prologue of St. John's Gospel in connection with 
 the verses which immediately succeed it, let us observe that 
 St. John attaches to our Lord's Person two names which 
 together yield a complete revelation of His Divine glory. Our 
 Lord is called the 'Word' and the 'Only-begotten Son.'"* 
 
 Now this statement, we apprehend, is far from correct. The 
 Evangelist evidently does not attach to "our Lord's person" 
 the name " Word ;" what he says is that the " Word became 
 flesh," that is, in Jesus Christ. The Word, he also says, was 
 God (or, a God) ; but he nowhere says that Jesus Christ was 
 personally God ; nor does he anywhere even term Jesus the 
 Word, that is to say, apply the term Word to him in place of 
 his own proper name. Even in the exclamation of Thomas, 
 " My Lord and my God," we may, as before noticed, under- 
 stand the appellation "Lord" to be addressed to the human 
 Jesus (who is often termed Lord in the New Testament), and 
 the appellation " God" to the Logos, present in him — such 
 being the Evangelist's conception. 
 
 The same oversight occurs more than once on the part of 
 Dr. Liddon. Thus he asks, " How can we account for St. 
 John's conduct in representing him as God, if he was in truth 
 only man?" — and he afterwards speaks of the exaggeration 
 which it would have been, on the part of the Evangelist, to 
 transform " a human friend into the Almighty and Everlasting 
 God."-f- The reply is, that St. John does not do so. He no- 
 wdiere represents Jesus Christ as personally God ; or gives us 
 to think that he designed to transform a "human friend" into 
 Almighty God. This is what Dr. Liddon, in obedience to 
 orthodox necessities, does for him. What the Evangelist says 
 is this, that the Logos was God (or a God), and "became flesh" 
 in Jesus of Nazareth, speaking and acting in and through him, 
 — even as St. Paul also, in one instance, says that " God was 
 
 * B.L., p. 226. t Ihid., pp. 268, 269. 
 
OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 177 
 
 in Christ," — and as, again, the Holy Spirit itself is elsewhere 
 said to be in human agents, and to act and speak in and 
 through them. And yet no one ever conceives that these 
 human agents are represented, by any New Testament writer, 
 as transformed into Almighty God, by virtue of that presence 
 in them of the Divine power. 
 
 As we have before seen, Dr. Liddon attaches great import- 
 ance to the expressions " Son," and " only-begotten Son," as 
 applied to Christ ; and he remarks that, in virtue of his 
 " Sonship," the bearer of that title is " a partaker of that in- 
 communicable and imperishable Essence which is sundered 
 from all created life by an impassable chasm." "We have in 
 substance admitted that such a statement may be true of the 
 Logos, conceived of as a personal being. Clearly it might 
 be thus described, by one who was willing to attribute person- 
 ality to it, even by way of " metaphor" only ; and it was also 
 "only-begotten" — there was only one divine Logos. Hence, 
 again, the epithet, which it would appear that even orthodo.x 
 translators are unwilling to repeat in an English version, the 
 epithet "only-begotten God," which is the reading of the 
 Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, and a few others, in John 
 i. 18.* The Nicene Fathers, and the copyists of their century, 
 were evidently less fastidious, or more uncompromisingly 
 orthodox, than modern theologians. 
 
 The word " only-begotten," as used of the Logos, doubtless 
 implied the peculiar and intimate relation to God of which 
 Dr. Liddon speaks. But when either tlie term Son, or the 
 phrase beloved Sun, is used of Jesus Christ in the synop- 
 tics, it designates him simply, as m'c have formerly seen, in 
 liis character of ISIessiah, regarded as pre-eminently the be- 
 loved, the chosen and favoured instrument, of the Almighty 
 Father. Tlic idea of participation in the "incommunicable 
 
 • Dean Alford (Knglish N. T., in Ax-o^, adheres to the okl rendering. Coini>are 
 Liddon, 13. L., p. '2'i\. Tischendorf also iircfere "Son." 
 
 N 
 
178 DE. liddon's account 
 
 Essence" of the Divine ncature, is an idea which most proba- 
 bly never occurred to the first three Evangelists, in connection 
 with Jesus of Nazareth. At least, we shall be very greatly 
 surprised if Dr. Liddon can produce any passage from their 
 narratives in which it appears to have done so.* The word 
 "only-begotteu" is used in reference to Jesus (or rather the 
 Logos) in John alone of the four Gospels, — a fact which is 
 not without significance, as shewing us that the peculiar con- 
 ceptions of the fourfli Evangelist are altogether alien to the 
 others.i" 
 
 The reader may again be reminded that the term Son, in 
 its relation to God, is not applied to Jesus only, for that Chris- 
 tian disciples also are designated by the same term.| Son- 
 ship, therefore, when affirmed of him, cannot necessarily of 
 itself denote participation in the "incommunicable Essence" 
 of which Dr. Liddon speaks. The latter, indeed, himself ac- 
 knowledges it to be probable that many of our Lord's contem- 
 poraries applied the title of Son to him only as an official 
 designation of the Messiah.§ Manifestly they did so, as we 
 have formerly pointed out. The metaphysical use of that title 
 by Christians belongs to a later generation ; and the admission 
 just alluded to virtually concedes the question of meaning 
 — excepting always as regards the fourth Gospel. It shews 
 too, as plainly as need be, that no conclusive argument for 
 the deity of Christ can be founded upon the application to him 
 of the word Son. 
 
 In harmony with the Johannine idea of Sonship as belong- 
 
 * We have before referred to Matt. xi. 27 (Luke x. 22) — a singular verse which 
 looks as if by some chance it had been transferred from the fourth Gospel. Its 
 diiFerence in style and sentiment fi'om the synoptics is very evident. Comp. supra, 
 p. 109. 
 
 + The synoptics have the term "only-begotten," but not in reference to Jesus. 
 It usually expresses the sense of strongly, dearly beloved, as an only child : Luke 
 vii. 12 ; viii. 42 ; ix. 38 : Heb. xi. 17, of Isaac. 
 
 t Matt. V. 45 ; Gal. iv. 5—7 ; 1 John iii. 10. § Liddon, B.L., p. 247. 
 
OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 179 
 
 ing to the Logos, the fourth Evangelist introduces several 
 expressions, which orthodox writers usually consider of great 
 importance as denoting the equality of Jesus Christ with the 
 Divine Father. " All men shall honour the Son even as they 
 honour the Father."* This could evidently be said in reference 
 to the Son (and even to Jesus himself) in his character as the 
 Logos, the manifestation and instrument of God Himself In 
 one instance, however, the reason assigned by the Evangelist 
 is a very significant one. It is that " the Father has committed 
 all judgment unto the Son." Thus the obligation to honour 
 the Son, in the Evangelist's idea, follows upon the representa- 
 tive character which the Father has given to him. 
 
 And this is in harmony with what is found in other places. 
 " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work :" this is said of 
 the miracle whicli had just been done on the sabbath day. The 
 speaker justifies the deed, not merely as one of his working, 
 but by referring it to the Almighty power by which he had 
 performed it. The expression shews, again, that the Evangelist 
 conceived of the power of Christ not as something indepen- 
 dently in him, but as derived from One that was greater than 
 he — here again excluding the idea of a co-equal participation 
 in Divine attributes, such as Dr. Liddon and the Creeds 
 ascribe to him. 
 
 When, on the same occasion, in consequence of what he 
 had just said, the Jews impute to him the intention of 
 "making himself equal with God," he replies in language 
 which strongly disclaims the assumption, and affirms that his 
 power is given to him : "The Son can do nothing of himself." •^ 
 So, in a later verse, the life of the Son is given to him by the 
 Father, — given to him, that is, by virtue of the Divine power 
 conceived to be in him. He adds (v. 30), "I can of mine 
 own self do nothing." The human agent we may here again 
 
 ♦ Li.ldon, B.L., p. 182. See John v. 10—23. 
 t John V. 19, 26 ; comp. vi. 39, 40 ; viii. 28, 29. 
 N 2 
 
180 DE. LIDDONS ACCOUNT 
 
 understand to have spoken ; he couhl only act by the power 
 given him ])y the indwelling energy of God. 
 
 In this exposition, it may indeed be said, there is too much 
 shifting of the personality ; the human Jesns, apparently, 
 sometimes speaking, and sometimes the Logos. This is not 
 to be denied ; and whatever objection it may form to the 
 Evangelist's narrative, or however incompatible it may seem 
 with clearness of ideas, it serves, at all events, to shew iis that 
 there is a certain unreality in the whole representation, — that 
 it is a mode of conception only, not literally corresponding to 
 anything in the relation between Christ and God. In other 
 words, as Dr. Liddon admits, the whole idea of the Logos is 
 a kind of "metaphor." For the peculiarity referred to the 
 modern expositor is in no way responsil:)le. He can only read 
 and interpret the Evangelist's language as it is. 
 
 In one passage of the Gospel the following words occur : 
 "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true 
 God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."* On tliis it 
 has been observed, "The knowledge of God and a creature 
 could not be eternal life." So Dean Alford, quoted approv- 
 ingly by Dr. Liddon. But, in, the first place, the Logos in 
 Jesus is not a creature ; and in the second place, if it be an- 
 swered that it is not here the Logos that speaks, but " Jesus 
 Christ whom thou hast sent ;" still it is evident that the 
 knowledge of Jesus Clnist was, in this mode of conception, 
 the same thing as the knowledge of the divine Logos in him ; 
 and moreover that knowledge, whether it were of the Logos or 
 of the human Jesus in his teaching and works, is "life eternal" 
 by the gift and appointment of God. " What creature," again, 
 it is asked, " could stand before his Creator and say, Glorify 
 me that I may glorify Thee" ? It would certainly be pre- 
 sumptuous in any ordinary creature to say this ; unless, as 
 represented by the Evangelist, the Almighty had so appointed 
 * John xvii. 3 ; B.L., p. 237. 
 
OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 181 
 
 that it should be ; and Jesus declares, in Joim, as in the 
 synoptics, that all his power and wisdom, and the words 
 which he spake, are given to 1dm from above. What might 
 be arrogantly presumptuous in a creature, who sliould speak 
 in his own name and without authority, might be perfectly 
 allowable, in the view of the Evangelist, when all was done 
 by the express appointment of the Almighty Being Himself* 
 
 In conformity with the foregoing remarks, we can follow 
 Dr. Liddon with full assent in nearly the whole of the follow- 
 ina" statement : " The Word incarnate is ever conscious of His 
 sublime relationship to the Father. He knows whence He is. 
 He refers not unfrequcntly to His prc-existent Life. He sees 
 into the deepest purposes of the human hearts around Him. 
 He has a perfect knowledge of all that concerns God. His 
 works are simply the works of God. To believe in the Father 
 i-s to believe in Him. To have seen Him is to have seen the 
 Father. To reject and hate Him is to reject and liate the 
 Father. He demands at the hands of men the same tribute 
 of affection and submission as that which they owe to the 
 Person of the Father." -f 
 
 All this occurs, we need not say, in the fourth Gospel only ; 
 all is in harmony with the conception upon Mdiich that Gos- 
 pel is composed, or is even demanded by it. ]>ut while this 
 is adndtted, it is also true that all such statements as these 
 partake of the essential non-reality, and of the metaphorical 
 character, which attaches to the Logos conception ; — which 
 attaches to it, as being in truth only an accidental and tem- 
 porary mode of expressing the relation between God and 
 Christ, and between God and the world. 
 
 Dr. Liddon insists upon the importance of the expression of 
 our Lord, "I and my Father are one.":]: But the Logos could 
 
 * John xi. 21, 22 ; xvii. G— 9 ; Matt. ix. 8 ; xxviii. 18 ; Luke xxil. 42, 43. 
 
 t Li.Idon, B.L., p. 236. 
 
 + Jolin X. 31. See a similar exi)res.«ioii in 1 Cor. iii. 8. 
 
182 DR. liddon's account 
 
 speak thus with peculiar force and truth ; although it may be 
 that what is expressed is simply the idea of oneness of design, 
 co-operation and affection, on the part of the human Jesus. 
 The Jews, indeed, as we read in the same place, " took up 
 stones to stone him," on account of this declaration of his 
 oneness with God. They chose to consider it blasphemous, 
 and alleged again that he, being a man, made himself God. 
 But he immediately shews them that this was an unfounded 
 accusation. He, the man Jesus, had not intended to make 
 himself God, even though he may have meant to imply that 
 the divine Logos in him was one with God. All that he 
 claimed for his human personality was the character of one to 
 whom the word of God came : " If he called them gods," he 
 says, " unto whom the word of God came" .... say ye of me 
 that I blaspheme when I called myself, not God, but simply 
 the Son of God?* 
 
 It is observed by Dr. Liddon, that " if our Lord had been, 
 in reality, only man, he might have been fairly expected to 
 say so." But, plainly, to the Evangelist's idea he could not 
 have been " only man," and could not be expected to say so. 
 He constantly sjDeaks, according to this Evangelist's represen- 
 tation, not only for himself, but for the Logos in him ; or 
 rather he had so to speak as to reconcile the claims of both ; 
 and this the Evangelist represents him as doing. Any diffi- 
 culty or inconsistency involved in the mode in which this is 
 done is not of the reader's making. It is inherent in the 
 nature of the subject, in the original plan according to which 
 this Gospel is constructed. 
 
 Once more. Dr. Liddon cites the passage in which our Lord 
 appears to speak of himself as " in heaven," even while pre- 
 sent upon earth, and refers to it as an illustration of the two 
 spheres of existence which belonged to him as "both God 
 and man." That he speaks of himself as having come down 
 
 * John X. 34 — 36. Conip. Psalm Ixxxii. 1, 6, and similar O.T. expressions. 
 
OP THE LOGOS DOCTEINE. 183 
 
 from heaven appears to be certain.* Such expressions are 
 found exclusively in John, and are in harmony, we may add, 
 as before, with the leading idea of the Gospel. The Logos, for 
 which Jesus so often speaks, or which, as we may also say, so 
 often speaks through him, had come down from heaven ; " be- 
 came flesh" in him. But the words expressing that he was 
 in heaven " while yet speaking" to Nicodemus, are well known 
 to be, in one sense, of a doubtful character. Are they not 
 parenthetical ? The fourth Evangelist is fond of parenthesis.-^ 
 The words, " the Son of man, which is in heaven," or perhaps 
 even the entire verse, may therefore be a parenthetical addi- 
 tion, affirming the existence of the risen Christ in heaven, not 
 when Jesus was speaking to Nicodenms, but when the Evan- 
 gelist was writing. Certainly it comes too near to pure 
 paradox, and puts too great a strain upon Christian faith, to 
 represent him as saying that he was in heaven while he was 
 conversing with Nicodemus. If this were the meaning, the 
 latter must be admitted to have received the announcement 
 very calmly ; while yet we are told that he had only learnt 
 to consider Jesus as " a teacher come from God," for that no 
 man could do the miracles which he had done, " unless God 
 were with him.":}: 
 
 Before closing the present Chapter, we may briefly notice 
 an expression in the Book of Acts, to which Dr. Liddon attri- 
 butes a surprising degree of importance. It is the verse in 
 which God is said to have purchased the church " with his 
 own blood." § It should, however, be noted, that the manu- 
 script authority for this expression is certainly doubtful, or 
 rather, insufficient ; and that some of the best manuscripts 
 read " church of the Lord," that is to say, of Jesus Christ.|| 
 It is indeed true that the two reputed to be the oldest, the 
 
 • Jolin vi. 33, 38. t For example, iii. 23, 24 ; iv. 2, 8 ; vii. 39 ; ix. 7. 
 
 * John iii. 2. § Acts xx. 28. B.L., p. 325. 
 II So Tischendorf, in his 8tli td. 
 
ISi JESUS THE SPIRITUAL CHRIST. 
 
 Sinaitic and the Vatican, read " clinrch of God ;" but, on the 
 other hand, those documents are stated by the highest critical 
 authority to come down from the fourth century, a period of 
 intense controversy respecting the person of Christ, and one 
 in which it was decreed by a council that he is " God of God." 
 The "blood" of "God" may. have been a bearable expression 
 to the Bishops and Fathers who assembled at Nictea. It is 
 most probable that the nineteenth century mhII increasingly 
 revolt from it, and come at last to see that even the authority 
 of the two oldest manuscripts is insufficient to justify its 
 acceptance. It is not to be forgotten that the Alexandrine, 
 and other excellent manuscripts of the fifth and later cen- 
 turies, which have the reading " Lord," must have copied this 
 word from documents still older than themselves. There can 
 be no doubt as to the tendency of the fourth century to sub- 
 stitute the more orthodox term.* 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 JESUS THE SPIRITUAL CHRIST — CHRISTIAN FAITH — JUSTIFICA- 
 TION BY FAITH. 
 
 According to various statements of the Evangelical history, 
 Jesus accepted the title of the Clirist, given to him by his 
 followers.-f- It is clear, liowever, that he did not assume the 
 character implied in it in the popular acceptation, — that, 
 namel}-, of a temporal or political leader of his people. It is 
 reasonable, indeed, to suppose that what he said on tins sub- 
 ject, as on some others, has not reached us entirely unaffected 
 by the peculiar medium through which it has been transmit- 
 
 * The Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS. are also the chief MSS. which read "only 
 begotten Grod" in John i. 18. A similar influence, we may conjecture, prevailed 
 in their preference of this expression : comp. infra, Chap. XIX. 
 
 t JIatt. xvi. 16, 17; Luke vii. 19— 2o; John iv. 25, 26. 
 
HIS CLAIM TO BE MESSIAH. 185 
 
 ted to US. But if, as it is fair to do, we may judge from what 
 appear to be the liighest and most characteristic sayings of 
 Jesus, it is easy to learn that he did not profess to be a tem- 
 poral ]\Iessiah, that he did not M'ish to make himself a king, 
 in the ordinary sense of this term ; that the kingdom which 
 he was founding was not of this world.* The same thing is 
 evident from the general strain of his teaching and the reli- 
 gious spirit of his life. 
 
 ]\Iost probably, nevertheless, the early disciples looked upon 
 their INfaster as Christ in their own sense, supposing that his 
 lowly condition was only temporary, or assumed for special 
 purposes ; and that he would eventually claim for himself the 
 anticipated glory and power of him that was to come. 
 
 Traces of this popular belief will be familiar to the atten- 
 tive reader of the Gospels. But such hopes Jesus did not 
 encourage. He in fact repressed them, so far as he could 
 without actually repelling his adherents from him.f Yet 
 he allowed them to regard him as the Christ, and on some 
 occasions he claimed this character, as at his trial. He knew 
 and felt himself to be the Son of God by genuine ties of spi- 
 ritual affinity, as well as by virtue of the Divine protection 
 and favour ; while yet he knew too that the radical dilference 
 between his own ideas on the subject and those of the people 
 around him would eventually lead to his rejection and death. 
 He did not, on that account, shrink from the task which he had 
 undertaken, which was no less than to purify and spiritualize 
 the ancient religion of his nation. Nor was it limited to this. 
 1 le had an ulterior object of still greater magnitude. He sought 
 to gather into his fold "other sheep" besides those of the race 
 of Israel ; and doubtless he contemplated the time when the 
 whole world should be regenerated by the influence of his life 
 and doctrine.^ 
 
 • Matt. XX. 20—28 ; Luke xxii. 24—30 ; ix. 22, 44 ; John xviii. 36. 
 
 t Matt. XX. 17—28; Mark viii. 29—34; Luke xii. 13—21. 
 
 t .Mark iv. 30—32 ; Matt. xiii. 31—33 ; xxii. 10 ; xxviii. 19 ; John xii. 24, 32. 
 
186 JESUS THE SPIKITUAL CHRIST : 
 
 And the moral and spiritual qualities of Jesus are worthy 
 of the exalted character which he thus assumed, — worthy of 
 it both in its relation to God, and in its relation to man. His 
 humility, devoutness, submission, and filial trust towards the 
 Almighty Father, are everywhere conspicuous ; as are his 
 untiring beneficence, the righteousness and purity of his spiiit, 
 his love and pity towai-ds sinful men. Such qualities as these 
 shine forth in all that he says and does ; constituting him in 
 truth, for all time to come, the Christ, the Anointed King in 
 things spiritual, the Light and Saviour of mankind. For 
 eighteen centuries past he has thus stood before the world ; 
 and for untold centuries to come, so shall he stand, the true 
 Son of God and Son of man. 
 
 This lofty spiritual position of Jesus the Christ involves a 
 further relationship to his followers of the highest importance. 
 He is their Example. This is duly brought forward in the 
 New Testament, especially by St. Paul, in several familiar 
 instances.* Dr. Liddon too speaks very earnestly of certain 
 commanding features of the moral character of Christ. He 
 was sincere, he was humble, he was unselfish ; and the ques- 
 tion is asked, " What becomes of these integral features of his 
 
 character if we should go on to deny that he was God?"-|- 
 
 But may it not be asked, in reply. What becomes of them, if 
 we should affirm that he was God? Can God be humble? 
 Can He be unselfish, in the sense of sacrificing Himself, or in 
 any intelligible sense whatever? Is it not unworthy of Him, 
 to speak of Him as even sincere, implying, as this does, the 
 possibility of the contrary ? 
 
 And when our Lord exemplified these and other excellent 
 moral and human qualities, was he merely acting a part which 
 had no reality in it ? The example of Christ, be it remembered, 
 is held up to his disciples in the New Testament, as something 
 
 * Rom. xiii. 14; Ephes. iv. 13; Coloss. iii. 13; Philip, ii. 5; 1 Pet. ii. 21. 
 t Liddon, B. L., p. 195. 
 
THE GKEAT EXAMPLE. 187 
 
 which is to sustain and comfort them, and which they are to 
 strive to imitate. But what sustaining or comforting power 
 could his career have for us, on the supposition of the truth of 
 the popular view of his person ? Would the example of a 
 superhuman being have, in this sense, moral value for frail, 
 suffering, tempted man ? If in the joerson of Jesus there were 
 hidden a Divine nature, the exhaustless energies of God, how 
 should we be told to take courage from what we see in Him ; 
 to " follow his steps ;" to forgive as he forgave ; to be patient 
 and endure, to be lowly and considerate for others, even be- 
 cause he did so and was so ? The infinite power of God, 
 present in the one case, is absent in the other ; and how should 
 a frail, sinful, ignorant creature, like man, take courage from 
 the sight of one who was neither frail, nor liable to sin, nor 
 ignorant, nor tempted as we are ? How should mortal man 
 hope, or be expected, to do that to which even an Almighty 
 being, as it would appear,* proved hardly equal ? 
 
 Thus, the example of a God enduring could scarcely help us, 
 or encourage us to hope that we might stand fast. On the 
 other hand, the example of one " at all points tempted like as 
 we are and yet without siu,"-|- the example of one "like unto 
 his brethren," in the essential strength or weakness of his 
 nature, yet bravely, patiently, bearing and submitting — this 
 would have a moral value for us, and might aid us to go and 
 do likewise. From such a siglit we might take courage, feel- 
 ing assured that what one of our number was equal to, could 
 not be beyond the reach, or imitation, of any faithful servant 
 of God. 
 
 Surely therefore this part of Dr. Liddon's argument conspi- 
 cuously fails ; and just in the same dijgree in which lie succeeds 
 in proving that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, he destroys 
 the value of his moral example, and takes away meaning and 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 39 ; Luke xxii. 42, 43. 
 
 t Heb. iv. 15. Oomp. John xx. 17, wliere Jesus sj)eaks of his disciples as his 
 "brethren." 
 
188 JESUS THE SPIRITUAL CHRIST. 
 
 force from some of the most cogent and fruitful exhortations of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 In accordance with the conclusion that Jesus claimed to be 
 the spiritual Christ, and is now to be received in that character 
 by his disciples, is the idea derivable from the New Testament 
 as to the nature of Christian faith. This, in the primitive 
 cliurch, was indisputably faith in Jesus, not as God, but as 
 Christ. There is no instance producible from the New Testa- 
 ment in which faith of the former kind can be plausibly held 
 to have been meant by the language employed. The word 
 Christian itself is at once evidence and illustration of this. 
 " The disciples," we are told, " were called Christians, first at 
 Antioch."* That is to say, they were called Christ-inns ; they 
 took their name from the circumstance that they received Jesus 
 as Christ. 
 
 This is entirely in harmony with what we know of the early 
 position of the Gospel. The great controversy, between the 
 Jews and the disciples of those times, turned upon the question 
 whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the expected Messiah, 
 That he was so, Paul after his conversion zealously preached. 
 Where is there any indication to be found, in all the recorded 
 addresses of this Apostle, that he ever preached that Jesus was 
 God? His conversion, in truth, regarded as an intellectual 
 change, consisted simply in this — that, having been a denier 
 of the Messiahship of Jesus, and a persecutor of those who 
 asserted it, he had now himself become a believer in it.-f- To 
 prove the same thing, the fourth Gospel was written, as the 
 Evanselist himself informs us at the close of his twentieth 
 chapter ; and the same proposition that Jesus was Christ,:}: but 
 
 * Acts ix. 9. 
 
 + Acts ix. 22. The statement made above is true of the other instances of 
 "conversion" in the New Testament. They are very different, therefore, from the 
 so-called conversions of a Methodist chapel in our own day. 
 
 t The admission of Dr. Liddon has been already noted, to the effect that the 
 Christ expected by the Jews was a "human" Christ. There is nothing to shew 
 that Paul ever spoke to those whom he addressed of a divine Christ, in the now 
 orthodox sense of these words. Siipra, p. 107. 
 
CHRISTIAN FAITH. 189 
 
 never that he was God, St. Paul frequently assert.s or implies, 
 throughout his Epistles, as the one foundation on which alone 
 the Christian can rest.* 
 
 By such faith, the Apostle further said, a man is "justified." 
 The full meaning and controversial bearing of this expression 
 will be seen more at length in a subsequent Chapter. For the 
 present it will be enough to observe, that what the Apostle so 
 earnestly Avrites respecting justification by faith alone was 
 occasioned by the feelings of his countrymen in reference to 
 the heathen world of his time, and finds its true interpretation 
 only in connection with those feelings. In the judgment of 
 Paul,-f- no living man could be accounted righteous. All men 
 were " under sin" before God, " by nature children of wrath,":J: 
 and unfit to enter into the kingdom of His Son. This was true 
 of the Jew as well as of the Gentile. But the Almighty Father 
 was "rich in mercy." He would not puni.sh the world as it 
 lay in its sins ; but, says the Scripture in various places, " he 
 sent his Son," even allowed the "beloved Son" Jesus, the 
 Christ though he was, to " empty himself" and be poor, to live 
 a life of lowliness and shame, without the glories naturally 
 attaching to the Messianic oftice,§ allowed the beloved Son to 
 stoop even to the pain and ignominy of the cross, that he might 
 call men from their sins, and give tliem time for repentance 
 before his second and final coming to judge the world. Those, 
 then, who would profit by this respite, who now received him 
 as Christ, or in other words who had Faith in him, and became 
 his disciples and took his name upon them, and followed in his 
 
 * For example, Rom. i. 3, 4 ; iii. 22; x. 9; xi. 20, 23; 1 Cor. iii. 11; Gal. 
 ii. 16 ; Philip, i. 29 ; iii. 9. 
 
 + Rom. ii. iii. 
 
 J It has formerly hcen noticed that these words do not refer to any notion of an 
 hereditary depravity which, in the Apostle's idea, made mankind liable to piinisli- 
 ment, but simply to the positive transy;ressioi)s of the Gentile (or natural) state by 
 which the Ephesians had become guilty. Sit^ra, p. 20, note on Ephes. ii. 3. 
 
 § 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Philip, ii. 6—8. 
 
190 JESUS THE SPIKITUAL CHRIST. 
 
 steps, they, notwithstanding past sins, would be treated as if 
 they were righteous before the Law ; — provided always that 
 they would henceforth live iu faithful allegiance to their spi- 
 ritual king, waiting for the coming of " the day of the Lord."* 
 To such persons, Jew and Gentile alike, God in His mercy 
 would not impute past sins ; but would impute to them the 
 " righteousness of God," througli faith ; and such persons would 
 be justified " without the deeds of the law," and in spite of its 
 condemnation.-f- 
 
 Such statements, called forth, as will be seen, by the strong 
 Jewish antipathy towards the Gentiles, applied primarily and 
 solely to the world as it was in the days of the Apostle. They 
 express, it is true, in one important point, a belief which has 
 not been verified, and which, as time has shewn, required to 
 be corrected by the lessons of experience.^ But they shew us 
 also what, in the Apostle's conception, was the Divine method 
 of "justification by faith." 
 
 Yet even so, St. Paul's own Epistles exhibit another and a 
 better way, and one which for all time to come was to prove 
 the real and true way. The justification or righteousness 
 attainable by the Christian disciple, apart from the contro- 
 versies about the Law, and after the Law had ceased to be of 
 importance, was, and is still, to be dependent, in the most 
 essential degree, upon his own conduct. It is no matter of 
 mere imputation. It is not another person's righteousness that 
 God accounts as ours, or reckons in some way to our credit ; 
 but it is, in the Apostle's words, " patient continuance in well 
 doins ;" it is a Christ-like life of obedience to all that the Law 
 of God, expressed in our highest sense of duty, requires from 
 us ; this faithful practical obedience it is which will be accept- 
 
 * 1 Cor. i. 7; xv. 23, seq.; 1 Thess. iii. 13; iv. 15, seq. 
 
 t Rom. iii. 20—31. 
 
 t The allusion here is to the belief in the second coming of Christ, on which see 
 more particularly, infra, Chap. XXVII. 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 191 
 
 able to God, and win for the disciple the " glovy, honour and 
 peace" of the " eternal life."* 
 
 Numerous expressions in the Pauline Epistles, including 
 whole chapters towards the close of some of them,f justify and 
 require this exposition of the faith which " worketh by love," 
 the faith which is not in itself " the greatest," but is surpassed 
 by Charity. Hence the Apostle might well ask, " Do we then 
 
 make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we 
 
 establish the law ;" because faith in the Christ, as he contem- 
 plated it, while it admitted to discipleship, and by God's mercy 
 secured forgiveness of past sins to those of whom and to whom 
 the Apostle was writing, yet in no way dispenses with future 
 obedience ; but requires the Christian still, in the spirit of true 
 discipleship, to follow Christ, and by seeking to present him- 
 self as a "living sacrifice" to God, to gain the Divine blessing 
 both for this world and the next. 
 
 Thus, again, is learnt what sort of righteousness it is which 
 a true faith in Christ will produce. " By their fruits ye shall 
 know them," says the Master himself ; and it is easy to under- 
 stand how and why one who has this practical faith need 
 not trouble himself about the righteousness which comes by 
 " works," or " deeds of the law" of Moses ; by ritualistic observ- 
 ances of any kind, by assent to human creeds, or submission 
 to priestly authority. From all these "beggarly elements" 
 the Christian is now released, o,r he may be so, if he will. 
 Christ is the " end of the law for righteousness," the end and 
 fulfilment of the law of mere form and ceremony, to every one 
 that believes on him with a true faith of self-denial and prac- 
 tical obedience. 
 
 * Roin. ii. 6, seq. 
 
 t Rom xii. ; 1 Cor. xiii. ; Gal. iv. v. vi. ; Philip, iv. ; Coloss. iii. 
 
192 cheist's humiliation and glory 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE HUMILIATION AND THE GLORY OF THE CHRIST IN THE 
 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 The Messianic exaltation of Jesus took effect, in the con- 
 templation of the New Testament writers, throngh and from 
 his death ; that is to say, it attached to him in the spiritual 
 state to which the cross had been the way of admission. It is 
 frequently alluded to, and usually in such a manner as to shew 
 us that the sacred authors conceived of it as conferred upon 
 him, in consequence of obedience and submission. This they 
 sometimes express in terms which entirely forbid the idea that 
 lie who had received it was himself Supreme God. "We see 
 this distinctly even in the first Gospel. Immediately after his 
 resurrection, Jesus commands his followers to go forth and 
 teach the nations, and to baptize them into the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And he intro- 
 duces this command by a reference to tlie authority by which 
 he gave it : " All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
 earth ; go ye, therefore, and teach all nations."* 
 
 Similarly, St. Paul, to whose representation we have now 
 more especially to attend, says that Jesus was of the " seed of 
 David according to the flesh." He was a Jew by natural birth ; 
 but he was declared to be the " Son of God," or Messiah, " by 
 the resurrection from the dead."-|- The Apostle does not say, 
 either here or elsewhere, that he was declared or shewn to be 
 the Son of God by his miraculous birth, or that he was so by 
 virtue of liis pre-existent nature, or on account of his inherent 
 deity, as the second person of a Divine Trinity. The Apostle 
 
 * Matt, xxviii. 18, 19: the word "therefore," in v. 19, is perhaps interpolated ; 
 but it is of ancient origin, and truly corresponds to the primitive idea of the derived 
 character of the power of Christ. On tlie meaning of this verse, see Appendix to 
 Ch. IX. 
 
 t Rom. i. 3, 4. 
 
IN ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES. 193 
 
 nowhfere says this, or anything like this ; hut simply that 
 Jesus was " declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection 
 from the dead :" he was thus shewn to be the true ^lessiah. 
 
 This statement throws light on what is found in another 
 place, namely, that God " sent forth his Son born of a woman, 
 born under the law."* The Messiah came, not an angel or a 
 god, not a personage of exalted station and power, as had been 
 expected by many, but a man of ordinary human birth, a 
 Jew, under the law of his people. This was so, we elsewhere 
 learn, in order that his ministry might, in the first instance, 
 be addressed especially to those that were under the law ; and 
 that he might also, through his death and resurrection, become 
 the spiritual Christ, as more fully x^ointed out in the preced- 
 ing Chapter. 
 
 The surpassing importance of the resurrection, in the mind 
 of Paul, is further seen where he states that if Christ be not 
 risen, faith in him is vain ; and again, where he even identifies 
 Christian faith with the belief in the resurrection. In both 
 cases, he lets us clearly see that Jesus was raised up, not by 
 his own power, but by the power of God.-}- 
 
 It was a wonderful thing, however, to the Apostle's mind, 
 that the Messiah should have come in so humble a form. 
 According to all previous expectation, he ought to have been 
 greater and higher than any Roman emperor, or other earthly 
 potentate ; but this his proper Messianic greatness he had 
 renounced. He " was poor," and " humbled himself," taking 
 " the form of a slave," and being " found in fashion as a man."| 
 But while this is said respecting him, there is nothing to shew 
 that such expressions ought to be understood of a pre-existent 
 participation in the " iucommuuicable essence" of God. The 
 reference implied is simply to that exalted condition which, in 
 
 * Gal. iv. 4 ; coinp. Job xiv. 1 ; xxv. 4. 
 
 t Rom. X. 8, 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 14—17; comp. Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 14. 
 t 2 Cor. viii. 9 ("lie was poor"); Philip, ii. 7, 8. 
 
 
 
194 chkist's humiliation and glory 
 
 Jewish estimation, naturally and of right belonged to the Mes- 
 siah's office. Of this the Apostle conceives that our Lord had 
 deprived and emptied himself to suffer and die ; as it was 
 necessary that he should do, in order that he might enter 
 upon his proper Messianic exaltation by the resurrection from 
 the dead. Even when the Apostle terms him the " Lord of 
 glory" (or glorious Lord), and the "image of God,"* there is 
 nothing to shew that he uses these words in any other sense 
 than that of which we are now speaking, in reference, namely, 
 to the risen and glorified state of the once lowly and despised 
 Jesus. 
 
 It is clearly, then, unnecessary, to say the least, to construe 
 the expressions in question, and others like them, as implying 
 or relating to the Godhead of Christ.-f- For how, it may be 
 asked, could he have emptied himself of his Godhead ? And 
 moreover, as must now be more particularly observed, there is 
 no real instance in St. Paul's Epistles in which Jesus is termed 
 God. In two cases in the English version he appears to be so. 
 But they are both of such a character that no reliance what- 
 ever can be placed upon them, as evidence for the popular 
 belief on the subject. 
 
 The first of the instances referred to occurs in Eom. ix. 5, of 
 which the common English rendering is this : — " Whose are 
 the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, 
 who is God over all, blessed for ever." But the value and 
 aptness of these words, as evidence in the present discussion, 
 depend entirely upon their punctuation. The reader will re- 
 member that the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament 
 are without stops, and that it is not always clear what stop 
 
 * 1 Cor. ii. 8 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Col. i. 15. 
 
 + Comp. Liddon, B. L. p. 310, seq. Here it is asked, "From what did Christ 
 condescend ?" The answer is given above. It may be noted also that Christ is not 
 usually said to " condescend," in the New Testament. He is more commonly spoken 
 of as exalted and glorified, especially in the Pauline writings; — e.g. Ephes. i. 10, 
 20, 21 ; Philip, ii. 10. 
 
IN ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES. 195 
 
 should be used, or whether any at all. Accordingly, this verse 
 may be divided and rendered thus : — " Whose are the fathers, 
 and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came. God who is 
 over all is blessed for ever." Such is the rendering of Professor 
 Jowett,* and it is hardly necessary to add that the authority 
 of the Greek Professor at Oxford is not a light one in a ques- 
 tion of this kind. It is in fact amply sufficient to satisfy an 
 unlearned reader both as to the moaning of tlie words, and as 
 to the admissibility of this mode of punctuation. The earnest- 
 ness with which Dr. Liddon defends the common rendering is 
 easily understood. But surely even he cannot hold it to be 
 imperative thus to construe the words in question, in the face 
 of the testimony to the contrary given by such witnesses as 
 those mentioned in the note. 
 
 * Epistles of St. Paul, ad loc. Among those who adopt the same punctuation 
 are the eminent critical autliorities, Lachmann and Tischendorf, in their respective 
 editions of the N. T. De Wette and Bunsen translate in accordance with it. In 
 the version of the latter, Prof. Holzniann, the writer and editor of this part of 
 Bunsen's great " Bibelwerk," expressly observes, "These words are not to be refer- 
 red to Christ, but to God, to whom the Apostle, after recounting the privileges of 
 I.'^rael, ascribes praise as their author and bestower." Similar doxologies occur, 
 Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. xi. 31; Gal. i. 5 ; 1 Tim. i. 17. The words in Horn. ix. 5 
 may be rendered, " God who is over all he blessed for evei-." 
 
 The German commentator Meyer, perhaps the highest living authority on a point 
 of this kind, while himself a believer in the deity of Christ, maintains that the 
 doxology cannot be referred to Christ, but to God only. St. Paul, he reminds us, 
 has never applied the term Oioq to Christ, although, as Meyer holds, he might have 
 done so, in accordance with his own belief. On the contrary, the line of distinction 
 between the Father and the Son is so observed throughout the N. T. that the apj)el- 
 lation God is everywhere applied only to the Father, except in two instances (duly 
 considered in these pages), namely, John i. 1, xx. 28, both of which occur in imme- 
 diate connection with the Logos idea. This learned commentator further notices 
 that it was not until after the apostolical times that the distinction just alluded to 
 disappeared, and that the words o 9i6q, 6 Oiog riftutv, and similar expressions, 
 were used of Christ. 
 
 The argument for the common rendering, so urgently repeated by Dr. Liddon, 
 from the position in the sentence of the word ivXoytjrog (blessed), h;i3 evidently 
 no weight with the German theologian. Indeed, a natural emphasis belongs to 
 the fact that the author of the enumerated privileges of the Israelites was the 
 Almighty Being and no other. The words designating Him stand, therefore, first, 
 — as occurs in a similar doxology, in the Septuagint rendering of Ps. Ixviii. li). 
 
 2 
 
196 chkist's humiliation and gloey 
 
 The Apostle, it will be observed, lias just enumerated various 
 privileges of the Israelites. To these, as Dr. Liddoii notices, 
 " he subjoins a climax." That climax is, that from them had 
 sprung "the Christ" (6 xpi-<^toq). The greatest privilege of the 
 nation consisted in having given birth to the Messiah — a fact 
 so glorious that the recollection of it calls forth from the writer 
 these words of praise to Him by whom this and all their other 
 privileges had been conferred. This interpretation assigns to 
 the words a full and sufficient meaning. It is obviously, there- 
 fore, unnecessary to assume that the privilege and glory for 
 Israel consisted in something else, namely, in this, that the 
 person so sprung from them was "God over all." Dr. liddon 
 observes that "this is the natural sense of the passage." Pos- 
 sibly it would be so, if it were sufficiently consistent with the 
 usual teaching of the New Testament respecting God and Christ. 
 But such is not the case, and consequently the other division of 
 the words, with the sense resulting, is just as " natural," or rather 
 it is far more so.* Nor have the words, "according to the 
 flesh," any recondite reference to a Divine nature. They simply 
 declare tliat the Christ, by his descent, belonged to the race of 
 Israel. If any antithesis be implied, it is doubtless the Mes- 
 sianic glory conferred upon Jesus, in Paul's estimation, by his 
 resurrection from the dead.-f By this he was shewn to be. the 
 true Christ. Nevertheless, "according to the flesh" he was a 
 Jew, sprung from the race of Israel. 
 
 The other instance in which St. Paul appears to call Jesus 
 " God," is equally unfortunate for the orthodox argument. It 
 occurs in 1 Tim. iii. 16, which in the English version reads 
 
 * Meyer, orthodox as he is, admits the " invincible difficulty" of supposing that 
 Paul should here have called Christ not only God, but even "God over all." The 
 supposition, he observes, is not to be reconciled either with the general tenor of the 
 N. T. in regard to the dependence of the Son upon the Father, or with such Pauline 
 passages, in particular, as 1 Cor. iii. 23; viii. 6; xi. 3; xv. 28. So little "natu- 
 ral," in truth, is the orthodox construction of this passage 1 
 
 + The same words are used in v. 3, without any a&tithesis, expressed or under- 
 stood — as they often are. 
 
IN ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES. 197 
 
 thus : "And without controversy groat is the mystery of god- 
 liness : God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, 
 seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the 
 world, received up into glory." The word "God" is the one with 
 which we are here mainly concerned. Its authenticity is so 
 douhtful that Dr. Liddon himself places no reliance upon it. 
 The best critical authorities reject it, and read either oc or 5 {luho 
 or which). Dean Alford translates, "And confessedly great is 
 the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in the flesh, jus- 
 tified in the Spirit," &c.* The M'ords may be literally rendered 
 thus : " And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness : he 
 who was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit," &c.-|- 
 
 While abandoning the argument from the word " God," Dr. 
 Liddon relies upon the verb following it. " Our Lord's pre- 
 existence," he observes, "lies in any case in the i^arepwfljj" (was 
 manifested) ; " and this cannot without violence be watered 
 down into the sense of Christ's manifestation in the teaching 
 and belief of the Church." + Here, then, be it noted, is an 
 instance, one of many such, in which the stupendous doctrine 
 of the deity of Christ, so far from being plainly aflirmcd, is 
 dependent upon the particular shade of meaning assignable to 
 a single obscure word. Nor should it be overlooked that the 
 verse occurs in an Epistle of doubtful authenticity, to say the 
 least. 
 
 Without, liowever, pursuing the thoughts which the latter 
 fact might suggest, we have still the question, what is meant 
 by the words, "was manifested in flesh"? Do they really 
 imply an allusion, however obscure, by way of antithesis, to 
 
 * N. T. revised version. The Dean justifies the reading " who" in these words : 
 "So all the most ancient autliorities, except one, which reads which, neuter gen- 
 der." Bishop Eliicott, Pastoral EjihtUs, in loc, closes his review of the evidence 
 •with the remark, "We unhesitatingly decide in favour of oi;" (who). See Appen- 
 dix, note C. 
 
 t There is no article before either "flesh" or "spirit." Comp. Matt. i. 20, 
 for a similar instance of the omission before " Holy Spirit." 
 
 X B. L., p. 312, note. 
 
198 cheist's humiliation and glory 
 
 the Godhead of the person spoken of? This question may be 
 answered by referring to a similar expression found elsewhere. 
 In the first Epistle of John* there is more than one allusion 
 to an ancient form of false belief concerning Christ, according 
 to which he was not really a human being. He was so, it 
 was held, only in appearance. This early Docetic heresy is 
 carefully condemned by St. John. " Every spirit," he writes, 
 " that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is 
 not of God ; and this is the spirit of antichrist .... even now 
 already it is in the world." A similar expression is used, with 
 most probably the same reference, by the writer to Timothy. 
 Accordingly, it is quite iinnecessary to understand him, as is 
 usually done, to imply any such doctrine as that of the God- 
 head of the person spoken of "The mystery" of the Gospel, 
 the Apostolical writer tells us, was great ; the Christ who was 
 manifested in a true human body (though this was denied by 
 some), was "justified in spirit." The meaning of these latter 
 words is by no means clear, and the commentators are not 
 agreed about them. It is unnecessary to dwell upon them 
 here, except only to suggest that they may contain an allusion 
 to the descent of the Spirit at the baptism, by which the 
 hnman Jesus was proved to be the well-beloved Son.-f- 
 
 A consideration of much importance remains. It is im- 
 possible to avoid the suspicion that this verse, like some 
 others beariug upon the Trinitarian controversy, has been 
 altered by early copyists — altered in the orthodox sense. Such 
 passages are not numerous, but they are of the highest impor- 
 tance. Among them may be included Luke viii. 40, where 
 instead of the words, " they were all waiting for him" (said in 
 reference to Jesus), the Sinaitic manuscript has, " they were 
 all waiting for God." A similar case is found in the same 
 
 * 1 John iv. 2, 3. Comp. 1 John i. 1, 2. 
 
 + The words wouJd thus mean, " was justified hyi\\& Spirit." This use of iv to 
 express the means hy vJiick is common ; e.g. Rom. x. 5, 9. 
 
IN ST. Paul's epistles. 199 
 
 manuscript, and some others, in John i. 18, wliere the reading, 
 "only-begotten Son," has been changed into "only-begotten 
 God." In Acts xx. 28, it may be considered doubtful, accord- 
 ing to the documentary evidence, whether the reading should 
 be, " Church of God, wliich he hath purchased with his own 
 blood," or, " Church of the Lord" Dr. Liddon, we have seen, 
 maintains the former reading ; but, on the other hand, remem- 
 bering the evident tendency of the early copyists, we may 
 reasonably hold "Church of the Lord" to be by far the more 
 probable original, as recognized by Tischendorf, De Wette, 
 Bunsen, and other excellent authorities. 
 
 Similar remarks apply to the most notable of all these 
 corrupted passages, 1 John v. 7, 8, in which the skill of the 
 orthodox corrector is now all but universally acknowledged. 
 
 The words of 1 Tim. iii. 16, which have been more par- 
 ticularly under notice, must stand side by side with these 
 remarkable and glaring instances of interpolation.* The like- 
 ness common to all the cases is not to be denied. They form 
 a group of would-be witnesses in this controversy whose tes- 
 timony cannot be received, and to which the upholder of the 
 popular theology cannot appeal with either confidence or satis- 
 faction. It follows clearly from what has been said on the 
 last-named passage, and on liom. ix. 5, that there is no instance 
 whatever in the Pauline writings in which the highest of 
 appellations is given to Jesus Christ — a conclusion to be ex- 
 pected from the plain and unvarying tenor, not only of the 
 rest of the New Testament, but of the writings of St. Paul iu 
 particular.-f" 
 
 For it must not be forgotten that this Apostle sometimes 
 speaks of the Almighty IJeing as "the God and Father of 
 Jesus Christ ;" or also as " the GoD of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 He even writes, "The head of every man is Christ and 
 
 * Comp. Rev. i. 11, where the words, ''I am Ali>ha and Omega, the first 
 and tlio hist," are also 8]>iirious. 
 
 t For alleged instances iu Tit. ii. 3 ; 1 John v. 2t1, see Appendix, note D. 
 
200 CHRIST'S HUMILIATION AND GLORY 
 
 the head of Christ is God."* ' There is no interpolation and no 
 " watering down" in these plain and emphatic words of an 
 Apostle ; and how incredible it is that one who could thus 
 write should really have regarded him of whom he uses such 
 terms, either as " God over all," or as " God manifested in the 
 flesh." 
 
 The nearest approach, perhaps, to the application of the 
 epithet God to Christ by St. Paul occurs in the Epistle to the 
 Philippians. " Let that mind be in you which was also in 
 Christ Jesus ; who being in the form of God thought not the 
 being equal to God a thing to grasp at, but emptied himself, 
 taking the form of a slave, and being in the likeness of men."f 
 In this statement, it is not said that Jesus ivas God, but that 
 he was " in the form of God." The phrase cannot be paral- 
 leled anywhere in the Scriptures ; but had the writer meant us 
 to understand that our Lord in a pre-existent state, or in his 
 essential nature, was God, he would doubtless have said so in 
 more express terms — for the statement would have been one 
 of the very greatest importance, and the Apostle has not made 
 it anywhere else. When, therefore, we recall the marked 
 distinction between God and Christ which St. Paul usually 
 observes in his language respecting them, it is reasonable to 
 conclude that he cannot intend here, more than elsewhere, to 
 identify Jesus Christ with the Almighty Being. His meaning, 
 it is not, in this instance, difficult to discover. It has, indeed, 
 been already alluded to in the present Chapter. Jesus, in his 
 Messianic character, had been properly and of right entitled, 
 in the estimation of every disciple, to the highest pre-eminence 
 on earth. He was thus, even as God, "in the form of God ;"J 
 
 * 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Ephes. i. 17 ; 1 Cor. xi. 3. 
 
 t Pbilip. ii. 5 — 7 ; the rendering above given closely follows the original. 
 
 X Dean Alford (Gr. Test, in he.) observes, "That the Divine nature of God is 
 not here meant, is clear, for he did not with reference to this empty himself." 
 The- word fiop^r} (form) occurs only in one other place in the N.T., Mark xvi. 12, 
 where it imquestionably i-efers to outward appeal ance, not to essential nature. See 
 Appendix, note E. 
 
IN ST. Paul's epistles. 201 
 
 or, again, and more probably, as there is no article, " of a God." 
 But, nevertheless, lie did not eagerly grasp at that exalted 
 condition ; on the contrary, he emptied or humbled himself, 
 took the form of a slave, was in the likeness of ordinary men, 
 and became obedient even to death. 
 
 This interpretation of the words is required by the following 
 verses. In these we read that for the self-sacrifice and lowli- 
 ness of Jesus, God has rewarded him, by giving him "the 
 name which is above every name, that in the name* of Jesus 
 every knee should bow," and every tongue should confess him 
 to be Lord, "to the glory of God the Father" — words truly 
 which have been wonderfully fulfilled in the subsequent his- 
 tory of the Christian world. 
 
 It is impossible to think that the writer of such words 
 could have conceived of Jesus Christ as God, in the proper 
 sense of this term ; that he intended to say of one already 
 possessed of original inherent Deity, that he was highly 
 exalted by the Heavenly Father. Such a proposition, thus 
 plainly expressed, surely amounts to sometliing like a contra- 
 diction in terms ; — one Infinite Being rewarded and exalted 
 by another ! Here, again, therefore, it appears that in imme- 
 diate juxta-position with expressions which, if alone, might 
 seem to set forth the deity of Christ, other expressions of 
 modifying or counteracting force are supplied by the sacred 
 writer himself. And this will be found to occur in several 
 other cases — as, for example, in the introductory verses of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. The circumstance referred to could 
 hardly have occurred, had the truth in these questions lain on 
 the side of the popular theology.-|- 
 
 Beference has just been made to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 
 * Philip, ii. 10 ; " in the name," not " at the name." 
 
 t See Col. ii. 9, compared with Col. i. 19 ; Heb. i. 8, comp. v. 9 ; 1 John ii. 
 23, comp. ibid. v. 22 ; 1 John v. 5, comp. ibid. v. 1- ; John x. 30, comp. ibid. 
 V. 35, 36 ; Matt, xxviii. 19, comp. ibid. v. 18 ; Luke xxii. 7<1, comp. xxiii. 2, 
 47; Rev. i. 11, 17, comp. ibid. v. 18. 
 
202 chkist's humiliation and gloky. 
 
 and although this Epistle is not to be reckoned as a writing 
 of St. Paul's, it will here be convenient briefly to notice the 
 remarkable statements with which it commences. The cha- 
 racter attributed to the Son (the Messiah) is one of the high- 
 est conceivable. The whole is in evident harmony with the 
 Logos doctrine, and of that doctrine the passage is probably 
 an expression. The Son is, accordingly, the image, represen- 
 tative, instrument of God;* himself, indeed, "appointed" to 
 be what he is, just as the angels are ; but yet he is "better" 
 than they ; — a strange thing to say of one that was essentially 
 God, and the Creator of men and angels ! He is even, in the 
 words of a quoted Psalm, spoken of as " God ;" but, doubtless, 
 this appellation is used in a subordinate sense, as it is in the 
 Psalm from which the words are taken, and which is a nuptial 
 ode in celebration of the marriage of a Jewish prince. The 
 writer to the Hebrews, applying the Psalm in a Messianic 
 sense, speaks of the Son as God : — " Thy throne, God, is for 
 ever and ever." He thus represents the Almighty as address- 
 ing the Son ; but he immediately adds the words, " Therefore 
 God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness 
 above thy fellows."-f- 
 
 The question is obvious, if the person thus addressed were 
 truly Supreme God, in what sense could there be a God to 
 him? And, again, how could the Infinite Being have "fel- 
 lows"? — the last word evidently alluding to the angels pre- 
 viously mentioned. 
 
 The popular theology is not, however, without an answer 
 to questions of this kind. It tells us that the expressions 
 
 * The words, "by whom also he made the worlds," may be literally rendered, 
 " through whom also he made the ages." The allusion may be, as in John i. 3, 
 to the creation of all things by the Logos ; or, if the rendering "ages" be adopte<l, 
 the reference in this word will be to the Jewish and the Christian dispensations, 
 elsewhere spoken of as "this world" (age or dispensation), and " the world (age) 
 to come." Matt. xii. 32 ; comp. Ephes. i. 21. 
 
 t Heb. i. i—d ; Psalm xlv. 6. 
 
CREATION OF ALL THINGS THROUGH CHRIST. 203 
 
 referred to, and others like them, relate to the subordination of 
 Christ in his mediatorial capacity, and especially while he was 
 incarnate upon the earth — to these assumed and temporary 
 states and characters only. The reply to this assertion is 
 simple : it is, that the Scripture does not say so, — nowhere 
 says so. Such a limitation of the Scriptural language is 
 unwarrantably introduced by dogmatic theologians, and is, in 
 truth, merely an after-thought dictated by the necessities of 
 the case. Nor does it really solve the difficulty ; for, if Jesus 
 Christ were Almighty God, how could he, even for the interval 
 of his supposed incarnate manifestation on earth, become 
 subordinate to any other being ? How could he lay down his 
 deity ? How could there be a God that was his God, in any 
 sense of the words that would not be delusive to our human 
 understanding ? — unless, indeed, there be two perfectly distinct 
 beings, each of which is God, a supposition which at once 
 lauds us in an irrational and self-contradictory ditheism. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE CREATION OF ALL THINGS THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 There are several remarkable expressions in the Pauline 
 Epistles, from which it might be inferred that Jesus Christ 
 was conceived of by the writer as the Creator of the world. 
 It is not to be doubted that this construction was put upon 
 the words referred to in the early Christian times. They could 
 not fail to be so accepted by those who had adopted and 
 become accustomed to the doctrine of the Logos in Jesus. That 
 doctrine would naturally lead to such an interpretation. It is 
 not necessary, however, that the modern inquirer should always 
 follow the guidance of the philosophizing Christians, to whom 
 
204 CREATION OF ALL THINGS 
 
 the world is indebted for the distinctive doctrines of the ortho- 
 dox faith, and who, it is well ascertained, were in many cases 
 ill-judging and superstitious men. It is the better course to 
 inquire whether the New Testament does not itself throw 
 sufficient light on this subject ; and in truth a little inquiry 
 will be found to correct the impression conveyed by the primd 
 facie import of the passages in question. 
 
 The introductory chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians is 
 the most conspicuous instance in which the work of creation 
 is apparently attributed to Christ. Several expressions closely 
 related to this passage occur in the first and third chapters of 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians ;* and whatever may be the true 
 interpretation of the former, most probably is so of the latter 
 also. In speaking of these two Epistles, we may accept them 
 both as St. Paul's, although their authorship is by no means 
 free from doubt. It cannot be questioned, liowever, that they 
 both represent a very ancient conception of the character and 
 work of Christ. 
 
 Of these the Colossians speaks in the following terms : — 
 " Who [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born 
 of all creation. Because in him were all things created that 
 aix in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, 
 whether they he thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or 
 powers ; all things have been created through him and for 
 him."-f- 
 
 It has been thought that we have here the conception of 
 Clirist as the divine Logos, much as it occurs in the proem of 
 the fourth Gospel ; and that here, too, the material creation is 
 attributed to him in tliat character.]: If this be the meaning, 
 
 * In Eplies. iii. 9, the words "by Jesus Christ," are an iuterijolation, and are 
 omitted by Tischendorf, Dean Alford, and other critics. 
 
 f Col. i. 15, 16. The above rendering is a little closer to the original than the 
 common version. The words in italics have no equivalents expressed in the Greek. 
 Conip. the translation of Bishop Ellicott, who renders "by Him," instead of 
 "through him." 
 
 J Such is the meaning, according to the high authority of Ewald. 
 
THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. 205 
 
 the interpretation of the passage will necessarily follow that of 
 the proem. It is, however, doubtful, or more than doubtful, 
 whether the Logos idea is to be found in any writing of St. 
 Paul's. The term itself he nowhere employs in its philoso- 
 phical sense. The words, " first-born of all creation," may 
 allude simply to the fact that Jesus was the first raised from 
 the dead, the first-born of all under the new dispensation. 
 This idea is, indeed, expressed in the succeeding verses : " He 
 is before all things, and in him all things subsist ; and he is 
 the head of the body, the church ; who is the beginning, the 
 first born from the dead ; that in all things he might be the 
 first."* These expressions are very different from those in 
 which the Logos is spoken of as the eldest Son of God, wliich 
 was with God in the beginning, and by which all things were 
 created. They indicate, too, that the Apostle conceived of 
 Christ, even in his highest cliaracter, as a creature ; as in ano- 
 ther place he even terms him "the first born among many 
 brethren."-}- On the face of the subject, it is inconceivable 
 that the Apostle could say of" one to whom he attributed Su- 
 preme Deity, or the creation of the material universe, that he 
 was "the first born from the dead, that in all things he miffht 
 be the first," or (as Bishop Ellicott renders the latter words) 
 " that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." 
 
 If, however, it be understood that Christ is thus spoken of 
 as Creator, it is still evident that the Apostle did not conceive 
 of him as possessed of an original inherent power or deity of 
 his own. " It pleased the Father" he expressly adds, " that in 
 him sliould all i'uhiess dwell." :J: He is plainly, therefore, crea- 
 
 * Col. i. 17, 18. t Rom. viii. 29 ; comp. Rev. i. 5, 18 ; Jolin xx. 17. 
 
 X Col. i. 19. The word Father (or God) is neces.sari]y supplied in this verse. 
 Dean Alford observes, "The subject here is naturally understood to be God, sis 
 expressed in 1 Cor. i. 21 ; Gal. i. 1.5 ; clearly not Christ." — Gr. Test, in loc. 
 Bishop Ellicott renders, "Because in him it pleased all the fulness of the Godhead 
 to dwell" — a rendering, as the Bishop admits, involviii}; grave, though lie thinks 
 not insuperable diflieultiea. One of the.se may be expressed interrogatively: Could 
 
20G CREATION OF ALL THINGS 
 
 tor by the Divine permission and appointment, a statement in 
 perfect harmony with all that we read elsewhere in the New 
 Testament respecting the subordination of Christ ; though 
 far from consistent with the tenor of the popular creeds. 
 
 But, in truth, the supposition tliat the material creation is 
 here intended, and that Jesus Christ is represented as the 
 Creator, is one that is beset with the most serious difficulties. 
 Throughout the Gospels there is nowhere any allusion to a 
 fact which would have been so important and so marvellous — • 
 the fact that the personage who lived and taught so simply 
 and familiarly among the people of Galilee and Jerusalem 
 was, all the time, the Divine Creator ! The Evangelists, it is 
 to be understood, were quite aware of this wonderful circum- 
 stance ; but they do not appeal to it in any way, although it 
 was their great purpose in writing their Gospels to shew that 
 the despised and crucified Nazarene was indeed the expected 
 Christ, the Son of God ! It will, perhaps, be said that the 
 fact is referred to in the fourth Gospel. But such a statement 
 it has been shewn, is not warranted by the language of that 
 Gospel. It is not Jesus Christ by whom all things are there 
 said to have been created, but the Logos ; and although, in 
 the Evangelist's conception, the Logos became flesh in Christ, 
 acting in and through him, yet, as we have seen, this is only 
 another way of saying that there was in and through Christ a 
 manifestation of the power and wisdom of the Infinite Being. 
 That mode of representation does not tell us that Jesus Christ, 
 
 he in whom "it pleased all the fulness of the Godhead to dwell" (the words in 
 italics are not the Apostle's, but the Bishop's) be already possessed of Deity by his 
 own nature? If he were so, what could that be which was pleased to dwell in 
 him? Whatever may be meant by "all the fulness," it clearly cannot bo what 
 the Bishop supposes. On the contrary, the whole conception of the passage evi- 
 dently is that it v;as given to Christ, and dwelt in him by the will of another, i.e. 
 of God (comp. Ephes. i. 17 — 23). A similar divine "fulness" (i.e. completeness, 
 perfection) is attributed to Christian disciples, or said to be attainable by them, 
 Ephes. iii. 19, — so little does the expression imply the Godhead of the posses.sor. 
 The " fulness" of Christ is probably "the church, which is his body," of which 
 he is Head and Lord : Ephes. i. 23 ; comp. Coloss. i. 18. 
 
THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. 207 
 
 in his own person, was either Supreme God, or Creator of the 
 world ; but simply that he was the human instrument throngh 
 which the Divine purposes were effected. The line of distinc- 
 tion between Him who is God alone and Jesus the Messiah or 
 well-beloved Son, is here, as uniformly in the New Testament, 
 carefully drawn, carefully observed. 
 
 There is a further difficulty in the way of the above sup- 
 position. It is inconceivable that in the four principal and 
 undoubted Epistles of Paul no allusion whatever should be 
 made to the creative work of Christ. In the Epistle to the 
 Eomans, for example, or in that to the Galatians, could the 
 Apostle have so entirely omitted to introduce, or to imply, the 
 supposed fact ? In both of these Epistles he treats of ques- 
 tions closely touching the dignity and authority of his Master ; 
 and he is especially anxious to uphold the importance of the 
 Gospel, in comparison with the ancient Law of his people. 
 Yet he nowhere mentions that which would so effectually have 
 illustrated his argument, had it been possible to appeal to it ; 
 nowhere gives us to understand that Jesus the Christ, whose 
 Apostle he is, whose Gospel he is recommending, was the 
 Creator of all things. 
 
 In another Epistle, the first to the Corinthians, there is, 
 indeed, an expression wliich might be thought to be inconsis- 
 tent with these remarks. The Apostle writes, " To us there is 
 one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; 
 and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and 
 we through him."* But here, again, Christ is evidently repre- 
 sented as the instrument, in contradistinction to what is said 
 of God, —"of whom" {i^ ov) are all things. The latter words 
 strictly desiginate the original Source, while the secondary 
 cause or agent is denoted by the preposition "through" (2tf<),t 
 
 • 1 Cor. viii. 6. 
 
 + This force of the preposition is too well known to reijuire illustratioa here. 
 See, however, Appendix, note F. 
 
208 CREATION OF ALL THINGS 
 
 in accordance with tlie usual distinction between Christ and 
 God. The words in this phice, however, are too few, and are 
 introduced in too incidental a manner, to be permitted to 
 determine the meaning of the more considerable and detailed 
 passage in the Colossians. Very probably, nevertheless, they 
 ought to be interpreted in accordance with that passage ; but 
 they must follow, and not lead the way. 
 
 We are thus brought back to the inquiry, what does tlie 
 writer mean by the remarkable words which he addresses to 
 the Colossians ? If he neither speaks in accordance with the 
 Logos doctrine, nor attributes the material creation to Christ 
 under some other conception of his pre-existence, what in all 
 probability is the meaning intended ? 
 
 In several instances the moral change produced by the 
 Gospel is spoken of by Paul as a new creation. "If any man 
 be in Christ, he is a new creature:" literally, "a new crea- 
 tion ;" or, it may be, " there is a new creation :" " old things are 
 passed away ; behold, all things are become new." Again, 
 " In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor 
 uncircumcision, but a new creature" — literally, as before, "a 
 new creation." And again, " We are his workmanship, having 
 been created in Christ Jesus unto good works."* These ex- 
 pressions suggest the inquiry whether the remarkable lan- 
 guage to the Colossians does not refer to the new or spiritual 
 creation, of which Christ was the chosen instrument. 
 
 When the Apostle speaks of the natural creation, as in the 
 speech at Athens, he employs words in which there is no am- 
 biguity, and refers it distinctly, not to Christ, but to God : " God 
 that made the world and all things therein."-|- In such words 
 there can be no doubt as to the meaning. Is it not, therefore, 
 probable that in the very different phraseology of the Colossians, 
 
 * 2 Cor. V. 17 ; Gal. vi. 15 ; Eplies. ii. 10. Comp. also Eplies. ir. 24 ; Rom. 
 viii. 19 — 22, where the rendering in each verse should be "creation." 
 t Comp. Acts xiv. 15. 
 
THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. 209 
 
 he is speaking of the promulgation of Christianity and its 
 effects, under the figure of a spiritual creation ? If this Ido the 
 true explanation, it will sufficiently account for the remarkable 
 terms employed. Christ was himself, the 'Apostle says, the 
 " first horn" of all, the first of this new creation. It was 
 necessary that he should be the first, in order that he might 
 be the instrument of the Almighty power in administering 
 the heavenly kingdom into which he has now ascended : "for 
 in him were all things created" (the words " all things " being 
 obviously qualified in force by the connected ideas, and 
 denoting, therefore, all things belonging to the new dispensa- 
 tion) ; — all things " that are in heaven, and that are in earth, 
 visible and invisible." Here, undoubtedly, are terms of the 
 most comprehensive import. But they are immediately fol- 
 lowed by limiting words, when the Apostle adds, " whether 
 they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers,"* 
 all these thiiigs " were created through him and for him." Is 
 it possible to think that this language can refer to the material 
 creation ? 
 
 The Apostle, it would appear, conceived the spiritual king- 
 dom of Christ to contain various degrees of dignity. And it 
 was not only an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly ; not only 
 visible, but invisible. Jesus himself, " head over aU things," 
 had been raised to heaven by the power of the Father ; many 
 of his disciples too had already followed him there ; but most 
 of them still remained on earth filling their different offices, 
 " apostles, prophets, teachers, workers of miracles."f All these 
 existed through Christ and /w him. But, as before, it is clear 
 that the writer of these words could not have thought of 
 Christ as the original source of all, for he adds the words, " It 
 pleased tJie Father that in him should all fulness dwell."J 
 
 The remarkable language which we have endeavoured to 
 
 ♦ Conip. Ephes. vi. 12. t 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29. 
 
 X On these words, see ftipra, p. ^2()l^. 
 P 
 
210 CEEATION OF ALL THINGS 
 
 explain may be further illustrated by a reference to the similar 
 passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians. The writer prays for 
 his friends, " that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ" may cause 
 them to know the- greatness of His power, " according to the 
 working of the might of his strength which he hath wrought 
 in Christ, by raising him from the dead : and he made him 
 sit" (the Apostle continues) " at his right hand in the heavenly 
 places, far above all principality and power and might and 
 dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this 
 world,* but in that which is to come ; and hath put all things 
 under his feet, and he gave him to be the head over all things 
 to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth 
 all in all."t 
 
 Words could scarcely make it plainer than it is here, that 
 God is the sole Cause of the exaltation of Christ. He " made 
 him sit at his right hand :" He " put all things under his 
 feet :" He " gave him to be the head over all things to the 
 church." Thus there is clearly implied, not only the absolute 
 distinction between God and Christ, but the absolute subordi- 
 nation or inferiority of the latter — of the creature and instru- 
 ment to the Creator and Primary Cause of all. The conception 
 in this Epistle appears, however, to be a little different from 
 that of the Epistle to the Colossians. In the Ephesians we 
 are told that the Almighty Father had determined to bring 
 all things into subjection to the Messiah. | Allowing for 
 something of metaphor in the words, "all things" might be 
 said to be created " in Christ," with a regard, that is to say, to 
 the approaching Messianic age or dispensation. This purpose 
 has taken effect in and through Jesus Christ. The conse- 
 quences of his life, death and resurrection, will be, and have 
 
 * Literally, age, i.e. dispensation : "this age," that now existing, the Mosaic ; 
 "that which is to come," the Christian, speedily to begin, with the second coming 
 of Christ. 
 
 t Ephes. i. 17—23. J Ephes. i. 9, 10. 
 
THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. 211 
 
 been, the establishment of his kingdom, the conversion of men 
 of every land, and the diffusion of the Gospel among the 
 nations. This "new creation" was thus accomplished through 
 him, and for him. In other words, in him all things spiritual 
 subsist, and he is head over all. But, nevertheless, it is clear, 
 as before, that all is of God's working, God's appointment. 
 
 We have seen the difficulties which attend the supposition 
 that the words in the Colossians refer to the material creation. 
 They are certainly not words in which any writer who wished 
 to be readily understood would speak of the objects of sense. 
 On the other hand, they are not inappropriate, if we take them 
 to express the great results that were to flow from the preach- 
 ing of the Gospel in the name of the risen Christ — namely, 
 the bringing in of the Gentiles,* and the subjugation of the 
 powers of this world beneath the authority of the cross. 
 Kindred ideas are expressed where Paul speaks of that coming 
 time, " the end," when the Christ shall have " put down all 
 authority and power," and when, victorious over sin and death, 
 he shall deliver up his completed work, the promised kingdom 
 of heaven* on earth, "to God even the Father."f 
 
 The substitution of through for hy, in the rendering above 
 given, corresponds strictly to the original. Christ is spoken 
 of, accordingly, as the inslrument of Divine power, not as 
 himself its original or independent source. This cannot be 
 too clearly kept in view, by one who would gain a just idea of 
 these Apostolical statements. It is through his life and death, 
 his resurrection and exaltation to be " head over all," that the 
 results contemplated are to be brought to pass, a state of tran- 
 scendent dignity, in which Jesus might even be spoken of as 
 " the image of God,":J: the vicegerent or representative of the 
 
 ♦ See Rom. xi. 15, 25. t 1 Cor. xv. 24—28. 
 
 t Col. i. 15. Comp. John i. 18, " No man liath seen God at any time, the 
 only-begotten Son .. ..he hath declared him." In one important sense, Christ is 
 the Divine "image" by expressing to man the moral character of the Divine Mind. 
 Paul, it will be remembered, terms man "the image and glory of God," 1 Cor. xi. 7. 
 
 P 2 
 
212 THE APOCALYPTIC EXALTATION 
 
 Almighty Father. Yet still tlie distinction between the two, 
 between God and Christ, is here, as everywhere, clear and 
 absolute. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 THE APOCALYPTIC EXALTATION OF JESUS CHEIST. 
 
 It is perhaps in the Book of Revelation, more than in any 
 otlier New Testament book, that a character approaching to 
 that of supreme Deity is attributed to Christ, in his risen and 
 heavenly state. Yet this is done in such a manner as to show 
 ITS that the most positive and emphatic distinction really 
 existed, in the writer's mind, between the person of whom he 
 speaks and the One Almighty Being. 
 
 Thus, at the beginning of the book, Jesus is represented as 
 calling himself "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," 
 words which are used just before of and by the Lord God 
 Himself* The difference in the form of the expression, as 
 applied to God and to Christ, is very striking. " I am the 
 Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, which is, and 
 which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." When the 
 Son of man uses the same words, he says, " Fear not ; I am 
 the first and the last, and the living one ; and I was dead, and 
 behold I am alive for evermore, and have the keys of death 
 and of Hades." i* In the one case, we have an expression 
 applicable and appropriate to the Self-existent Being ; in the 
 otlier, we have words which would seem almost as if intended 
 to warn us not to think of the speaker as God ; and, indeed, 
 
 * Rev. i. 11 ; comp. v. 8, in the common Version. In subsequent references to 
 the Book of Revelation we usually follow the text of Dean Alford, which is founded 
 upon the oldest manuscripts . See his N. T. , revised version. 
 
 t Rev. i. 17, 18. 
 
OF JESUS CHRIST. 213 
 
 he has just been termed in a preceding verse, " the first begot- 
 ten of the dead" (v. 5). 
 
 These expressions, then, give us clearly to see that, high as 
 was the character conceived to belong to the risen Saviour, 
 yet that one \vho is said to be now "alive for evermore" 
 could not have been regarded as, by his own nature. Eternal 
 God. It is further evident, that the writer conceives of him 
 as invested by another with whatever of power or authority 
 the possession of the " keys of death and of Hades" may have 
 given him. The same thing is clearly seen in another place, 
 where he says that he will give to those who are steadfast to 
 him, the same authority which he has himself received from 
 his Father.* 
 
 He speaks, again, of God as his God ; and even where it is 
 said that he sits with the Father " upon his throne,* this can- 
 not in the writer's idea have denoted his equality with God, 
 because he represents Jesus as saying, "To him that over- 
 
 cometli I will grant to sitw^ith me in my throne, as I also 
 
 sat down with my Father in his throne."-f- 
 
 The highest ascription of Divine honours is to Him who is 
 a second time described as the " Lord God Almighty, which 
 was, and which is, and which is to come," terms of supreme 
 veneration, which are not addressed to Christ, and in which 
 he has no share. J 
 
 The Son of man is next represented as a " Lamb that was 
 slain," who alone was " worthy to take the book and to open 
 the seals thereof." His praise is celebrated by the voices of 
 "myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands," proclaim- 
 ing him " worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, 
 and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." § 
 
 In another place, a joint and equal tribute of praise appears 
 to be offered by " a givat multitude which no one could num- 
 ber," to God and to the lamb, saying, "Salvation to our God, 
 
 • Rev. ii. 2*5, 27. t Rev. iii. 21. X Hcv. iv. 8—11. § Rev. v. 6—12. 
 
214 APOCALYPTIC EXALTATION OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 and unto the Lamb;" but immediately afterwards, when 
 
 worship is offered by the angels, they " fell before the throne 
 on their faces and worshiped God." They ascribe the highest 
 praise to Him, " unto our God for ever and ever" — to Him 
 alone, for in this the Lamb is not included.* The omission is 
 marked and emphatic, and shews to demonstration that the 
 Lamb does not, in the writer's conception, hold a place of real 
 deity. 
 
 This distinction between God and Christ is maintained 
 throughout the book. Thus in the last of the places referred 
 to below, -f- the song of praise is to the " Lord God Almighty," 
 while the Lamb is in the same verse co-ordinated with " Moses 
 the servant of God," as he is in xiv. 10 with the angels. 
 
 The Son of man appears in another character, as the "Word 
 of God"— not here the Logos of the fourth Gospel, but more 
 probably one who announced, uttered, and also executed, the 
 judgments of God. \ He sits in the Apocalyptic vision upon 
 a white horse, the armies of heaven follow him, and he 
 "treadeth the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of 
 Almighty God ; and he hath on his vesture and on his thigh 
 a name written. King of kings and Lord of lords." The 
 bearer of this august title is the instrument of the Divine 
 vengeance ; but the Almighty Being is clearly here, as else- 
 where, a distinct object of the writer's thought. It is He who 
 is addressed by "the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, 
 Halleluiah ; for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."§ There 
 is nothing like this, in the Apocalypse or elsewhere in the 
 New Testament, addressed to Christ. 
 
 In the final chapter of the book, we are told that John, 
 when he saw the wonderful vision which had passed before 
 him, "fell down to worship before the feet of the angel^vhich 
 sliewed him these things." The latter " saith unto him. See 
 
 * Rev. vii. 9—12. t See xi. 15, 16 ; xii. 10 ; xiv. 7—12 ; xv. 3. 
 
 + Rev. xix. 11 — 15. § Rev. xix. 5, 6. 
 
THE WORSHIP OF CHEIST. 215 
 
 thou do it not worship God." Was the angel who thus 
 
 spoke, the same person who, at the beginning and throughout, 
 shews the vision to the Apostle 1 This question has been 
 much discussed. If due regard be paid to the immediate 
 context, it would certainly appear that it should be answered 
 in the affirmative.* "Behold I come quickly" "I am a 
 fellow-servant of thine ;" " I am the Alpha and the Omega ;" 
 " I Jesus have sent mine angel ;" — surely the same person is 
 meant in all these cases, although he is also called " angel," 
 and for a moment appears to be a different being from the 
 " Son of man," who at the beginning appears and speaks to 
 John. If, then, the affirmative be the correct answer to the 
 above question, Jesus himself forbids the writer of the vision to 
 worship him, and tells him to " worship God." At any rate, 
 the speaker tells him to " worship God ;" but he nowhere bids 
 him worship the Lamb, or Jesus, or the Son of man. 
 
 We would not, however, insist too confidently on this inter- 
 pretation. Its admission is in no way necessary for the pur- 
 pose of our argument. Quite independently of this passage, 
 the clear tenor of the Apocalypse, including a large variety of 
 expressions, abundantly proves that the author cannot have 
 intended his readers to identify Jesus Christ with Almighty 
 God, abundantly proves that he did not do so himself. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 THE WOllSHIP OF CHRIST. 
 
 A VERY important question next claims our attention. Did 
 the early Christians offer religious worship to Christ? The 
 inquiry need not occupy much of our space, seeing that it is 
 
 * See xxii. 7 — 9, 12, 13, 16 ; aud compare i. 10 — 19. 
 
21 G THE WOESHIP OF CHRIST. 
 
 already answered by anticipation, if the argument thus far 
 warrants us in making the distinction so often spoken of 
 between the Supreme Being and Jesus Christ. Yet the pre- 
 sumed evidence for the worship of Christ is usually considered 
 to be one of the strongest parts of the popular Christianity. 
 Ill-informed persons are apt to suppose, that the disciples 
 were accustomed to worship their Master as God, even while 
 he lived familiarly among them in Galilee and Jerusalem — 
 a conclusion, untenable as it is, to which the whole strain of 
 Dr. Liddon's representation evidently leads us. Thus we read, 
 "Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children, wor- 
 shiping him.* The word used in this and other such cases 
 does not necessarily denote religious worship, but only the 
 respectful salutation or obeisance which one person might offer 
 to another, probably by prostration in the oriental manner. 
 This may be clearly seen from a parallel expression in the 
 same Gospel, relating to the unforgiving servant and his lord : 
 " The servant, therefore, fell down and worshiped him, saying, 
 Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all."f 
 
 AVe have in these cases examples of the old and well-known 
 meaning of the English word "worship" — that is all. The 
 Greek verb strictly and exclusively denoting religious worship 
 is a different word, and this is never applied to Christ.j It 
 will be found that in no instance was Jesus the object of 
 religious worship during his life-time. Even after his resur- 
 rection, when it is said that his disciples saw him " and wor- 
 shiped him,"§ the word used is the more general word, ex- 
 pressive of respectful obeisance. 
 
 * Matt. xxii. 20 ; compare ix. 18 ; John ix. 38. 
 
 ■)• Matt, xviii. 26. An excellent illustrative example occurs in Genesis xxxvii. 
 6, where the sheaves are said to have " made obeisance" to Joseph's sheaf. The 
 word thus rendered is, in the Septuagint version of Genesis, expressed by the same 
 Greek word which, in the English N.T., has been so often and so indiscriminately 
 rendered "worshiped." 
 
 J The word <j(€6fj.ai ; Matt. xv. 9 ; Acts xvi. 14 ; xviii. 7, 13. 
 
 § Matt, xxviii. 16. 
 
THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 217 
 
 The case of Stephen is often cited, as affording direct and 
 positive testimony in favour of the worship of Jesus Christ 
 by the early Christians, and Dr. Liddon makes the usual 
 appeal to it. At the moment of his death, we 'are told, this 
 first of the martyrs besought Jesus to receive his spirit : 
 " They stoned Stephen invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive 
 my spirit."* The words in the next verse (v. GO), "Lord, lay 
 not this sin to their charge," may perhaps be understood as 
 addressed to God ; but there is nothing in the passage to 
 require this ; and as the New Testament writers often speak 
 of Jesus Christ as the appointed Judge of men, it may be 
 simply in accordance with this idea that those words are used 
 by the dying man — and, if so, they are addressed to Christ. 
 
 In determining the meaning and value of this exclamation, 
 it will be remembered that the Apostle, when he thus called 
 upon the Lord Jesus, actually beheld him, as we are told in 
 a preceding vei'se. Jesus was present to him in his dying 
 ecstasy ; and was it not therefore natural that the martyred 
 man should invoke his risen Master, then standing before him, 
 should call upon him to receive his spirit, and thus rescue 
 him from the hands of his murderers ? The act of Stephen is 
 evidently not one of religious worship, properly so called. It 
 is rather the entreaty which one friend might address to 
 another, present to him in his moment of mortal anguish. As 
 such, it cannot be held to anthorize the modern disciple to 
 ofler his religious adoration to any other object but the One 
 Jehovah. 
 
 The same remark is applicalile to the instances brought 
 forward by Dr. Liddon from St. Paul's Epistles, in which he 
 thinks it appears that the Apostle conceived of his Master as 
 " of Divine Providence in a human form," watching over him, 
 
 * Acts vii. 59. It is hardly neeessr\ry to observe that the word God in the 
 English version is not found in the original. 
 
218 THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 
 
 guiding and befriending him.* This is probably correct ; 
 but yet it should be remembered that St. Paul too had his 
 visions of Jesus. He had, he said, seen the risen Saviour, as 
 at his conversion ; and he was personally present with him 
 on at least one other occasion.-f- Moreover, he constantly 
 speaks of Christ as of one whom he well knew to be a living 
 person, one exalted to the right hand of God, and made " head 
 over all things ;" one too who might at any hour come again 
 to collect and vindicate his scattered saints, and take them to 
 reign with him in heaven. ;}: No wonder, then, that the Apos- 
 tle speaks as he does ; that when he saw the Lord, he said to 
 him, " Lord, what wilt thou have me do ?" or that in his vision 
 he "besought the Lord," then present before him, that the 
 " thorn in the flesh might depart from him." All this, while 
 it is in perfect harmony with the belief of the Apostolical age 
 as to the continued presence of the risen Christ, yet does not 
 shew that St. Paul, or any one else, was in the habit of wor- 
 shiping him as God ; nor can it warrant the modern disciple 
 in speaking to Jesus Christ in any similar way ; much less in 
 forgetting and violating the positive precepts of the Gospel 
 respecting the worship of God, or in following any other 
 example in this important matter but that of Christ himself. 
 
 The case of Stephen, however, has another lesson for us, 
 very different from that upon which Dr. Liddon insists. We 
 are told that his persecutors were at a loss for an effective 
 accusation against him ; for that " they suborned men" to bear 
 witness against him. We are told that the false witnesses 
 said, "This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words 
 against this holy place [the temple], and the law ; for we have 
 heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this 
 place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered 
 us." § 
 
 * Liddon, B.L., p. 371. t 2 Cor. xii. 
 
 t 1 Cor. i. 7 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; iv. 16 ; 2 Thess. ii. 1 ; iii. 5. 
 
 g Acts vi. 11—14. 
 
THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 219 
 
 Now, if the disciples looked upon their departed Master as 
 God, and were accustomed to worship him as such, will Dr. 
 Liddon inform us why the persecutors of Stephen did not 
 accuse him of idolatry, in that he offered religious worship to 
 the crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth? There is no trace any- 
 where in the New Testament of such an accusation — although 
 we know that it was in substance brought by the Jews against 
 the Christians in later times, when probably the worship of 
 Christ was growing up into an established practice.* It is 
 impossible that it should not have been brought forward by 
 the bigoted enemies of the early Christianity, had fitting 
 occasion been afforded to them. But there is no trace of it in 
 the Book of Acts, or in any other book of the New Testament. 
 The inevitable inference is, that such a charge was not thought 
 of, and could not be made, in the face of the fact that the 
 disciples did not speak of Jesus Christ as God, did not pay 
 him religious adoration. If they did so, they must have done 
 it in secret, and kept it out of the sight of their implacable 
 persecutors. But Dr. Liddon, as we have formerly seen, re- 
 peatedly affirms that Jesus "revealed his Godhead explicitly 
 to the Apostles, and to the Jewish people ;" and holds that he 
 especially claimed to be worshiped as God, when he said 
 that men " should honour the Son even as they honour the 
 Father."-)- Why, then, again, we would ask, if it were so, 
 why did the enemies of Stephen, who cannot have shared 
 Dr. Liddon's belief in the deity of Christ, never, so far as we 
 can judge, accuse either Stephen, or any other Christian dis- 
 ciple, of idolatrously worshiping a crucified man, and thus 
 setting up another as God, besides their own Jehovah of 
 Hosts ? 
 
 The true character of the worship of the primitive disciples 
 appears in more than one place in the New Testament. When 
 Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he said nothing about the 
 
 • Liddon, B.L., p. 391. t H'id., pp. 177—182. 
 
220 THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 
 
 adoration of himself. He told them to say, " Our Father 
 which art in heaven." He even said to them that, after he was 
 gone from them, they were to ask him nothing, but to ask the 
 Father in his name. He said to the woman of Samaria in 
 clear and precise terms, which it might be thought that no 
 one could misunderstand or explain away, that "the true wor- 
 shipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth."* In 
 the Book of the Acts we find a prayer of the disciples recorded, 
 and to whom is it addressed ? " They lifted up their voice to 
 God with one accord and said. Lord, thou art God, which hast 
 made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is." 
 It is unnecessary to quote more,-|" for it is evident to whom the 
 prayer of the assembled disciples was here offered, and that 
 it was in no sense to Jesus Christ. Similarly, on the evening 
 before his crucifixion, our Lord himself, according to the fourth 
 Evangelist, prayed and said, " Father, the hour is come ; glo- 
 rify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee. . . . And this 
 is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, 
 and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."]: 
 
 Wherever, in short, there is any clear statement in the New 
 Testament as to the prayers or the worship of the first Chris- 
 tians, it is always to the same effect. It is in no case Christ, 
 or the Holy Spirit, that is addressed. The great Object of 
 religious worship is everywhere God, the Heavenly Father, 
 even " the God and Father of Jesus Christ." 
 
 Dr. Liddon, however, brings forward one or two expressions 
 from the Book of Eevelation, in which for a moment it might 
 appear that this statement is not wholly without exceptions ; 
 or, at least, that it is not correct, if we look beyond the earthly 
 life of Christ to his risen and glorified state.§ 
 
 * John xvi. 23 ; iv. 23. t Acts iv. 24—30. J .JoLn xvii. 1—3. 
 
 § " Of all the teachings of the Apocalypse on this subject," Dr. Liddon observes, 
 ' ' perhaps none is so f lill of significance as the representation of Christ in His wounded 
 Humanity upon the tlirone of the Most High. The Lamb, as It had been slain, is 
 in the very centre of the court of heaven ; He receives the prostrate adoration of 
 
THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 221 
 
 We have sufficiently noticed in the last Chapter those pas- 
 sages of the Apocalypse in which the Lamb is represented as 
 sitting upon the throne, aud, by the gift or appointment of the 
 Almighty, even sharing in divine honours. We have also seen 
 that the Lamb is really everywhere represented as a subordi- 
 nate being, the instrument of God, but never in any way 
 identified with God Himself In one passage of that book, 
 however, we read that " the four-and-twenty elders fell down 
 before the Lamb." They sing his praise, as one worthy to 
 open the book ; and the writer of the vision adds, that he 
 heard all creatures saying, " Unto him that sitteth upon the 
 throne and to the Lamb be the blessing aud the honour and 
 the glory and the might for ever and ever." * 
 
 Unquestionably the honour here ascribed to the Lamb is of 
 the highest conceivable kind ; such as is nowhere seen paid to 
 Jesus in any historical book of the New Testament ; such as 
 he himself, in his human life, never claimed, never received. 
 Is it necessary to remind the reader that the whole scene 
 occurs in a vision, or ecstasy, of the most elevated and ima- 
 ginative character, — a vision of the approaching end of the 
 then existing state of the world, and the speedy coming of the 
 Son of man to execute a terrible vengeance on his enemies, -f- — 
 a vision which has never been converted into a reality, and 
 which, we may safely venture to add, never will be so ? Sup- 
 posing, then, the Lamb, as Dr. Liddon affirms, to be really 
 associated in worship with the Almighty Father, are we to 
 think that a composition of so mystical and unreal a character, 
 in the exposition of which scarcely any two authorities have 
 hitherto agreed, is to over-rule the plain tenor of historical 
 
 the highest intelligences arouiul the throne ; and as the Object of that solemn, unin- 
 terrupted, awful worshii), He is a.ssociated with the Father, as being in truth one 
 with the Almighty, Uncreated, Supreme God." B.L., p. 243. All that we need 
 say, in particular reference to this highly exaggerated statement, is contained in 
 the preceding Chapter, to which, therefore, we would again refer the reader. 
 * llev. V. 8 — 13. t Rev. xix. 17—21 ; xviii. 
 
222 THE "WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 
 
 writings, which give us the words and life of Christ as they 
 were on earth, and shew us how his disciples regarded him 
 and spoke of him, and how they paid religious worship in no 
 case to him, but to God alone ? Even, then, granting that the 
 author of the Apocalypse, in his marvellous vision, represents 
 the Lamb as so highly honoured, ought this fact to be received 
 as affording a rule or law to the Christian disciple of after- 
 times, to make him turn away from the express precepts and 
 example of Christ himself? 
 
 But, in truth, there is no such opposition as this between 
 the historical books and this Apocalyptic writing. We have 
 abundantly seen that whatever worth and honour may be 
 ascribed to the Lamb is hestoived upon him. They are not his 
 of essential independent right. This appears in the passage 
 to which Dr. Liddon appeals : " Worthy is the Lamb that was 
 slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, 
 and honour."* And it has been abundantly seen that the 
 general tenor of the Book of Ptevelation is directly unfavour- 
 able to the supposition of the Deity of the Son of man. 
 Nothing, therefore, can have been further from the thoughts 
 of the writer of that book than the idea which Dr. Liddon 
 asserts, the idea of Jesus Christ " as being in truth one with 
 the Almighty, Uncreated, Supreme God." Such an assertion 
 is in the highest degree unwarranted by a calm and dispassion- 
 ate examination of the evidence in this book bearing upon 
 the subject. 
 
 There remains one other expression of the New Testament, 
 which has given a fallacious support to the belief that the 
 early disciples worshiped their departed Master. We allude 
 to those instances in which they are said to " call upon the 
 name of the Lord." In the Book of Acts, Saul is said to have 
 " authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy 
 name ;" — that is to say, the name of Jesus. St. Paul addresses 
 
 * Rev. V. 12. 
 
THE WOESHIP OF CHRIST. 223 
 
 the disciples of Corinth as those who " are called to be saints, 
 with all that in everyplace call upon the name of Jesus Christ 
 our Lord."* 
 
 This phrase has been variously understood, even by orthodox 
 interpreters. There can be no question that in the Old Testa- 
 ment language, it often means to call upon Jehovah in prayer 
 and praise. In some places of the Xew Testament also, where 
 Jehovah is referred to, it may have the same sense. But it is 
 equally certain that the word rendered "call upon" (tTrtmXouyuat), 
 does not properly or necessarily signify, or imply, religious 
 worship. Whether it has this meaning or not must always 
 depend on the object with which the verb is joined. Thus we 
 find St. Paul before Felix saying, " I appeal unto Csesar ;" 
 literally, " I call upon Csesar," the same word.-f- This applica- 
 tion of the word in question occurs several times in the New 
 Testament. In the present connection, the word has been 
 taken in a passive sense, as though denoting those who are 
 " called by" the name of Jesus Christ. Grammatically, this 
 is not admissible ; and it is doubtless better (with Winer) | to 
 regard it as a middle form. It may, therefore, denote those 
 who call themselves l>y (give themselves) the name of Jesus 
 Christ — that is to say, those who take the name of Christ, or 
 acknowledge themselves Christian disciples. This cannot be 
 far from the true meaning of the word. 
 
 If, indeed, it were certainly established by other evidence 
 that our Lord was worshiped as God by the early disciples, 
 there would be no reason to doubt that the form " call upon" 
 might be used in that sense. But we have seen that there is 
 
 * Acts xxii. 16 ; 1 Cor. i. 1 ; Acts ix. 14, 21. 
 
 t Kdtcrapa iiriKoKoviiai. Acts xxv. 11, 12, 25 ; comp. .w. 17, 1 Pet. i. 17. 
 
 X N.T. Grammar, by Moulton, p. 330. The words in que.stion, "I invoke 
 (call upon) CiEsar," neces.s.arily imply the acknowledgment of Csesar as Lord. 
 This is, in reality, a force equivalent to that above attributed to the expression in 
 connection with Christ, whom all that bore his name similarly recognized, — but 
 the verb in question of itself conveys no idea of rdiijlous invocation or worship, 
 unless, indeed, when followed by the name of the Supreme. 
 
224 THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 
 
 no good reason for holding that religious worship was paid to 
 Christ by the first Christians, but the contrary ; and that their 
 worship, like the Master's own, was always given to Jehovah 
 alone. Hence it is reasonable, or rather it is necessary, to 
 interpret the doubtful or neutral word in question, in accord- 
 ance with that clear fact of Scripture. AVe have to take it, 
 therefore, as simply denoting those who acknowledged the 
 authority of Christ, who recognized him as Lord, and called 
 themselves by his name. 
 
 As a conclusive testimony to the worship of Christ by the 
 early disciples, Dr. Liddon brings forward the Letter of the 
 younger Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, a document which has 
 often been adduced for the same purpose. Pliny tells his 
 imperial master that the Christians of his province of Bithynia 
 were accustomed to meet together before day-break and sing a 
 hymn "to Christ as God." Thus Dr. Liddon renders the words 
 Christo quasi deo; but he will probably not deny that they may 
 be correctly rendered " to Christ as if to a god." This, in fact, 
 is the only admissible rendering, considering that the expres- 
 sion comes from a Eoman writei', who, although familiar enough 
 with the "gods many" of the heathen mythology, probably 
 knew nothing of the One only and true God. Moreover, the 
 word quasi (as if) really suggests the writer's denial of the 
 implied proposition that Christ was " a god." 
 
 The words were written in the year 109, or about seventy- 
 five years after the crucifixion ; and they may certainly be 
 accepted as shewing that the Christians of P>ithynia held the 
 ]iame of their risen Master in the highest honour, and were 
 in the habit of celebrating his praise in hymns. But how 
 does it appear that they worshiped him as God ? — or how does 
 it follow, even if they did, that we. Christian disciples of 
 to-day, should take our idea of Christian worship from the 
 Bithynians, as reported by a Eoman pro-prsetor ? How does 
 it appear that because he states that they sung a hymn to 
 
THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 225 
 
 Christ, " as if to a god," we should worship Christ as God, in 
 contravention of the plainest precepts and examples of the 
 New Testament ? 
 
 Dr. Liddon further points out that the Jews, on the occasion 
 of Polycarp's martyrdom, " drew the attention of pagan magis- 
 trates to the worship of Jesus, in order to stir up contempt 
 and hatred against the Christians."* He observes also that the 
 Emperor Adrian, Avriting to Servian, describes the population 
 of Alexandria as " divided between the worship of Christ and 
 the worship of Serapis ;" and he adds the remark, that it must 
 have been very perplexing to the Eoman official mind that 
 "One who had been adjudged to death as a criminal should 
 receive Divine honours." -f* 
 
 Such observations are perfectly just. But does Dr. Liddon 
 fail to perceive the very important suggestion which they 
 convey ? In the Acts of the Apostles there is an entire absence 
 of all indication of either Jewish or Eoman perplexity that the 
 Christians should worship " One who had been adjudged to 
 death as a criminal" Whence that absence, except only from 
 the circumstance that such perplexity, from the nature of the 
 case, could not have arisen, and never existed — seeing that the 
 Christians did not, in fact, give occasion for it — seeing that 
 in Apostolic times they had not yet begun to offer religious 
 worship to Jesus Christ? Doubtless, in the later times of 
 Pliny and of Adrian, the deity .of Christ was beginning to win 
 its way to prominence, especially among certain classes of 
 imperfect Hellenizing Christians. It was still, however, nearly 
 two hundred years before that peculiar development of Chris- 
 tianity reached its final predominance, at and through the 
 Council of Nicaea. But such an advance as this, or any- 
 thing like it, can nowhere be seen within the limits of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 And we can appeal to Dr. Liddon himself for the amplest 
 ♦ Liddon, B.L., p. 391. t Ibid., p. 392. 
 
 Q 
 
226 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 proof and illustration of this statement. For let any one 
 compare the abundant and varied evidence of the worship of 
 Christ which he cites from hymns and liturgical forms of the 
 time of Tertullian and Origen, the third century after Christ, — 
 let any one compare and contrast that with the total absence 
 of everything of the kind from the Christian books. It surely 
 requires nothing more to shew that the worship of Christ, like 
 that of the Virgin Mary, was the growth of a long period of 
 time, and of a credulous and superstitious age. It requires no- 
 thing more to shew how highly unjustifiable, on Scriptural 
 grounds, is the modern practice of the Churches of uniting 
 Jesus Christ in an equal offering of worship with Him " who 
 is above all," whom our Lord himself habitually worshiped, 
 and whom, even in the fourth Gospel, he is recorded to have 
 addressed in prayer as " the Only True God."* 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 THE HOLY SPIEIT. 
 
 The conception of the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, was 
 familiar among the Hebrews many centuries before the birth 
 of Christ. For example, we read in very familiar words, — 
 " Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy Holy 
 Spirit from me."-}* The Psalm to which this verse belongs is 
 attributed in the title to David. It is probably not so ancient ; 
 
 * The import of these most emphatic words, Dr. Liddon seeks, in his own pecu- 
 liar way, to "water down" — to use an expressive phrase of his own (supra, p. 
 197). They are exclusive, he tells us (p. 237, note), "not of the Son, but of 
 false gods, or creatures external to the Divine Essence." In other words, they 
 include the person who now in his solemn and private prayer addresses them to 
 the Heavenly Father ; and who is, therefore, himself as much "the Only True 
 God" as the Being of Beings to whom he prays ! Can such an explanation really 
 satisfy any serious mind ? + Ps. li. 11. 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 227 
 
 but there can be no doubt that it was written several hundred 
 }-ears before tlie commencement of the Christian era. 
 
 It follows, that the idea of the Holy Spirit,* as it appears in 
 the Christian Scriptures, was not, and could not be, a new 
 idea, or a new revelation of divine truth. 
 
 Some of the instances in which the Spirit is mentioned in 
 the Old Testament are sufficiently remarkable. In one place, 
 the skill employed in the construction of the tabernacle is 
 said to be given by it.-f- In the Book of Job we have a similar 
 conception, in these words : — " But there is a spirit in man, and 
 the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." 
 Another sacred poet writes, — " The Spirit of the Lord spake 
 by me, and his word was in my tongue." In the Psalms, the 
 life of the animal creation and the renewal of the earth with 
 vegetation are attributed to the same Divine energy : " Thou 
 sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created ; and thou renewest 
 the face of the earth." J 
 
 Such instances are very numerous ; and by them we may 
 clearly see how familiar to various writers of the older Scrip- 
 tures was the great thought of the ever-active and all-pervad- 
 ing Spirit of God. All life, intelligence, mental energy and 
 manual skill, were of its operation. The Spirit of God moved 
 upon the face of the waters at the dawn of creation, and 
 reduced the chaos into order. The same inspiration upholds 
 us in being, gives us understanding and strength to do what- 
 ever man is capable of doing ; and when that Divine power is 
 withdrawn, we die and return to the dust. 
 
 * Our English words Ghost and Spirit, the one of Anglo-Saxon, the other of 
 Latin origin, correspond to and represent only otie word in the original Scriptures, 
 Hebrew and Greek respectively. This should unquestionably everywhere be ren- 
 dered by "Spirit," especially in the New Testament, the word Ghost being, in our 
 days, by no means free from objectionable associations. It can only tend to convey 
 false impres.sions to many English readers, to use sometimes the one, sometimes the 
 other, in an English version of the New Testament, the original word being always, 
 without exception, the single neuter substantive Trvivfia. 
 
 t Exod. xxxi. 1—11. X Job xxxii. 8; 2 Sam. xxiii. 2; Ps. civ. 30. 
 
 Q2 
 
228 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 It is evident that, iu all such representations, what is really 
 meant by the term in question, is no other than God Himself. 
 It is the Almighty Being, mysteriously putting forth His 
 power in the creation, support, control, inspiration, of the 
 universe of animate and inanimate things — acting upon us 
 and in us by tlie operation of His living will and energy. 
 But there is nothing to shew that the ancient writers of the 
 Old Testament, in thus speaking of the active power of God, 
 ever attributed to it a separate personal existence. We are 
 not aware that this has ever been maintained. The Holy 
 Spirit, in the older Scriptures, is indeed the Divine Being in 
 His action upon the material world, and in communion with 
 the soul of man ; but this fact will not justify us in saying 
 that it is " God the Holy Spirit," as though it were a some- 
 thing distinct, something to be thought of and named as God, 
 apart from Him who alone is Jehovah. The personal concep- 
 tion, if admitted into the Old Testament, would in truth tend 
 directly to weaken or destroy the proper monotheistic idea of 
 tlie Mosaic religion. It is needless to add, that so dangerous 
 an infringement of the great characteristic principle of that reli- 
 gion is nowhere to be met with throughout the Hebrew Books. 
 
 The deep feeling of reverence with which the Jews regarded 
 the Sacred Name has been formerly noticed. We have seen 
 that they refrained from uttering it, and preferred to express 
 it by some substituted form. Something of the same feeling 
 makes its appearance at times, even amidst the extreme 
 anthropomorphism of their ancient books. The sentiment re- 
 ferred to is, in truth, perfectly natural to the human mind. 
 What God is, in His essential nature, man does not know, and 
 is probably incapable of comprehending. How He acts upon 
 the universe of material things, how He preserves, or in any 
 way influences, the human soul, we are likewise unable to 
 explain. This natural human incapacity has been felt in all 
 ages. Hence the ancient idea that the Infinite cannot stand 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 229 
 
 in any immediate relation with outward things, and can oijly 
 act upon them by influences, emanations, angels, words spoken, 
 going forth from Him and accomplishing whatsoever He may 
 have ordained. This way of conceiving of the Divine activity 
 has been already sufficiently dwelt upon in connection with 
 the doctrine of the Logos, as it is found in the New Testament. 
 But the same feeling in relation to Jehovah most probably 
 gave occasion and form to expressions in the Old Testament 
 also, as well as in the later Apocryphal books. Thus, as we 
 have seen, in the Psalms, the " word of Jehovah " and the 
 " breath of his mouth " are the instruments of His will ; and 
 His Spirit, or inspiration, goes forth from Him, to animate, 
 guide, move, accomplish, according to His all-comprehending 
 intelligence. 
 
 At the risk of a little repetition, we may observe that this 
 tendency to distinguish between the incomprehensible Being 
 and His manifestations in the material universe is more marked 
 in some books than in others. It leads occasionally to an 
 apparent separation between Him and one or other of His 
 attributes. The Divine Wisdom, for example, as displayed in 
 the works of nature, is there visible to human eyes. It may, 
 consequently, be spoken of even as a something distinct from 
 its source. It has come forth, or been sent forth, from God ; 
 and it exists, in some sense, apart from Him. In the Book 
 of Job (chapter xxviii.) there. is an evident approach to this 
 mode of conception. But, nevertheless, neither there nor else- 
 where is Wisdom really a separate being. It is so only by 
 a poetical metaphor. This way of speaking is only a mode 
 of speech. The Divine wisdom is really and essentially in 
 the Divine ]\Iind ; nay, it is no other than God Himself ;• and 
 it would be an extreme error to make, as it were, a divine 
 person of it, or a separate existence at all. 
 
 Such remarks as these apply not only to the personification 
 of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, on which Dr. Liddon, as 
 
230 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 we have seen, lays so unreasonable a stress ; and not only to 
 the similar personifications of Wisdom found in the Sapiential 
 Books, which he also adduces in the same urgent way ; but 
 it applies equally to instances in both the Old Testament and 
 the New, in which the Holy Spirit might appear for the 
 moment to be spoken of as a separate personal being. These 
 different cases help, in fact, to illustrate and explain each 
 other. In none of them will it be found really necessary to 
 suppose that we are to regard the word, or the breath, or the 
 wisdom, or the Spirit of God, as separate beings, apart from 
 the Infinite. 
 
 The truth of these statements may be shewn by a reference 
 to various expressions which occur in the New Testament. 
 When Christ reasoned with the Jews respecting his own 
 authority as a Divine teacher, and the power by which he 
 wrought his miracles, he said to them, as reported by the first 
 Evangelist, "If I cast out flevils by the Spirit of God, then 
 the kingdom of God is come unto you." In the parallel place 
 in St. Luke, the same saying is reported thus : " If I with the 
 finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is 
 come upon you."* The two forms of expression were evidently 
 understood by the Evangelists to mean the same thing. What 
 that meaning is cannot be doubtful, and is well illustrated 
 by the words of the fourth Gospel, where Jesus says on another 
 occasion, "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the 
 works." But this, again, cannot reasonably be taken to mean 
 that the Infinite Father was in Christ, in the Evangelist's 
 conception, in any other way than by the Divine help and 
 power which He gave him ; or, also, by means of the indwell- 
 ing Logos ; and such forms of expression simply amount, in 
 fact, as already observed, to the statement of the Apostle Peter 
 at the Pentecost. The Almighty Father was manifested in 
 Christ, and, in the Apostle's conception, was seen to be so, 
 
 * Matt. xii. 28 ; Luke xi. 20. 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 231 
 
 "by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by 
 him." 
 
 It is thus clear, that the "finger of God" and the "Spirit 
 of God" are simply God Himself, the Heavenly Father, acting 
 in and through Christ ; andjt is no more necessary, or allow- 
 able, to make a separate person of the Spirit, than it is to 
 suppose such a distinction to be hidden or implied in the 
 phrase " the finger of God." 
 
 The miraculous powers of Christ are thus denoted, at times, 
 by the expression before us.* So it is in connection with the 
 Apostles, who are said to " receive power" by the Holy Spirit 
 coming upon them, and in connection with Gentile converts 
 also, when they receive "the gift of the Holy Spirit." f In 
 such expressions it is impossible to miss the conception really 
 present to the mind of the sacred writers. Evidently it could 
 not have been that of a personal agent. The gifts and powers 
 refeiTcd to were produced by the action of the Almighty Being 
 upon the minds of men. They were conferred by a subtle 
 inbreathing of Divine power, such as could only be denoted 
 in human language by the word " Spirit," no other term being 
 equally adapted to express so refined, pervading and all-con- 
 trolling a manifestation of the Divine energy. 
 
 We read in the Book of Acts (xix. 1 — G), that St. Paul found 
 certain disciples at Ephesus to whom he said, "Have ye 
 received the Holy Spirit since ye believed ? And they said 
 unto him," we are told, " We have not so much as heard whe- 
 ther there be any Holy Spirit." It is plain that they meant 
 they had not heard of the miraculous powers conferred on the 
 first Christians ; for it is added, that " when Paul laid his 
 hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they 
 spake with tongues." 
 
 It would be easy to give a number of similar instances, by 
 
 * Matt., xii. 28 ; comp. Acts x. 38. f Acts i. 8 ; x. 44—47 ; Heb. ii. 4 :— 
 in this last place there is no article, "gifts of Holy Spirit:" as frequently. 
 
232 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 which it would be equally seen that gifts and powers of know- 
 ledge and of wisdom, sometimes of holy, guiding influence, 
 manifested in the dispositions and the life, are denoted by this 
 expression.* Thus the men who are chosen for the office of 
 deacon in the primitive church are said to have been " men 
 of honest report, full of Holy Spirit, and of wisdom." Of 
 Stephen, also; at the time of his death, it is related that, 
 " being full of Holy Spirit, he looked steadfastly up to heaven." 
 "We read that Simon tlie sorcerer offered to buy the Holy 
 Spirit from the Apostles for money. It is plain that we can 
 only understand this of the Divine powers which the Apostles 
 possessed, and not of a personal being. Similarly, in other 
 places, the Spirit is said to be given, to be poured out, to be 
 possessed, to fill, and move holy men and others ; — expressions 
 all of which correspond entirely to the statement that it is a 
 divine power or influence that is spoken of, while they do not 
 correspond to the theory that it is a divine person. 
 
 It is, however, alleged, that although the Spirit is nowhere 
 expressly said to be God, or to be a Person, yet it is sometimes 
 spoken of as possessing perscJnal attributes and performing 
 personal functions. It is described as understanding, willing, 
 acting. It is represented as speaking to men, pleading with 
 them, and interceding for them ; as bearing testimony, reprov- 
 ing, teaching, bringing to remembrance. Are we not, then, by 
 the use of such phrases, warranted in thinking of the Holy 
 Spirit as a separate personal being, and, by immediate inference, 
 as the third person of the Godhead ? 
 
 To answer this question, we have first to ask another. Is it 
 a real personality that is intended in such instances, or only a 
 figurative one ? Now this question cannot be reasonably 
 answered except in one way, if we will duly attend to the 
 manner in which figurative language is employed by the 
 
 * Matt. X. 19, 20 ; John xiv. 26 ; xv. 26 ; Acts vi. 3—5 ; vii. 55 ; viii. 18—20 ; 
 Rom. viii. 4 — 12. 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 233 
 
 writers of Scripture, and in particular to the many cases of 
 bold personification which occur in both the Old and the New 
 Testament. When Joshua confirms the covenant with tlie 
 Israelites, on entering the land of Canaan, he uses these words : 
 " This stone shall be a witness unto us ; for it hath heard all 
 the words of Jehovah which he spake unto us ; it shall there- 
 fore be a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God."* In 
 this case a personal character could scarcely have been more 
 strongly expressed. Yet no mistake is ever made as to the 
 meaning of the passage. No one can suppose the stone 
 to have been an intelligent being, as the words so distinctly 
 imply — an intelligent being listening to the ratification of the 
 covenant, to attest the fact to later ages. 
 
 Other instances might be adduced from the Old Testament, 
 as in those parts of the Book of Proverbs in which Wisdom 
 is so remarkably personified. But let us turn more particularly 
 to the New Testament, as chiefly concerning our present argu- 
 ment. We know how the Apostle Paul personifies Sin, Death, 
 the Law, in several instances. He rei^resents them as having 
 power, exercising dominion, reigning over men, and being 
 enemies ; yet we are never misled by such language to think 
 that he is speaking of real persons.-|- The same remark may 
 be made of his description of Charity: — Charity suffereth 
 long, and is kind ; envdeth not ; is not puffed up ; seeketh not 
 her own ; thinketh no evil ; beareth, believeth, hopeth, en- 
 dureth, all things. Here this Christian virtue is represented 
 as having tlie attributes of personality, exactly as happens in 
 the case of the Spirit of God. But as we do not, in the one 
 case, suppose that a real person is meant, so there is no neces- 
 sity to do this, and no propriety in doing it, in the other. 
 So far as the language is concerned, there is just as nmch 
 reason to make Charity, or Sin, or Death, or the Law, into a 
 person, as tliere is to do so in the case of the Holy S[)irit. 
 
 * Josb. xxiv. 26, 27. t Rom. vi. 12, 14; v. H— 17; 1 Cor. xv. 55—57. 
 
234 THE HOLY SPIEIT. 
 
 There is one passage of the New Testament which seems to 
 require special notice in the present connection. It is that 
 which speaks of sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin which is 
 declared to be unpardonable. * From the context it appears 
 that what is meant is the denial of the Spirit of God, as 
 manifested by Jesus to the deniers, — that is to say, as exhibited 
 by him in his wonderful works, there done before their eyes. 
 Blasphemy, or evil-speaking, against himself, the Son of Man, 
 might be forgiven. But one that was so hardened as to shut 
 his eyes and his heart to the visible manifestation of Divine 
 power, the visible presence of the Holy Spirit in those " works," 
 — such a person sinned wilfully and obstinately against God 
 Himself ; and that sin should not be forgiven. 
 
 It was a severe rebuke and condemnation of the hardened 
 unbelief which even ascribed the powers of Christ to Beelze- 
 bub, — powers exercised so beneficently, with so much of humi- 
 lity and self-forgetfulness in their possessor, and therefore 
 so forcibly evidencing, in every respect, their own Divine 
 origin. 
 
 There are still one or two facts to be mentioned which are 
 wholly unaccountable on the supposition of the truth of the 
 popular teaching on this subject. First, there is no doxology, 
 or ascription of praise, to the Holy Spirit, in either the Old 
 or the New Testament. Nor is there any instance, we believe, 
 on record, in all the Scriptures, of any prayer having ever been 
 addressed to the Holy Spirit as a separate personality. It is 
 inconceivable that this sliould be the case, had this Divine 
 power been regarded in the early Christian times as separately 
 God, a definite personal being, even as much so as the Almighty 
 Father. 
 
 It is, indeed, in the second place, to be remembered, that 
 no example can be adduced, from the first and second centu- 
 ries, of the Holy Spirit being made an object of worship, or 
 
 ■* Malt. xii. 31, 32; Mark iii. 28; Luke xii. 10. 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 235 
 
 perhaps even of its being spoken of as a distinct existence — 
 as distinguished, that is to say, from the idea of it as a power, 
 gift, blessing, conferred by God. Even in the Apostles' Creed, 
 which probably comes down from the end of the second cen- 
 tury, the Holy Spirit does not appear in a personal character. 
 It may be questioned whether it does so in the original Nicene 
 Creed, although, at the time when this was composed (A.D. 
 325), the doctrine of a Trinity of equal persons was beginning 
 to be held by some of the more speculative of the Church 
 Fathers. The absence of the fuller definition of the Spirit 
 from the Nicene Creed proper is well known. It was the 
 Council of Constantinople which introduced the longer form 
 now found in the English Prayer Book.* A still later addi- 
 tion, — that of the words " and the Son," — was the great occa- 
 sion of the schism, not yet healed, nor likely to be so, between 
 the Eastern and the Western Churches. 
 
 The following just and weighty observation, in reference to 
 the doxology in use in the worship of the Church of England, 
 is made by Dr. Lardner. After quoting the doxology, " Glory 
 be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost : as 
 it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world with- 
 out end. Amen," — he proceeds to observe : " Doubtless this 
 is said by many very frequently, and with great devotion. 
 But can it be said truly ? Does not that deserve considera- 
 tion? Is there any such doxplogy in the New Testament? 
 Are not the books of the New Testament the most ancient 
 
 * The original Nicene Creed, in the clause relating to the Holy Spirit, stood thus : 
 "And in the Holy Spirit." At the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) this clause 
 was amplified as follows : " And I believe in the Holy Spirit; the Lord and Giver 
 of Life ; who proceedeth from the Father ; who with the Father and tlie Son toge- 
 ther is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the projjhets." To this form the 
 ■words "and the Son," after "proceedeth from the Father," were added at a later 
 period, and so the Creed was completed, as it stands in the Book of Common Prayer. 
 "So that the creed, here called the Nicene creed, is indeed the Constjintinopolitan 
 creed, together with the addition otjilioque, made by the Western church." Bishop 
 Burnet, U2)ud Lardner (Works by Ki]ipis, X. p. 1U2). 
 
236 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 and the most authentic Christian writings in all the world ? 
 It matters not much to inquire when this doxology was first 
 used,* or how long it has been in use, if it be not in the New 
 Testament. And whether it is there or not, may be known 
 by those who are pleased to read it with care."-|- 
 
 Let us not, however, in the midst of these more controversial 
 topics, lose sight of a very different consideration, one which 
 has an immediate connection both with Christian faith and 
 with Christian practice. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is 
 still a vital part of Christianity. And, to one who faithfully 
 admits it, there is an effectual end to the importance of sacer- 
 dotalism, Anglican, Eomish and Greek ; equally an end to it 
 in all its three forms. For no reasonable mind can suppose 
 that the Spirit of God is confined in its movements within the 
 limits of those Churches, one or all of them ; that it can only 
 visit the humble, waiting soul through the person of a " priest;" 
 that a priest, so called, has alone the power to confer it, how- 
 ever exactly his outer vestments may be conformed to the 
 style of some long past century of Christian antiquity ; how- 
 ever elaborately he may perform enjoined ceremonies and 
 sacraments ; or however magnificent the external accompani- 
 ments of his worship. 
 
 All true religion, whether in " Church" or out of it, is founded 
 upon, is identical with, the sense of the living presence of God 
 with and in the human soul — that alone. Such is also the 
 evident foundation of Christianity, as recognized in almost 
 every act and word of Christ and his Apostles. With them, 
 the Heavenly Father is the all-pervading Spirit of the universe, 
 a living God, who can hear our prayers, and see our efforts to 
 do His will ; and who, by His Spirit, can help, enlighten and 
 comfort the souls of all that faithfully look to Him, whether 
 they shall bow down in the humblest " meeting-house," or in 
 
 * This was not until after the Council of Constantinople. 
 + Lardner, Works by Kippis, X. p. 167 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 237 
 
 the grandest cathedral of human Art. Not, indeed, in the pre- 
 sence of elaborately or superstitiously observed formalities, any 
 more than amidst fanatical noise and excitement, can we think 
 that the Spirit of God most effectually visits the waiting soul, 
 or lets the "still, small voice" of His presence be most clearly 
 and touchingly heard within the heart. It is rather in the 
 hour of quiet and lonely meditation that this will come to 
 pass : — when we think with penitence about our past siu.s, 
 when we reflect upon the duties we have to do, and how best 
 we may do them, when we strive and pray to give ourselves 
 up to all God's will concerning, us ; then will the communion 
 of His Holy Spirit be ours ; " the grace of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ" be with us, and the Divine Love be shed upon us. 
 Then, too, shall we know that we are true disciples of His Son, 
 acceptable servants and children of our Father which is in 
 Heaven. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 SACRIFICES, THEIR ORIGIN AND PURPOSE — THE HEBREW SYSTEM. 
 
 One of the earliest ideas that we meet with in the history 
 of religion, is that of the efficacy of sacrifices to expiate sin, to 
 propitiate the gods, and avert punishment from the guilty. 
 The first book of the Iliad shews us the enraged Apollo, in the 
 midst of the vengeance he is taking upon the Greeks, appeased 
 by the offering of a hecatomb, and delighted by the singing at 
 the sacrificial banquet by which it was accompanied. The 
 father of history records a similar belief on the part of the 
 ancient Egyptians, as he doubtless heard of it from their priests, 
 in his travels among them in the fifth century before Clirist. 
 Beginning with tliese early notices, a long succession of pas- 
 sages may be cited from the classical writers, in evidence of 
 
238 SACEIFICES : 
 
 the wide prevalence of the same idea. Among these, no state- 
 ment is more definite or interesting to an English reader than 
 that of Csesar, in his Gallic War, where he tells us of the Galli, 
 and of their powerful priesthood, the Druids, how given they 
 were to religious rites, and what importance they attached 
 to their terrible offerings of human victims. 
 
 But, indeed, we need not go back to remote antiquity for 
 either the belief in the ef&cacy of sacrifices in general, or that 
 in the superior value of human victims in particular. A very 
 remarkable and fearful example may be found nearer to our- 
 selves. It is not many years since the Indian Government 
 felt itself called upon to interfere, to suppress a system of 
 human sacrifice prevailing among a barbarous race of people, 
 in the province of Orissa.* It was found, in this case, that the 
 victims were kept and reared for the purpose, and put to death, 
 in a particular way, with circumstances of great cruelty, before 
 an assembled crowd of people. The design was to propitiate 
 some divinity, and thus to gain a victory, to obtain abundant 
 crops, or avert calamity from the community or the individual. 
 It is satisfactory to learn that success attended the efforts of 
 the agents of the Indian Government to put an end to these 
 deplorable barbarities. They serve, hoM^ever, to illustrate for 
 us the ideas of far distant times on the same subject. We 
 cease to wonder that ancient Gauls, and Britons, and Egyp- 
 tians, and others of former ages, had faith in the religious value 
 of sacrifices, animal and human, when we find the same faith 
 in active operation even among subjects of the British crown, 
 and in the middle of the nineteenth century. 
 
 What has just been said shews us the wide-spread preva- 
 lence and great antiquity of the terrible superstition referred 
 to. It shews us more than this. We see also that the prac- 
 tices in question were essentially natural as well as heathen 
 practices ; inasmuch as they have prevailed so universally 
 
 * Major CampbelFs Wild Tribes of Khondistan, 1864. 
 
THEIR NATURAL ORIGIN. 239 
 
 among heathen peoples, and have been, in all cases, so far as 
 we have any evidence, the simple offspring of their own low 
 and unspiritual ideas of the nature of the Deity, and of the 
 worship which is acceptable to Him. 
 
 This remark is made mainly because it suggests and war- 
 rants another. Most of our older theological writers, including 
 such men as Archbishop Magee and Dr. Pye Smith, would 
 seem to have believed in the divine or supernatural institution 
 of sacrifices. Most probably this notion is hardly yet obsolete. 
 It is entirely destitute of reasonable evidence, and is in no 
 way made feasible, but only contradicted, by the known facts 
 of the case. The point is one, however, which must be ad- 
 mitted, at the present day, to have lost any interest or import- 
 ance it may once have been thought to possess. 
 
 Among the Hebrews, sacrificial usages were in operation 
 from the earliest period of which we have any reliable infor- 
 mation. In the Mosaic law^s, however, they are regulated 
 and modified in such a way as to guard against some of their 
 worst abuses. Probably no law-maker of those times would 
 have found it expedient, or even possible, to dispense with 
 sacrifices altogether. All that could be done was to place 
 them under some reasonable limitations, and endeavour to 
 connect with them better ideas than had previously prevailed. 
 Sacrifices of animals, as well as other offerings, are accordingly 
 prescribed by the Law ; but some care was nevertheless taken 
 to prevent the people from thinking that such things availed 
 in themselves to expiate moral sins, actual violations of hon- 
 esty, justice and truth. Althougli, therefore, in most cases of 
 transgression, a sacrifice is prescribed, yet there is also some 
 penalty or punishment connected with it. Thus, as the rule, 
 the offender was reminded that transgression brought punish- 
 ment, and was not to be atoned for by a mere ceremony of 
 religion. Nor was the idea encouraged, that it was sufficient, 
 in order to gain the Divine forgiveness, to turn over punish- 
 
240 SACEIFICES. 
 
 ment incurred to some substituted victim. In this respect, 
 the old law of the Jews was a better teacher than some Evan- 
 gelical expounders of the modern doctrine of atonement. 
 
 An illustration of these statements may be taken from the 
 following passage in the Book of Leviticus.* 
 
 " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. If a soul sin and 
 commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neigh- 
 bour in that which was delivered unto him to keep, or in 
 fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence ; or hath 
 deceived his neighbour; or have found that which was lost, and 
 lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely ; in any of all these 
 that a man doeth, sinning therein ; then it shall be, because he 
 hath sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he 
 took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully 
 gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost 
 thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn 
 falsely ; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add 
 the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it 
 appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. And he shall 
 bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blem- 
 ish out of the flock, . . . for a trespass offering, unto the priest ; 
 and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the 
 Lord ; and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he 
 hath done in trespassing therein." 
 
 In this passage there are two or three things worthy of 
 notice. First, restitution, or compensation, was to be made 
 for injury done. Secondly, there must be an acknowledgment 
 of the wrong, and this confession is marked and emphasized 
 by the offering of a sacrifice. Thirdly, the victim is itself an 
 animal of some value, insomuch that its loss was a kind of 
 penalty upon the offender. And so it is, in most cases under 
 the Law : actual crimes, moral offences, sins, are punished. 
 They are not allowed to be simply expiated by sacrifice — the 
 * Lev. vi. 1 — 7. 
 
THE MOSAIC SYSTEM. 241 
 
 latter being rather a subordinate incident of the whole transac- 
 tion, though doubtless very necessary in those times, as tending 
 to strengthen the sense of guilt, and direct the mind to the 
 idea of the invisible Euler and Judge, whose will had been 
 violated. The atonement made by sacrifice is constantly of 
 the ritual or ceremonial character, — a mere appendage to soiiie- 
 thing else oL greater moral significance, rather than in itself 
 possessed of an independent, all-sufficient, expiatory or pro- 
 pitiatory efficacy.* 
 
 It is hardly necessary to add, that the general spirit of most 
 of the Prophets is in harmony with whatever is best and 
 highest in the Law on this subject. The people, indeed, and 
 probably their rulers, were long incapable of appreciating 
 worthily these better ideas. In the times of Isaiah and Micah, 
 for example, it is clear, the tendency was to look upon the 
 sacrifice of a victim as possessed of great efficacy to propitiate 
 the Almighty and expiate sin. But against this, we know, 
 the faithful prophet earnestly protests. " Will Jehovah be 
 pleased with thousands of rams," Micah asks, " or with ten 
 thousands of rivers of oil ? Shall I give my first-born for my 
 transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul T' 
 Isaiah and Jeremiuli are equally decided and severe on this 
 point ;-f- shewing us, on the one hand, how prevalent among 
 tlie people of their times was the idea of the value of sacrifices 
 to secure the Divine favour even, for a guilty man, and, on the 
 other, that such beliefs were as little encouraged by the Pro- 
 phets as by the Levitical law. 
 
 A singular, but wholly factitious, importance has been 
 attached to the sacrificial system of the Hebrews, inasmuch as 
 it has been thought to have been intended mysteriously to 
 foreshadow and typify the death of Christ, and the work of 
 redemption effected by him. This theory is, in fact, only a 
 
 * Com p. Lev. v. xvi. .xxiv. xxvi 
 f Isaiah i. ; Jer. vii. ; Micah vi. ; Amos v. 
 11 
 
242 THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES NOT TYPICAL. 
 
 form of the ill-founded doctrine held by so many, and dis- 
 cussed at sufficient length in the earlier part of this work. It 
 is Dr. Liddon's "principle of an organic unity in Holy Scrip- 
 ture/' applied to Hebrew sacrifices and the death of Christ ; 
 and it will not be found more valid or more tenable in the 
 present case tlian in connection with the Messianic expecta- 
 tions of the Old Testament. A further remark is inevitable : 
 whether the theory now in question be true or not, certainly 
 those who profess to hold it might, at least, be expected to 
 interpret the Christian redemption in accordance with the 
 highest spirit of the older Scriptures to which they appeal ; 
 and this, we plainly see, does not countenance a belief in 
 vicarious punishment, or in the forgiveness of moral trans- 
 gression on account of a sacrificed victim. 
 
 But, in truth, the theory alluded to will scarcely bear exa- 
 minatio]!. The Jews themselves never so understood their 
 ancient books. No passage can be pointed out in the Old 
 Testament which contains an " anticipation" of anything sup- 
 posed to be taught in the New Testament on this subject, or 
 which suggests any conscious looking forward by the writer to 
 a greater and more genuine sacrifice to come.* As we have 
 abundantly seen, it was not expected by the Jewish people 
 that the Messiah would die. When Jesus spoke to his dis- 
 ciples of his approaching sufferings and death, it would appear 
 that they could not bear, scarcely comprehend, his words.-f- 
 Thus, the crucifixion came upon the disciples very much as 
 an unforeseen calamity — so little had it been known either to 
 unbelieving Jews, or to Christian disciples, that the Messiah, 
 when he came, must be offered up as a propitiatory sacrifice 
 for the sins of the world. 
 
 In one New Testament book only does the tlieory now re- 
 
 * We have formerly seen that Isaiah liii. really forms no exception to this re- 
 mark — supra, Chap. V. 
 
 t Matt. xvi. 21—23 ; Mark viii. 31—33 ; John xii. 23—26. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS. 243 
 
 ferred to find any apparent support. This is the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, a work, we are aware, of unlcnown authorship,* 
 and which can only be received as expressing, not the belief 
 of the general Christian community at the time when it was 
 written, but that solely of its eloquent and flmciful author, 
 whoever he may have been. This Epistle, addressing itself 
 to Jews, and accommodating itself especially to their ideas, 
 runs a kind of parallel between the ministry and death of 
 Christ and various Levitical rites and objects. Our Lord is 
 not only the victim offered, but also the priest who officiates. 
 Christianity has its temple, its altar, its Holy of holies, its 
 sacrifice, even as Judaism itself had : but in what sense ? Evi- 
 dently in no real or literal sense ; but in an imaginative, semi- 
 allegorical sense only, similar to that which we so easily 
 attribute to the Pilgrim's Progress. Thus, again, the typical 
 or predictive significance attached to the ancient rites by the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews is purely imaginary, and cannot justify 
 us in thinking that those rites were, in their institution, con- 
 sciously designed by any one to prefigure or anticipate the 
 life and death of Jesus Christ. 
 
 The remembrance of the probably Alexandrine origin of the 
 Epistle equally warns us against the error of accepting its 
 representations as literal statements of ffict and history. In 
 various points, indeed, its whole conception is essentially dif- 
 ferent from the leading ideas of the writings of St. Paul : — a 
 conclusive reason, both against its Pauline authorship, and 
 also for declining to allow the views which it sets forth to 
 exercise any determinative influence in the interpretation cither 
 of those writings, or of any other part of the New Testament. 
 
 Passing on from the older times of the Law and the Prophets 
 to those of the primitive Christianity, we find the ancient 
 
 * Even Dr. Lidtlon, with liis tenacious liold of every particle of aiijiarent or 
 reputed evidence on iiis own side of the question, finds liiiuself obliged to abandon 
 the Pauline origin of this Epistle — B.L. , p. 281. 
 
 K 2 
 
2i4; SACEIFICES: 
 
 system of worship in operation in the time of Christ, and long 
 afterwards. The smoke of the morning and evening sacrifice 
 still ascended daily from the temple court ; and, probably, 
 there prevailed widely throughout the nation a belief in the 
 sacredness of such rites, and in their value as the means of 
 propitiating the Almighty and obtaining the forgiveness of 
 transgression, national and individual. Hence the writer to 
 the Hebrews can declare, " Almost all things are by the law 
 purged with blood ; and without shedding of blood is no 
 remission."* To the Jewish mind of that time, doubtless this 
 was true. The people had been accustomed for many centuries 
 to such ideas, in common with most of the nations of ancient 
 times. But, however natviral it was to the childhood of the 
 human race so to think and so to worship, the old ideas and 
 practices are incompatible with increased knowledge, and a 
 better understanding of moral and spiritual truth in particular. 
 When our Lord so plainly and emphatically spoke of God 
 as the " Heavenly Father," and tauglit that we must worship 
 Him, not with ceremonies and sacrifices, but " in spirit and in 
 truth;" when he repeated to the people around him those 
 ancient words, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice;" when 
 he said, " If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remem- 
 berest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there 
 thy gift before the altar, and go thy way ; first be reconciled 
 to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift;" when he 
 declared, as he plainly did, that the tears of the penitent 
 sinner are better in God's sight than all the boastful pride of 
 Pharisaic righteousness ; — in such teachings as these he struck 
 at the root of those long-descended ideas and practices of his 
 countrymen in connection with sacrifices. These may, indeed, 
 still linger for awhile in the world ; for the world is slow to 
 learn the lessons of a simple, non-mystical, and truly spiritual 
 religion. But it will learn them in time. In proportion as 
 
 * Heb. ix. 22. 
 
UNSPIRITUAL AND UNCHniSTIAN. 2i5 
 
 men become truly able to look up to the Heavenly Fatliev, and 
 to trust in Him as a God of love and mercy unspeakable, they 
 will put away from their thoughts the old heathen belief in 
 the necessity of sacrifices to propitiate Him, or to expiate sin. 
 Especially must this be so, if, as may easily be shewn, Chris- 
 tianity itself does not really teach or enjoin any doctrine of 
 the forgiveness of sin, other than that of its being a free gift 
 of the Infinite mercy. Forgiveness is not, indeed, offered in 
 the Gospel without conditions on the side of man ; * but we 
 may well believe that it is so on the side of God. He, we 
 may be sure, forgives freely, of His own unbouglit grace and 
 goodness. If, in short, we may place any reliance on the 
 plainest declarations of Christ himself — such as we have, for 
 example, in the parable of the Prodigal Son — the ancient and 
 widely-diffused belief in the efficac}^ of sacrifices, in every form, 
 must sooner or later die out from the thouglits of devout men, 
 giving place to what is higlier and better, more worthy of the 
 Divine character, and of the worship and service which He 
 who is a Spirit Himself asks from us. 
 
 We know, however, that there are numerous expressions in 
 the New Testament which connect together the forgiveness of 
 sins and the shedding of blood, — in particular, the shedding of 
 the blood of Christ. Our purpose must now be to ascertain 
 the meaning of this language ; and, if possible, to find an 
 interpretation of it, not drawn. from any modern theories of the 
 Atonement, whether of this church or of that, but founded 
 simply on a fair consideration of the circumstances and feelings 
 of the times from which the expressions referred to come down 
 to us. Dr. Liddon speaks of " writers who carry into their 
 interpretation of the Gospels ideas which have been gained 
 from a study of the Platonic Dialogues, or of the recent history 
 of France.""!' ^^^^ remark is just, and the warning which it 
 conveys perhaps more widely applicable than its author sus- 
 
 • Matt. vi. 14, 15 ; xviii. 35. t Liddon, B.L., p. 100. 
 
246 THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 pects ! It is at least a remark the spirit of wlueli is especially 
 worthy of remembrance in connectiou with the present subject. 
 For the danger is obvious of carrying into its discussion ideas 
 gained, not from the New Testament, but rather from Augustin, 
 Anselm, Luther, to say nothing of various Creeds and Articles 
 which are still nearer to us, and not unlikely to have their 
 weight even with a Bampton Lecturer. This error, then, let 
 us here duly bear in mind, and carefully endeavour to avoid. 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 THE DEATH OF CHRIST — POPULAR THEORIES FOUNDED UPON IT. 
 
 The language in which the death of Christ is spoken of in 
 the New Testament is richly varied in its forms. Him, says 
 St. Paul, " God hath set forth to be a propitiation through 
 faith, by his blood. " Ye were not redeemed," writes another 
 Apostle, "with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from 
 your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, 
 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without 
 blemish and without spot." And so the first Epistle of John : 
 "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleansethus from all sin."* 
 Similar expressions might be multiplied ; but these are sufficient 
 to enable us to state, in one of its principal forms, the doctrine 
 of redemption which has been founded on such language. 
 
 The human race, we are told, was guilty of manifold sin 
 before God, both as being descended from Adam and partaking 
 of his guilt, and also on account of actual transgression : " As 
 it is written. There is none righteous, no, not one." All men 
 were thus guilty and deserving of punishment. The wrath of 
 God was aroused against them, and would, in due time, have 
 
 * Rom. iii. 25 ; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19 ; 1 John i. 7. 
 
THE POPULAE THEORY. 247 
 
 fallen upon them, in the form of eternal damnation. It would 
 now also be impending over all of us, without any chance of 
 escape, had not Christ, by suffering and dying, borne it for 
 us. He, however, suffered and died upon the cross, for sin. 
 Thus by his death he appeased, propitiated, or made " satis- 
 faction" to, tlie wrath of the Almighty Father, by himself 
 enduring the punishment which must else have been inflicted 
 on men. From that punishment he has, therefore, redeemed 
 us ; by his stripes we are healed ; or, in other words, we have 
 redemption through his blood. Thus God, it is further said, 
 forgives us our sins. He has manifested His love to the 
 world in giving and accepting Christ as our substitute. At 
 the same time He has manifested His justice, because He does 
 not pardon sin without punisliing for it. The sovereignty of 
 the Di\dne Law is vindicated ; man does not sin with impu- 
 nity ; for though he may escape the penalties he has incurred, 
 yet these fall upon an all-sufficient substitute, and the require- 
 ments of justice are satisfied. 
 
 In giving an account of the doctrines of others, there is 
 some danger of overstating or understating what they teach — 
 a fault which ought always to be guarded against. The doc- 
 trine of Atonement, and its subsidiary doctrines, liave been 
 variously laid down by different writers, of older and more 
 recent date. In the above statement we have sought to express 
 fairly the substance of prevailing ideas of the forgiveness of 
 sin, and the connection of that forgiveness with the death of 
 Christ. Probably few persons familiar with modern Evangeli- 
 cal preaching, whether among the clergy or the Methodists 
 and other Nonconforming sects, would say that there is any 
 overstatement in the brief summary just given. But that this 
 may further appear, we will quote a few sentences from certain 
 works and documents well known and widely accepted at the 
 present time. The first of these, though not possessed of any 
 official authority, may properly be regarded as the representa- 
 
248 THE DEATH OF CHEIST. 
 
 tive of an important phase of the common doctrine, seeing that 
 it comes before us with all the authority of one of the heads 
 of the National Church. Speaking of the death of Christ, 
 Archbishop Thompson writes as follows : 
 
 " How came this exhibition of Divine love to be needed ? 
 Because wrath had already gone out against man. The clouds 
 of God's anger gathered thick over the whole human race ; 
 they discharged themselves on Jesus only. God has made 
 Him to be sin for us who knew no sin ; He is made ' a 
 curse' (a thing accursed) for us, that the curse that hangs over 
 us may be removed. He bore our sins in his own body on 
 the tree. There are those who would see on the page of the 
 Bible only the sunshine of the Divine love ; but the muttering 
 thunders of Divine wrath against sin are heard there also ; 
 and He who alone was no child of wrath meets the shock of 
 the thunderstorm, becomes a curse for us, and a vessel of 
 wrath ; and the rays of wrath break out of that thunder-gloom 
 and shine on the bowed head of Him who hangs on the 
 Cross, dead for our sins."* 
 
 In another page the Archbishop says, speaking of Christ, 
 " He came to reconcile men and God by dying on the Cross 
 for them and bearing their punishment in their stead. He is 
 'a propitiation through faith in his blood.' f He is the ran- 
 som, or price paid, for the redemption of man from all iniquity. 
 The wrath of God was against man ; but it did not fall on 
 man. God made His Son ' to be sin for us,' though He knew 
 no sin ; and Jesus suffered, though men had sinned. By this 
 act God and man were reconciled." 
 
 * Aids to Faith, 4th ed., p. 332. 
 
 + Rom. iii. 25 — but, we are persuaded, a mis-rendering of the words, which 
 may be correctly translated thus, " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
 thiough faith, by his blood." So Prof. Jowett, Epistles of St Paul, I. p. 121. 
 Meyer observes that the words "his blood" belong in sense to the verb "set 
 forth," and not to the word "faith." So, in effect, Bunsen, De Wette, and 
 various other authorities. The phrase, "faith in the blnod of Christ," is very 
 familiar, and very essential to the popular theology, but it is nowhere found in 
 the New Testament, unless it be in tliis very doubtful instance. 
 
ARCHBISHOP THOMPSON'S DOCTRINE. 219 
 
 Once more, the Archbishop describes a main point of "this 
 mysterious transaction" in the following words : — " (Jod tlie 
 Father laid upon His Son the weight of the sins of the Mhole 
 world, so that He bare in His own body the wrath whicii men 
 must else have borne, because there was no other way of 
 escape for them ; and thus the Atonement was a mauifcstntion 
 of Divine justice.'"* 
 
 It is evident that the writer of these pa.^sages holds the 
 doctrine of Atonement in no undecided form. He does not, 
 however, expressly tell us the nature of the punishment which 
 impended over man ; but there can be little doubt as to what 
 is meant. It is easy to see that the Archbishop, if he had 
 spoken more fully on that point, would have said, with many 
 before him, that the "terrible wrath" of God could only have 
 been " appeased," or found " satisfaction,""!" by and in sinful 
 man's endurance of endless suffering in hell. 
 
 What, however, this eminent expositor of the Church's doc- 
 trine fails to explain for us on the point in question, may be 
 found very fully set forth in other qnarters. It may be well, 
 too, not to pass over and neglect more " popular" statements. 
 
 * Aids to Faith, pp. 336, 337. 
 
 t IMd., p. 351. "The wrath of God" is a favourite expression with the 
 Arciibishop of York, judging from the frequency of it.s occurrence in his Essay, 
 where it may be found, we believe, much oftener than in tlie whole of the New 
 Testament. In the latter, it is used to denote esjjecially the condemnation and 
 destruction awaiting the wicked on" the. great judgment-day of the Mes.siah, at his 
 second coming. '■'.But there is no instance in which it denotes abiding wrath 
 hanging over human kind, and threatening to find its consuuunation in their 
 eternal misery. Ephes. ii. 3 affords no exception to this remark. The persons 
 here addressed had been Gentiles before their conversion, and therefore both vir- 
 tually and actually "sinners," and deserving of the punishment of sin. "By 
 nature" (or in] .their ^former heathen state) "they were children of wrath," 
 according to a well-known Hebraism. But neither here nor anywhere else does 
 the Apostle say that " the clouds of God's anger gathered thick over the whole 
 human nice." On the contrary, he immediately goes on to speak of the "great 
 love" of God, who, even when men were thus "dead in sins," had no wrath 
 towards them, but only mercy and grace, having by Christ made known His will 
 to receive even guilty men "thiough faith." (Ephes. ii. 1—10.) Comp. sujira, 
 p. 20. 
 
250 THE DEATH OF CHKIST. 
 
 We therefore take the following from one of the Methodist 
 Catechisms. Referring to the Fall, question and answer run 
 thus : 
 
 " Wherein consists the misery of that state into which man 
 fell ? — The misery of the state into which man fell consists in 
 this, that all mankind, being born in sin, and following the 
 devices and desires of their own corrupt hearts, are under the 
 wrath and curse of God, and so are made liable to the miseries 
 of this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell hereafter." 
 
 After pointing out that Christ, by his death upon the cross, 
 " offered a full satisfaction and atonement to Divine Justice 
 for the sins of the whole world," the Catechism proceeds : 
 
 " How did the death of Christ satisfy Divine Justice ? — The 
 death of Christ satisfied Divine Justice, in that our sins de- 
 served death ; but Christ being both God and man, and per- 
 fectly righteous, there was an infinite value and merit in his 
 death, — which being undergone for our sakes and in our stead, 
 Almighty God exercises his mercy in the forgiveness of sins, 
 consistently with his justice and holiness."* 
 
 There is evidently a very substantial agreement between 
 the Archbishop and the Methodist Catechism, wdiile yet the 
 latter is the more explicit of the two in regard to the punish- 
 ment from which man has been delivered. 
 
 The "Declaration of Faith" issued by the Congregational 
 Union is in harmony with both, and it may be cited here as 
 shewing us what is no doubt the usual doctrine of a large and 
 important section of English Nonconformists. The Congrega- 
 tional churches, we are told, believe " that Jesus Christ, the 
 Son of God, revealed, either personally in His own ministry, 
 or by the Holy Spirit in the ministry of His Apostles, the 
 whole mind of God for our salvation ; and that by His obedi- 
 ence to the Divine law while He lived, and by His sufferings 
 unto death. He meritoriously ' obtained eternal redemption for 
 
 * Wedeyan Catechism, No. 2 (published by the Conference), pp. 10, lo. 
 
VARIOUS DOCTRINAL STATEMENTS. 251 
 
 us;' having thereby vindicated and illustrated Divine justice, 
 ' magnified the law,' and ' brought in everlasting righteous- 
 ness.' " * 
 
 There is, it will be observed, a little vagueness in this docu- 
 ment. It does not speak of the " wrath of God," nor tell us 
 at all definitely luhat mankind have been redeemed from, nor 
 even state that Christ suffered and died in our stead, as our 
 substitute. It is, in short, altogether less decided than either 
 the Archbishop or the Wesleyan Catechism, — as if its writers 
 had been especially careful to keep close to the phraseology 
 of Scripture, and commit themselves to no idea which had not 
 at least an apparent sanction in its statements. But, never- 
 theless, it may safely be assumed tliat the doctrine intended 
 by this " Declaration," and now widely or generally received 
 in the denomination, is little different from that contained in 
 the previous quotations on this subject. If, indeed, the vaguer 
 statement just given be interpreted by the doctrinal Scliedule 
 annexed to the model Trust-deed of the Independents, there 
 can be no question as to what is meant. That schedule speaks 
 plainly of " the fall and depravity of man ;" of Christ's " sacri- 
 ficial death for tlie sins of mankind ;" and of " everlasting 
 punishment." 
 
 Finally in this enumeration, may be meiUiuned the two 
 Articles of the Church of England in which the effect of the 
 death of Clirist is more particularly spoken of To these it 
 may be supposed that some importance is still attached by 
 many — how much, or how little, it would be presumptuous 
 here to attempt to define. Article II. declares, in reference to 
 Christ, that he " truly sirffered, was crucified, dead and buried, 
 to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a saci'ifice, not only 
 for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men." Article 
 XXXI. runs thus : " Tlie offcning of Christ once made is that 
 perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the 
 * Congregational Manual, p. 104. 
 
252 THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 sins of the whole world, both original and actual ; and there 
 is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone." 
 
 It is not necessary for our present purpose, to notice in 
 any way the sense in which the various expressions of tliese 
 Articles is either admitted or denied by different persons. It 
 is enough for us to lay them before the reader in their plain 
 and obvious signification. So taken, it would seem that there 
 can be little question as to the fact of a doctrine of substitution 
 and propitiation being held in a very definite form — or if not 
 held, at least professed — by a considerable and important 
 section of English people at the present time, as it undoubtedly 
 was by the generation from which the Thirty-nine Articles 
 have come down to us. 
 
 In whatever form the popular doctrine may be stated or 
 professed, we suppose it would, by very many of those who 
 hold it, be thought but a light consideration to urge in refer- 
 ence to it, that it is out of harmony witli the dictates of 
 reason, and with that natural sense of right which the Creator 
 Himself has given to be the guide of man in the ordinary 
 affairs of human life.* Such persons may say, and have said, 
 that human reason is only depraved, and unfit to be the judge 
 of any question of right or wrong in the dealings of God. But 
 surely, on the other hand, if what is believed to be Divine 
 revelation is to have weight and influence among men, it is of 
 very great importance that its principal teachings shall not ap- 
 pear to be in opposition to man's cultivated sense of right, or 
 to the usual promptings of his rational nature. In the interest, 
 therefore, of Christianity itself, it may be well to ask respecting 
 the doctrine now under notice, whether it is really a part of 
 Christianity; and if it should appear to be so, then a further 
 
 * A popular author, a Congregationalist minister, thus wonderfully writes — "With 
 regard, first of all, to natural reason, it may he enough to remind ourselves that 
 the whole history of Jesus Christ removes itself as far as possible from the court 
 in which natural reason presides." Dr. Joseph Parker's Ecce Dem, Chap. XVI., 
 "On the Cross of Christ," p. 268. 
 
QUESTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES. 253 
 
 question will reraaiu, and will press for au answer : Is it pos- 
 sible, is it right, that the cultivated reason and conscience of 
 man should submit to an unjust or irrational doctrine? Our 
 spiritual faculties are as much the Creator's gift as any written 
 revelation can be, and we are evidently called upon to render 
 obedience and honour to them, as much as we can be to 
 receive any truth or doctrine whatsoever, handed down to us 
 from old times in a written form of words. Hence the question 
 just suggested returns upon us with redoubled furce, and in 
 various forms : Is the doctrine of substitution and redemption 
 expressed in the above cited passages really, in its different 
 particulars, in accordance with the sentiments of reason and 
 justice on which men usually act in their ordinary conduct? 
 Can it be right to inflict upon man an everlasting and infinitely 
 terrible punishment for the sins of a short lifetime ? Can it 
 be right to inflict the equivalent of such a punishment upon 
 an innocent Christ for the guilt of others, even with his own 
 consent ? But indeed, in this case, it can scarcely be said to 
 have been inflicted with his own consent ; for we are told how 
 he prayed and said, " If it be possible, let this cup pass from 
 me," although it is ti'ue he immediately added the words, " not 
 as I will, but as thou wilt" — a consent certainly, but one of 
 submission and resignation, rather than of willing or eager 
 acceptance, as required by the creeds. If, again, it may be 
 asked, a human father were to send his innocent son to be 
 crucified, in order that a band of evil-doers might escape, 
 would this be felt to be a righteous deed on the part of the 
 father? And is God less just than man ? " Shall not the Judge 
 of all the earth do right?" If the father, as an earthly sove- 
 reign, wished to pardon the criminals, to be merciful to them 
 and let them escape punishment, would it not be more gracious 
 and merciful, as at the same time more just, to pardon them 
 at once, without exacting punishment from an innocent sub- 
 
25 4 THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 stitute ? How, again, does it vindicate or " magnify" the Divine 
 law to let the guilty escape, and put their punishment on 
 another who has done no sin ? Does not this really make God 
 indifferent to justice? For, provided the punishment falls 
 somewhere, it would appear that He does not care who it is 
 that suffers. And can that be right in God, the Heavenly 
 Father, which would be so fearfully wrong in man, in any 
 human father, in any earthly sovereign ? Or can tliat really 
 "reconcile the Father to us," which, as between two human 
 beings, could only tend to greater bitterness, distrust and 
 alienation ? Moreover, if such be really the Divine proceeding 
 and idea of right, how can man feel assured that some terrible 
 punishment for his sins shall not hereafter still fall upon him ? 
 May not a Being who can punish the innocent instead of the 
 guilty, be thought likely, on second thoughts, to punish the 
 guilty nevertheless, according to their just deserts? 
 
 That the last inquiry is perfectly apposite, appears from a 
 remarkable passage in the Archbisliop's Essay,* in which he 
 explains how Christ bore the curse for us. " The curse under 
 which man labours " shews itself, we are told, " in his social 
 relations, in his relation to nature, and in his relation to God ;" 
 and then the writer goes on to speak of some of the inconveni- 
 ences and miseries of human life, the evil habits, the weak- 
 ness, and the sins of men, in which the curse is exemplified. 
 He proceeds to explain how Christ partook of these. He was 
 poor ; his life was spent among " lepers and lunatics," with 
 men afflicted and possessed. After a career, in which " all the 
 
 sufferings of our social state were brought around Him," 
 
 he was betrayed by a disciple, and crucified, while " His dis- 
 ciples fled in terror from His side." " He shared our curse in 
 tasting the bitterness of death." There is more to the same 
 effect, upon which we refrain from entering ; but we venture 
 * Aids to Faith, p. 357, seq. 
 
QUESTIONS AND DIPFICTLTIES. 255 
 
 to add the expression of our surprise that the Archbishop 
 should have failed to note that if Christ thus indeed bore " the 
 curse" and "the wrath of God" for us, he has yet by no 
 means released the liuman race from the enumerated evils. 
 Do they not all press upon our lot, nmch as before ? Social 
 suffering, selfishness, indolence, passion, the bitterness of death, 
 the fear of death, manifold wickedness and sin, — these, alas ! 
 are all here in our human life, just as of old. How then has 
 Christ borne them in " our stead," or redeemed us from them, 
 or, by taking them from us, changed the earthly state into a 
 heavenly paradise ? No such effects have followed, and so 
 far as this world is concerned, it is evident that they are 
 non-existent, the merest dreams of our theological system- 
 makers. 
 
 Shall we, then, say that the Almighty Euler has changed 
 His mind ! — and even though it be that Christ bore our punish- 
 ment, "the just for the unjust," that the Incomprehensible 
 One, nevertheless, still inflicts upon men the dread conse- 
 quences of their sins ! 
 
 The only refuge from this alternative is evidently in the 
 proposition, that the whole efficacy of the Atonement belongs 
 to the next world, for truly it is little to be traced in this. It 
 is from eternal misery that man is saved by the sacrifice of 
 Christ, — if from anything at all. The Archbishop, however, 
 does not tell us, as theologians of a former generation would 
 have done, that suffering equivalent to the eternal misery 
 of the whole human race was inflicted upon Jesus Christ ; 
 that he was made a curse for us, and bore our sins, in that 
 unspeakably fearful sense. This he does not say, and his 
 reticence is not to be wondered at. But nevertheless, even 
 this, and nothing else, is what a consistent development of his 
 theory required him to say. For, if Christ has not borne the 
 future punisliment of sin due to a guilty world, and so 
 redeemed man from bearing it, wluit else is it that he has 
 
25G THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 done or suffered "in our stead" ? In what other way has he, 
 as our substitute, released or shielded us from " the wrath of 
 God"?* 
 
 But such inquiries as these have beeu often made. Natural 
 or unavoidable as to some minds they may be, to many others 
 they will appear as the mere dictates of carnal and "unsancti- 
 fied" reason. They will be deemed, therefore, wholly super- 
 jfluous and uncalled for, as well as inconsistent with the rever- 
 ence due, whether to Holy Scripture or the teaching of " the 
 Church." The one question with the numerous religionists of 
 this class will be simply this — What is the doctrine of the 
 New Testament respecting the death of Clirist, and its connec- 
 tion with the forgiveness of sin ? Let, therefore, even this be 
 now the great question to be here considered. 
 
 And let us begin with a remark which might be expected 
 to surprise those who are accustomed only to the ordinary 
 Evangelical teaching. When the New Testament is carefully 
 read, with a view to learning what it says on this subject, we 
 nowhere find it stating that men are under the wrath and 
 curse of God, in consequence of the transgression of the first 
 pair. We nowhere find it stating that Jesus Christ "suffered, 
 was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, 
 and to be a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for 
 actual sins of men." Such, we have indeed seen, is the propo- 
 sition of the Second Article of the English Church ; and such, 
 we know, was the belief of that darker age of English history, 
 the sixteenth century, in which that Article was drawn up ; 
 but it cannot be found, nor anything I'eally like it, in the New 
 
 * The old reformers were less scrupulous than the Archbishop. Flavel says, 
 " To wrath, to the wrath of an infinite God without mixture, to the very torments 
 of hell, was Christ delivered, and that by the hand of his own Father." (Quoted 
 in Six Lectures on the Atonement, by R. L. Carpenter, B.A., 1860.) So, without 
 any hesitation and with fearless consistency, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and others, in 
 various and dreadful terms. The late Bishop Jeune tells us that the worst suftering 
 which Christ had to bear occurred when "he had fallen into his Father's hands" ! 
 Sei-mon on the Death of Christ, 1864. 
 
POPULAR DOCTRINES. 257 
 
 Testament* Nor is it there declared that Jesus Christ, being 
 God as well as man, was therefore ahle to bear the infinite 
 amount of suffering required to "satisfy" the claims of Divine 
 justice, to "appease" the wrath of the Almiglity Father against 
 the human race, on account of inherited or actual sins ; or that 
 he suffered, "the just for the unjust," the innocent for the 
 guilty, in order to redeem the world from hell-fire. Nothing 
 of this kind can be found iu the Christian teachings, as they 
 lie before us in the New Testament. Such ideas are but 
 tlie human ' theory, devised by speculative theologians to 
 explain and harmonize certain expressions which, though 
 many persons still think they are only to be interpreted in 
 that way, are, nevertheless, capable of an interpretation far 
 more simple and rational, as well as infinitely more in 
 liarmony witli the Christian idea of God as the Heavenly 
 Father. 
 
 What has just been said, as to the absence from the New 
 Testament of some of the most essential ideas involved in 
 the popular doctrine of Atonement, has been very effectively 
 set forth in recent years by a certain portion of the national 
 clergy, some of whom have spoken out on the subject with a 
 freedom and clearness of language which it has been pleasant 
 to see. These writers tell us very explicitly, that there can be 
 notliing meritorious in mere suffering ; that punishment, in 
 the form of physical or mental agony, cannot be thought pecu- 
 liarly acceptable to God. The sufferings and death of Christ 
 are not, tlierefore, to be regarded as that which pleased or 
 satisfied tlie all-merciful Father ; nor did the Saviour, in 
 short, suffer and die (as the Article says) "to reconcile his 
 Father to us." It was not this which constituted the propi- 
 tiatory efficacy of the atonement by Christ, but rather his 
 voluntary obedience and humiliation, his perfect suljmission 
 
 * Comp. 2 Cor. v. 18 — 20. It is clear tbat the "reconciliation" (atonement) 
 of St. ThuI is that of man to Qod, and not tlie reverse. 
 
258 THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 eveu unto death, his renvinciation of his own and acceptance 
 of his Father's will. This moral element it was which made 
 his death an acceptable sacrifice, and upon this the Almighty 
 Father looked down with grace and satisfaction. " In the 
 whole of the two Testaments (we are told) there is not a 
 single passage which states unambiguously the doctrine, that 
 Christ received at God's hands the punishment decreed to our 
 sins, and thus enabled God to forgive us."* 
 
 These representations are no doubt, in substance, perfectly 
 correct. Yet they are by no means so new as to many persons 
 they might appear. Similar enunciations of the Christian 
 teaching, and similar protests against the popular doctrine, 
 have long been familiar in certain quarters ; among those, 
 however, who have not had the advantage of speaking from 
 the national pulpits, — who, indeed, have usually been looked 
 upon as the merest heretics, if deemed to be within the pale 
 of Christianity at all. In illustration of these statements, the 
 publications mentioned in the note below are referred to,-{- 
 and from the last of them the following passage is offered to 
 the reader's consideration : 
 
 " It is nowhere declared that the death of Christ enabled 
 
 God to forgive ; that God could not forgive sins without a 
 satisfaction by the vicarious pimishment of an innocent person. 
 It is nowhere declared that the sufferings of Christ were a 
 punishment at all It is nowhere declared that the 
 
 * The Work of Christ, by the Rev. J. Llewelyn Davies, M.A., Pref., p. xxv. 
 See also Garden on the Atonement, in Tracts for Priests and People, No. III. 
 (1861), and comp. a Sermon preached in York Minster (1868) by the Rev. Canon 
 Robinson. From this (p. 8) we take the following : "No, the essence of the sacri- 
 fice of our Lord lies in the life-long siuTender of His-will to God, in the way in 
 which the whole current of His being set towards His Father, in that absolute and 
 unwearied obedience of which His death was but the consummation and the crown." 
 
 t The Sacrifice of Christ, by the Rev. Edward Higginson (183?) ; The Scheme 
 of Vicarious Redemption inconsistent tvith itself, by the Rev. James Martineau 
 (1839); The Scrijiture Doctrine of Redemption, a Tract, from the pen of the 
 late Dr. Lant Carpenter (1837). 
 
THE BROAD CHURCH DOCTRINE. 259 
 
 death of Christ appeased the wrath of God, rendered Him 
 propitious, made Him merciful, or disposed Him to forgive." 
 
 Thus it is plain that the theory now referred to, in its more 
 material negative positions, is new only as regards the quarter 
 from whence it proceeds. That part of it, moreover, which 
 may appear to have somewhat of novelty, will be found 
 to afford no adequate key to the numerous passages of the 
 New Testament in which the death of Christ is spoken of. It 
 does not give any real solution of the difficulties of the case ; 
 although, as may be readily admitted, it has much the advan- 
 tage of the more popular scheme represented by the Arch- 
 bishop, in being at least rational, and not out of harmony with 
 the higher Christian conceptions of the character of God. The 
 two modes of explanation appear, however, to be about equally 
 far from being based, as they ought to be, upon the historical 
 circumstances of the primitive Christian times. Their respec- 
 tive expounders are also equally open to the objection of 
 bringing a theory to Scripture, and putting it into Scripture 
 expressions, rather than gathering the meaning of these by 
 any legitimate process of interpretation. 
 
 The essence of the atonement, we are told by the class of 
 writers now more particularly in view, lay in the satisfaction, 
 complacency, delight, with which the Divine Being saw the 
 beloved Son give up his own will to the will of his Heavenly 
 Father. By tliis it was that He was propitiated ; and Christ 
 offered himself as a sacrifice and propitiation in this sense 
 alone. But how does this explain for us the various expres- 
 sions of the New Testament ? — as when, for instance, we read 
 of the Ephesians, " Now in Christ Jesus ye who some time 
 were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ : for he is 
 our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down 
 
 the middle wall of partition and that he might reconcile 
 
 both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the 
 enmity thereliy ; " — or when Peter writes, " Who his own self 
 
 s 2 
 
200 THE DEATH OF CHEIST. 
 
 bare our sins in his own body on the tree by whose stripes 
 
 ye were healed;" — or when John writes, that God "sent his 
 Son to be the propitiation for our sins."* It is impossible 
 to see how any adequate or reasonable interpretation of such 
 language as this is given by the doctrine that the atoning 
 work of Christ consisted simply in the perfect surrender of 
 his own will to that of God ; even though it be added to such 
 statements that Christ was " the head and root of all man- 
 kind," and that therefore " mankind now stand accepted before 
 God, and every sharer in the kind (sic) may plead and occupy 
 the righteous position which has been won for it by the 
 accepted sacrifice of its great representative." •j* 
 
 This theory, then, may be said to fail by defect, as that of 
 the Archbishop, in common with the popular beliefs, by excess. 
 And, indeed, it is only fair to note that the writers refen-ed to 
 themselves express their strong sense of the difficulty of ex- 
 planation, and of the obscurity or mystery of the whole subject. 
 " In a matter like this," observes Mr, Garden, " we liave still 
 much to learn." The same author quotes with approval the words 
 of Bishop Butler, " How and in what particular way it (Christ's 
 sacrifice) had this efficacy, there are not wanting persons who 
 have endeavoured to explain ; hut 1 do not find that the Scrip- 
 ture has explained it;'' and for himself he remarks, on anotlier 
 page, " Our Lord's redemptive act is indeed deeply mysterious." 
 In similar terms the Archbishop speaks of " this mysterious 
 transaction;" and the same epithet, "these mysteries," is used 
 by Mr. Llewellyn Davies.]: Thus it really appears as if the 
 repeated discussions of these eminent and learned writers do 
 not avail to clear away the obscurity in which the whole 
 subject is evidently to their minds involved. 
 
 "VVe take the liberty of suggesting that this unsatisfactory 
 
 * Ephes. ii. 13—16; 1 Peter ii. 24; 1 John iv. 9. 
 
 + Gai-den on the Atonement, Tracts for Priests and People, III. p. 18. 
 
 t Ihid. Xlir. p. 72; Davies, ibid. p. 51 ; Aids to Faith, p. 337. 
 
FAILURE OF POPULAR THEORIES. 261 
 
 result really arises from a very simple cause — the neglect of 
 those historical considerations to wliich we have just alluded. 
 It cannot be expected that any one should succeed in obtaining 
 from the Epistles the meaning of their varied exj)ressions re- 
 specting Christ's death, while he passes over and takes no 
 notice of the circumstances, the feelings, the prejudices, of the 
 early Christian times, in which those expressions have their 
 original force and application. Writers on this question, as we 
 presume to think, involve themselves and their subject in 
 helpless perplexity, simply from not observing the conditions 
 on which alone it can be profitably discussed. Starting from 
 some received doctrine of this nineteenth century, applying 
 some already constructed theory to the ancient language of 
 the Christian books, and seeking to obtain from these a mean- 
 ing in harmony with their several preconceptions, no wonder 
 that they differ from each other, and fail to find any common 
 ground on which to stand together; one, at timos, accusing ano- 
 ther even of teaching " heathenism in its most terrible form." * 
 No such common ground is obtainable, except by a careful 
 consideration of the pai'ticular state of belief and feeling among 
 Jews and Judaizing Christians, in connection with which the 
 expressions in question are first used. If such consideration 
 be duly given, preconceived ideas being put away, whether it 
 be the crude speculations of various early Fathers, the legal 
 phraseology of an Anselm, or the " masterly dissertation "-f- of 
 an eloquent theorizer like Coleridge, to say nothing of the 
 different established formularies of modern churches — this 
 question of the atonement, or reconciliation, by the death of 
 Christ will probably prove no more a "mystery" or "a myste- 
 rious transaction," than any olhor historical question arising 
 within the limits of the New Testament. 
 
 * Wonls of the Rev. Newman Hall, quoted in Garden, Tract XIII. p. 5. 
 + Ibid. III. p. 11. 
 
262 THE DEATH OF CHRIST 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 THE DEATH OF CHRIST — ITS PURPOSE AND EFFECT AS SET 
 FORTH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 It would seem to be going back to the merest elements of 
 Biblical learning to speak of the necessity of interpreting the 
 Apostolical writings by the light of contemporary circum- 
 stances, so far as these are historically known to us. This 
 point may, therefore, be dismissed with the citation of a few 
 words from two eminent writers of very different ways of 
 thinking in theology, whose authority, nevertheless, on such a 
 subject no one will think of calling in question. " Illustrate" 
 (says Bishop Ellicott), " wherever possible, by reference to his- 
 tory, topography and antiquities ;" and the same author sums 
 up the four rules of interpretation which he gives under this 
 "one general canon :" — " Interpret grammatically, historically, 
 contextually and minutely." Still more, perhaps, to our pur- 
 pose are the following words of Professor Jowett : " Of what 
 has been said this is the sum ;— That Scripture, like other 
 books, has one meaning, which is to be gathered from itself, 
 without reference to the adaptations of Fathers or Divines ; 
 and without regard to a priori notions about its nature and 
 origin. It is to be interpreted like other books, with attention 
 to the character of its authors, and the prevailing state of 
 civilization and knowledge, with allowance for peculiarities 
 of style and language, and modes of thought and figures of 
 speech." * 
 
 Following, then, the guidance of these undeniable rules, we 
 have now to proceed to the inquiry, why it is that the death 
 of Christ is so much dwelt upon in the New Testament, and 
 
 * Ellicott in Aids to Faith, pp. 430—439 (4tli ed.); Jowett in Essat/s and 
 Reviews, p. 404 (6th ed. ). 
 
ITS NECESSITY UNDEE THE LAW. 2G3 
 
 what is the connection between that event and the forgiveness 
 of sin ; or, to put these two questions together, in what way 
 the world is or was redeemed by the " blood of Christ." 
 
 In the first place, then, it was not expected by the Jews, or 
 the first Christian disciples, that the Messiah would die at 
 all. We may recall the statement in the fourth Gospel : " The 
 people answered him. We have heard out of the law that the 
 Christ abideth for ever : and how sayest thou the Son of man 
 must be lifted up?" If this may be relied upon as shewing 
 the belief of the contemporaries of Jesus, it is evident what 
 was the popular idea. And so, Avlien Christ spoke to his dis- 
 ciples of his going up to Jerusalem, and said that he should 
 there be crucified and put to death, we are told, " they under- 
 stood none of these things."* " Various other evidences occur 
 to the same effect, shewing us that the early disciples did not 
 expect that their Master would die as he did ; nor understand 
 why he died, until their eyes were opened by the course of 
 events. 
 
 In the second place, however, they learnt, in due time, why 
 and how it was, by the teaching of events and circumstances. 
 They %vere brought to see that Jesus died in his mortal body 
 in order that he might be raised again, and, " ascending up on 
 high," might become the spiritual " Head over all things to 
 the church ;" that he might become the spiritual Christ, " a 
 Trince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgive- 
 ness of sins ;"f and this not only to Israel, but to all the world 
 besides. He was by birth a Jew, " under the law," and neces- 
 sarily subject to the same restraints in regard to intercourse 
 with the sinful heathen which were conceived to affect all 
 others of Jewish race. None, therefore, of the outcast nations 
 could be disciples of Christ as the Jewish Messiah, and tlie 
 limitation appears to have been recognized by our L(jrd him- 
 
 * John xii. 34 ; Matt. xvi. 21, 22; Luke xviii. 31—34. 
 t Epbes. iv. 8 ; i. 20—22 ; Acts v. 31. 
 
264* THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 self during his personal ministry. " I am not sent," he said, 
 " but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." * The same 
 thing is recognized in connection with the centurion Cornelius, 
 who, though "a just man and one that feared God," was yet 
 ritually " unclean," and not, it was thought, admissible as a 
 Christian disciple, without previously adopting Judaism. Even 
 a Peter could say to him' and others, " Ye know that it is an 
 unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or 
 come unto one of another nation ;" but God had shewed him 
 (he added) that he must rise above this prejudice. He found 
 it difficult, nevertheless, to do so, as we may see in what took 
 place between him and Paul at a later period. But in this 
 "he was to be blamed," and the Apostle of the Gentiles 
 " withstood him to his face."-f- Thus, it is evident, all who 
 were not Jews, w^ere looked upon by the latter, and by Juda- 
 izing Christians, as " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel," 
 and as "strangers" who had no part in those "covenants of 
 promise" which God had given to His chosen people. They 
 could not, therefore, in that their state " by nature," be disciples 
 of a Hebrew Messiah. | 
 
 It is easy in these days to see that all this was, to a large 
 extent, mere prejudice. But, like many another prejudice, it 
 was very powerful. And it was founded upon ancient laws, 
 and privileges enjoyed for centuries past by the chosen race. 
 So they believed. We can see, too, that if such ideas had 
 prevailed, they would simply have restricted Christianity to 
 persons of Jewish birth. In other words, they would have 
 led in a short time to the perversion, and ultimately to the 
 extinction, of the new religion. 
 
 In time, however, the disciples began to understand, that 
 when his own people rejected the Messiah, and put him to 
 
 * Matt. XV. 24. t Acts x. ; Gal. ii. 
 
 t Ephes. ii. ; comp. Acts, xv., where the strength and importance of the feeling 
 in reference to the Gentiles are clearly exhibited. 
 
JEWS AND GENTILES. 2G5 
 
 death, a great change had necessarily ensued in his relations 
 towards both Jews and Gentiles. Being dead to the world, 
 and ascended to his heavenly throne, he was no longer a 
 mortal man, a Jew under the law of his people. St. Paul 
 alludes to this result in several expressions : " Know ye not, 
 brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), how that 
 the law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth?" So 
 writes the Apostle, and he goes on to shew, in his own 
 manner, how one that is dead is released from the law, and 
 how a wife also, who had been bound to him, is equally freed 
 from the same restraints. In a previous passage he speaks of 
 those who are "baptized into Jesus Christ" as being "bap- 
 tized into his death ;" as partaking, therefore, of his death, and 
 being " dead with Christ."* Christ's death had thus, to the 
 Apostle's mind, a twofold operation. It released him from the 
 law, and it released others too, who by baptism into his name 
 partook of his death, from the same control, and from any 
 concern for it, so that they might live now, not to the law, 
 but "in newness of spirit, " and " unto God." 
 
 Hence, then, by his death, Jesus the Christ was taken away 
 and made free from the restraints imposed by his birth as a 
 Hebrew. Whatever rendered him, as the Jewish Messiah, the 
 exclusive property of a single people, and virtually disquali- 
 fied the rest of the world from discipleship to him, all this, by 
 his death, ceased to affect him and them. He rose to heaven, 
 a glorified, spiritual being, and there he is now, says the 
 Apo.stle, " far above all principality, and power, and nught, and 
 dominion." Such was the mystery of " a crucified Christ ;" 
 " the mystery which had been hid from ages and from genera- 
 tions." The risen and exalted Saviour now reigns over all 
 men alike, accessible, not by Jewish rites of circumcision or 
 other ritualistic works, " vain and beggarly elements" as these 
 
 * Rom. vi. 1 — 14; vii. 1 — 6. Comp. Coloss. ii. 20. 
 
2G6 THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 are, but by simple faith.* Jew and Gentile are henceforward 
 alike to him. "There is no difference" in God's sight or in 
 Christ's. If they will only receive the Messiah by a true 
 faith in him, — ^joining with it the practical obedience which it 
 necessarily implied, — such faith will admit them to be his dis- 
 ciples. God will freely forgive past sins of disqualification to 
 all, the Apostle writes, for that faith of theirs in the risen 
 Christf 
 
 Such, then, was the change of relations between the Christ 
 and the world which came to pass in and through his death. It 
 has sometimes been said, that without the atonement for sin 
 made by Christ (in the popular and so-called "evangelical" 
 sense), there was no need to lay so much stress on his death. 
 The death of Peter or of Paul would have been equally impor- 
 tant to the Christian world, might have been equally spoken of, 
 and have done just as well.| The remark is obviously void of 
 force. Neither Peter nor Paul was the Christ. The cross of these 
 apostles, eminent as they were, would have had no more signi- 
 ficance or effect than the cross of any ordinary man. The 
 " cross of Christ" was a totally different thing, even because 
 this was the medium through which the Messiah was made a 
 spiritual being, and a legitimate access to him was given to 
 the otherwise outcast and ritually unclean heathen peoples. 
 
 Let it now be observed how intense was the feeling of the 
 Jews in reference to their own righteousness and the sinful- 
 ness of the Gentiles : " Sinners of the Gentiles ;" " dead in 
 trespasses and sins \' " by nature children of wrath ;" such are 
 the phrases in which this feeling is expressed. But the 
 Apostle, who thus speaks of Gentiles, could not, on the other 
 hand, admit the righteousness of his own people. The latter 
 had, indeed, the adoption, the covenants, the law, the service 
 
 * Ephes. i. 9—23 ; Col. i. 17—27 ; 1 Cor. i. 20—30 ; Gal. iii. 24—29 ; iv. 9, 10. 
 + Rom. iii. ; viii. 34 ; x. 9 ; and comp. supra, Chap. XVIII. 
 + See the Sermon by the late Bishop .Jeune, "Was Paul crucified for you ?" 
 1863. Comp. Liddon, B.L., p. 476. 
 
THE NEW JUSTIFICATIOK. 2G7 
 
 of God, the promises, the fathers, and of them tlie Christ 
 came. But, nevertheless, they too were " under sin," as much 
 as the Gentiles. " By the deeds of the law there shall no 
 ilush be justified" in God's sight, " for by the law is the know- 
 ledge of sin." But a merciful God had opened out a new way 
 of justification, and all who would accept Jesus as His beloved 
 Son, as the anointed Christ, might be admitted to discipleship, 
 becoming "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." 
 
 This, however, He, the All-merciful, did and allowed " freely 
 by His grace." It was in no way purchased of Him or of His 
 justice. It was not because His "wrath" was appeased, or 
 satisfied by the sufferings of an innocent substitute, but 
 because of His own essential fatherly goodness and " great 
 love," "It is the gift of God," not a thing bought from Him 
 with any price,* except in so far as this might be figuratively 
 said,f in reference to that death of the Messiah through which 
 he and his disciples, for all time to come, had been released 
 from the claims of the Law. Nothing in all the New Testa- 
 ment is clearer than the doctrine of the free and unbought 
 character of tlie Cliristian redemption, as on the side of 
 God. It can only be the strongest exigencies of theological 
 system which have prevented the Christian world from seeing 
 so plain a truth — the central truth, in fact, of the "glad 
 tidings." + 
 
 The disqualification, therefore, caused to both Jew and 
 Gentile by their own sins, whether ritual or moral, a merciful 
 God determined of His own free grace to overlook ; giving to 
 sinful men, on condition of their faith in the risen Christ, a 
 justification which at once qualified them for discipleship. 
 The barrier of the Law, which would have kept Jew and (Gen- 
 tile apart, was broken down by Christ's death, " the enmity " 
 abolished. And this was so, and could be so, as we have 
 
 * Rom. iii. 9, 20, 24, 25 ; Epbes. ii. 4, 8. 
 
 + 1 Cor. vi. 20; vii. 23. % Luke ii. 10, 11. 
 
2G8 THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 seen, only by the death of the Messiah. Thus, then, he died 
 for them ; for Gentiles as well as Jews ; he died for all. The 
 death of the Christ operated as much for the Jew as for the 
 despised and outcast heathen. The former had no claim, of 
 right, to an exclusive possession of the Messiah, for he was 
 equally concluded under sin. But tlie Messiah's death was 
 for his benefit also, inasmuch as it necessarily abolished, for 
 one that was dead, the dominion of the law, and made it pos- 
 sible, even for those who had broken the law, or who had 
 been without the law, to become Christian disciples. 
 
 It may now be seen, without further exposition, in what 
 sense Christ died for others, " the just for the unjust ;" how 
 he died, in fact, not only vTrtp ^^ihtv, but even avTi -koWmv* He 
 died for their benefit, and he may be said to have died even 
 in their stead, though not in the usually received sense. For 
 his death, admitting men to a new "justification " by faith in 
 him risen, may easily be conceived of as saving them from the 
 penalty due to their unrighteousness. In strict justice, they 
 ought to have suffered ; but God was merciful, and allowed 
 His Son to suffer instead— not in order to bear their punish- 
 ment, but simply to open a new way of admission for them.-f- 
 The Scripture, however, as noted below, usually speaks of 
 Christ as dying v-kI^, not kvA ; and it is equally clear that it 
 was not in their stead — as their substitute — that he died for 
 men ; not to redeem them from eternal misery ; not (as Arch- 
 bishop Thompson would affirm) because the clouds of God's 
 wrath had gathered thick over the Imman race, and required 
 a victim, and could find that victim only in the innocent 
 Jesus. It was simply that all men, of every nation, might be 
 
 * There is only a single instance in which avri is vised in connection with the 
 death of Clirist, Matt. xx. 28 (parallel with Mark x. 4.5). In this instance the 
 sense of substitution is not at all needed. The word may be used exactly as in 
 Matt. xvii. 27 : " Give unto them /or (dvri) me and thee." 
 
 t Rom. iii. 21—25. 
 
SIMPLICITY OF EXPLANATION NO OBJECTION. 269 
 
 admissible, by a new way of justification, to tlie fold of the 
 spiritual Christ, even though they were " sinners," and even 
 though he were tlie Jewish Messiah, born " under the law." 
 
 Eeaders who are accustomed to the ordinary doctrine of 
 atonement, with all its affluence of mystery, suffering, and 
 prospects of damnation for the whole human race, will natu- 
 rally be shocked at the simplicity of the above exposition, and 
 find it fatally deficient, by comparison with the stronger food 
 on which they may hitherto have been living. Objectors and 
 objections of this kind are easily met with. But this is 
 evidently not the great consideration. The question, after all, 
 is this, What is the truth ? Is the exposition proposed suffi- 
 cient to account for the Scriptural phraseology? Is it the 
 more in accordance with historical circumstances ? Is it the 
 more in harmony with the Christian idea of a just and mer- 
 ciful God ? These are very weighty considerations, and the 
 reader ought to ponder them well before he rejects the simpler 
 doctrine. And, let him remember, it affords little reason 
 against the latter, that it may not at first be quife agreeable to 
 his taste ; for is he sure that this may not have been vitiated 
 by the stimulating and artificial diet to which he has grown 
 accustomed ? 
 
 The effect of the deatli of Christ, of which we have 
 spoken, though nowhere described in formal or express terms, 
 is yet alluded to in a great variety of language, partly literal, 
 partly figurative. Everything which the ancient sacrifices 
 were supposed to do, in connection with the pardon of sin, is 
 naturally said to result equally from the deatli of the Messiah, 
 and a great deal more. Those sacrifices were effectual only 
 for Jews ; but Christ's death is so for all the world. lie is 
 " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." 
 " He who kiK'w no sin was made sin for us," — condemned, or 
 treated as one guilty, for us. He "was made a curse for us," 
 for the law declared that every one hanged on a tree is accursed. 
 
270 THE DEATH OF CHRIST : 
 
 He " his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, 
 that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness ; 
 by whose stripes ye were healed." This is said, it will now be 
 manifest, not of a substitutionary punishment of sin inflicted 
 on the innocent Christ, and not of any expiation of sin wrought 
 in God's sight by his death, but of the admission, or admissi- 
 bility, of all men by faith to be his disciples, notwithstanding 
 the sins, ritual and moral, which, had he remained alive and 
 under the law% would necessarily have prevented the access of 
 Gentiles to him. Bis deatli opened the way of release from 
 that kind of disqualification. Hence, by an easy metaphor, he 
 " bore" the remitted sins " on the tree." It was, in short, the 
 sins of others which made it necessary for him to die, if those 
 who were guilty of them were to be his disciples. Those who 
 were thus released might now, without care for the condemna- 
 tion of the law, "live unto righteousness ;" they were "healed" 
 by his " stripes," whatever might be alleged to the contrary by 
 the Law and its bigoted adherents. So, again, " He is our 
 peace," and " Ye who sometime were afar off are made nigh 
 by the blood of Christ." He is " a propitiation," " set forth in 
 
 his blood," and "through our Lord Jesus Christ" "we 
 
 have now received the atonement," — reconciliation to God.* 
 
 In some of these passages, Gentiles only are referred to, and 
 language is used which is applicable only to them — persons, 
 as they were, who had been living out of the dominion of the 
 law, not only ritually condemned, but in the midst of positive 
 "trespasses and sins." But "all" men by faith in the risen 
 Christ might have admission to the privileges of the Gospel, 
 and receive the forgiveness of " sins that are past." 
 
 Thus, too, dying as he did for sinful men, he w^as in a 
 certain sense a sacrifice for them, and for their sins. It is 
 evident, however, that he was so in no literal way, for Christ 
 
 * John i. 29; 2 Cor. v, 21; Gal. iii. 13; 1 Pet. ii. 24; Ephes. ii. 13, 14; 
 Rom. iii. 25 ; v. 11. 
 
IN WHAT SENSE A SACRIFICE. 271 
 
 was not offered up as a victim on the altar by the hand of 
 a priest, but crucified by Roman soldiers. Hence the word 
 sacrifice, which in connection with Christ's death is of rare 
 occurrence in the New Testament,* can only be figuratively 
 used. The question is, what literal fact does sucli a metaphor 
 veil or convey ? There is nothing in the Christian teaching 
 to justify the supposition that the Heavenly Father needed 
 propitiating by a sacrificed victim, and that victim the Christ 
 in whom He was well pleased. There is nothing to tell us 
 that the sacrifice of Christ was offered " to reconcile his Father 
 to us," or that he might suffer a punishment, whether for " ori- 
 ginal guilt," or for " actual sins of men." An idea of this kind, 
 in reference to heathen gods, may easily be found in the Iliad, or 
 in Herodotus, or in a Greek play ; but, orthodox as it may be 
 with many, it will not really be found in the New Testament, 
 either as an expressly described and enjoined truth, or as one 
 of inference, reasonably deducible from a fair consideration of 
 the various circumstances of the case. What may be learnt 
 is simply this, that Christ's death was a sacrifice for sin, 
 because it was required for the admission of sinful men to the 
 privilege of being his disciples in spite of the Law which ex- 
 cluded them, so long as he was in life. It is unnecessary to 
 add that Christ's sacrifice did not consist merely in the sur- 
 render of his own will to the will of God, although unques- 
 tionably this was included, and was freely given. 
 
 It may be well to apply the interpreting idea now before us 
 to one or two of the more remarkable expressions of the New 
 Testament relating to this subject. Paul writes respecting 
 Christ, that it is he " whom God hath set forth to he a pro- 
 pitiation throughfaith, by his blood" — that is, "by his death."-f- 
 In this place, the word "propitiation" is a little uncertain. 
 It is, for one thing, too abstract after the preceding verb " set 
 
 * Ejihes. V. 2; comp. 1 Cor. v. 7 ; Hob. ix. 26 ; vii. 27 ; x. 12. 
 t Rom. iii. 25 ; comp. mpra, p. 248, note. 
 
272 THE DEATH OF CHEIST. 
 
 forth," wliicli requires a concrete object. The original word 
 Ikaanjpiov is used in the Septuagint to denote the mercy-seat, — 
 the lid or cover of the ark, on which the high-priest sprinkled 
 the blood of an appointed victim, in expiation of sin, on the great 
 day of atonement.* The same word is used once in the JSTew 
 Testament (Heb. ix. 5) in the same signification. Hence it is 
 by no means impossible that the Apostle may here designate 
 Christ as the " mercy-seat," set forth in his death, and sprinkled 
 with his own blood, for the remission of sin. But if so, the 
 representation is clearly figurative only, and must involve the 
 same literal meaning as before pointed out. It is more pro- 
 bable, however, from the general analogy of related expressions, 
 that the rendering of i\a(jTi]piov should here be " propitiatory 
 offering," or " propitiatory sacrifice ; " but still, as before, we 
 have to ask for the literal fact intended by this figurative 
 phrase. That fact is, simply, what has been so often stated, 
 namely, that the Messiah by liis death, by shedding his blood, 
 ceased to be under the Law, became a spiritual being, and was 
 thus enabled to receive all men as disciples, by faith, their 
 sins notwithstanding. In other words, and figuratively speak- 
 ing, their faith in him may be said to have constituted him a 
 sacrifice of propitiation for them ; or again, he, by dyuig, 
 nullified the effect of the Law in excluding them from disci- 
 pleship on account of their sins. Their sins are tlius for- 
 given through his death, — a result similar to that which the 
 ancient sacrifices were conceived to work under the Law of 
 Moses. Hence the possibility and the propriety of applying 
 to the deatli of the Christ the sacrificial language so familiar to 
 the Jews under the older dispensation. 
 
 A similar explanation holds in regard to another of the 
 most remarkable expressions of St. Paul. " Christ our Pass- 
 over," he writes, " is sacrificed for us." The rendering should 
 rather be "killed for us,"i- — the Passover not being a sacrifice. 
 
 * Lev. xvi. 13, scq. f 1 Cor. v. 7; corap. Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7. 
 
"CHRIST OUR PASSOVER." 273 
 
 It was a lamb which was killed and eaten, but there is 
 nothing to shew that any expiatory efficacy was connected 
 with it. We thus see that in one place Christ is a " sacrifice ;" 
 in another, he is a " Passover ;" while in others, again, he is 
 both sacrifice and "high-priest" at once.* But is it not 
 equally plain tliat all this is pure metaphor^ He miglit, how- 
 ever, be very fitly likened in his death to the Passover lamb, 
 inasmuch as that event was a pledge and emblem of deliver- 
 ance from the bondage of sin and the law, as well as from the 
 state of exclusion from the IMessiah's kingdom necessarily 
 attaching to Gentiles, — a deliverance similar to that effected in 
 the olden times from Egyptian oppression, and so carefully 
 commemorated by the literal Passover ceremony. 
 
 There is no passage in short, relating to this subject, which 
 may not be adequately explained by a reference to the pecu- 
 liar ideas and circumstances so often noticed.-|* It was per- 
 fectly natural and inevitable that the New Testament writers, 
 familiar as they were with the sacrificial usages of their nation, 
 should speak of their Master's death, the Messiah's deatii, and 
 the effects which resulted from it, in phrases and figures drawn 
 from those usages. The error of our time is in taking so many 
 of the expressions referred to in a literal sense ; in allowing 
 so little for Jewish forms of thought and feeling ; and, above 
 all, in overlooking, as is so conmionly done, the historical 
 considerations which alone can give life and meaning to those 
 expressions. 
 
 The popular theory, in reality, is largely the product of dark 
 and ignorant ages ; coming down in some of its elements from 
 Fathers who held that the redemption secured by Christ was 
 a release from the Devil, and the ransom paid, a recompence 
 
 • Hcb. ix. 11, and pass/m. 
 
 t This was long ago pointed out with careful detail by l\Ir. Martineau, in the 
 masterly lecture before referred to, "Tlie Scheme of Vicarious Redemption iucon- 
 sistent with itself." 
 
 T 
 
274 THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 to Mm. No wonder, then, that this theory, even as represented 
 by an Archbishop, is utterly misleading, that it involves so 
 much that is unspiritual and difficult to reconcile with the 
 idea of a merciful God, so much that distorts the true meaning 
 of Scripture, and substitutes mere human speculation for Divine 
 truth. 
 
 It remains for us, nevertheless, to qualify the foregoing ex- 
 position by an admission which may, to some readers, appear 
 scarcely consistent with it. A few passages occur, the sense 
 of which, it may be, is not sufficiently explained or accounted 
 for by the doctrine of Atonement, if so it may be termed, here 
 set forth. Even readers who do not assent to the popular 
 doctrine may thus think ; holding that, after all that can be 
 said, there is more or less at any rate of the expiatory idea in 
 some of the expressions, even though many or most of them 
 are adequately interpreted by a due regard to the historical 
 circumstances appealed to. 
 
 In this qualified view of the case there is very probably 
 some degree of truth. The expiatory idea could hardly fail to 
 occur sooner or later to Jewish writers, in connection with an 
 event which operated so plainly, though indirectly, for the 
 remission of sins ; — an event by or through which that remis- 
 sion was proclaimed to the world. This idea, in short, may 
 be intended in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also in a 
 few places in the Book of Eevelation, but hardly, except as 
 pure figure, in any other book. If, however, any other New 
 Testament writer held it, so as to regard the death of Jesus 
 Christ as really of the nature of an expiatory sacrifice, in virtue 
 of which, or for the sake of which, God forgave the sins of 
 men, — much as the old Greeks believed that Apollo or Jupiter 
 could be propitiated by a hecatomb, and induced to forgive 
 one that had offended him, — if sucli an idea were really held 
 by any otlier New Testament writer, is it not in the Gospel 
 and Epistles of John that it is to be met with ? At least such 
 
A DOUBTFUL POINT. 275 
 
 passages as John i. 29, and 1 John ii. 2, and a few more in 
 these- writings, may be fairly imderstood as conveying a real 
 expiatory sense ; and it may even have been a part of the 
 Evangelist's conception of Jesus as the Word " made flesh," to 
 attribute a peculiar expiatory efficacy to the death of so im- 
 portant and unique a personage. But, if so, this latter idea 
 umst be regarded as necessarily partaking of the essential non- 
 reality of the whole conception. 
 
 There are, however, serious difficulties in the way of this 
 admission. For example, the fourth Gospel, in the account of 
 the trial and crucifixion, contains no allusion to the death of 
 Christ as being, in any sense, a " sacrifice" possessed of some 
 occult propitiatory or expiatory efficacy. How is such an 
 omission, in such a subject, and on such an occasion, to be 
 accounted for ? The same is true of the other Gospels ; — except 
 only, as some may think, in the case of the words of Christ 
 at the Supper.* These, it may be said, indicate his knowledge 
 of the mysterious value of his death. But it is evident from 
 the foregoing exposition, that all that can be safely inferred from 
 the words in question is, that Jesus himself anticipated the 
 effect of his death, not in propitiating God or expiating human 
 sin, but in releasing himself from the Law, and so throwing open 
 the Gospel to all the world. It may well be believed that he 
 did so. 
 
 However this may be, it may still be reasonably held that, 
 even if the writings of St. John contain the expiatory idea, 
 they can do so ordy in a kind of ideal, metaphorical sense. 
 Even in their strongest expressions, something of figure must 
 bo admitted. Jesus Avas not literally a "lamb ;" not a victim 
 offered upon an altar; nor Avas his "blood" shed or applied 
 
 * Compare Matt. xx. 28, "Even as tlic Son of man came .... to give bis life 
 a ransom for many." The sense of the latter wonls is explained liy tlic exposition 
 we have given — Christ by his death secured the adniissilnlity of the Gentile world 
 to disciplesliip. His life given was thus (as it were) the ransom price jiaid for their 
 redemption from tlicir outca.st state. 
 
 T 2 
 
276 THE DEATH OF CHEIST. 
 
 after the manner of the ancient sacrifices, but only drawn, in 
 an accidental way, by the spear of the soldier, as related by 
 the Evangelist. Everywhere there is figure ; — in John as in 
 other writers. So that here, again, the true question is, how 
 much, or how little? If, then, the reference to historical 
 circumstances, much as we have made it, supplies an adequate 
 key to the various expressions, and suggests to us the literal 
 truth of fact lying at their basis, it is surely reasonable to 
 accept the interpretation thus afforded — to discard, as it w^ere, 
 the mere figure, or form of words, and penetrate down to the 
 real sense which lies beneath. It is right and necessary, 
 above all things, to guard against taking figurative language 
 in a literal way, and so, in many a case, making the sacred 
 writers speak sheer nonsense. 
 
 It is hardly necessary, in conclusion, to call attention to 
 what must be so obvious, namely, that the various expressions 
 of the Christian Scriptures respecting the death of Christ arose 
 out of very special feelings and circumstances of the primitive 
 Christian times. This appears to be one of the most undeni- 
 able facts connected with the subject. Those expressions 
 formed, therefore, it is true, an arguvientum ad Judceum very 
 suitable to St. Paul's time. But their permanent value is un- 
 important ; — except only, of course, that they imply, or set forth 
 in a peculiar way, the essential impartiality and comprehen- 
 siveness of the Gospel. There is nothing in the actual or 
 natural relations of God to man, or of man to God, which 
 can make it incumbent upon the modern disciple to return to 
 the forms of thought embodied in such lans:juacre. Its entire 
 force and propriety belonged to, and are exhausted in connec- 
 tion with, circumstances, feelings, institutions, persons, that 
 have long since passed away from the stage of mortal exist- 
 ence, leaving nothing behind them in which sucli phraseology 
 can, in our times, have any fitting use or application. Nobody 
 now, however "ritualistic" he may be, will doubt that a man 
 
AN ARGUMENT OF THE PAST. 277 
 
 may be a Christian without being " circumcised," or conform- 
 ing in any other way to the law of Moses.* If there were a 
 great sect among us maintaining this, then we might plead 
 that Christ " died for us ;" that he redeemed us from the 
 curse of the law, " being made a curse for us ;" that we have 
 redemption "through his blood;" that a new "justification" 
 has been provided for us, admitting to discipleship " witliout 
 the deeds of the law." But such phrases cannot now be used 
 with any rational force or sense. They belong to the past 
 alone ; and the sooner the past is left in quiet possession of 
 them by popular teachers and preachers of every name and 
 degree, the better surely it will be for the credit of Christian 
 learning and the peace of the Church.-f- 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 RELATION OF THE BIBLE TO THE REASON AND CONSCIENCE — 
 INSPIRATION — TRUE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 That mankind are naturally prone to religion, that their 
 own nature, sooner or later in the course of its development, 
 leads them to think of God, to seek Him, " if haply they might 
 feel after him and find him," is a proposition at least as old in 
 substance as the speech of St. Paul upon Mars' Hill, It is 
 one also which, probably, few thoughtful persons of the pre- 
 sent day would care to dispute. Theories of human depravity 
 and incapacity may, indeed, be held by many, and may, in 
 
 * It may be a question how far this remark applies to the Congregationalists. 
 At least they appear to find it expedient to announce that "they are justified 
 through faith in Christ,"... and not by "the works of the Law." — It might seem, 
 therefore, that some one among them had been seeking to impose the ancient yoke, 
 as happened to the Galatians of old ! (Dec. of Faith, xiii.) 
 
 + It is proper to mention here that the substance of this and the preceding 
 Chapter was published as an article in the Theological Review for October, 1SC9. 
 It is now republished with considerable alterations and additions. 
 
278 RELATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 certain quarters, stand in the way of its full and cordial admis- 
 sion. But yet the evidence of manifold observation in almost 
 every part of the world, as well as of numberless ages of past 
 history, points uniformly to the one conclusion, and will doubt- 
 less prove sufficient in the end to overcome even long-esta- 
 blished and widely prevailing doctrines of an opposite import* 
 This natural religiousness of man exists in him by virtue of 
 the moral and spiritual capacities which he possesses, stimu- 
 lated and developed as these are by their contact with the 
 outward universe. From the dawn of his reflective powers lie 
 is conscious of frailty and dependence. His own life, he feels, 
 is not altogether within his own control, but has mysteriously 
 come to him, and goes from him again, without any command 
 of his. He sees around him in the world, or believes that he 
 does, numerous marks of a great and marvellous power ; while 
 many things in his outward condition, and in the natural phe- 
 nomena amidst which he lives, are subject to " laws," which 
 indicate the appointment, or the action, of a controlling Will, 
 similar to that which he is conscious of exercising himself. 
 Thus the idea of God, of one God or of many, begins, in its 
 germ, to be formed in his mind ; and when, later, he becomes 
 more capable of reasoning and reflecting, he is sure that this 
 creative and controlling Being must be far superior to himself. 
 That on which he feels himself dependent, to which in the 
 last resort he owes his own spiritual nature, endowed with 
 faculties of intellect, affection, conscience, and other capacities 
 of the most excellent kind, — that great Parent Mind to which 
 he is thus indebted must, at all events, however mysterious 
 and incomprehensible, be something unspeakably higher and 
 better than he is himself. 
 
 * It is scarcely necessary to observe that tlae above remarks have in view the 
 usual teachings of the popular orthodoxy, rather than the opinions expressed in 
 such works as Sir John Lubbock's Origin of Civilization, — -while yet they are not 
 advanced without a recollection of the conclusions of that able and learned investi- 
 gator, and of their bearing upon the great question of the origin and validity of 
 reliiiious belief. 
 
TO THE REASON AND CONSCIENCE. 279 
 
 Thus it appears that the belief in God, which is the central 
 thought of religion, comes to man, in at least its rudimentary 
 forms, by the operation of liis own moral and spiritual facul- 
 ties — stimulated, doubtless, and trained by the manifold influ- 
 ences of outward nature. The process of the argument, so far 
 as it is a process of argument at all, may be a sound and valid 
 one or not. With this point we are not now immediately 
 concerned. But, at all events, it is a natural process. It shews 
 us that religion is not a something implanted in us from with- 
 out, any more than it is dependent for its existence on the 
 Bible, or any other book reputed sacred — as some persons 
 might suppose. In other words, it shews us that the Creator 
 of men has not left Himself without a witness in the hearts of 
 His human creatures, or in that great universe of existences 
 wherein He has assigned them their dwelling-place. 
 
 As a matter of fact, however, the religious belief which pre- 
 vails in the Christian world is not simply a product of the 
 mental faculties of the individual persons who hold it ; that 
 is, it has not been formed by the independent working or 
 exercise of their mental powers ; but, in a large degree, it has 
 been communicated to them from without, and also transmit- 
 ted to them historically. One generation has handed down to 
 another, from the most distant times, its belief in God, with 
 its conceptions of His nature and will ; and so our religion, 
 we may say, has come into our possession from our immediate 
 forefathers and instructors, as they in their turn had received 
 theirs from those who had gone before them. By this, of 
 course, it is not meant that individuals have not employed 
 their minds on religious subjects, or that individual thinkers 
 have not often contributed to the purification or further deve- 
 lopment of long- descended ideas ; but that the substance, so 
 to speak, of religious belief, — that is to say, the idea of God as 
 Creator and Ruler, equally with our recognition of the moral 
 law as His will for us, and of our obligation, as His creatures 
 
280 TRUE CHARACTER OF THE BIBLE 
 
 and servants, to obey it, — has been very largely transmitted 
 from parents to children, and from one generation of men to 
 another. 
 
 And when we go back as far as we can in this ascending 
 series, we find that, to all practical intents and purposes, in 
 relation to the present belief of the Christian world, this pro- 
 cess of transmission commenced in the Bible ; and that, for 
 many ages in the past, religious belief was forming, and has 
 been handed down, in a considerable section of the human 
 race, from and through and under the influence of that Book.. 
 The Bible has thus, in effect, been, if not the producer, at least 
 the influential interpreter, of the spiritual instincts of men, 
 giving form and expression to the religious belief now existing 
 throughout what we usually term the Christian world. 
 
 How this has come to pass, we may read in the Bible itself. 
 That book, of various and unknown origin as so much of it is, 
 is yet manifestly the liecord preserving for us the early history 
 of religious knowledge ; shewing us how this was gradu- 
 ally strengthened and purified among a particular people, 
 and how from them it has come forth and been proclaimed 
 among the nations, and so been preserved and made a light 
 and a help for our later times. 
 
 Thus it cannot be denied by any Christian man, that the 
 true religious life of the world commences in, or perhaps with, 
 the Hebrew nation. This is not a theory of any kind, but a 
 manifest fact of history. Of this tlie Bible is itself both the 
 record and the witness. And, indeed, every existing congre- 
 gation of Christian worshipers is a visible testimony to the 
 same effect ; for tliey meet to worship the same God whom 
 Abraham and the patriarchs worshiped, tlie God whom Moses, 
 Samuel and Isaiah and all the prophets worshiped, even " the 
 God and Father of Jesus Christ."* 
 
 * The proper liraitations of some of these statements, and the sense, in particular, 
 in which we intend to use the words "the same God," has appeared in preceding 
 Chapters of this work : supra, Chapters VIII. IX. 
 
AS A BOOK OF HISTORY. 281 
 
 It is unquestionably a long and a striking "succession" — 
 and not only " apostolical," but prophetical and patriarclial as 
 well. Tiie religious influence of all these ancient, earnest, 
 devout men is preserved for us in the Bible, and is exercised, 
 we may also say, through that book. In stating this fact, we 
 have, however, to recall another fact, which is of equal im- 
 portance as shewing us the true character of the Bible. It is, 
 that the Book manifestly offers itself to tts, the people of these 
 later times, virtually as a book of History. It never professes 
 or claims to be anything different ; never, in truth, makes any 
 profession or claim at all on the point ; but stands before us 
 there, simply as it is, essentially a book belonging to the past 
 history of a particular people. 
 
 To a considerable extent, the Bible is actually a history in 
 its outward form, — a history in which we may see what differ- 
 ent persons have done and said in the past, by whose example 
 we may often be taught and shewn what is right, or warned 
 against what is wrong. This is evidently true of a large pro- 
 portion of the Biblical books, from Genesis, on through the 
 Mosaic writings, through Joshua, Samuel, the Kings and some 
 minor books. All these are books of histoiy, coming down 
 from different ages ; and though, in nearly every case, by 
 unknown writers, as we have formerly pointed out, there is no 
 reason to think that what is written is not, in its main outlines, 
 substantially trustworthy. 
 
 In certain parts, indeed, these books are l)Ooks of law, that 
 is to say, they contain the laws of the Hebrews ; but it is a 
 Law which we can only regard as a portion of the Biblical 
 history. It is nowhere enjoined upon us who read ; and, 
 indeed, it would no longer be possible for us, even if we 
 wished, to obey it, or carry it out in many of its details. Great 
 moral principles, contained or expressed in the law of the 
 Hebrews, so far as they are in harmony with the reason and 
 the cultivated sense of right, are of course permanent and 
 
282 IT IS NOT A CODE OF LAWS, 
 
 will remain and impress themselves upon our lives, even by 
 their own vitality and power. This sway, however, they will 
 have quite independently of the fact that they may once have 
 been embodied, or recognized in some way, in the laws of the 
 Jews. 
 
 In other books of the Bible, — in the Poetical Books and the 
 writings of the Prophets, — we have compositions which shew 
 us what their authors thought and said on, and in accordance 
 with, the ideas and the circumstances of their own times. 
 They are thus, again, intimately related to the history of the 
 Hebrews, and cannot be understood without frequent refer- 
 ence to it, — excepting, indeed, by a peculiar class of our mo- 
 dern preachers, of whom such men as Lord Eadstock and 
 Dr. Gumming may be referred to as typical examples. Thus 
 in reading even the Psalms, or the Book of Job, or the Pro- 
 verbs, we must often bear in mind the contemporary ideas 
 and circumstances amidst which, or in reference to which, 
 those books, or their component parts, were respectively writ- 
 ten. The same remark is eminently true in reference to the 
 "Prophets, who, while they faithfully warn, exhort, condemn, 
 the kings and people of their own day, speak to us of later 
 ages only through them. 
 
 Then, when we come to the New Testament, we have what 
 is essentially of the nature of history again, at least in its 
 relation to our modern times. It is very largely a thing of 
 the past, at which we can only look as distant spectators, seek- 
 ing, so far as may be, to draw instruction, inspiration, guidance, 
 from its lessons. We have, first, the four Gospels, setting 
 forth the life of Christ. We have next the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, which purports to be simply a history of what the Apos- 
 tles did in their early labours to preach the Gospel. We have 
 then a series of letters, written by Apostles and apostolical 
 men, in reference to topics of interest at the time to those 
 whom they address ; the whole closing with the mystical Book 
 
NOK A DOGMATIC CEEED. 283 
 
 of Revelation, the aim and application of which unquestion- 
 ably belonged to the age of Ccesar Nero, in which it was 
 most probably written. 
 
 Throughout this long succession of books and writers, it is 
 evident that the Bible presents itself to us, not as a code of 
 laws, nor as a system of theology, which we of these later 
 times, and men of all times, ought to receive and assent to, 
 but rather as a great historical record of what has been thought 
 and done by men of times long past — a record of what they 
 have thought and believed, in connection often very particu- 
 larly with the subject of religion, or under the influence of 
 religious feelings and motives. And in this its character of a 
 historical record, it shews us, by such examples, as we have 
 formerly seen, how the Hebrew people were led on from rudi- 
 mentary and imperfect beginnings to a more adequate appre- 
 hension of great religious truths ; and how, therefore, they 
 have been instrumental in helping to establish religion among 
 Christian men as it now exists. 
 
 It is, then, manifestly a great mistake, to do what, neverthe- 
 less, there has been and is so great a tendency among Pi'otest- 
 ants, in spirit or in letter, to do, — namely, to infer that what 
 was established and a])proved among and by Biblical leaders 
 and teachers, must be either right, or deserving of approval by 
 us, — more especially in case it should not have been expressly 
 disowned or condemned by Christian authority. Some things, 
 as we are told, were permitted because of the hardness of their 
 hearts. The Mosaic law, for instance, allowed of polygamy ; 
 and it made divorce an easy matter, depending on the will of 
 the husband alone. This may shew us that those who were 
 under it lived nearer to the beginning of civilization than we 
 do ; and that if we were to imitate them in such matters, we 
 should be going backward in the direction of the ignorance 
 and barbarism from which mankind have been slowly rising 
 through many past centuries. So in regard to the observance 
 
284 IMPEEFECTION OF MUCH 
 
 of the Sabbath and the institution of the Goel. Under the 
 law of Moses, one who did not keep the sabbath with the 
 enjoined strictness was to be put to death ; and the next kins- 
 man of a murdered man was permitted to avenge his relative 
 by slaying the murderer, wherever he might meet with him 
 outside of certain cities of refuge. Ought Christian nations 
 to return to that state of things, seeing that the Jewish law 
 on these points is nowhere expressly repealed by the Gospel ? 
 Such cases shew us clearly that the Bible, even where it is 
 expressly a Code of laws, is not so, cannot be so, for us, how- 
 ever sacred and binding it may have been to the Hebrews of 
 ancient times. To the modern reader, we may repeat, it is 
 simply a great historical picture, providentially given to us 
 — in which we may see what former generations of men have 
 thought and said and done, and how they have been led, in a 
 special case, from their primeval ignorance, to the better ideas 
 of moral and religious truth embodied in Christianity. 
 
 We might, therefore, be led into grievous error by looking upon 
 the Bible, as the old Puritans did, and as some of the Angli- 
 can Bishops seem still to do,* as a sort of Law-book, binding 
 upon us, without regard to altered feelings and circumstances, 
 or improved knowledge. Even, then, if it were admitted, for 
 example, that the Book of Leviticus forbids marriage with a 
 deceased wife's sister, that question should, nevertheless, be 
 argued upon its own merits, and in reference to the character 
 and necessities of modern civilized life. Yet, in connection 
 with this subject, we have known the book just named spoken 
 of in the columns of an influential English newspaper as a 
 "revelation" of the Divine will, and as such binding upon 
 the conscience ! 
 
 A similar appeal to the New Testament was made, not many 
 years ago, in bebalf of American slavery. Because the "insti- 
 
 * See the debate in the House of Lords (1870) on tlie Bill respecting marriage 
 with a deceased wife's sister. 
 
IN THE BIBLICAL WRITINGS. 285 
 
 tution" is recognized in the Bible, not being expressly con- 
 demned even in the New Testament, certain ministers of reli- 
 gion in the Sonthern States represented it as not only allowed, 
 but also sanctioned, by the authority of the Scriptures. I>ut, 
 even admitting that an Apostle approved of slavery as it existed 
 in his own day,* it does not follow that we are to approve of 
 slavery as it exists, or has existed, in modern times. There 
 may be other and higher principles of right and wrong knoM'n 
 to us, according to which slavery must be condemned and put 
 away ; and our circumstances, too, may be different from those 
 of the Apostle, rendering it altogether sinful for us to sanction 
 various things which might by possibility have appeared allow- 
 able to him. We can, therefore, only read such passages as 
 the one referred to, not as containing laws or princi])les to 
 regulate our conduct, but simply as equivalent to historical 
 examples recorded for us, and as in this respect "profitable" 
 for our instruction or our warning. They may be there, in 
 short, to arouse our disapprobation, and to forbid, rather than 
 to attract, us to approve and imitate.-f- 
 
 Such remarks as these are applicable to the New Testament 
 as well as to the Old. Various matters there, too, involving 
 perhaps no moral principle, or none that would be available 
 or practicable in our modern life, can only be looked back 
 upon with an historical interest, as something belonging to a 
 past state of society. Such, for example, are the question of 
 eating the flesh of animals offered in sacrifice to idols, that of 
 circumcision, and of the observance of other Jewish institu- 
 tions, including the sabbath and the rite of baptism. Even in 
 the words of Christ himself there are some things of this kind ; 
 as there are in the writings of Paul and other Apostles. | 
 
 * See 1 Tim. vi. 1—5. 
 
 + In illustration, see 1 Sam. \v. 32, 33; 2 Sam. i. 13— l(j; iv. 9—12; xxi. 
 1 — 14; Judges xv. xvi. xvii. 
 
 t Matt. V. 3:)— 42 ; Luke vi. 24—20 ; James v. 1 ; 1 Cor. vii. 32—40 ; xiv. 
 34, 35 ; 1 Tim. vi. 8—10. 
 
28G THE ULTIMATE APPEAL 
 
 Thus it is not possible, however willing a man might be, 
 blindly to receive and carry out many even of New Testament 
 ideas and principles. Thought, care, discrimination, are neces- 
 sary in reference to these also. If such qualities be not exer- 
 cised, we shall be in constant danger of bringing ridicule or 
 disrepute upon a cause we would honour and support. 
 
 But how, then, are we to know ? How are we to decide as 
 to the truth, wisdom, justice, applicableness to ourselves, of 
 what we read in the Sacred Books, if we are not blindly to 
 accept all and seek to obey all ? This question has been vir- 
 tually answered. Clearly, we can only do this by the light 
 and under the guidance of the Conscience within us, and by 
 the free and faithful exercise of our own reasoning powers. 
 That this is so, we may see by the case even of those who are 
 the most determined opponents of the right of private judg- 
 ment in religion. They surrender their own judgment, we 
 will suppose, to the decisions of an infalHble church. In doing 
 so, they exercise the very right which they would condenui in 
 others. They prefer, deliberately or otherwise, not to think, 
 reason, judge, for themselves. But that preference itself im- 
 plies the very judgment which they deprecate. At least, if it 
 be not utterly worthless, it does so. 
 
 If, then, a precept, a principle, or a statement of the Bible, 
 be not such as will stand the test of this rational criticism, it 
 will be our duty simply to neglect it, and pass it by, or even, 
 it may be, to condemn it and act in opposition to it. The 
 Scriptures, if they may be the guide and light of the spiritual 
 nature, are clearly not to be as an opiate to it, to put it asleep, 
 or make it insensible to even the nicest shades of distinction 
 between right and wrong, true and false. What they contain 
 of good and evil example, of true or false thoughts of God, 
 His providence and His relations to mankind, or of man's 
 duties and responsibilities, — these things, although written, in 
 some sense, for our instruction, are yet not to be accepted and 
 
TO THE REASON AND CONSCIENCE. 287 
 
 followed, or put aside and neglected, thoughtlessly and me- 
 chanically, but with the aid and sanction of our own reason 
 and moral faculties. If it were not so, we might be drawn 
 away, as doubtless many are by their excessive deference to 
 priestly authority, even to cherish error and unrighteousness ; 
 we might turn warnings into examples ; we might be led, in 
 short, to approve and follow principles, both religious and 
 moral, which are really false, sinful, injurious, and contrary to 
 the Highest will. 
 
 Some of these statements might easily be illustrated, had 
 we the space, from the history of religion in our own and 
 in other countries. But it is more, perhaps, to our present pur- 
 pose to observe, that the Conscience and the Reason are God's 
 gift to man certainly not less than the Bible, and that their 
 free and healthy action are quite as essential as the teachings 
 of any book can be, not only to the practical guidance of life, 
 but also to the right apprehension of religious truth. The 
 Almighty Parent who has given us these faculties, must have 
 intended that we should use them ; that we should seek to 
 cultivate them and make them more strong and pure ; that we 
 should live and act as moral and intellectual beings who are 
 capable of discrimination and progress in the knowledge of 
 things spiritual. The Bible, we may well believe, is able to 
 aid us in this great work of life ; and we shall best perform 
 our duty towards the Giver of. that and every other good gift, 
 by using His bounty, not to prevent, or render needless, the 
 deliberate and responsible action of our own higher powers, 
 but to assist us to cultivate and develop them, and obey their 
 suggestions. 
 
 And abundant warrant for thus thinking may be found by 
 the Christian disciple in the memorable words of the Christian 
 jMaster, when he said, " Why even of yourselves judge ye not 
 what is right ?" 
 
 In recent times, nmch has been said on the subject of Inspi- 
 
288 INSPIEATION, 
 
 ration — the inspiration of the Scriptures. It is remarkable 
 that the Biljle does not itself give us any definition, or descrip- 
 tion, either of that word or of the quality which it is used to 
 denote. It nowhere, in truth, claims inspiration, or says any- 
 thing definite about it.'* The Biblical inspiration, whatever 
 it is or was, would seem, like the genius of Shakspeare, to 
 be unconsciously possessed. The phrase, "Thus saith the 
 Lord," and its equivalents, are most probably to be understood 
 simply as indicating the prophet's belief that what he was 
 about to say was conformable to the Divine will. At the 
 vitmost, such expressions, whatever their full import, are valid 
 only for the immediate context in which they stand, and do 
 not affirm or imply anything for the entire Biblical collection. 
 We cannot, for example, infer the "inspiration" of Genesis 
 xxxvi., or of Psalm cix., of Solomon's Song, or of the Book of 
 Jonah, from the circumstance that Jeremiah or Isaiah some- 
 times spoke to their contemporaries as direct messengers of 
 Jehovah, and used forms of speech corresponding to that cha- 
 racter.- Many a modern preacher in his excitement and ear- 
 nestness does the same, but no one misunderstands him. 
 
 So, again, in such portions of the New Testament as the 
 Epistle of Jude, or the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, or 
 the unfulfilled anticipations of the Book of Ptcvelation, we 
 could not infer the " inspiration" of these, because the Apostle 
 Paul may have lived and acted and spoken under the special 
 impulse of the Spirit from on high. 
 
 It is scarcely allowable, in short, to think of inspiration as 
 being or acting in the dead words of any book ; while yet it 
 is natural and easy to us to think of the Divine Spirit as in- 
 fluencing and moving the living soul of a man ; as being, for 
 
 * Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 16. This verse is thus-rendered by Dean Alford : "Every 
 Scripture inspired by God is also profitable for doctrine, for conviction, for correc- 
 tion, for discipline which is in righteousness." The allusion is no doubt to the 
 0. T. Scriptures, but what precisely is intended by the adjective QtowvivaroQ, 
 rendered "inspired by God," we are nowhere informed. 
 
INSPIRATION. « 2S9 
 
 cxiiijiplc, in Abraham, in Moses, in Isaiah, in Paul, enal)ling 
 them to act elfectually and wonderfully among the men of 
 their time, according to the ideas and circumstances of the age 
 to which tlu'v belonged. But this living inspiration was 
 primarily for them and their day. When their thoughts, in all 
 their complexity and specialty, come to lie before a future 
 age, and are read among people differently trained and cir- 
 cumstanced, they are found in large measure to be practically 
 inapplicable — or applicable in principle only. Human lan- 
 guage is at best an imperfect vehicle for the transmission to 
 distant times of Divine thouglits and impulses — the subtle, 
 indescribable inbreathings of that Spirit which, like the wind, 
 comcth and goeth " where it listeth." At any rate, that the 
 writers of Scriptui'e, whatever their "inspiration" may have 
 been, were not preserved from the consequences of using 
 human language as the means of expressing their ideas, is 
 clear from the fact, that there are so many, not only difticulties 
 and obscurities of one kind and another, but discrepancies or 
 contradictions,* in the sacred page — a fact whicli ought to 
 warn us against the conuuon superstition about inspiration in 
 the vague or irrational sense in which this is maintained by 
 some writers of our time. 
 
 Yet, while saying this, let us not lose sight of that wliich 
 may still claim to be the durable inspiration even of tlie 
 written AVord. The living men of old, whose thoughts are 
 preserved for us in the Scriptures, and in whom the S[)irit of 
 God was eminently present, have doubtless left sufficient 
 traces and proofs of this fact to the attentive reader, liut 
 such indications are not to be seen in every separate sentiment 
 of individual speakers or writers, — much less in every seutenc(i 
 or word which a Scriptural author may have written. The 
 
 • For exatuiile, 2 Sam. x.\iv. !>, compareil witli 1 Cliron. xxi. .T ; Mark xv. '25, 
 compared with John xix. 11 ; also the accounts of the birth of Jesiis Ciirist in llie 
 first and tliird Evangelists, as well as these of the resurrection in all four. 
 
 U 
 
290 » THE NATURE OF THE 
 
 Biblical inspiration is not, therefore, verbal. It is something 
 far greater and higher. It consists, surely, in the great moral 
 and religious thought or thoughts which the different parts of 
 the whole Scripture combine to give us, as the common and 
 harmonious result of their various utterances. In this sense, 
 therefore, again, both the unity and the continuity formerly 
 spoken of must be admitted to be prominent features of the 
 Bible. 
 
 If we would illustrate this position from the Old Testament, 
 we have at once suggested to us the leading idea of that part 
 of the Bible — the idea of the One God, Jehovah, the Creator 
 and Lord of heaven and eartli. We find the chief men of the 
 Hebrews, their legislators and prophets, constantly, and the 
 more decidedly as time passes onward, holding up to their 
 people this first and greatest fundamental of true religion ; and 
 from them, through the medium of Christianity, the same 
 has been handed down to our day. And under this Biblical 
 idea of God should be included, not only His oneness, but 
 also the clear intimations given respecting Him as a living 
 and conscious Mind. The God of the Bible is not a mechanical 
 force, or a diffused principle or tendency of life and motion in 
 the universe. He is One of nature in some sense kindred to 
 our own ; He is the Supreme Disposer ; His providence sus- 
 tains us ; He sees us ; and He approves or condemns in 
 righteousness. Such is the idea of the Divine personality and 
 character conveyed to us, as the clear result of the Old Tes- 
 tament teaching — a result evidently accepted by the Founder 
 of Christianity, and by his influence perpetuated in the world. 
 Shall we be wrong, therefore, if we say that the inspiration 
 of the Old Testament is mainly or precisely in this very point ? 
 —that it is not in separate words or phrases, not in ideas 
 expressed in natural science, in geology or astronom}^, or other 
 such subjects of ordinary knowledge, all of whicli were neces- 
 sarily imperfect, and such as belonged to an early age of the 
 
BIBLICAL INSPIRATION. 291 
 
 M-oild ? — but simply in those incomparably greater ideas of 
 God, His character, His will and providence, which the He- 
 brew Scriptures have been so obviously the means of recording 
 and preserving for us ? 
 
 Christian people will undoubtedly be relieved of much 
 difficulty by admitting this more simple and natural idea of 
 the inspiration of the Scriptures. AVe can see, for one thing, 
 how it is that individual writers are left so free to express 
 their individual thoughts and feelings ; to give utterance even 
 to angry passions and evil wishes, or to ignorant, ill-founded 
 liopes and anticipations ; while yet the grand idea of Jehovah, 
 the Creator, Sovereign, Eighteous Observer and Judge of men, 
 comes forth uninjured from the midst of all such utterances, 
 and, with the progress of the ages, gradually obtains a higher 
 and clearer recognition, in the thoughts of successive genera- 
 tions, from Abraham to Christ. 
 
 Similar observations may be made respecting the New Tes- 
 tament. Here, too, certain great elements of religious truth 
 present themselves and form the abiding result, after many 
 local and temporary peculiarities are laid aside. Chief among 
 them is the ancient doctrine of the One God,* in its Christian 
 form of the Heavenly Father, with its related spiritual truths 
 and principles. Shall we be wrong, again, if we say that the 
 inspiration of the New Testament consists essentially or solely 
 in the great lessons respecting God, Providence, moral duty, 
 retribution, purity of life, which its various parts combine as 
 they do to impress upon the mind of a reader ? 
 
 The chief addition made by the New Testament to what has 
 descended to us in su])stance from the Old, consists in the 
 doctrine of a Future Life. And yet this doctrine was clearly 
 no "revelation" first given through the Christian teachers. It 
 was already known and acknowh'dged among the people before 
 
 * Matt. vi. P; Mark xii. '2S — 30 ; Luke x. 27 ; John xvii. 3 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 
 Ejilies. iv. () ; 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
 
 u 2 
 
292 THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 
 
 Christ came.* Tlie utmost, tlierefure, that can be alleged is, 
 that the Christian Master and his disciples accepted the an- 
 cient belief, and gave it the seal of their approval ; — accepted 
 it, also, so far as the/orm of it was concerned, much as it was 
 already held by those among whom they lived. It was left to 
 time and the growth of knowledge to supply any correction 
 needed, to bring the doctrine in question into a truer harmony 
 with the highest suggestions of the reason and the moral 
 sense. 
 
 It is remarkable, however, how closely accompanied, and 
 we may add, how nmch euibarrassed, is the great Christian 
 hope by an idea of marked prominence in the New Testament ; 
 — the idea, that is to say, of the speedy second coming of 
 Christ. This expectation has been manifestly proved by the 
 lapse of time to have been erroneous. Whatever, therefore, 
 its origin, whether in the misapprehension by the disciples of 
 some declaration of their Master, or really in express words of 
 his, and however important its influence upon the early Chris- 
 tianity, it ought now to be passed by as a merely temporary 
 incident of primitive Christian faith. Like many another 
 error, it has answered its transitory purpose in the providen- 
 tial plan, and may well, at length, be left to rest in peace. 
 It is in truth thus put aside by considerate readers of the Bible. 
 For they can no longer say, with James, " The coming of the 
 Lord dravveth nigh ;" or with Paul, that when the Lord cometh, 
 we shall be " caught up together willi him in the air ;"-f- — they 
 can* no longer say this in tlie sense in which those Apostles 
 said it and believed it. 
 
 And there is this further difference between the expectation 
 referred to and the doctrine of a future life. The former is 
 in no way demanded or sanctioned by the reason or the sense 
 of right, while the latter is so. On this ground, therefore, it 
 may be allowable, or rather necessary, to reject the one, while 
 
 * Mark xii. 18—27 ; Matt. xxii. 23—33. t James v. 8 ; 1 Tliess. iv. 17. 
 
OF THE FUTUEE LIFE. 293 
 
 accepting the other. As we may again observe, it is not the 
 office of the Scriptnrcs to supersede the action of our spiritual 
 nature, by imposing upon us beliefs or laws of conduct which 
 are not perceived and felt to be right, but rather to afford us 
 help and guidance, and even, in some cases, to supply, as it 
 were, the materials out of wliich we may select and assimilate 
 to ourselves what is best adapted to our spiritual nutriment 
 and our onward progress in the divine life. 
 
 Although, therefore, the belief in the second coming of 
 Christ was so prominent and influential a part of the early 
 Christianity, and is strongly affirmed by several New Testa- 
 ment writers,* — although it stands also in very intimate con- 
 nection with the Christian hope of the life to come, insomuch 
 that the one seems to involve and to stand or fall with the 
 other, — although, too, the former has been plainly proved to 
 be unfounded, by remaijiing unfulfilled through the lapse of 
 more than eighteen centuries, and cannot, therefore, any longer 
 be held to be a credible or essential part of Christian faith, — 
 still and nevertheless it may be competent to us to hohl fast 
 the hope as a sure one, while we dismiss the expectation as 
 only a temporary misunderstanding. And we may do this the 
 more easily and confidently, even because the one is in harmony 
 with tlie dictates of reason and conscience, while the other 
 is not, or, at any rate, is very much less so. We may do it, in 
 other words, even because the- one receives the sanction of the 
 supreme approving and verifying faculties of our nature, while 
 the other does not ; and because, too, it is largely and neces- 
 sarily left to us, in reading the Scriptures, to discriminate 
 between one thing and another, between the temporary and 
 the permanent, the good and the evil, the true and the false. 
 It is left to us to do this ; we are called upon, and it is our 
 obvious and individual duty, thus to discriminate. We cannot 
 
 * 1 Cor. XV. 23—28, 51—5:^ ; 1 Thess. i. 10; iii. 13 ; iv. 13—18 ; 1 Pet. iv. 7 ; 
 2 Pet. iii. 4, 10—13; Uev. i. 7. 
 
29-i THE TEANSITORY AND 
 
 act by proxy in this matter, and turn our duty over to another; 
 for unless we will think and act for ourselves, we must be 
 made, and shall deserve to be made, the sport of every wild 
 " wind of doctrine," from the highest of high ritualism and 
 superstitious priestcraft, down to the lowest depths of the 
 most ignorant scripturalism. 
 
 We are not called upon, then, to accept an irrational or 
 immoral doctrine merely because it is contained in the Bible — 
 supposing, for the moment, any such doctrine to be really 
 contained in that book — that, for example, as so many allege, 
 of eternal punisliment. The true alternative course, in such a 
 case, would appear to be, to receive the statements of the Scrip- 
 tures on that subject simply as a part of the history of the 
 growth of religious knowledge, preserved for us in their pages. 
 Tlius we may look upon the doctrine just referred to, not as a 
 permanent truth of religion, but only as belonging to the days 
 of the world's earlier experience, like those alluded to by the 
 Apostle Paul ;* as a something therefore of past times and 
 forms of thought, which, by its own nature, could have only a 
 temporary existence, and was destined to pass away as soon 
 as the strengthened and purified intelligence of man should 
 be able to rise up to the conception of higher and better ideas 
 of divine truth. 
 
 And doubtless this will be the case with every doctrine, 
 whether Biblical or not, which is in serious discordance with 
 the true dictates of reason and the moral sense. Such things, 
 even if contained in the Bible, will have to pass away and 
 give place to what is better, as soon as ever the Almighty 
 Father shall, by the course of His providence, have led on His 
 children of mankind to more spiritual views of His works and 
 ways and will. For, be it not forgotten, the Almighty Spirit 
 is alive, and not dead. God is still and ever the Living God ; 
 and our human part must be to embrace the highest forms of 
 
 * Acts xvii. 30. 
 
THE PERMANENT IN SCKIPTUEE, 295 
 
 Truth of every kind, the highest ideas of Eight and Duty 
 which may become known to us, through whatever channel 
 we may obtain them, whether through the pages of Scripture, 
 by the teaching or the experience of others around us, or by 
 the secret intimations of our own souls. 
 
 If this were not so, how should we know that we were not 
 setting ourselves against the very Spirit of God itself within 
 the heart, and wliat would the 15ible be but a mere drag upon 
 the steps of human progress ? — as, alas ! it has too often been 
 made by the ignorance and unwisdom of past times. 
 
 In speaking thus freely, though we hope not irreverently, 
 respecting a Book which is without doubt, in its influence, the 
 most remarkable known to us in this part of the world, we 
 should make a great omission if, on the other hand, we failed 
 to acknowledge the elements of divine life and guidance which 
 the same book contains. This must be said in large measure 
 of both the older and the later portions of it. "NVe have in 
 the former, among other things, the history of the early intro- 
 duction and growth of the idea of One God, and many traces 
 of the prolonged conflict of prophets and others against the 
 various wickedness of rulers and people ; sliewing us how the 
 Hebrews were brought, almost in spite of themselve.s, from and 
 tlirough imperfections, prejudices and obstacles, to what was 
 better and truer; until, finally, a suitable preparation was 
 made among them for the coming and the life of Jesus Christ, 
 with all the rich practical lessons of moral and religious teach- 
 ing which are identified with his name or due immediately to 
 his infhience. These are mostly of a character not, certainly, 
 to offend or do violence to the natural reason or sense of right, 
 but rather to awaken, purify and strengthen the conscience, 
 and so win the approval of the intelligent and thoughtful 
 mind. Tiiere are many things of this kind in the Cliristian 
 teachings, of the very highest character, such as are completely 
 above the ordinary thoughts and practices of men, but which 
 
296 TRUE AUTHOEITY OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 we feel, nevertheless, within our hearts to be ri^ht, and deserv- 
 ing of our obedience. 
 
 When Christ, for example, gives us the parable of the Good 
 Samaritan, and tells us to go and do likewise, do not our best 
 reason and sense of right assent, respond and sympathize? 
 When he tells us to love our neighbour even as ourselves, to 
 do good to those who hate us, and to forgive those who have 
 injured us ; when he tells us that the peacemakers shall be 
 called children of God ; that the pure in heart shall see Him ; 
 and that tliey are blessed who do hunger and thirst after righ- 
 teousness, for that they shall be filled ; — when Christ not only 
 speaks and teaches in this spirit, but also manifests a perfect 
 faithfulness in his own devotion to the work of duty which he 
 was called to do ; — when we see him going straight forward, 
 even to the painful death of crucifixion, without faltering, and 
 even on the cross carrying out his own precepts by praying to 
 God to forgive the men who were putting him to a cruel death ; 
 — in all this, and such as this, do we not feel that we have a 
 divine spirit in the Bible, which it will be good for us to 
 admit into our hearts, and exemplify in our lives, if we can ? — 
 a spirit which the secret intimations of the soul assure us 
 is altogether right, and beautiful, and worthy to be received ; 
 which, in short, in its perfectness, is far above man's ordinary 
 doings, and which we can only hope and pray to be enabled 
 faithfully to receive and make our own ? 
 
 And things of this kind in the Bible, which awaken our 
 sympathy and lay hold of our moral nature, evidently consti- 
 tute the true value of that book, and its true claim upon us ; 
 not, however, because they are there laid down before us in 
 the form of laws and creeds, but because they are great spiri- 
 tual principles, which yvefecl to be such ; because they are in 
 har-mony with the best dictates of our nature ; not opposed to 
 these, or in any way inconsistent with them. The true autho- 
 rity of the Bible consists, in a word, just in this and in nothing 
 
SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 297 
 
 else, that our secret hearts, in our best and most serious mo- 
 ments, acknowledge and testify to its truth and power in so 
 considerable a portion of its teachings. 
 
 CHAPTER XXYIII. 
 
 SUMMARY OF RESULTS "WITH ADDITIONAL EE:\rARKS — THE CHRIS- 
 TIANITY OF CHRIST — HIS TRUE DIGNITY — HIS DEATH — THE 
 lord's SUPPER, WHAT IT IS — THE FUNCTION OF THE BIBLE : 
 PRIESTLY AUTHORITY — THE CHURCH AND THE CHURCHES 
 — PROPER BASIS OF CHRISTIAN COMMUNION — QUESTION OF A 
 NATIONAL CHURCH — WHAT UNITARIANS WORSHIP — WHAT IS 
 A UNITARIAN? 
 
 The principal conclusions which appear to be established 
 by the foregoing argument may now be very briefly recapi- 
 tulated. 
 
 In the first place, the Almighty Being whom the Bible 
 would lead us to acknowledge and worship is, in the strictest 
 sense of the words. One God. He is a Living Spirit, of " loving 
 kindness and tender mercy," our Father in heaven ; while yet 
 He is at the same time a God of righteousness, "who will 
 render to every man according to his deeds." 
 
 Into this ancient idea of one Divine personality, there is 
 nowhere introduced, throughout the Scriptures, any change 
 or qualification whatever. The Jehovah of Abraham and of 
 Moses is the Jehovah of Isaiah and Jeremiah, of the latest as 
 of the earliest Prophets. The same Almighty Being is the 
 Heavenly Father of the Gospels, and He it is who is also 
 spoken of by the Apostles Paul and Peter as the God and 
 Father of Jesus Christ. Throngliout the Bible it is everywhere 
 the same ; the most strict and literal conception of the one- 
 
298 GOD AND CHRIST. 
 
 iiess of the Divine Mind, of the sole deity of Jehovah of Hosts, 
 being constantly expressed or implied, in much variety of 
 phrase. 
 
 It is true, nevertheless, that various little peculiarities of a 
 plural character occur in the Hebrew writers in immediate 
 connection with the Sacred Name. Thus their word for God 
 is grammatically plural in form. But however this may have 
 originated, it came to be a mere idiomatic expression of the 
 language. As such only it stands before us, and it is em- 
 ])loyed in the Bible, like other plural forms, to denote a single 
 object. So much is this the case, in reference both to this 
 word and to some kindred expressions on which Dr. Liddon 
 anxiously insists, that all guch things are absolutely insigni- 
 ficant, in comparison with the overwhelming force of the 
 argument for the strictest doctrine of the Divine Unity. The 
 citation of such small evidence by him and by other defenders 
 of the popular orthodoxy proves notliing, in fact, but the 
 extreme poverty of their general argument from the Old Tes- 
 tament. It is simply indicative of the absence of all direct 
 testimony to the theory which they seek to uphold. 
 
 In the second place, Jesus of Nazareth is nowhere in Scrip- 
 ture represented as God, but simply as the Christ — that is to 
 say, the anointed, the chosen instrument, the well-beloved Son, 
 of the Almighty Father. In tliis character he was received 
 by his own immediate disciples ; more or less of the temporal 
 or political conception of his office most probably attaching 
 to their earliest confession of him. By his death, however, 
 and in the course of years, that grosser element was removed ; 
 yet for a long period something of it remained, in the lingering 
 expectation of his second advent. But this, too, in time, and 
 by the course of events, was proved to be only a misappre- 
 hension. With few exceptions. Christian men liave now out- 
 grown it and put it away, For eighteen centuries and more 
 it has been left unfulfilled, and hence, surely, we may reason- 
 
WHAT IS ClimsTIAN FjUTH ? 299 
 
 ably infer the will of the overruling Providence that Jesus was 
 to be Christ in no temporal or worldly sense. He is thus 
 simply the Spiritual Christ, and all who will may be disciples 
 of his — not, indeed, by virtue of any outward rite, such as cir- 
 cumcision, or baptism, or the confession of a creed, but by 
 Paith alone, carrying with it, as a matter of course, tlie Obedi- 
 ence which is better than sacrifice, and the Christian Love 
 which is greater than faith. 
 
 But what then is Christian Faith to the modern disciple ? 
 It can be no merely intellectual state, voluntary or involun- 
 tary. It is a thing, in truth, of manifold character. It is the 
 affectionate, reverent trust of the disciple towards the Teacher; 
 it is the earnest desire to sit at his feet, and learn of him the 
 virtues and the graces of the Christian character ; it is tlie 
 humble yet hopeful aspiration to obey his precepts, to follow 
 his example, and to imbibe the spirit of his life. From this 
 definition of Christian faith, it easily follows that Christianity 
 is not a mere dogma, whether al)out Christ or about God, 
 about heaven or hell, or Adam, or sin, or the devil ; that it 
 does not consist, in any essential degree, in a particular form 
 of church government, or in submission to a priesthood, or in 
 the observance of holy days, forms of worship, ceremonial rites 
 and sacraments. Christianity cannot consist in things of this 
 kind, or be dependent either upon their presence or their 
 absence ; although it may be freely confessed that such things 
 as dogmas, ceremonies and priests, may be a help and a stay, 
 if also a hindrance, to many. If, then, a man should feel them 
 to be such, let him cling to them-; but, as the Apostle reminds 
 us, "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."* 
 
 Thus, to vary the form of definition, it folluws, again, that 
 Christianity, objectively considered, is Christ himself — the 
 mind, life, character and spirit of Christ. Tlie best expression 
 of it is in Idni, in his words and deeds ; l)y the side of which 
 
 * Rom. xiv. 1 — 6. 
 
300 JESUS CHRIST: 
 
 every human creed and test of discipleship is but an imperti- 
 nent intrusion. He then is the truest Christian, not wdio is 
 readiest or loudest in saying, " Lord, Lord," but who most 
 closely and practically follows the Master in doing the Hea- 
 venly Father's will ; — who strives and prays to do this Divine 
 will in Christ, so far as it is given to frail and tempted man 
 to imitate so lofty an example, to manifest so righteous and so 
 holy a spirit. 
 
 But between Jesus as the Christ, thus set before us, and 
 Him who is the " Only True God," there is the same infinite 
 distance as between the Divine Creator and every other created 
 intelligence. Christ is indeed, in apostolical phrase, the " first 
 born of many brethren," the well-beloved Son of the Almighty 
 Being, but he is not himself God — nor is he ever really repre- 
 sented as such in the New Testament. "Tbere is one God the 
 Father," and " one Lord Jesus Christ ;"* but these are not in 
 any sense one being or one nature ; they are two beings and 
 two natures ; two distinct, self-conscious minds — a fact which 
 cannot be got rid of, or ignored, even by the most zealous Tip- 
 holders of the deity of Christ and the oneness of divine nature 
 in him and in God.-f* It thus further appears as a marked and 
 evil feature of the popular theology, that it tends so directly 
 to weaken, or also to perplex and obscure, proper monotheistic 
 feeling, — turning away the mind from one true and only Object 
 of devout trust and worship, to the acknowledgment as divine 
 of other beings which are not really God in any allowable 
 sense of the word, and which can never by the nature of the 
 case be shewn to be so. 
 
 This remark applies, not only to the doctrine of Christ's 
 deity, but to that also of the personality of the Holy Spirit. 
 For the Holy Spirit, although, indeed, as we have seen, it is 
 
 * 1 Cor. viii. 6. 
 
 + In particular illustration of tins statement, see the remarks on Canon Light- 
 foot's exposition of Philip, ii. 6 — 11, ApjK-ndix, nolo E. 
 
HIS TRUE CHARACTER AND DIGNITY. 301 
 
 truly God Himself, more especially as manifested in His inter- 
 course or communion with the soul of man, yet it is not, in 
 any real sense, a separate divine " person," that is to say, a 
 separate God ; nor, consequently, ought it ever to be so spoken 
 of by one who has a regard to the teaching of Christ. It 
 ought not, therefore, to be separately addressed in prayer or 
 praise, for such acts are, in effect, a detraction from the honour 
 which is due to Him who alone is God, And this statement 
 is enforced by the unquestionable fact that there is not a sin- 
 gle instance in the Bible in which the Holy Spirit is so ad- 
 dressed, or invoked, or presented to us as an object of worship. 
 It is further to be observed — for we are here endeavouring 
 to speak the whole truth in very plain words — that Jesus 
 Christ, as man, as the first and noblest of the sons of God, the 
 spiritual Head under llim of the " Communion of Saints," is 
 a far greater, more attractive and more commanding object, 
 than when looked up to as a derived or secondary God, as he 
 is represented in the Nicene Creed ; or as one, again, whose 
 Godhead is for ever a doubtful and disputed thing. This it 
 now is, and this it always has been, from the day when it was 
 first heard of, downwards to our time. For has the Godhead 
 of Christ ever been universally acknowledged in the Christian 
 world, except, perhaps, in the darkest periods of the Middle 
 Ages, when, along with the Virgin Mary and innumerable 
 saints,* Christ also was mad-e the object of Divine honours 
 which he had never received in his life-time, and against 
 which he would certainly have protested, as due not to him, 
 
 • "When the (irnml liereilitary truth of Juilaism, which is transmitted to Chris- 
 tianity, was lost sight of in the third and fourtii centuries of our era, pulytheism 
 and idolatry in new forms sprang up forthwith, and multiplied with rapiil increase 
 through the whole mediaeval ])eriod. First, the Son, then the Holy Spirit, then 
 the Virgin Mother, and at length countless hosts of saints and martyrs, rose into 
 the rank of Deity, and were invoked with fervent prayers — the last personage so 
 exalteil being usually the most iiojiular ohjcct of worship ; till, finally, at the altars 
 which filled the churches before the Reformation, the name of the Father Himself 
 was never heard." — From an uiqiuOlis/ied Lecture by the late Jicv. J. J. Tai/Ur. 
 
.302 THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 but to the Fiitliev a,loiie ? Jesus Christ, then, let us repeat, as 
 MAN, tlie patient, steadfast, righteous servant of the Aluiighty 
 Will, raised up by the power of God to a glorious spiritual 
 throne, is a being calculated to awaken and to help the love 
 and trust and courage of every faithful soul. But Jesus Christ 
 as God, doubted or denied in that character by many, and by 
 many more received only with a secret fear, half acknowledged 
 to themselves, lest in so honouring him they are guilty of 
 idolatrous treason towards the Lord of the universe, — what 
 shall be said of such a doubtful Deity as this ? How can a 
 God with a disputed title permanently command the faith and 
 homage of the world, or rule effectually in the hearts of men ? 
 
 On the subject of the death of Christ, it may be enough to 
 rendnd the reader that this is nowhere represented as possessed 
 of a propitiatory or expiatory efficacy, in the old heathen sense 
 of such expressions. It was simply the Providential means 
 by which the admission of the Gentile world was secured to 
 the faith of the Gospel. The phraseology in which it is spoken 
 of is, indeed, at times very largely figurative — arising naturally 
 out of the Levitical ideas and institutions of the Jews. But, 
 while this is true, one literal fact is usually expressed by it. 
 That fact is what has just been stated — not the incredible doc- 
 trine that the All-merciful God, in His "wrath," required to be 
 propitiated by the death of an innocent victim ; nor the equally 
 incredible doctrine that Christ's death has redeemed men from 
 everlasting sufferings in hell, because he has borne tlieir pun- 
 ishment, and thus given " satisfaction" to Infinite Justice. No 
 such barbarous ideas as these are anywhere either plainly 
 stated in the New Testament, or veiled and conveyed, as in a 
 parable, under its more figurative expressions. 
 
 It follows by necessary consequence, that the Eomanist and 
 high Anglican doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 
 is a huge mistake ; and that all the miserable animosities and 
 controversies to which it has given origin have been only so 
 
THE LORDS SUPPER. 303 
 
 much energy misapplied and wasted, or worse. There is no 
 Scriptural evidence whatever, no evidence at all whicli rises 
 above the character of early Christian superstition, by which 
 the Lord's Supper can be shewn to be of the nature of a sacri- 
 fice for sin, requiring to be perpetually renewed by a " sacri- 
 ficing priest." There is no evidence, in truth, worthy of the 
 name, by which it can be shewn to be anything else, in its 
 institution and nature, but a siniple service of devout com- 
 memoration. " Do this in remembrance of me," are the words 
 of Christ himself, when he founded the rite. Whatever, in 
 modern doctrines concerning it, passes beyond this, in form or 
 in spirit, can only be set down as misunderstanding, or as the 
 inherited remains of ancient error. But from these, it may be 
 added, the Christian world is gradually and surely, though it 
 may be slowly and painfully, releasing itself. 
 
 The Lord's Supper, then, being thus a service of grateful 
 commemoration and reverence towards the Christian Head, is 
 naturally, at the same time, a testimony of sympathy and fel- 
 lowship among those who partake. And, it must be added, alas 
 for that Church which fences round this simple rite of faith 
 with terms of communion unknown to Christ himself, and thus 
 in effect forbids the approach to him of any who would seek 
 to come in and sit down in the reverential spirit of Christian 
 discipleship ! 
 
 The collection of writings which forms the Bible is, in its 
 greater part, the remains of the ancient Hebrew literature ; 
 the rest, or Christian portion, being of much later date, and, 
 in some cases, hardly less fragmentary in its character. In 
 both divisions we have many documents of uncertain or un- 
 known authorsliip, which are yet of the highest interest, both 
 for the record which they preserve of the history of an ancient 
 and peculiar people, and for the picture which they give us of 
 the manner in which the Hebrews were led on from very gross 
 and imperfect ideas in religion and other subjects to the higher 
 
804 WHAT THE BIBLE IS. 
 
 moral and spiritual standard of Christ and Christianity. In 
 the Christian literature, moreover, we have in substance the 
 record of a great revolution destined in the course of time 
 deeply to affect tlie ideas and the material condition of the 
 civilized world. We have also the only historical or bio- 
 graphical outline left to us of the life and teaching of that 
 remarkable personage from whom so wonderful an influence 
 was to proceed. At the lowest estimate of its character, the 
 Bible is not less than this. To many persons, and not without 
 reason, it is much more ; but it is not a Creed or a Creed-book, 
 which men are called upon to receive under penalty of damna- 
 tion. It nowhere claims to be so. Nor is it a body of innnu- 
 table laws for our time, or for any other. Many of its ideas 
 on creation, on the Divine Being and His intercourse with 
 men, and on various other subjects, are simply such as were 
 suited to the infancy of the human race — some of them are 
 such as can only be passed over in silence by readers of any 
 refinement or delicacy of mind. The Book, in short, in many 
 parts, is one of which, more perhaps than of any other within 
 ordinary knowledge, we may reasonably be expected to remem- 
 ber the old Baconian maxim about antiquity being only the 
 youth of the world. The Bible may, nevertheless, if wisely 
 used, be a help and an influence to guide and eidighten 
 the conscience ; as it is a channel through which the Unseen 
 Spirit has often spoken to men, and may still speak to us, if 
 we will listen. But it is not, and ought not to be made, a 
 substitute for the free and earnest action of our own higher 
 nature ; nor an opiate to stupefy, or put it to sleep. The Bible 
 never claims to exercise any such function as this ; but rather, 
 in its usual tenor, appeals to us and bids us stand up as intel- 
 ligent, moral and religious beings, to judge for ourselves what 
 is right, and act faithfully in accordance with the highest dic- 
 tates of our inner sense of duty. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to add, that nothing in the letter or 
 
PRIESTLY AUTHORITY. -SOo 
 
 the spirit of the Bible commands, or even permits us to devolve 
 this duty upon others — upon "priests" of this church or of 
 that. Such a course may have been necessary, or becoming, 
 in some of those darker ages which lie between the present 
 time and that in which Christ lived. But when a priest or a 
 Pope puts forth the claim to my spiritual allegiaTice, or seeks 
 to dictate either what I ought to believe, or how I ought to 
 act, what is there to shew me that he has a rightful authority 
 to do this ? I cannot find it so ordered either in the words of 
 Christ, or even in those of any Apostle. Am I then to take 
 the priest's word for it? Even when he urges it under the 
 impersonal name of the " Church," there is still a weighty 
 question to be resolved. For the Church, as usually put forward, 
 is only the people, priests or laymen, of a darker age than ours ; 
 and on what reasonable ground can a man be required to give 
 up his own judgment for theirs ? — to accept their conclusions 
 on the great subjects of religious inquiry, and forego the exei- 
 cise of his own faculties ? What is to shew tliat the priestly 
 claimant of our time is morally and spiritually wortliy to be 
 a guide of men in matters of faith and duty? — that he is even 
 a man of pure and upright life ? From every point of view 
 the pretension is untenable ; or, to speak plainly, it is absurd 
 in the highest degree — a thing from which the cultivated 
 reason and conscience will more and more revcjlt and turn 
 away with scorn. Witness to this effect tlie present religious 
 condition of Italy, Spain and France. Who does not see that 
 in these countries priestly pretensions have been puslied to 
 their natural vicious extreme ? — that they have produced the 
 fruits to be expected from such a tree ? — that they are now, 
 therefore, simply to be rejected by reasonable people? — that 
 they are able to maintain their ground only by virtue of 
 ancient prescriptive right, and, even by tlie aid of this, mainly 
 among the more ignorant and superstitious classes of the 
 population ? It cannot for a moment be supposed that the 
 
 X 
 
80G ANCIENT CEEEDS AND AETICLES. 
 
 thoughtful and well-informed of the English people will ever, 
 in any great numbers, be reduced to this kind of subservience 
 to a priestly class. Every year that passes, with every new 
 step in the path of popular education, renders such a suppo- 
 sition more impossible. 
 
 The great question of the Church and the Churches cannot 
 here be discussed at any adequate length. It may, however, 
 be noted that no basis of Church union that is likely to be 
 permanent can anywhere be found, except only in the ever- 
 enduring words of Christ. The ancient creeds are clearly 
 inadmissible, and this for more reasons than one. For exam- 
 ple, it is impossible to learn who wrote them. The Apostles' 
 Creed is a document of unknown authorship, and can only be 
 traced, in any form, to the latter part of the second century. 
 It really, therefore, stands before us under false pretences. It 
 is not the Apostles' Creed, and never was so in any proper 
 sense of the words. Moreover, nian}^ of its clauses are now 
 popularly misunderstood, and, from the nature of the case, can 
 no longer be accepted in their proper signification. A similar 
 statement is eminently true of the so-called Creed of Athana- 
 sius ;* and in regard to the Nicene Creed, although some 
 knowledge is easily accessible, not indeed as to the hand that 
 wrote it, but at least as to the credulous and narrow-minded 
 ecclesiastics whose opinions it embodied, yet will any one 
 allege that this knowledge tends to recommend the document 
 to the faith or reverence of any thoughtful and free-minded 
 man? The proposition, then, remains true, that the ancient 
 creeds cannot form a permanent basis of Church communion 
 among instructed men ; and the same thing may be equally said 
 of the Thirty-nine Articles of the English establishment. 
 
 A formidable question remains to be asked in regard to 
 Creeds and Articles alike. Does any considerable number of 
 
 * See Riddle, Christian Antiquities, 2nd ed., p. 46-3, «cq.; Nicolas, Le Symhole 
 des A^i'jtres, 18C7; Dean Stanley's Tkc Atltanasian Creed, 1871. 
 
TRUE BASIS OF CHURCH UNION. 307 
 
 Christian people now believe them, honestly and fairly believe 
 them in their natural sense, as they lie before us ? Of those 
 who use them, doubtless some do so, but it is equally undeni- 
 able that nmltiludes do not. How, then, can they serve as a 
 basis of Church union for the whole English nation, or even 
 for the religious portion of it ? 
 
 But even if the Creeds and Articles were really believed by 
 ever so many, no one has authority, or, by the nature of the 
 case, can ever have had authority, to impose tlieni upon others 
 — except, indeed, a usurped authority. And, above all, they 
 are not needed. We may well believe that had precise dog- 
 matic statements been required as the foundation of his Church, 
 the Christian Master would himself have given these to his 
 followers, and not have left to them the invidious and fruitless 
 task of setting up rival creeds and dogmas. But he, the Chris- 
 tian Master, has taken no such course. The confession of 
 himself as Christ is all that he appears to have contemplated. 
 "On this rock," he said, "will I build my church."* The 
 acknowledgment, therefore, of him as Christ in things spiri- 
 tual, is the only true foundation of his Church on earth. Yet 
 the Anglican communion persistently supersedes and oblite- 
 rates the true principle of Christian fellowship by the compli- 
 cated formularies just spoken of, imposing as.sent to tlu'se, if 
 not upon its ordinary membei's, at least upon its ministers, 
 and thus perpetuating the inculcation of what multitudes in 
 the nation can no longer accept as truth, but regard as anti- 
 quated and pernicious error. 
 
 It is not, however, to be concealed that the great Noncon- 
 formist sects arc quite as chargeable with doing this as the 
 National Church; that their proceedings in this respect are* 
 animated l>y precisely the same spirit. The Congregational- 
 ists, for exanq)lo, by means of doctrinal schedules attached to 
 
 * Matt. xvi. 16 — 18; and coniii. supra, Chap. XYIII., "Jesus the Spiritual 
 Christ." 
 
 X 2 
 
308 THE NONCONFORMIST BODIES. 
 
 chapel trusts, and by other well-understood means, of which 
 it is not necessary here to speak in detail, provide very effec- 
 tually that no one shall be minister of a church who does not 
 teach and preach according to the little set of Calvinistic doc- 
 trines specified in the schedule.* The Wesleyan Methodists, 
 and probably the minor sects of the same generic name, pursue 
 a similar course. Not contented with the teaching of Christ 
 as it lies before us in the Gospel, or not willing to trust their 
 ministers with a real freedom of speech, they have set up their 
 venerable founder as a kind of Pope, and make the candidates 
 for their ministry declare at ordination that they will not 
 depart from the doctrines of his Sermons and Notes on the 
 New Testament.-f- The Baptists, it is well known, are not far 
 behind in the same narrow path ; maintaining, as they do, that 
 no one shall partake of the Lord's Supper, or, in other words, 
 enter into cluirch communion with them, who has not been 
 wholly immersed in water,— thus applying to the people of our 
 cold northern climate an injunction which can only have con- 
 templated the inhabitants of the semi-tropical lands in which 
 Christianity was first preached. 
 
 The natural consequences of this unseemly sectarian spirit 
 are seen partly in the bitterness, dissension and intolerance 
 which now unhappily prevail within the established Church 
 itself, and partly in the irreligion, ignorance and manifold 
 vice, which, alas ! exist so largely throughout the lower strata 
 of the English nation. For such evils, it cannot be doubted, 
 English sectarianism is greatly to blame. The remedy, how- 
 ever, is not to be found, as some might tell us, in a self- 
 degrading submission to priestly authority — supposing, for a 
 jnoment, such a thing to be possible. It is rather in the com- 
 bination and the organization of all religious men, of every 
 
 * Such, after much inquiry, we understand to be the usual practice of the Con- 
 gregationalists. Of exceptions we have never heard, and should be very glad to be 
 informed of their existence — if there are any. 
 
 t See Griadrod's Laws and Regulations of Wesleyan Methodism. 
 
AN ABANDONED CAUSE. 309 
 
 sect, for united Christian work in one grand national whole 
 on the simple basis of Christ's teaching. It is in tlie concen- 
 tration of energies, now too much divided and wasted, for the 
 in.structiou and evangelizing of our people. But this union 
 can never take place, and never even commence, until at least 
 the National Church shall open its doors wide enough to admit, 
 without test or creed of human devising, all who "profess and 
 call themselves Christians," and who desire to come in and 
 unite as brethren in Christ on the broad and simple principle 
 of the acceptance of his words — his words alone — as the test 
 of their discipleship. 
 
 The day has perhaps gone by, when such a renovation of the 
 religious and ecclesiastical life of the English people was still 
 within reach — within the power of some great statesman to 
 propose, and of the Church and nation to accept. At least, 
 this desponding view of the case is held and m^ed by some 
 leaders of public opinion from whom a different course might 
 have been expected. They are willing, it would appear, to 
 give up the battle for a united and comprehensive Church as 
 already lost, even before it has been fought. But, on the con- 
 trary, let us beg the reader to consider whether this question 
 has yet been fitly discussed — whether a true commencement 
 has been even made of its discussion. The short-sighted policy 
 of the Liberation Society has, indeed, been long and amply 
 agitated ; but the great idea of' a common Church for the whole 
 English people, founded upon some simple and intelligible 
 Christian principle admitted by all, — a Church in which the 
 first duty of its ministers would be to speak out what they 
 believe to be the truth, without fear of consequences, — this 
 idea surely has not yet been fairly placed before the nation, — 
 and possibly, we nmst add, it is destined never to be so, or it 
 is destined to be so in vain. 
 
 One thing, at all events, seems plain. To disestablish the 
 existing Church, after the manner of the Church of Ireland. 
 
310 CONSEQUENCES OF DISESTABLISHMENT. 
 
 will only be to add an additional sect of overwhelming influence 
 to the numerous "denominations" already existing. It will 
 be to set up this sect in all its ancient prestige, and in all the 
 power conferred by the possession of a large portion of na- 
 tional Church property, which must of necessity and in justice 
 be given to it. If, as some expect, the body thus. relieved of 
 its national character, and no longer held together by Par- 
 liamentary and other restraints, shall split up into three or 
 four different sections, this will only be to make matters 
 worse ; adding so many new sects, instead of one, to those 
 which now exist, with all the waste of power consequent 
 upon the competition for influence among the people, which will 
 naturally attend such a state of things. And so the nation 
 will be given over, for an indefinite period, to a sectarianism 
 more intense than ever. Can such a policy be a wise one ? 
 Is it one that is worthy of a gi-eat Christian people ? Would 
 not the better course be to open wide the doors of the existing 
 Church, to abolish, or greatly simplify, the ancient creeds and 
 articles, — or at least to offer them for acceptance only so far as 
 the individual conscience finds them to be in accordance with the 
 teachings of Christ, — thus, in effect, requiring no test of mem- 
 bership, except only the profession of allegiance to him as Head? 
 
 But, it must be added, with such a revolution as this should 
 be united Justice in the distribution of national Church endow- 
 ments and revenues. There is no reason why all should be 
 in the hands of a single sect, while others are left to shift for 
 themselves. Here, however, we come to questions of detail 
 which cannot be adequately discussed in these pages, and 
 with a few words on one other point, we may leave this part 
 of our subject. 
 
 Is it objected that the principle of Church union above 
 proposed is too vague, not definite enough for united worship 
 or united action? The answer is evident. The Gospel and 
 the Church have been left to us by tlieir Founder precisely in 
 
POSSIBILITY OF A NATIONAL CHURCH. 3 1 1 
 
 this position, in this all-comprehensive spirit. Why should 
 any one seek to limit and lower what He has left so free, so 
 lofty, and so broad ? Who, moreovci", of our day, or of any 
 age since Christ lived, has or has had the right to define more 
 exactly than he has done, what are the essentials of Christian 
 faith, or the conditions of admission to the Christian Church ? 
 It may, indeed, be true that in a National Church built upon 
 the foundation of Christ alone, there would be great diver- 
 sities of opinion on many speculative points. But do not 
 such diversities of opinion exist now, under the old, long-tried, 
 narrow, and broken-down system ? We should then be in no 
 worse position in that respect. Nay, we should be in a better ; 
 for, although people would naturally group themselves round 
 various centres of instruction and influence, as they found 
 spiritual food suitable to their different wants, yet all might 
 still feel, and this far more truly than at present, that they 
 were equal members of the one Body of Christ, and all mem- 
 bers one of another. Differences, within the Christian fold or 
 outside of it, cannot be got rid of; but, in one comprehensive 
 Church, injurious influences arising from them would probably 
 be reduced to a mirumura ; while a true freedom of thought 
 and speech, fully and legally allowed to all, could only tend, 
 among honest men, to the destruction of error, the speedier 
 discovery and the surer establishment of Truth. 
 
 If any of our highest i\nglican or " Catholic" friends could 
 not be members of such a re-constituted National Church, the 
 more would be the pity, — at least for themselves. But, in any 
 case, the door would be open for those who preferred to go out. 
 They could become Dissenters ! And probably the change 
 would be good for their spiritual health ; M'hile many would 
 be ready to acknowledge, that such a turning of the world 
 ecclesiastical upside down would, in their case, be no unfit- 
 ting "Nemesis" of spiritual arrogance, — all things considered. 
 Moreover, a harbour of refuge, and more than one, would still 
 
312 STATE CONTROL. 
 
 remain to them. The Eoman Church and its Greek sister (or 
 rival) would doubtless receive them witli open arms ; and thus 
 would the particular " re-union of Christendom" for which 
 niany of them are understood to long, he at length happily 
 accomplished, so far, at least, as they were concerned — a result, 
 it may he supposed, far better, in their eyes, than so unortho- 
 dox a thing as a re-union, on a common Christian basis, be- 
 tween themselves and the sects and churches of Protestant 
 England. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to add, that in the ecclesiastical 
 renovation here contemplated, there need be no place left for 
 any injurious "State control." Certainly the State ought not 
 to set itself up as a theological dictator, either to the present 
 or to a future generation. But neither ought this to be done 
 by any little knot of chapel-founders, by the committee or 
 deacons of a congregation, or by the select body which may 
 call itself " the church," whether among Baptists or Indepen- 
 dents. The utmost possible liberty of thought and speech ought 
 to be allowed to allwdio accepted the fundamental principle of 
 union, — any control that might be exercised being solely in 
 regard to material arrangements. It is perfectly reasonable, 
 and would be necessary for peace, that things of the latter kind 
 should be subject to definite national laws ; but let no court, 
 or committee, or conference, or parliament, arrogate to itself the 
 function or the place of Christ, by attempting to impose what 
 he has left open and free to the conscience and reason of each 
 individual disciple. Liberty to inquire, and to express the 
 results of honest inquiry, cannot, therefore, fail to be one of 
 the most prominent characteristics of a church which desires 
 to serve and worship God "in spirit and in truth;" and this 
 principle we would heartily commend to the consideration of 
 many of the members of the Liberation Society. 
 
 The outlines of Christian doctrine sketched in the preceding 
 
MISUNDERSTANDINGS. 3 I 8 
 
 pagfs ai'c, in substance, the same which have been usually 
 designated by the term Unitarian. It would appear that they 
 are in themselves very simple, — not complicated, or full of 
 mystery and apparent contradiction, as may, with some degree 
 of reason, be alleged of the prevailing orthodoxy. It has 
 usually been allowed, indeed, that the Unitarian form of Chris- 
 tian belief, however wanting it may be in tinith, is at least 
 rational and intelligible. In this, doubtless. Dr. Liddon and 
 many more will only find an additional ground for reject- 
 it, perhaps without examination. Such persons, like Naaraan 
 the Syrian, would prefer " some great thing." To wash even 
 seven times in the waters of Jordan will be a light thing 
 with those who can find peace only in baptismal regeneration, 
 apostolical succession, or (if attainable) some sort of infalli- 
 bility, documentary or personal — only not that of the Pope ! 
 
 It is not, therefore, to be greatly wondered at, that so many, 
 even of thoughtful and intelligent persons, are unable fairly 
 to appreciate Unitarian theology, or even to make out very 
 clearly what a Unitarian can be. Of those who appear to be 
 afflicted with this kind of incapacity — to use the mildest word 
 which the circumstances permit — maybe mentioned the learned 
 and venerable Dr. Hook, the present Dean of Chichester. In 
 his widely circulated Church Dictionary, he describes Uni- 
 tarians as " certain persons who do not worship the True 
 God."* We scarcely know what remedy can be applied to 
 this curious case of theological blindness. But we venture to 
 ask any candid reader whether it does not appear from the 
 preceding pages that Unitarians are at least desirous to worship 
 the True God ? Do they not say in their prayers, as Christ 
 taught his disciples to say, " Our Father which art in heaven"? 
 Is it not also their earnest wish to keep " the first of all the 
 conniiandnu'uts," that "the Lord our God is one Lord;" — as 
 well as to render the love and obedience which are not to be 
 
 * Church Dictionary (10th ed.), article " Unitiiriau." 
 
314 MISUNDERSTANDINGS 
 
 dissociated from it ; to remember that " God is a Spirit," and 
 that " they that worship him must worship him in spirit and 
 in truth"? How, then, if this be so, can it be truthfully said 
 that they are persons "who do not worship the True God"? 
 Has Dr. Hook some God of his own still truer than the " God 
 and Father of Jesus Christ"? If he has, let us beseech him 
 to reveal this "unknown God" more fully to the world. We 
 venture to assure him that the Unitarians of England will not 
 be slow to turn away from what they now so "ignorantly 
 worship," to that Greater and Truer Being which the author 
 of the Church Dictionary may be able to declare to them. 
 
 Another case of the same remarkable kind is seen in what 
 a recent very able writer has said in the pages of the Contem- 
 porary Eeview.* The Eev. John Hunt there tells us how 
 difficult he thinks it to define a Unitarian. "To define a 
 Unitarian," he says, "would be about as difficult as to explain 
 the primal essence of the universe." What degree of difficulty 
 may attend the latter attempt, Mr. Hunt does not inform us ; 
 but we can scarcely, perhaps, conclude this vohmie more suit- 
 ably than by endeavouring to help him, so far as we can, out 
 of his perplexity. We therefore venture upon a definition 
 of the term at which he stumbles, a definition which will 
 probably be level even to the humblest capacity. A Unitarian, 
 then, we would say, is one who follows Christ in holding the 
 doctrine of the Divine Unity without explaiiiing it away. 
 This definition will probably be admitted to cover the whole 
 question of Unitarian or not Unitarian. 
 
 It is true, indeed, as some of the Bishops and other speakers 
 in recent debates in Convocation observed, that there are con- 
 siderable differences among Unitarians on various theological 
 subjects ; just, in fact, as Trinitarians differ from one another 
 on some points — do they not ? — while remaining Trinitarians 
 
 * Contemporary Review, April, 1871, article on "The Bishops and the 
 Revision of the Bible," p. 91. 
 
AND EXPLANATIONS. 315 
 
 nevertheless. One, for in.stance, will hold tlie Trinity of tlie 
 Atliauasiau Creed ; another, that of Sabellius ; another, as ^Ir. 
 Hunt himself once pointed out, that of Proclus — although the 
 last-named teacher was not even a Christian. So doubtless it 
 is, to some extent, with Unitarians. On many points they 
 hold difterent opinions ; and they ought certainly to do so 
 peacefully and charitably. Indeed, we never heard of one 
 Unitarian prosecuting another for lieresy in the Court of 
 Arches, although we have heard of this happening among 
 Trinitarians. Yet while Unitarians may thus diflier from each 
 other, still on the great point of the Divine Unity they do not 
 differ. They none of them believe in more Gods than one ; or 
 admit that Jesus Christ was God, always maintaining that 
 he was a distinct being, a distinct mind and consciousness, 
 from the Almighty Father wliom he worshijjed, and whom, as 
 we have seen, he taught his disciples to worship. If they did 
 not agree in believing as just stated, those who ceased to do so 
 would cease to be Unitarians ; — unless a man can both be 
 entitled to a particular appellation and not entitled to it, at 
 the same time ; and this, it may be supposed, even Mr. Hunt, 
 most able and ingenious of controversialists as he is, will 
 scarcely maintain. 
 
 It may be hoped, therefore, that it has been made plain to 
 both the eminent writers just named, not only what a Uni- 
 tarian worships, but also what a Unitarian is. If not, we can 
 only attribute the failure to one cause. Eyes, it is said, which 
 are much in the dark, or accustomed to a subdued, imperfect 
 light, have difHculty in bearing the full daylight, and will fail 
 to perceive objects as clearly as they ought to do, even in the 
 bright sunshine of noonday, simply because they are so much 
 accustomed to a different medium. Does something like this 
 occur in connection with Eeligion? Do those who are long 
 accustomed to the sacred obscurity of Nicene and Athanasian 
 theology gradually lose the faculty of seeing clearly and appre- 
 
316 A PARTING HOPE. 
 
 elating rightly more simple doctrines ? Can this be the reason 
 why the Dean of Chichester thinks that Unitarians do not 
 worship the True God, and why the Eev. John Hunt has 
 found it so much beyond his power "to define a Unitarian"? 
 If such be tlieir state, we can only hope that the scales 
 may be taken from their eyes ; that before many years have 
 elapsed, their blindness or dimness of sight will have passed 
 away ; and that, like Saul of Tarsus, they will be strength- 
 ened to stand up in the synagogues (we mean the churches), 
 and with converted Paul proclaim and prove "that this is 
 very Christ."* 
 
 * See Acts ix. ] — 22 (in a revised version). 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 Note A, p. 35. 
 
 Isaiah vii. 14. — The Scrii)tural usage appears scarcely sufficient 
 to determine the meaning of the word rendered, Septuagint irapdivog, 
 English virgin, and quoted in ]\Iatt. i. 23. The word is found only 
 in Gen. xxiv. 43 ; Ex. ii. 8 ; Pro v. xxx. 19 ; Ps. Ixviii. 26 ; Cant. 
 i. 3 ; 1 C!hron. xv. 20 ; Ps. xlvi. 1 ; Cant. vi. 8. In all these in- 
 stances it may be used simply in the sense of young woman, whether 
 married or not. The Hebrews had a different word to denote the 
 stricter meaning, as, for example, in Gen. xxiv. 16; yet even this 
 was sometimes used in the wider sense (Joel i. 8). Hence it may 
 be supposed that the other too, even if usually and properly corre- 
 sponding to irapdivoc, may also have been occasionally employed 
 with the same latitude. It follows, that the rendering young wife 
 may be the right one. It is a very obvious remark that the prophet 
 by using the definite article, and thus referring to a definite person, 
 must really have meant to designate his own wife (Gesenius, Kom- 
 mentar in loc), much as he does in the next chapter, in connection 
 with the biith of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. In the latest English 
 work on Isaiah (The Book of Isaiah chronologically a7Tangprf, &c.., 
 by T. K. Cheyne, M.A., Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, 1870), 
 the verse under notice is rendered thus : "Behold, the damsel shall 
 conceive and bear a .son, and call his name God-with-us." ^Mr. 
 Cheyne observes, in his note on the word rendered ilamxeJ, "So far 
 
 as the etymology of this word is concerned, there is nothing to 
 
 prevent us fiom interpreting it of the wife of the prophet ;" and on 
 
818 GENEEAL APPENDIX. 
 
 the rendering "shall conceive," he adds, "or 'is with child,' thus 
 bringing the fulfilment a little nearer the time of the prediction." 
 This is in exact agreement with what has (quite independently) been 
 said above, and in the text (supra, pp. 35, 36). 
 
 Note B, p. 46. 
 
 Isaiah lii. 13 — liii. 12. — It is observed in the text (supra, p. 38, 
 seq.), that the prophet, when he speaks of the sufferings of the Ser- 
 vant of Jehovah, uses past tenses, and futures only when he refers 
 to the exaltation which is to come. This distinction may be best 
 seen by an inspection of the passage. The following version is taken 
 from the work of Mr. Cheyne, already referred to. It has been 
 published since the section of the present volume on the passage in 
 Isaiah was written ; and is here given simply because it is from the 
 pen of an independent translator, and is the latest English version 
 of the passage known to us. It will be at once plain to the reader 
 from Mr. Cheyne's rendering, how entirely historical, and not ^jre- 
 dictive, the passage is, and how impossible it is to refer the words 
 to Jesus Christ, — except, indeed, in the usual I^ew Testament man- 
 ner of accommodation. 
 
 Isaiah lii. 13— liii. 12. 
 
 13 "Behold my servant shall be prosperous ; he shall be exalted 
 and extolled, and be very high. 1 4 According as many were asto- 
 nished at thee (his visage was so marred unlike to a man, and his 
 form unlike to the sons of men), 15 so shall he cause many nations 
 to admire ; kings shall shut their mouths at him ; for that which 
 had not been told them shall they see, and that wjiich they had not 
 heard shall they consider. 
 
 liii. 1 Who hath believed our revelation 1 and to whom was the 
 arm of Jehovah disclosed ] 2 He grew up before him as a tender 
 plant, and as a root out of a dry ground ; he had no form nor ma- 
 jesty, that we should regard him, and no beauty, that we should 
 desire him. 3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of 
 pains and acquainted with sickness ; and we hid as it were our faces 
 from him ; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 
 
ISAIAH LII. 13— LIII. 12. 319 
 
 4 Surely he did bear our sicknesses and carrj' our pains, whilst 
 we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afliicted. 5 But 
 he was pierced for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities ; the 
 chastisement of our peace was upon liim, and through Jiis stripes 
 we are healed. 6 All we like sheep did go astray ; we turned every 
 one to his own way ; and Jehovah laid upon him the iniquity of 
 us all. 
 
 7 He was tormented, but he suffered freely, and opened not his 
 mouth, as the sheep that is led to the slaughter, and as the ewe 
 that before her shearers is dumb ; and he opened not his mouth. 
 
 8 From oppression and from punishment was he taken, — and as 
 for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the 
 land of the living, for the transgression of my people he was stricken? 
 
 9 And his grave was appointed with the wiekud, and his tomb with 
 the oppressor, although he had done no violence, neither was any 
 deceit in his mouth. 
 
 10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him, and to smite him with 
 sickness: for if he shoidd make his soul a trespass-offering he should 
 sec a seed, he should prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah 
 should prosper in his hand ; 1 1 he should see the gains of his 
 soul, and should be satisfied ; by his knowledge should my righteous 
 servant make many righteous, and he should take up the burden of 
 their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion among 
 many, and with a great company shall he divide, because Ik; poured 
 out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, 
 though he had borne the sin of many, and made intercession for the 
 transgres.sors." (Cheyne's Isaiah, pp. 189, 190.) 
 
 In a few instances the above version may be open to some slight 
 verbal correction, but the historical character given to the passage 
 is beyond question. On the last verse Mr. Cheyne observes, " The 
 chapter concludes, as it commenced, with a Divine oracle. The per- 
 sonification is now completely dissolved, and the spiritual recom- 
 pence of God's 'Servant' is divided among a great company." In 
 reference to the words, thr sin of many, he adds, "The 'many' and 
 the 'transgressors' are evidently the Jewish exiles, on the analogy 
 of similar expressions in an earlier jwragraph." (Ibid., p. 193.) 
 
820 'GENEEAL APPENDIX. 
 
 Note C, p. 197. 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 16. — Bishop Ellicott, in liis valuable Commentary on 
 the Pastoral Epistles, renders this verse as follows : " And con- 
 fessedly great is the mystery of godliness ; ' Who was manifested in 
 the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the 
 Gentiles, believed on in the world, received \ip into glory.'" The 
 whole of the verse, from "Who" to the end, may, he conjectures, 
 be a quotation from some ancient hymn or confession of faith. This 
 supposition is interesting, and would account for the somewhat 
 abrupt and difficult character of the passage as it stands. But it is 
 without evidence, except only the fact that the six clauses may be 
 arranged stichometrically. This may be pure accident, as in the 
 case of Coh)SS. iii. 19, in the English Version, where we have a 
 good hexameter verse. 
 
 The reference of the relative oq who (masculine) to the imme- 
 diately preceding word fivari'ipiov mystery (neuter) is difficult, and 
 hardly admissible, though adopted by Dean Alford in his revised 
 version of the New Testament. So Sharpe, Nexv Testament trans- 
 lated from Grieshach's Text. If, however, this be the correct ren- 
 dering, Christ is still without doubt the subject alluded to. He is 
 the " mystery who was manifested in flesh," whatever may be the 
 meaning of these words. The reader who consults the Commentary 
 above referred to will see that the distinguished author is by no 
 means perspicuous or satisfactory in his explanation of either irapd 
 (flesh) or Trvivfian (spirit) ; and indeed the difficulty of explanation 
 is acknowledged by him, as it must be by every one — except perhaps 
 Dr. Liddon. 
 
 The question whether or not the passage necessarily implies the 
 pre-existence of Christ, we have sufficiently answered in the text 
 (sjqrra, p. 198). But even if this question were answered affii'uia- 
 tively, it would not follow that Jesus Christ Avas ccmceived of by 
 the writer of the Epistle as Supreme God. Such a conclusion 
 would be contrary to the uniform tenor of the New Testament, as 
 we have abundantly seen in connection with Eom. ix. 5. Com]). 
 siqrra, p. 195. 
 
TITUS II. Jo. o21 
 
 NoTK D, p. 199. 
 
 Ill the Epistles there are two passages to which Dr. LicUiou 
 attaches great importance, as direct testimonies for the deity of 
 Jesus Christ. They have not been noticed in the body of this 
 work, cliiefly from the desire not to burden the text with tf)0 many 
 critical details ; but a few brief remarks may properly be introduced 
 liero. The passages referred to are Titus ii. 13 and 1 John v. 20. 
 
 (1) Titiis ii. 13. — In the common version this runs as follows : 
 *' Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the 
 great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Dean Alford ( Ni-m 
 Testament, revised version) varies thus : " And the manifestation 
 of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." 
 ]\Ir. Sharpe (New Testament, from &rieshach's Text, Gth ed.) agrees 
 with this, only substituting "appearing" for "manifestation." The 
 tliree translations (like many others, for example, tliose of Bunsen 
 and De Wette) distinguish between "the great God" and Jesus 
 Christ ; intending, in their respective renderings, to denote two 
 separate subjects or persons, and not one merely. 
 
 Dr. Liddon, however, as might be expected, renders thus : "Look- 
 ing for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great 
 God and Saviour Jesus Christ," exactly following the translation of 
 Lishop Ellicott (Pastoral Epistles, p. 259). 
 
 The question then is, which of these two forms of translation is 
 collect, the received form, or that of Dr. Liddon and the Bishop ? 
 In reply to this inquiry, we would first ask the reader to refer to 
 the remarks on liom. ix. 5 (supra, p. 195), and in particular to the 
 notes (pp. 195, 19G) which repeat the decided statement of Meyer 
 to the effect that St. Paul has nowhere designated Jesus Christ by 
 the word Htuc, and that such an application of this word to him is 
 not met with until after we leave the apostolical age. Thus, tlie 
 analogy of Paul's usual expressions is clearly aijainst the supposition 
 that lie here means to speak of Jesus Christ as "the great God." 
 
 Further, it is on all hands acknowledged that there is nothing in 
 the grammatical form of the passage to determine its translation one 
 way or the other. It may be correctly represented by either ren- 
 
 Y 
 
322 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 dering ; the one or the other lieing simply detcnuined hy the degroo 
 of force which any one may choose, in this ph^ce, to attribute to the 
 article standing in the Greek before the word rendered "great."* 
 In the presence of this doubt, the ordinary reader may be well satis- 
 fied to follow the guidance of such scholars as Meyer and Winer, 
 who are agreed in telling us that two subjects of thought are here 
 designated, and that Jesus Christ accordingly is not described as 
 "the great God." The guidance of these scholars, we repeat, is 
 what the reader shoukl follow ; and this may properly be urged upnu 
 him because their conclusion, as they tell us, has been dictated 
 simply by a due regard to the usual tenor of St. Paul's language, 
 in reference to God and to Christ. 
 
 The following are the words of Winer, taken from his Grammar 
 of the New Tedament (edited by Prof Moulton, 1870) :—" Consi- 
 derations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe 
 that crcjTfjpoQ [Saviour] is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with deov 
 [God], — Christ being first called 6 jjtyaQ Beog [the great God], and 
 then (xioTi'ip [Saviour]. The article is omitted before awr^poc because 
 this Avord is defined by the genitive j/^uwv [rendered o»y], and because 
 the apposition ijrecedes the proper name : of the great God and of 
 our Saviour Jeans Christ.'" Winer adds to this in a note : — " In 
 the above remarks I had no intention to deny that, in point of 
 grammar, crioTfjpoQ j/juwr may be regarded as a second predicate, 
 jointly depending on the article rov ; but the dogmatic conviction 
 derived from Paul's writings that this Apostle cannot have called 
 Chridt the great God, induced me to shew that there is no gramma- 
 tical obstacle to our taking the clause koX (twt XpKrrov by 
 
 itself, as referring to a second subject." To this note the English 
 translator and editor of Winer appends these words : — "This pas- 
 sage is very carefully examined by Bishop Ellicott and Dean Alford 
 in loc. ; and though these writers come to different conclusions (the 
 
 * The usage of the N. T. iu regard to the Greek article is quite insufficient to 
 settle the question as against the rendering of the received version. In reply to 
 the appeal to that usage, it is quite enough to recall the vi'ell-known words of 
 Bishop Pearson : " We must not think to decide this controversy by the articles, 
 of which the sacred penmen were not curious, and the transcribers have been very 
 careless." — Pearson on the Creed (1842), p. 229, note. 
 
TITUS ir. lo. '^'2'y 
 
 latter agreeing willi Winer, tlio Ibrnier rendering the words, 'of our 
 great God and Saviour Jesus Christ'), they are entirely agreed as to 
 the admissibilitj' of both renderings in point of 'jr/nnvi a r." (Winer, 
 Gram. N. T., od. by Moulton, p. 162.) 
 
 Probably nothing more is needed to enable the English reader to 
 decide for himself that the rendering of our English New Testament 
 is perfectly correct ; although, at the same time, it is not to be 
 denied that the rendering of l>r. Liddou and Bishop Ellicott might 
 be admitted, provided the anahjgy of St. Paul's writings re«[uired it, 
 or would even justify it. But, as we have sufficiently seen ( supni, 
 Chapter XIX.), the direct contrary is the case. 
 
 Indeed, both these learned writers virtually admit this, speaking 
 as they do with manifest hesitation as to their own rendering. Thus 
 Dr. Liddon observes, " Here the grammar apparentlij, and the con- 
 text certainly, oblige us to recognise the identity of 'our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ' and 'our Great God.' As a matter of fact, Chris- 
 tians are not waiting for any manifestation of the Father." (B. L., 
 p. 315.) As to the latter reniaik, we would remind Dr. Liddon 
 that in Paul's time Christians irere waiting for a " manifestation of 
 the Father." Our Lord himself in the Gospel expressly says re- 
 specting himself, that " he shall come in his own glory and m //^^^ 
 Father's" (Luke ix. 26). These words amply explain the terms 
 used by Paul ("the manifestation of the glor}'' of the great God") ; 
 and they shew us how vain it is, on the grounds put forth by Dr. 
 Liddon, to hold that Jesus Christ was regarded in apostolical times 
 as " the great (iod." 
 
 Bishfip Ellicott, on his side, is equally hesitating with Dr. Liddon, 
 and, we must add, more than equally candid, in regard to the ren- 
 dering which he has adopted. " It must be candidly avowed," he 
 writes, " that it is vcri/ doubtful whether on the grammatical prin- 
 ciple last alluded to [the union of two substantives under the vin- 
 culum of a common article] the interpretation of this passage can 
 be fully settled." The Bishop goes on to give in detail the reasons 
 which have determined him to render as he has done, and he con- 
 cludes his comment in these words : " It ought not to be suppressed 
 that some of the best versions, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 (not, liowever, ^thiopic), and some Fatliers of unquestioned ortlio- 
 
 doxy, adopted the other interpretation the true rendering of 
 
 the clause really turns more upon exegesis than upon grammar, and 
 this the student should not fail clearly to hear in mind." (Pastoral 
 Ejnstles, p. 201.) This last remark, that the true rendering "turns 
 more upon exegesis than upon grammar," is one to which every fair- 
 minded reader will at once assent ; but he should remember that 
 exegesis, in this connection, ought unquestionably to be illustrated 
 and confirmed by the usual strain of St. Paul's writings, and should 
 not be in opposition to it. In other words, the distinction which 
 the Apostle everywhere observes between God and Christ should 
 here be duly kept in sight. The point in question is bj^ no means 
 to be settled by the analogies or the exigencies of the established 
 theology, however ancient and venerable this may appear to any 
 one to be. 
 
 (2.) 1 John.v. 20. — Here we read: — "And we know that the 
 Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we 
 may know him that is true ; and we are in him that is true, in his 
 Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."* It 
 would here certainly appear as if Jesus Christ were termed the true 
 God. But, on the other hand, it seems plain that the writer is 
 referring to two objects. One is " him that is true :" there can be 
 no question that by this is meant the Almighty Father. The Apostle 
 adds, that "we are in him,'' when we are "in his Son :" that is, we 
 are in God through and in Jesus Christ. But then come the words, 
 " This is the true God," as if the writer meant to reduce the two 
 objects just spoken of to 07ie. But such a meaning would be self- 
 contradictory, and can hardly be what is intended. Dr. Liddon, 
 however, has no hesitation about it. The Apostle, he tells us, " leads 
 us up to the culminating statement that Jesus himself is the true 
 God and eternal life" (p. 239). He adds in a note, "After having 
 distinguished the a.\r)dir6e [true] from his viog [Son], St. John, by 
 
 * It is worth noting that the Alexandrine MS. omits the words "Jesus Christ." 
 The oi'der of the preceding Greek words is " in the Son of him." Hence, omitting 
 "Jesus Christ," the word "this" woukl refer to the antecedent "him," i.e. to 
 God. But no "reat weight need be attrilnited to this circumstance. 
 
1 JOHN V. 20. 325 
 
 a cliavacteiistic turn, simply identiiies the Son with the ci\>idti<)c 
 Oeog." With all due deference to Dr. Liddon, we do not think that 
 the Apostle wrote such nonsense as is thus attributed to him. Tlie 
 whole difficulty is at once removed by referring the word " this," 
 not to Jesus Christ, but to the IJeing denoted by the words, " him 
 that is true." This yields an easy and self-consistent sense. By 
 being in Jesus Christ, we are in Him that is true ; this is the True 
 God and eternal life. 
 
 But is there, then, in the Epistles attributed to this Apostle, any 
 other case of the kind, in which the word " this" is similarly used 
 — referred, that is, not to the nearer, but to a more remote, ante- 
 cedent ? Such an instance there iV, and one of a very remarkable 
 kind. In 2 John v. 7, we have these words : " Many deceivers are 
 entered into the world, Avho confess not that Jesus Christ is come 
 in the flesh : This is a deceiver and an antichrist." Here, in strict- 
 ness, "This" refers to Jesus Christ, who accordingly is termed a 
 deceiver and antichrist. But this cannot be the meaning. We 
 sec, therefore, that the author of these two Epistles writes with a 
 certain carelessness or inaccuracy ; but it does not follow that he 
 writes nonsense. A little discrimination, on the part of his readers, 
 Avill prevent them from making him say what he cannot have 
 intended to say. It is perfectly reasonable, then, in the former of 
 the two ex2)ressions, to conclude that the word "This" must bo 
 referred to the more distant antecedent. If, in short, tlie writer 
 does not intend us to understand that, in tlie one case, he terms 
 Jesus Christ a deceiver and antichrist, neither can he intend us to 
 understand, in the other, that he terms him " the true God." 
 
 ])r. Liddon has a furtlier remark, wliich ouglit not here to be 
 passed over. He tells us that o aXijOwdc 0£oc [the true God] " is the 
 Divine Essence, in opposition to all creatures ;" and he adds, " Our 
 being in the true God depends upon our being in Chrifet, and St. 
 John clenches this assertion by saying that Christ is the true 
 God Himself" He does not inform us where he has learnt that 
 i) aXrjOiiog flfog means " the Divine Essence ;" — an omission of some 
 signihcance, considejing that the assertion is strangely inconsistent 
 with certain words of Jesus Chriht himself He, we may remember. 
 
320 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 speaks to the Heavenly Father in prayer, addressing him hy the 
 appellation "Father;" and he calls Him not only "the true God," 
 but the "Only true God." Is it allowable to "water down" such 
 Avords into the meaning of " the Divine Essence ;" — or virtually to 
 contradict them, by declaring that he who addressed them to another, 
 even to God, in one of the most solemn moments of his life, " is 
 the true God Himself"? (Comp. supra, p. 226, note. 
 
 Note E, p. 200. 
 
 Philip, ii. 5 — 11. — This passage is paraphrased as follows by one 
 of the latest and most learned of our English commentators : " Ke- 
 flect in your own minds the mind of Jesus Christ. Be humble, as 
 He also was humble. Though existing before the worlds in the 
 Eternal Godhead, yet He did not clhig with avidity to the preroga- 
 tives of His divine majesty, did not ambitiously display His equality 
 with God ; but divested Himself of the glories of heaven, and 
 took upon Him the nature of a servant, assuming the likeness of 
 men. Nor was this all. Having thus appeared among men in the 
 fashion of a man. He humbled Himself yet more, and carried out 
 His obedience even to dying. Nor did He die by a common death : 
 He was crucified as the lowest malefactor is crucified. But as was 
 His humility, so also was His exaltation, (^od raised him to a 
 pre-eminent height, and gave Him a title and a dignity far above 
 all dignities and titles else. For to the name and majesty of Jesus 
 all created things in heaven and earth and hell shall pay homage on 
 bended knee ; and every tongue with praise and thanksgiving shall 
 declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, and in and for Him shall glorify 
 God the Father." (St. Paul's Epistle to the PMli'ppians, a Revised 
 Text, &c. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity, 
 <*fec., Cambridge, 1868, p. 108, seq.) 
 
 This exposition is open to what must, to every Christian mind, 
 be the gravest of all objections. It really assumes and asserts the 
 existence of two Gods ! Jesus Christ, we are told, existed " in the 
 Eternal Godhead ;" that is to say, he was God, for the words can 
 jQiean nothing else. But he did not cling " to the pr'erogatives of 
 
PHILIP. II. .5 — II. :V17 
 
 liis divine majesty." He divested hiia.self of them, humbled him- 
 self, by becoming a man and allowing himself to be crucified, and 
 dying the death of a malefactor. All this occurred to the God 
 Jesus Christ, but not to the Almighty Father : the humility was 
 in the mind of the one, but not in the mind of the other; and for 
 that divine humility of his, tliq (iod Jesus Chiist has been exalted 
 to a pre-eminent name and glory by the other Divine Being, who did 
 not humble himsolf, or sutler or die. Is it possible that two sepa- 
 rate' existences can be more distinctly afhrmed than in such a repre- 
 sentation as this ? Xor does it at all relieve the matter to add 
 a verbal reservation against being supposed to intend to speak of 
 two Gods, or three. Of course, Trinitarian theology does not intend 
 or desire to do this ; but it does it nevertheless, if the language it 
 employs has its usual meaning. We cannot understand how this 
 most fatal difhculty can be left out of sight as it is by able and 
 learned men, in the usual orthodox expositions of this, and indeed 
 of other passages. The same objection applies with equal force to 
 the explanations of Bishop Ellicott and Dean Alford. 
 
 Professor Lightfoot has a long and elaborate note (p. 125, scq.), 
 the drift of which is to establish the conclusion, that the word 
 fiop<j») (form) really means essential nature. But, whatever be the 
 peculiar shades of meaning sometimes attached to this word by the 
 philosophical and other writers appealed to, it is perfectlj' clear that in 
 the passage before us it refers to outward condition and circumstances 
 oidy. AVhat else is meant by "took the form (juop^>)»') of a slave"? 
 Clearly this cannot refer to essential nature ; although, strangely 
 enough, in the above cpioted paraphrase our Lord is said to liave 
 taken upon liiiu "the mdnri' of a servant." The ^\.])ostle does not 
 say this ; nor can the word "form" in this latter expression l>e 
 reasonably held to have a ditierent force from that conveyed liy 
 "form of God." The word has evidently the same meaning in the 
 two clauses. If, then, " form of God" denotes the essentiiU nature 
 of God, " form of a slave" must denote tlip essential nature of a 
 slave — and this, we venture to submit, is a simple rrditrtlo ad 
 ahs-iirihiiii of the whole exposition. 
 
 The word i;Tr(i(»;^wv (rendered " btiii;^"'), I'lolrssor l.iglitftiot ob- 
 
328 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 serves, " denotes prior existence, "but not necessarily etenial exist- 
 ence." Dr. Liddon seems to go a step further, and says, "The word 
 vTTf'fpxwj' points to our Lord's 'original subsistence' in the splendour 
 of the Godhead." (B. L., p. 317.) But does it not here denote 
 simply a prior condition, upon which something else was conceived 
 to supervene ? — a prior condition, A\hether actual, or only imagined 
 and potential? Jesus as the true Messiah was, in the conception 
 of his disciples, of right possessed of all the dignity and power 
 properly appertaining to his exalted office. This is what is meant 
 by the Iv fj-opcpfi dtov vTrap-^^wr. And most probabl}^ as formra-ly 
 pointed out, we ought to distinguish here between 0£oi; and tov deuv. 
 The former may be used in that subordinate sense which was per- 
 fectly familiar in the days of St. Paul, and which is alluded to, we 
 have seen (supra, p. 161), by Philo, Origen and Eusebius; as per- 
 haps also it may be employed in the first verse of the fourth Gospel. 
 Jesus, then, as Messiah, was of I'ight entitled to the position of a 
 God upon earth ; but he did not regard this Messianic power and 
 dignity as a prize to be seized ; he emptied himself of it,'"' humbled 
 himself and died ; and for this his self-renunciation He who alone 
 is God has rewarded and exalted His servant. 
 
 The expression to klvai 'iaa OeJi is no doubt equivalent to f-iopipf) 
 deov. It literally means, "the being equal [or in ecpial circumstances] 
 to God," or " to a God." But surely this, again, can onl^^ refer to 
 outward condition ; for no one maintains that there was any change 
 in the Divine nature, or that Jesus (if he were truly God) could 
 have ceased to be so. Professor Lightfoot admits, " He divested 
 
 * The words "likeness of men" (v. 7), and "found in fasbion as a man" 
 (v. 8), may reasonably be understood to convey an implied allusion to some higlier 
 condition. The suggested contrast, however, is simply that of the Messianic 
 dignity which rightfully belonged to Jesus, and which he did not deem "a thing 
 to grasp at," but renounced. There is nothing here, or elsewhere, to shew that 
 the writer of 'the words was thinking of an abandoned " Eternal Godhead." The 
 word dpOpioTTog (rendered man, men), probably has its lower meaning here, and 
 is used somewhat like the corresponding Hebrew word (see Isaiah ii. 9) to denote 
 an ordinary mortal man, a human being. Jesus, therefore, the Apostle writes, 
 lived in the lowly condition of an ordinary man, humbled himself and died, 
 although all the time he was tlie Christ ! The ai)peal to his example was evidently 
 natural and forcible in the highest degree. Can the same be said, on the orthodox 
 theory of Paul's meaning? 
 
PHILIP. II. 5 — 1 I. 32!) 
 
 liimsclf, not of His divine nature, for this wets impossible, but of 
 the f,'lories, the prerogatives of Deity." We acknowledge our.selves 
 quite unable to attach any definite meaning to the latter part of this 
 statement. How could the Infinite God lay aside " the glories and 
 prerogatives of Deity"? Dr. Liddon scarcely ventures to be so 
 precise as Professor Lightfoot on this part of the subject. Ho says, 
 " The point of our Lord's example lies in His emptying Himself of 
 the glory or 'form' of His Eternal Godhead," and he thinks that 
 his example would have been worthless had he been only a created 
 being. (B.L., p. 317.) But, in reply to this, may it not be asked 
 as before, How could God empty Himself of the glory of "His 
 Eternal Godhead'"? Is not Dr. Liddon rhetorically using woi-ds 
 here, as sometimes elsewhere, without any real sense ? Or, if not, 
 what sort of a changeable God must He be who can empty Himself 
 of His Eternal Godhead ? And in regard to the force of the exam- 
 ple given, are we to think that a created being cannot be humble, 
 or set an example of humility ? — a king or a queen, for instance, an 
 earl or a bishop 1 Surely the possibility of this does not depend 
 so enlirelj upon the nature of the perso3i as created or uncreated, 
 biit only upon his circumstances and disposition. On the other 
 hand, is it rational to suppose that the Infinite can be humble 1 
 
 In any case, Avhat the Apostle gives ns to understand that Jesus 
 renounced, or did not grasp at, Avas to thai 'iaa Oto) ; and as, by 
 the orthodox admission, he could not have divested himself of 
 Deity, so conversely to tlpui 'icra Oem (which, again, is the same as 
 ftooipii deov*) cannot with any consistency be understood to mean a 
 state of pre-(sdstent deity, or, in the words of both Dr. Liddon 
 and Professor Lightfoot, one of " Eternal Godhead." 
 
 And here, again, the old objection recurs with undiminished 
 force. In such expositions we aie really called upon to believe in 
 two distinct Gods, one of whom divests liim.self of the glories and 
 prerogatives of Deity, while the other docs not; one of whom 
 suffers humiliati(jn and is put to death, while the other looks on 
 with approval, conferring upon his co-deity the glorious reward 
 
 * Dr. Liddon expressly says, " Tlio expression tr /(of)^^ (^tou iin-d()Xtt(»' is vir- 
 tually equivalent to ro t'lrai 'iaa fcp." B. L. , \i. 317, uu(i. 
 
o30 (iENEEAL APPENDIX. 
 
 which he has won for himself by hi.s submission. We are impelled 
 to ask, wliether in such ideas as these we have not the old Homeric 
 plurality of Gods over again, under a different name — the thing 
 having, as Prof. Lightfoot might say, changed its vxfifja, though not 
 its juop^i]. To sj)eak more seriously, is it not too plain that Chris- 
 tian monotheism is not the riding spirit of the theology which can 
 tolerate or require such representations 1 In the name of our com- 
 mon Christianity, let us, at least, protest against ascribing to the 
 Apostle Paul anthropomorphism so gross as this, and so lament- 
 ably destructive of spiritual religion. 
 
 Prof. Lightfoot observes, that "between the two expressions, 
 'trroc Etvai and icra tivai, no other distinction can be drawn except 
 that the foimer refers to the person and the latter to the attributes." 
 Does not the latter refer rather to the maimer ? — or, in other words, 
 as before, to the external circumstances 1 The vagueness of the 
 neuter plural, or adverbial form, corresponds exactly to this expla- 
 nation ; while 1(toq Oeoi, as Prof. Lightfoot justly says, " would seem 
 to divide tlie Godhead." We greatly wonder that it does not occur 
 to so candid and thouglitful a writer that his whole exposition is 
 open to the same objection ; for that it really " divides the God- 
 head" into at least two equal divine beings, each of whom is God 
 precisely and essentially as much as the other. 
 
 The late Dean Alford, it may be noticed, in his revision of the 
 New Testament, thus renders Philip, ii. 6 : " Who, being in the 
 form of God, deemed not his equality with God a thing to grasp at." 
 On this translation it may be enough to observe, that there is no 
 "his" in the original; nor is there anything in the form of the 
 expression to justify its introduction. The rendering can only be 
 ri'garded as a singular illustration of the power of an established 
 system to bias even the most upright and truthful mind. On the 
 true force of the article with the infinitive, comp. Winer, ]S\ T. 
 Grammar, by Moulton, p. 406. 
 
INSTRUMENTAL FORCE OF Aia. ool 
 
 Note F, pp. 207, 211. 
 The Ikstrumental Force of the Preposition Aia. 
 
 The following passage, taken from the work referred to, affords 
 ail excellent and exlianstive ilhistration of what lias been, too briefly 
 jierhaps, said on this subject iix the text : — 
 
 "The preposition Dia does not signify hi/ aitij auc a.-i an 
 
 original cause (for this sense is cxprest by a different preposition, 
 Hypo), but it denotes throvgh auy tiling as an ith-^trnriK'nt. For the 
 sake of illustration I shall take the first example of the occurrence 
 of Dia in the Xew Testament : Mat. i. 22. ' Now all this was done 
 that it might be fulfilleil which was spoken of the Lord by the 
 Prophet;' or, more accurately, 'which was spoken hy the Lord 
 thro)t(ih the Prophet.' In the first place, tlie preposition Hypo, 
 yy//, points out the Lord as the (n-ifjiiia} anflior of the conmiuiiica- 
 tion; and, in the sec(md place, the preposition Dia, ThroHgh, repre- 
 sents the Prophet as the lacdliim, through whom this communication 
 was conveyed to mankind. The same distinction is accurately ob- 
 served in all cases (and they are very numerous), in which the 
 New Testament writers produce quotations from the Prophets of the 
 Old. They never introduce a prophecy by saying, that it was 
 littered THROUGH the Lard [cia tov Kvpiov), and they seldom, if ever, 
 say, that it was delivered by t/ic Projj/n'f {vwo tov Ilpo^Z/roi;}, but 
 throiajh the Prophet, and hij the Lord. 
 
 "The preposition Dia, followed cither l)y a (lenitive or Accusative 
 case, occurs in the New Testament about 630 times. It is used to 
 denote the efficient cause of the irroductian of an effect (of course 
 governing in these instances the Genitive), about 290 times. I have 
 examined all the passages where it is found. I have observed that 
 its general application, when used to point out an efficient cause, is 
 to represent not the priniani, but the secfnidar//, or iiixtru mental, 
 cause.* This .sense of the word seems indeed to arise naturally . 
 
 * "Against the universality of tliis rule only one passage ](resents much ililh- 
 oulty: 1 Cor. i. 9, S'l ov tKKifiijri, ' fhroi(f/h whom ye were called.' But even 
 here there is strong evidence for considering i'itto as the true reading. See Gries- 
 bach. Even allowing Dia to denote the (irif/hidl caii.<c in two or three psissjiges, 
 still the proVmliilily that it denoted the innlruinciilal would lie iu any doulilful 
 case as IGO to 1." 
 
832 ' GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 fi'om its ovigiual acceptation. It properly signifies motion thnnujh 
 a j^ifice. Hence it has been transferred by an obvious process to 
 the waij or method, hy passing through, ^ohich any object is attained, 
 or the instrument, by means of which any end is accomplished. 
 
 " From reflecting upon the primary application of Dia in reference 
 to place, its common use in Greek authors, and the distinction 
 observed in the New Testament between this preposition and Hypo, 
 I had formed a judgment of the Scripture testimonies concerning 
 the Creation tlirough Christ, before I saw the above remarks in any 
 other author. I was afterwards much gratified to find that Origen, 
 who lived at the beginning of the third century, who wrote in 
 Greek, and than whom none of the ancient Fathers was more 
 learned, more honest, or more industrious, observed the same dis- 
 tinction, and reasoned from it in the same manner. In his Com- 
 mentary on the beginning of John's Gospel, having noticed the 
 difference between Dia and Hypo, and having observed that in 
 Heb. i. 2 the expression {Zl ov), Through whom, denotes that God 
 made the worlds, or ages, through his Son, he adds, ' Tlius also 
 here, if all things were made through the Word, they were not 
 made hy the Word, but hy one more powerful ami greater than the 
 WonV -Likewise Eusebius, the learned, accurate and laborious 
 autlior, to whom among the ancients the Christian world is chiefly 
 indebted for the testimonies to the genuineness of the New Testa- 
 ment writings, and who could not possibly be mistaken about the 
 common meaning of two prepositions, which he used daily and 
 hourly in conversation and in books, explaining the commencement 
 of John's Gospel uses these words ; 'And when he says, in one 
 l)]ace (ver. 10), that the ■world, and in another (ver. 3), that all 
 things, were made through him, he declares the ministration of the 
 Word to God. For, when the Evangelist might have said, 'All 
 things were made hy him,' and again, ' The world was made hy 
 him ;' he has not said, ' By him,' but ' Through him ;' in order tlrat 
 he might raise our conceptions to the underived power of the Father 
 as the original cause of all things.' Lastly, the same distinction is 
 noticed by Philo, the Jew, who was contemporary with our Saviour, 
 wlio wrote in Gieek, and in several jiarts of his writings exjjresses 
 
INSTRUMENTAL FORCE OF Ato. 88') 
 
 the difference between a supreme ami a subordinate creator by the 
 opposed use of these two prepositions. See Wetstein's Note on 
 John i. 3," (Vindication of Unitarian ism, by James Yates, ^I.A., 
 4th ed., 1850, pp. 83—85.) 
 
 To the aboA'e ipiotations from Origen and Euscbins, Mv. Yates 
 adds the Greek in a note — but we have not thought it necessary to 
 repeat it here. 
 
PASSAGES OF SCIIIPTUIIE SPECIALLY N0TICP:D. 
 
 PAGK 
 
 Gknesis. 
 
 i. 26 94 
 
 iii 19 
 
 iii. 22 94 
 
 xi. 7 94 
 
 xii. 6 28 
 
 xiii. 7 28 
 
 xvii 11 
 
 XX. 13 70 
 
 xxiv. 9, 10 93 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 vii. 1 70 
 
 XX. 3 70 
 
 xxiii. 13 70 
 
 xxxi. 1—11 227 
 
 xxxii. 4, 8 70 
 
 Leviticus. 
 
 V 241 
 
 vi. 1—7 240 
 
 xvi 241 
 
 xxiv 241 
 
 xxvi 241 
 
 Numbers. 
 
 yi, 22 27 22 
 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 iv. 35—39 79 
 
 V 17 
 
 V. 7 70 
 
 vi 17 
 
 vi. 4 79 
 
 vii. 9 79 
 
 PAGE 
 
 xvii.' 2— 5 79 
 
 xxviii 17 
 
 xxxii. 39, 40 79 
 
 Joshua. 
 xxiv. 26, 27 233 
 
 1 Samuel. 
 
 XV. 32, 33 285 
 
 2 Samuel. 
 
 i. 13—16 285 
 
 vii. 23 70 
 
 xxiii. 2 227 
 
 xxiv. 9 289 
 
 1 Chronicles. 
 
 xxi. 1 19 
 
 xxi. 5 289 
 
 Ezra. 
 iv. 18 94 
 
 Nehemiah. 
 ix. 4— 38 80 
 
 Job. 
 
 i 19 
 
 i. 6—12 94 
 
 ii 19 
 
 xi. 7, 8 79 
 
 xxviii 79 
 
 xxxii. 8 227 
 
 xxxiv. — xxxix 79 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Psalms. 
 
 ii. 7 110 
 
 viii. 6 70 
 
 xiv 29 
 
 XXV 29 
 
 xxix. 1—11 .■■ 95 
 
 xlv. 6, 7 100 
 
 Ii 29 
 
 Ixix 29 
 
 Ixxxii. 1, 6 70 
 
 Proverbs. 
 
 viii. 22—30 151 
 
 ix. 1 152 
 
 ix. 13 151 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 i 73 
 
 ii. 6 66 
 
 vi. 3 22 
 
 vii. 13-16 11 
 
 vii. 14 34, 317 
 
 is. 1—7 12 
 
 ix. 6 : 49 
 
 xi. 17 
 
 xii 12 
 
 xiii. 1 — xiv. 27 5 
 
 xvii. 7, 8 78 
 
 xix. 3 78 
 
 xxix 73 
 
 XXX. 22 78 
 
 xl. 3 66 
 
 xliv. 9—20 79 
 
 xlv. 5—7 79 
 
 xlv. 11 82 
 
PASSAGFS OF .SOnirTUnE XoTirKD. 
 
 'X 
 
 PAGE 
 
 xlix 44 
 
 Hi. 13— liii. 12... 38, 318 
 
 liii 46 
 
 liv. 11—17 43 
 
 Ixiv. 1, 9—12 12 
 
 Jerkmiah. 
 
 vii 241 
 
 xxii. 29 96 
 
 xxiii. 5—8 48 
 
 xxxiii. 16 53 
 
 EZEKIEL. 
 
 xviii. 19 81 
 
 xxi. 27 96 
 
 Daniel. 
 
 ji. 20—23 80 
 
 vii. 9—14 12 
 
 vii. 13 53 
 
 ix. 3— 19 80 
 
 MlCAII. 
 
 V. 1—6 48 
 
 V. 2 54 
 
 Haggai. 
 
 ii. 6 66 
 
 Zechariah. 
 
 iii. 1, 2 19 
 
 xii. 10 57 
 
 xiii. 7 56 
 
 Malachi. 
 
 ii 61 
 
 iii. 1 60 
 
 Wisdom of Solomon. 
 
 vi. 12—16 152 
 
 vii. 11, 12 152 
 
 ix 81 
 
 X 152 
 
 xviii. 15, 16 152 
 
 ECCLESIASTICUS. 
 
 xlii. 15 81 
 
 2 Maccabees. 
 
 i. 24-29 81 
 
 St. JIatthew. 
 
 i. 23 
 
 ii. 6 
 
 iii. 3 
 
 iv. 3 
 
 iv. 14—16 
 
 V. 39—42 
 
 V. 45 
 
 viii. 17 
 
 viii. 29 
 
 xii. 28 
 
 xii. 31, 32 
 
 xiv. 33 
 
 xvi. 16—18 114, 
 
 xvi. 20 
 
 xvi. 22 
 
 xvi. 27, 28 
 
 xviii. 26—34 
 
 XX. 20—28 
 
 XX. 21 
 
 xxii. 20 
 
 xxii. 23—33 
 
 xxiv. 27 
 
 XXV. 31 
 
 xxvi. 39 
 
 xxvi. 56 
 
 xxvi. 59 — 66 
 
 xxvii. 11 
 
 xxviii. 19 
 
 PAGE 
 
 . 34 
 . 54 
 . 66 
 
 . 108 
 
 . 51 
 
 . 285 
 
 . 178 
 
 . 39 
 
 . 108 
 
 . 230 
 
 . 234 
 
 . 108 
 
 307 
 
 132 
 
 48 
 
 63 
 
 75 
 
 185 
 
 48 
 
 206 
 
 292 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 116 
 
 57 
 
 104 
 
 104 
 
 88 
 
 St. Mark. 
 
 i. 3 66 
 
 X. 27 291 
 
 X. 45 268 
 
 xii. 18—27: 292 
 
 xii. 29 68 
 
 St. Luke. 
 
 ii. 10, 11 267 
 
 iii. 4 66 
 
 vi. 20—24 285 
 
 vii. 12 178 
 
 viii. 40 198 
 
 x. 22 109 
 
 xi. 20 230 
 
 x.xii. 17—20 133 
 
 xxii. 24 13 
 
 xxii. 37 39! 
 
 PAGE 
 
 xxii. 66—71 104 
 
 xxiii. 46 116 
 
 xxiv. 21 48 
 
 St. John. 
 
 i. 1—18 140 
 
 i. 23 W, 
 
 i. 29 270 
 
 i. 49 108 
 
 ii. 17 47 
 
 iii 132 
 
 iii. 13 162 
 
 iv 164 
 
 v. 19—23 109 
 
 V. 32—47 133 
 
 vi. 28 132 
 
 vi. 38 162 
 
 vii. 16 127 
 
 vii. 39 183 
 
 viii. 28, 29 179 
 
 viii. 58 162 
 
 ix 164 
 
 x. 30 201 
 
 X. 38 165 
 
 xi 164 
 
 xi. 21, 22 181 
 
 xii. 34 48 
 
 xiv. 9, 10, 23 165 
 
 xiv. 26 232 
 
 .xvi. 23 121 
 
 xvi. 27 Hi2 
 
 xvii 1:33 
 
 xvii. 1—3 220 
 
 xvii. 3 68 
 
 xvii. 5 162 
 
 .xvii. 21 165 
 
 xix. 14 289 
 
 xix. 36 59 
 
 XX. 28 162 
 
 XX. 31 108 
 
 Acts. 
 
 ii. 14—22 131) 
 
 iii. 13—26 113 
 
 v. 30,31 121 
 
 vii. 59 217 
 
 viii. 37 110 
 
 ix. 11, 21 223 
 
336 
 
 PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE NOTICED. 
 
 PAUE 
 
 xix. 2 91 
 
 XX. 28 183 
 
 xxii. 16 223 
 
 Romans. 
 
 i. 3, 4 102 
 
 iii 266 
 
 iii. 25 248 
 
 V. 11 270 
 
 V. 12—19 20 
 
 vi. 1—14 265 
 
 vii. 1—6 265 
 
 viii. 19—22 208 
 
 ix 30 
 
 ix. 5 194 
 
 X 30 
 
 X. 9 189 
 
 xi 30 
 
 xi. 15, 25 211 
 
 XV. 4 8 
 
 1 Corinthians. 
 
 i. 1 223 
 
 iii. 11 189 
 
 V. 7 271 
 
 vi. 20 209 
 
 vii. 32—40 285 
 
 viii. 6 207 
 
 X. 25—33 285 
 
 XV. 21, 22 20 
 
 2 Corinthians. 
 
 V. 17 208 
 
 v. 18—20 256 
 
 V. 21 270 
 
 xiii. 14 91 
 
 Galatians. 
 
 iii. 13 270 
 
 iii. 24—29 266 
 
 PAGE 
 
 iv. 5—7 178 
 
 iv. 23 220 
 
 vi. 15 208 
 
 Ephesians. 
 
 i. 9 266 
 
 ii. 3 20 
 
 ii. 10 208 
 
 ii. 13—16 260 
 
 iii. 9 204 
 
 iv. 8 263 
 
 V. 2 271 
 
 PniLIPPIANS. 
 
 ii. 5—7 200 
 
 ii. 5—11 326 
 
 Colossians. 
 
 i. 15 160 
 
 i. 17—19 203 
 
 iii. 11 83 
 
 1 TUESSALONIANS. 
 
 i. 10 293 
 
 iii. 13 293 
 
 iv. 7 293 
 
 1 Timothy. 
 
 ii. 5 291 
 
 iii. 16 196, 320 
 
 vi. 1—5, 8—10 285 
 
 2 Timothy. 
 
 iii. 16 288 
 
 Titus. 
 
 ii. 13 321 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Hebrews. 
 
 i. 4—9 202 
 
 ii. 12, 13 60 
 
 iv. 12 1-43 
 
 iv. 15 187 
 
 vii. 27 271 
 
 ix. 11 273 
 
 ix. 26 271 
 
 X. 12 271 
 
 xi. 17 179 
 
 xii. 26 06 
 
 James. 
 
 v. 1—6 285 
 
 1 Peter. 
 
 i. 18, 19 246 
 
 ii. 24 200 
 
 iv. 7 293 
 
 1 John. 
 
 i. 7 246 
 
 ii. 2 275 
 
 iii. 10 178 
 
 iv. 9 200 
 
 V. 5 201 
 
 V. 7, 8 199 
 
 V. 20 321 
 
 Revelation. 
 
 i. 11, 17, 18 212 
 
 ii. 26, 27 213 
 
 iii. 21 213 
 
 iv. 8—11 213 
 
 V. 6—12 213 
 
 vii. 9—12 214 
 
 viii. 13 96 
 
 xix. 5, 6, 11—15 ... 214 
 
 xix. 17—21 221 
 
 xxii. 7—9, 12, 13, 16 215 
 
 Printed by C. Green & Son, 178, Strand. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 1 vol. 8vo. 
 
 THE PROPHECIES relating to Nineveh and tlie Assyrians. 
 Translated from the Hebrew, with Introductions and Notes. (Out of print. ) 
 
 Loudon : Lonoman and Co. 
 
 In 3 vols. 8vo, price 6s. 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES of the Old Covenant, in a Revised 
 Translation. 18(52. By 
 
 The late Rev. C. Wellbkloved, 
 The Rev. G. Vance Smith, 
 The Rev. J. Scott Porter. 
 
 To be had from Mr. H. Y. Brace, 178, Strand. 
 
 Post 8vo, price Qd. 
 
 ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, a Tract for the Times : with Re- 
 marks on Dr. Pusey's Defence of the Doctrine. 1865. 
 
 London : E. T. Whitiikld. 
 
 Post 8vo, price 6d. 
 
 PROVIDENTIAL LESSONS in Christian Doctrine : a Sermon 
 preached at the Annual Meeting of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 
 1865. 
 
 London ; E. T. Whitfield. 
 
 Post 8vo, pp. 94, price 2s. 
 CHURCH COMPREHENSION, a Letter to the Right Hon. 
 W. E. GLADSTONE. 1868. (Being Suggestions for the Reconstruction of the 
 National Church.) 
 
 London : Lonoman and Co.