A
STATEMENT OF REASONS
FOR  NOT BELIEVING
THE DOCTRINES OF TRINITARIANS.
CONCERNING
THE NATURE OF GOD AND THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
BY ANDREWS NORTON.
TIIRD EDITION,
WITH ADDITIONS, AND A BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
OF THE AUTHOR.
BOSTON:
WALKER, WISE, AND COMPANY,
PUBLISHERS FOR THE
AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION,
21 BROMFIELD ST.
1859.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by
CIHARLES ELIOT NORTON,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
University Press, Cambridge:
Printed by Welch, Bigelow, and Company.




EDITORIAL  NOTE.
THE present edition of the "Statement of
Reasons" contains some additions and corrections made by the author in an interleaved
copy of the work; and a few sentences have
been omitted.  The principal additions will
be found on pp. 97, 98, 103, 104, and 238,
239, of this volume, corresponding with pp.
54, 59, and 172 of the edition of 1833.
The translation of passages quoted from
the Gospels has, for the most part, been conformed to that contained in  the author's
"Translation of the Gospels, with Notes,"
recently published. The changes thus made,
however, seldom affect the sense.
The Biographical Notice of Mr. Norton, by
the Rev. Dr. Newell, was first published in
the Christian Examiner for November, 1853.




iv            EDITORIAL NOTE.
The editor has taken the liberty to add a
few notes and references in different parts of
the volume.  These, with the exception of
one note of considerable length which concludes the Appendix, are carefully distinguished by being enclosed in brackets. Whatever is so enclosed is editorial, except where
brackets occur in the course of quotations
made by the author.
An Index to passages of Scripture quoted
or referred to, and a General Index, have also
been added to the work.
E. A.
CAMBRIDGE, April, 1856.




CONTENTS.
PAGE
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF MR. NORTON, BY THE REV.
WILLIAM NEWELL, D.D.......  ix
STATEMENT OF REASONS.
PREFACE.                                           3
SECTION I.
PURPOSE OF THIS WORK        ~  ~.39
SECTION II.
THE PROPER MODERN DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY CONTRADICTORY IN TERMS TO THAT OF THE UNITY OF GOD.
-FORMS IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN STATED,
WITH REMARKS. —THE DOCTRINE THAT CHRIST IS BOTH
GOD AND MAN, A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.-NO PRETENCE THAT EITHER DOCTRINE IS EXPRESSLY TAUGHT
IN THE SCRIPTURES.  THE MODE OF THEIR SUPPOSED
PROOF WHOLLY BY WAY OF INFERENCE....  40
1*




vi                     CONTENTS.
SECTION III.
THE PROPOSITION, THAT CHRIST IS GOD, PROVED TO BE
FALSE FROM THE SCRIPTURES...  65
SECTION  IV.
ON TIIE ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.94
SECTION  V.
CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE
HYPOSTATIC UNION... 107
SECTION VI.
DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY REMAIN IN SOME MINDS RESPECTING THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ALLEGED BY TRINITARIANS                                            136
SECTION  VII.
ON TIIE PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE.....                      138
SECTION  VIII.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION VIOLATED
BY TRINITARIAN EXPOSITORS. NO PROPOSITION CAN BE
INCOMPREIENSIBLE, IN ITSELF CONSIDERED, FROM THE
NATURE OF THE IDEAS EXPRESSED BY IT... 156
SECTION IX.
EXPLANATIONS OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT, ADDUCED BY TRINITARIANS... 174
CLASS I. Interpolated and Corrupted Passages..   183
CLASS II. Passages relating to Christ which have been
mistranslated..... 191




CONTENTS.                          vii
CLASS III. Passages relating to God, which hav6 been incorrectly applied to Christ... 203
CLASS IV. Passages that might be considered as referring
to the Doctrine of the Trinity, supposing it capable of
proof and proved, but which in themselves present no
appearance of any proof or intimation of it..  215
Of Prayer to Christ......   221
On the Pre-existence of Christ...             234
CLASS V. Passages relating to the divine authority of
Christ as thb minister of God, to the manifestation of divine power in his miracles and in the establishment of
Christianity, and to Christianity itself, spoken of under
the name of Christ, and considered as a promulgation
of the laws of God's moral government, - which have
been misinterpreted as proving that Christ himself is
God.....253
CLASS VI. Passages misinterpreted through inattention
to the peculiar characteristics of the modes of expression
in the New Testament... 286
CLASS VII. Passages, in the senses assigned to which,
not merely the fundamental Rule of Interpretation, explained in Section VIII., is violated, but the most obvious and indisputable Characteristics of Language are
disregarded..... 304
CLASS VIII. The Introduction of St. John's Gospel.   307
SECTION X.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.. 332
SECTION  XI.
CONCLUSION...... 375




VU1                   CONTENTS.
APPENDIX.
NOTE A.
EXPLANATION OF JOHN Vi. 61, 62...... 385
NOTE B.
ON THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE APOSTLES CONCERNING
THE VISIBLE RETURN OF THEIR MASTER TO EARTH. 393
NOTE C.
BY THE EDITOR.
VARIOUS READINGS OF CERTAIN PASSAGES SUPPOSED TO
HAVE A BEARING ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY   432
INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED OR REFERRED TO...... 483
GENERAL INDEX.........  489




BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
OF
MR. NORTON,
BY THE
REV.'WILLIAM NEWELL, D.D.,
PASTOR OF THE FIRST CHURCH IN CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
THE name of Andrews Norton has long been
widely known as that of one of the ablest theologians and most accomplished critics of our time;
standing, in his department of service, at the head
of the Unitarian movement in this country. His
memory will be ever admiringly cherished by those
who sympathized with him in his religious views,
and who knew him in the fulness of his fine powers,
as it will be honored by all who are ready to do
homage to a true man, wherever he may be found;
by all who in a generous spirit can reverence sincere piety and virtue, rich genius and learning,
patient industry and independent thought, consecrated to the highest aims, in whatever quarter
of the Christian camp their light may shine.
When such a man passes away, we cannot but
pause at his tomb, and hearken to the voices that




X            BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
come up to us from the receding past, louder and
louder, as we listen, speaking of his labors and
virtues. Both for the instruction of the living, and
in justice and gratitude to the dead, we must
glance, if we can do no more, over the scenes
through which he has moved and the work which
he has done. We propose to give a brief, though
necessarily an imperfect, sketch of the life, character, and services of this faithful and gifted servant of Christ and of God, with a full appreciation, we trust, of his high merits, but in that spirit
of simple truth which he loved so well, and which
was one of the marked characteristics of the whole
man.
Mr. Norton was a native of Hingham, Massachusetts.  He was a direct descendant of Rev.
John Norton of that town, who was a nephew of
the celebrated John Norton, minister of Ipswich,
and afterwards of Boston.  His father, Samuel
Norton, was a well-known and much respected
citizen of Hingham, often employed in its public
trusts, whose agreeable conversation and manners
are spoken of by those who remember him. He
was educated in the tenets of Calvinism, but, as he
grew  older, the views which it presents of the
character and government of God were so revolting to him, that for a time he was almost driven
into utter unbelief, until, under the light of truer
and brighter views, he found faith and peace. He
was a man of great devoutness of mind, delighting to see and to speak of the Creator's wisdom
and love in all his works. He died in 1832, at




OF MR. NORTON.              xi
the advanced age of eighty-eight. He married
Miss Jane Andrews, of Hingham, a sister of Rev.
Dr. Andrews, for so many years the minister of
Newburyport. Another of her brothers died from
a wound received at the battle of Brandywine.
She lived to the age of eighty-five, and died
in 1840.
Andrews Norton, the youngest child of his
parents, was born December 31, 1786.  From
childhood he was remarkable for his love of books
and his proficiency in his studies. Having completed his preparatory course at the Derby Academy, in Hingham, in 1801 he entered the Sophomore class in Harvard College, and was distinguished throughout his academical career for his
high  scholarship  and correct deportment.  He
graduated in 1804, the youngest of his class, at
the age of eighteen. The natural seriousness and
religious tone of his mind determined him at once
in the choice of his profession, and led him, on
leaving college, to commence his preparation for
the ministry. He became a Resident Graduate at
Cambridge, but not being in haste to preach, he
quietly pursued a course of literary and theological
study, and laid the foundation of that high mental
culture and large erudition which afterwards distinguished him. In this scholastic, but not idle
nor fruitless retirement, he continued for a few
years, residing partly at Cambridge, partly at his
father's house in Hingham, until, in October, 1809,
after preaching for a few weeks in Augusta, Maine,
he accepted the office of Tutor in Bowdoin College.




xii          BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
Here he remained a year, and some of the friendships which he then formed lasted through life.
After this he returned to Cambridge, which henceforward became his fixed and chosen residence. In
1811, he was elected Tutor in Mathematics in
Harvard College, but resigned his office at the
close of the year. Mr. Norton had now reached
that point in his career at which the rich fruits
of genius and scholarship, that had been so long
ripening in the shade, were to be brought before
the public eye, and to receive their due appreciation. It will be remembered that his entrance on
his theological studies was nearly coincident with
the breaking out of the controversy between the
orthodox and liberal parties in theology, occasioned
by the election, in 1805, of Rev. Dr. Ware, then
minister of Hingham, to the Hollis Professorship.
Without going into the history of that controversy, it is sufficient to say, that it was amidst the
strong and constantly increasing excitement which
it produced, that Mr. Norton's early manhood was
passed. The atmosphere of the times and the
character of his associates contributed, no doubt,
to strengthen the decided bent of his mind towards
the theological and metaphysical questions which
formed the subjects of discussion of the day. In
the society of such men as Buckminster, Thacher,
Channing, Eliot, Frisbie, Farrar, Kirkland, and
others of kindred opinions and spirit, his attachment to the principles of the liberal school must
have received added impulse and strength. In
1812, he undertook the publication of " The Gen



OF MR. NORTON.             xiii
eral Repository and Review," a work "in which,"
to use his own words, "the tone of opposition to
the prevailing doctrines of Orthodoxy was more
explicit, decided, and fundamental than had been
common among us."  Its straightforward boldness
in the expression of opinions which then seemed
new and heretical, while it was admired and approved by some, startled others, even of the liberal
party, who thought that the time for it was not
yet ripe. It was conducted with signal ability,
but after the second year was discontinued for
want of support. It was too bold, and probably
somewhat too learned, to win general favor. But
it did its work and left its mark. In 1813 he
was appointed Librarian of the College. He discharged the duties of his new  office with his
accustomed fidelity and judgment, and under his
direction much was done during his eight years'
service towards improving the condition of the
library, then in many points, as in some now,
lamentably deficient. He relinquished the charge
of it in 1821; but he always retained a warm interest in its welfare, and was a generous contributor to it through life. In 1813, the same
year in which he became Librarian, he was also
chosen Lecturer on Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, under the bequest of Hon. Samuel
Dexter. The revered names of Buckminster and
Channing stand associated with his, as his predecessors elect in this office. Eminent as they were,
it is not too much to say, that their successor did
not fall below even their mark; that in a peculiar
2




xiv          BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
fitness for the place, he was in some respects before
them; and that he carried out what they had only
begun, or hoped to begin. Mr. Norton preached
occasionally in the pulpits of Boston and the
neighborhood, and, though he lacked the popular
gifts of a public speaker, his services were held in
acceptance by those who were best able to appreciate his true merits. At one time during the
vacancy at the New South, previous to the election of Mr. Thacher, many of the members of that
Society, as we have been informed, would have
been glad to invite Mr. Norton to become their
pastor. His lectures in Cambridge on subjects
of Biblical Criticism were greatly admired; and
there were persons who went out from Boston to
hear them, whenever they were delivered.
In 1819, upon the organization of the Divinity
School and the establishment of the Dexter Professorship of Sacred Literature, Mr. Norton was
chosen by the Corporation to fill that office. He
was inaugurated on the 10th of August, 1819;
and the discourse which he delivered on that
occasion, republished by him in his recent volume
of "Tracts on Christianity," ought to be in the
hands of every student of theology. He held his
office till his resignation in 1830; " bringing to it,"
to use the words of one of his associates in the
Divinity School, still living and honored among us,*
— " his large and ever-increasing stores of knowledge; imparting it in the clearest manner; never
* Professor Willard.




OF MR. NORTON.               XV
dogmatizing, in an ill sense of the word; but, on
the contrary, fortifying his doctrines, solemnly
and  deliberately established  in his own mind,
with all the arguments and proofs that his critical
studies and logical power could furnish." In 1821,
he was married to Miss Catharine Eliot, daughter
of Samuel Eliot, Esq., a wealthy and highly respected merchant of Boston, and a munificent
benefactor of the  College, whose son, Charles
Eliot,* a young man of rare promise, early cut
off, had been Mr. Norton's intimate coadjutor
and friend. It is sufficient to say, that in this
union he found all the happiness which earth has
to give, and all that the truest sympathy and love
can bestow. In 1822, he was bereaved of another
of the dear friends whose society had been among
the choicest blessings of his life, -- the highly gifted and pure-minded Frisbie. He delivered an address before the University at his interment, and
the following year published a collection of his
literary remains, with a short memoir. In the discussions which took place in 1824- 25, respecting the condition and wants of the College, and
the relation between the Corporation and the Immediate Government, he took a prominent part
both with voice and pen. In 1824, he published
his " Remarks on a Report of a Committee of the
Board of Overseers " proposing certain changes in
the instruction and discipline of the College. In
February, 1825, he appeared before the Board of
* The Miscellaneous Writings of Charles Eliot, with a biographical memoir by Mr. Norton, were printed in 1814.




XVi          BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
Overseers in behalf of the memorial of the Resident Instructors, relative to " the mode in which,
according to the charter of the institution, the
Corporation of the same ought of right to be
constituted."  Edward Everett, then Professor of
Greek Literature in the University, spoke in the
morning, and Mr. Norton in the afternoon and
evening, in support of the memorial. Mr. Norton's
speech was afterwards published. His admiration
of the poetry of Mrs. Hemans induced him, in
1826, to undertake the collection and republication
of her works in this country, in a style suited to
his estimation of their merits; and in an article in
the Examiner during that year, followed by other
articles on the same subject at different times, he
labored to impress on the public mind his own
sense of their richness and beauty. In the spring
of 1828, partly for the benefit of his health, partly
for the enjoyment of the tour, he went to England.
He enjoyed so much during this visit, and formed
so many pleasant acquaintances, especially with
those whom he had long admired in their writings
(Mrs. Hemans among others), that, in a career so
quiet and uneventful as his for the most part was,
it took its place among the most interesting recollections of his life. After the resignation of his
Professorship, in 1830, he continued to devote
himself to literary and theological pursuits. At
the earnest solicitation of a friend (Rev. William
Ware, we believe), urging the republication of his
article on " Stuart's Letters to Channing," he
undertook to revise and enlarge it; and the re



OF MR. NORTON.              XVll
sult of his labors — a new work in fact, the most
able, thorough, and learned refutation of the Trinitarian  doctrine that has yet appeared — was
given to the press in 1833, under the title of
" A  Statement of Reasons for not believing the
Doctrines of Trinitarians concerning the Nature
of God and the Person of Christ."  In 1833-34,
he edited, in connection with his friend, Charles
Folsom, Esq., " The Select Journal of Foreign
Periodical Literature," a quarterly publication, the
plan and object of which are to some extent indicated by the title. It contained also remarks
and criticisms by the editors, and some longer
articles by Mr. Norton. In 1837, he published the
first volume of his elaborate work on the "  Genuineness' of the Gospels." In 1839, at the invitation
of the Alumni of the Divinity School, he delivered
the annual discourse before them, afterwards published, " On the Latest Form of Infidelity." Those
who remember him as he appeared on that occasion, speaking to many of them for the last time,
will not soon forget the impressions of that day,
deepened by the evident feebleness of his health,
by his slow, impressive utterance, and the " sweetly
solemn" tones of that well-known voice, speaking
out with slightly tremulous earnestness the deep
convictions of a truth-loving, Christ-loving man,
as with eagle eye he saw danger in the distance,
where others saw only an angel of light, and with
a prophet's earnestness sounded the alarm. The
publication of Mr. Norton's discourse led to a controversy, in which he further illustrated and de2*




XViii        BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
fended the views which he had expressed respecting the " Modern German School of Infidelity."
In 1844 appeared the second and third volumes
of his work on the " Genuineness of the Gospels,"
completing the important and laborious investigation, which had occupied him for so many years,
of the historical evidence on this subject. With
the exception of his volume of " Tracts on Christianity," printed in 1852, composed chiefly of the
larger essays and discourses which had before
appeared in a separate form, this was his last
published book.
Mr. Norton's life, certainly the most prominent
portion of it, moved through sunshine. Clouded
as it was by occasional bereavement, the common
lot, and by the infirm health of his latter days, it
was yet, in other respects, a singularly happy one.
He was surrounded with every earthly blessing.
He had within his reach all that can feed the
intellect, or gratify the taste. He had leisure and
opportunity for his chosen work. And all around
him was an atmosphere of purity and peace. His
strong and tender affections bloomed fresh and
green to the last, in the sunny light of a Christian
home. He loved and was loved, where to love
and to be loved is a man's joy and crown. He
had both the means and the heart to do good.
And so, in tranquil labor, in calm reflection, in
grave discussion of high themes, or in the play of
cheerful conversation, amid the books and the
friends he loved, "faded his late declining years
away."  His strength had been for a long time




OF MR. NORTON.             xix
very gradually failing, as by the decay of a premature old age. In the autumn of 1849, it was
suddenly prostrated by severe illness, from the
effects of which he never entirely recovered. By
the advice of his physician, he passed the following summer at Newport, with such great and decided benefit to his health from the change of air,
that it was resolved to make it in future his summer
residence. But in the spring of 1853, it was evident that his strength was declining, and that the
bracing sea-breeze had lost its power to restore it.
He became more and more feeble, till, at the close
of the summer, he was unable to leave his room;
but his mind remained strong and unclouded almost to the last. He was fully aware that the
end drew nigh. And he met death, as we should
expect that he above most men would meet it,
with all a Christian's firmness, tranquilly, trustingly, with a hope full of immortality, reposing on
the bosom of the Father. His patience, serenity,
gentleness, his calm faith in God, the heavenliness
of his spirit, the sweetness of his smile, illumined
and sanctified the house of death. He gradually
sunk away, till on Sunday evening, September 18,
the quivering flame of life went out, and the shining light within ascended to the Father of lights.
The life of Mr. Norton was that of a diligent
student and thinker, doing his work in the still air
of the library, and withdrawn from the stir and
rush of the great world, yet not indifferent to its
movements, nor unconcerned in its welfare. He
mingled little in political affairs, though in them,




XX           BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
as in everything else, he had his own distinct
judgment and decided action, when the time
called. He took no prominent part in the moral
reforms of the day. A lover of his country, a
lover of his kind, he expressed his patriotism and
his philanthropy in quiet, individual ways. Whatever he did for others, there was no sounding of a
trumpet before him. He went little into general
society. He had enough, as we have seen, to
occupy his time and his thoughts, without going
out of his little world into the larger. The delicacy of his health and the languidness of his
animal spirits, added to the studiousness of his
habits and his natural reserve, made him somewhat of a recluse. But his house, with its kind
and sincere hospitality, was always open, nor was
his heart cold, or his hand shut.
He was never idle; but he chose to labor in
his own way, apart from the crowd. He knew
that he should labor more happily and more usefully so. He kept aloof from public excitements.
He had no taste for public meetings. He had not
the showy, popular gifts, which fit a man for the
speeches of the platform; nor the impulsive social
temperament, which throws itself into the boiling
current of the times. He was, both by nature
and on principle, disinclined to enter into the
associated movements of denominational warfare.
He objected to the Unitarian name. He did not
favor the formation of the Unitarian Association.
On this point he differed decidedly, but quietly and
amicably, from the majority of his brethren. No




OF MR. NORTON.              Xxi
man prized the truths of Liberal Christianity more
highly than he, or held them with a firmer grasp;
but he believed that they would make their way
more surely, and in the end more rapidly, with less
irritating friction against the popular modes of
faith, and with less peril, both from without and
from within, if left to the quiet channels of individual speech and individual effort. He therefore
studiously kept aloof from  any distinct, formal
organization, even for the maintenance and diffusion of doctrines dearer to him than life.
And yet this reserved, independent, solitary
thinker, moving in his own orbit, towards his
chosen goal, carried with him by a mastery which
he did not seek, and by a gravitation which was
but the natural result of his intellectual greatness,
a host of other minds that rejoiced in his kingly
light. By the massive power of his mind and the
weight of his learning, by the force of his character
and the impressive authority of his word, spoken
and written, he wielded for many years an influence in the body to which he belonged, such as
few other men among us have ever possessed.
This influence, as quiet as it was powerful, was
exerted partly through his stated teachings in the
Divinity School at Cambridge, partly through his
private conversational intercourse, partly through
the occasional articles and the more elaborate
works which came forth, "few and far between,"
from his scrupulous pen. What he was and did
in his several fields of theological service is well
understood by many of our readers; but those




Xxii         BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
who knew little of him will be glad to know more,
and those who knew him  best will love to read
over again the recollections of the past, and to
dwell on the memory of what they owe him.
Mr. Norton brought to the  Professorship of
Sacred Literature a combination of rich qualifications, natural and acquired, for his high office,
such as is rarely found, such as we can hardly
hope to see again, approximating the ideal of the
consummate theologian described by him  in his
Inaugural Discourse; — an acute and vigorous intellect, disciplined in all its faculties by laborious
study, trained to habits of clear and exact reasoning, and remarkable alike for its powers of analysis
and discrimination, for the logical ability with
which it grappled with the questions before it, for
the intense, and sustained  concentration of its
strength on its chosen subjects, and for the native
sagacity and good sense with which it saw its
way to the hidden truth; varied and extensive
learning, as finished and accurate as it was full;
a most pure and nicely critical taste; a fine
imagination, that stood back in waiting as the
handmaid to his robust understanding; a complete command of his accumulated resources; an
inwardly enthusiastic  devotion  to  the  studies
which he had embraced, and the highest appreciation of their nobleness and  importance; a
masterly familiarity with the science of Scriptural interpretation, and with the whole circle of
theological science; a love of original and independent investigation, going back to the fountain



OF AIR. NORTON.            XXiii
head, and never satisfying itself with guesses or
traditions; an indefatigable assiduity and patience
of examination and of pursuit in the researches
which formed the business of his life; the most
scrupulous carefulness in the statement of facts;
a simple lucidness of expression and daylight
distinctness of thought, even in the abstrusest
themes, as of one who believed that intelligible
ideas can be conveyed in intelligible words, and
that no others are worth having; a conscientious
slowness in forming  his conclusions, combined
with great strength, earnestness, and decision in
maintaining the opinions at which he at length
arrived; a confidence that justified itself to those
who knew him in the results of his so cautiously
conducted  inquiries, and a conscious authority
which impressed his convictions on others; and
with and above all other gifts, surrounding them
with a sacred halo, the profound religiousness of
his nature, seen, not shown, the depth and calm
intensity of his faith in Christianity and in Christ,
the elevated seriousness of his views of life and
duty, and the purity, delicacy, uprightness, of his
whole character.
The influence of such a man, both in his instructions and his example, on the minds which
were brought into contact with him at the Divinity School in Cambridge, can hardly be overrated.
They regarded him  with peculiar reverence and
admiration.  They listened with eagerness and
profound  interest to his decided and luminous
words, so  aptly expressive of his. decided and




xxiv          BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
luminous thoughts.  Even if they were not prepared to accept his conclusions, they did not the
less admire the strength and fulness with which
they were set forth.  His admirable elucidations
of Scripture, his searching criticisms on the various readings or various theories of interpretation,
his convincing expositions of Christian doctrine,
his solemn and impressive representations of the
character and teachings of Christ, his interesting
unwritten (yet, it seemed to us, as complete and
exact, both in thought and language, as if they
had been written) dissertations on some point of
theological or metaphysical inquiry, his wise hints
and counsels to the young preacher, uttered in
that peculiar manner of his which gave them  a
double force, will never be forgotten by those who
heard them. Even those who on some points are
not in sympathy with him, love to bear testimony
to his high merits. The voluntary tribute which
Dr. Furness rendered to him some years since in
his work on "Jesus and his Biographers," is as
just as it is heart-felt.
" I esteem it an invaluable privilege," he says,
" to have been introduced to the study of the New
Testament under the clear and able guidance of
Mr. Norton.  How  fully did he realize the idea
of a true instructor, not standing still and pointing
out our way for us over a beaten path, but ascending every height, descending into every depth, with
his whole attention and heart, and carrying the
hearts of his pupils along with him.  The remembrance of those days, when a rich and powerful




OF MR. NORTON.             XXV
mind, animated by the spirit of truth, came close
to my own mind, renders more vivid my sense
of the meaning of the great Teacher of teachers
when he described the increase of the power of
truth, which was the life of his being, under the
figure of a personal coming, and said,' If any man
will keep my commandments, my Father will love
him, and we will come unto him and make our
abode with him.' "*
" Whatever interest I have felt in the study of
the Bible," says another of the most eminent of
our Unitarian divines, " or whatever knowledge I
have gained of the proper way of pursuing that
study, I owe in great measure to him, certainly
more to him than to all other men. And when I
look back to the three years spent under his kind
and faithful instruction, I seem to return to one
of the happiest as well as most profitable periods
of my life."
It has been said, that the awe which he unconsciously inspired was sometimes unfavorable to
the free action and free expression of thought in
those who sat under his instructions; and that the
severity of his taste, and his known dislike, openly
or silently expressed, of everything which bordered
on what is theatrical in manner, or over-florid in
style, or extravagant in sentiment, had a tendency
to repress too much the exuberance of youthful
imagination and the warmth of youthful feeling.
Certainly the danger was on that side. But for
* Furness's Jesus and his Biographers, p. 212.
3




XXVi         BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
one who may perchance have suffered from this
cause, many, we are sure, will thank him through
life for the restraining, improving, and elevating
influence which he exerted on theirminds and
hearts.
But the field of Mr. Norton's labors and usefulness extended far beyond the bounds of the theological institution with which he was for a time
connected, and of the religious body to which he
belonged.  He became known  and widely respected through the writings, chiefly of a religious,
partly of a literary character, which through various channels he gave to the press.  He was too
careful of truth, and too careless of present fame,like his great neighbor-artist painting for immortality and giving the last touches to his work till
death found him still waiting to finish it,-too
deeply impressed with the sense of an author's
responsibleness in the publication of his opinions
on important subjects, too anxious that his offerings at the altar of Christian science should be
without blemish and without spot, to be a rapid or
voluminous writer.  Non multa sed multum.  He
has left enough to lay us under a lasting debt of
gratitude.  Whenever we hear a contrast suggested between him  and others in this respect,
implying some defect on his part, we are always
reminded of the old fable, in the school-book, of
the Cony and the Lion. "See my troop of little
ones! and how many hast thou?"  " One, but a
lion."  One such work as that on the " Genuineness of the Gospels" is more honorable to a man,




OF MR. NORTON.            xxvii
than a score of imperfectly prepared, roughly finished, loosely jointed productions, soon to die and
be forgotten. Besides, each one must work in his
own way, and not in another's; and each subject
must have its own mode of treatment. The inquiries on which Mr. Norton spent his strength
demand of a conscientious man all the thought,
labor, long circumspection, and minuteness of investigation which he can give them. He held his
place, he did his part,-a high and peculiar one,in the confirmation and advancement of Christian
truth. Let others be as faithful to theirs. A survey, however, of Mr. Norton's actual labors, both
as a theologian and a man of letters, will show
that his life was a continuously industrious one;and even on the point to which we have referred,
the amount of his published writings, some injustice may have been done him from the fact
that many of them  appeared in the periodical
literature of his day, and stand somewhat out of
sight.
Mr. Norton's earliest contributions to the press
appeared in the Literary Miscellany, a periodical
published in Cambridge in the style of the day, in
1804-5. They are a notice of Cowper, a short
review of a sermon by Rev. Henry Ware, his pastor, and one or two short poetical translations.
They are of little interest, except as indicating the
turn of his mind at the age of eighteen or nineteen,
and as dimly foreshadowing to us in their subjects
the future career of the theologian, the man of
letters, and the poet. He wrote some years after




XXViii       BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
this for the Monthly Anthology. To some of its
volumes his contributions, we believe, were frequent.
It was not, however, till he assumed the editorship of the General Repository, that his full power
as a thinker and a writer was publicly developed
and understood. The first article of that work, a
very clear and powerful, and, as it was then considered, a very bold article, entitled" A Defence of
Liberal Christianity," was written by him, and
attracted much notice. Its sentiments, then new,
or not before so openly expressed, drew  down
severe animadversion from  the orthodox pulpit
and press. This was followed by his masterly
review, continued through several numbers of the
same periodical, of the " Controversy between Dr.
Priestley, Dr. Horsley, and others," evincing the
most thorough learning and the most patient research. Other minor contributions of his, literary
and poetical, are scattered through the work.
I With the New Series of the Christian Disciple,
commenced in 1819, Mr. Norton resum'ed his public literary labors, which appear to have been suspended for a time in consequence of the discontinuance of the General Repository, and the want
of an appropriate organ for the utterance of his
views. Besides some smaller articles of a general
character, he contributed several critical and doctrinal dissertations of great value and interest, and
full of that marked power which placed him at
the head of the theological and controversial writers of his day. Among these are his Review of




OF MR. NORTON.            XXix
Stuart's Letters to Channing, by far the most able,
complete, and at the same time condensed confutation of the doctrine of the Trinity which has
yet appeared,- his "Thoughts on True and False
Religion,"- and his " Views of Calvinism."  The
earlier volumes of the Christian Examiner were
also enriched by his pen.  The articles on the
Poetry of Mrs. Hemans, and one on Pollok's
Course of Time, will be remembered among those
of a purely literary character. Besides these and
several religious essays in the first and second
volumes of the Examiner, on the "Future Life of
the Good," the " Works of God," the " Punishment of Sin," the " Duty of Continual Improvement," &c., he contributed some critical dissertations and reviews. His articles on the Epistle to
the Hebrews, in the fourth, fifth, and sixth volumes, form the most valuable and instructive discussion which has appeared in the English language, or perhaps in any language, on that subject.
We wish they might be republished, as a separate
work, for wider circulation. His last contribution
to the Christian Examiner appeared, in September,
1849, in the shape of a letter to his friend, Mr.
George Ticknor, on the " Origin and Progress of
Liberal Christianity in New England, and on Mr.
Buckminster's Relations to them." He wrote also
for the North American Review, though not often.
His most noticeable articles in that publication are
those on " Franklin," in January, 1818, on " Byron,"
in October, 1825, on Rev. William Ware's " Letters
from Palmyra," in October, 1837, and a " Memoir
3*




XXX          BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
of Mrs. Grant of Laggan," in January, 1845. His
severe strictures on the character of Lord Byron,
and the immoral tendency of some of his poems,
although he allowed him all the praise justly due
to his remarkable genius, were highly unpalatable
to the idolatrous admirers of that great poet. But
they were seasonable and true, and will commend
themselves to every mind of pure taste and high
principle, that is not dazzled and blinded by the
intellectual splendor which, like the silver veil of
Mokanna, may hide from his votaries the deformity
beneath.. In this, as in all Mr. Norton's critiques
on the poetry and literature of the times, the influence which he exerted was of the highest and most
salutary kind, laboring as he did with all his earnestness and strength to bring the literary judgments of the community into harmony with Christian morals and a Christian taste, and fearlessly
opposing himself to the popular current, when,
either in theology or in letters, it was running, or
in danger of running, the wrong way.
The Select Journal contains also much original
matter by him. The longest articles in this work
from his pen are upon " Goethe " and " Hamilton's
Men and Manners in America."
Mr. Norton's withdrawal for the last twenty
years from very active and prominent service may
have created a false impression in some minds respecting the amount of his labors. It will be seen
from the survey that has been given of his contributions to the religious and other periodicals of
his time, that his life - especially when we take




OF MR. NORTON.             XXXi
into consideration the important occupations of
his Professorship, the nature of his studies, and
the engagements of various kinds which fall upon
a man in his position -was not only laboriously
industrious, but an abundantly productive one.
He was so little ambitious of shining before the
world, and so independent, both in mind and in
circumstances, of any outward pressure, -he was
so careful and conscientiously thorough in all that
he undertook, besides being always so far from
robust, and, latterly, so much of an invalid, - that
we ought rather to be grateful that he did so much,
than to wonder that he did not do more. He was
not a man to be hurried by the false expectations of
others. He wrought " as in his great Taskmaster's
eye," not for theirs. He knew best when his work
was finished, and then, and not till then, it came
forth.
The last years of Mr. Norton's life were chiefly
devoted to the preparation and the completion of
important works, long planned in the hope of rendering permanent service to the religion which he
loved with all his mind and heart and strength, as
his own and the world's most precious treasure
and hope. One, his great work on the " Genuineness of the Gospels," will be a lasting monument
of his intellectual ability and his patient, conscientious research, and one of the standard contributions to the evidences of our Christian faith, which
will go down to posterity in company with those
of the greatest names in this department of Christian study. It is an honor to our country, of which




XXXii       BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
we have quite as much reason to be proud, as of
other illustrious achievements by other pens in
more popular and better appreciated fields of mental labor. The historian, the poet, the orator, rise
at once into the upper sky of a nation's admiration, and their names become world.renowned.
The great theologian, the profound thinker, the retired scholar, elaborating in his study the noblest
products of thought, and establishing truths of the
most vital importance to the highest interests of
man, must, like Kepler, wait his time. Sooner or
later that time will come, and the tardy verdict of
the world will crown him with its laurel wreath.
The three volumes of the work just mentioned
contain an elaborate exposition   finished with all
that minute accuracy for which Mr. Norton was so
remarkable, and with all that logical acuteness and
strength for which he was equally distinguished -
of the historical evidence of the genuineness of the
Gospels.  It was his intention, if his life and
health had been continued, to add another volume concerning the internal evidences of their
genuineness; which he wished, however, to appear simultaneously with a new translation of the
Gospels, accompanied by explanatory notes, on
which he had been long engaged. He did not
live to complete, as we fondly hoped he might,
the former part of his plan; but we rejoice, and all
who knew him will rejoice with us, to learn that
the translation of the Gospels with critical and
explanatory notes, the work which we believe he
had most at heart, is entirely finished, and in a




OF MR. NORTON.                      XXXiii
state of preparation for the press. Consecrated to
us as it is by his long labor upon it, and bearing
to us the last messages of his pen, we shall look
forward to its publication with an eager interest,
believing that it will afford important aid to every
class of readers in the interpretation of the New
Testament, bring out with new force the evidences
of its truth, and present in a clearer and fuller
light the beauty and power of our Saviour's character, the sublime import of his teachings, and the
divine greatness of his life.*   We hope, also, that
a dissertation, prepared by him, as is understood,
within a recent period, on the theory of Strauss
and its kindred vagaries, and forming a part of his
contemplated volume on the internal evidences of
the  Gospels, may  be  in  some form   given  to the
world.  It may interest our readers also to know,
* Since the above was written, this important and instructive work
- the precious legacy of the Christian scliolar, laboring to the last for
the truth as it is in Jesus, the matured fruit of long years of patient
and conscientious study —has been issued from the press (in May,
1855), under the editorship of his son, Mr. Charles Eliot Norton,
and Mr. Ezra Abbot, Jr., in two volumes octavo, the first volume
containing the Translation, and the second, the Notes. Simultaneously with this, in accordance with the plan proposed to himself by
Mr. Norton, they published another volume of his writings, entitled
"Internal Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels," containing
" Remarks on Christianity and the Gospels, with particular reference
to Strauss's' Life of Jesus, " and " Portions of an Unfinished Work "
on the general subject which forms the title of the book. The publication of these volumes has added largely to the debt of gratitude
and reverence which is justly due to him, as one of the most accomplished interpreters of the Christian records, and one of the ablest,
acutest, and most earnest defenders of the Christian revelation in our
own or in any age.




XXxiv        BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
that he has left behind him a complete translation
of the Epistle to the Romans, and of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians, and translations of the
obscure portions of other Epistles, with a body of
notes, critical and exegetical, which must be -of
great value to the student of the Scriptures. We
cannot help'expressing our earnest wish that these
also may, if possible, be published at some future
time, in connection, perhaps, with the articles of
which we have already spoken, on the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Even the fragmentary products of
so clear and penetrating a mind, consecrated
through life to the study of the Christian Scriptures and the Christian revelation, and filled with
so devout a spirit, will be gladly welcomed.
Mr. Norton's writings are all impressed with the
same strongly marked qualities, bearing the image
of the man; the same calm but deep tone of religious feeling; the same exalted seriousness of
view, as that of a man in sight of God and on the
borders of eternity; the same high moral standard;
the same transparent clearness of statement; the
same logical closeness of reasoning; the same
quiet earnestness of conviction; the same sustained confidence in his conclusions, resting as
they did, or as he meant they should,, on solid
grounds and fully examined premises; the same
minute accuracy and finish; the same strict truthfulness and sincerity, saying nothing for mere
effect.  And the style is in harmony with the
thought,-pure, chaste, lucid, aptly expressive,
unaffected, uninvolved, English undefiled, schol



OF MR. NORTON.             XXXV
arly, yet never pedantic, strong, yet not hard or
dry; and, when the subject naturally called for it,
clothing itself in the rich hues and the beautiful
forms of poetic fancy, that illumined, while it
adorned, his thought.
The works of this eminent man will be always
valuable, not only for the treasures of learning
which they contain, and the light which they
throw on questions of the deepest importance to
every thinking man and every Christian theologian, but for the instructive example which they
present of rare virtues, never more needed than in
this age of hurry and excitement. They furnish
lessons to the scholar and the student which he
will do well fo ponder and profit by; - lessons of
patience, of persevering research, of scrupulous
accuracy, of thorough and independent investigation, and of a conscientious slowness in the publication of facts and opinions which can be properly established only by long and diligent inquiry.
He did not believe in any intuitional knowledge,knowledge snatched up in a day and by hasty
glances into the written or the unwritten page of
truth. He did not believe that there is any royal
road to solid and trustworthy learning, - any road
to it except the old one, as old as man,-the beaten
path of patient study, toiling on day after day, year
after year. He believed with Newton, himself the
example of what he said, that it is by concentration and fixedness of thought, by intent devotion
to its subject, more than by native genius, that the
best and greatest results are to be wrought out.




Xxxvi        BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
He thought it much better to do a little, and to do
it well and thoroughly, than to do a great deal
poorly. He was therefore in no hurry to throw off
into the seething world a multitude of books. IIe
had no ambition to shine as a writer and to keep
himself in the world's eye. Apparently, he was
quite indifferent to the kind of fame to which so
many aspire. He had nobler aims. He cherished
a wiser ambition. He cared little for present popularity, he wrote for permanent effect and lasting
usefulness. And thus year after year passed away
in the faithful endeavor to give greater completeness to the work before him, or to verify its statements, or to supply some missing link in the argument, or to correct some minor blemish that might
have crept in, until he could in some degree satisfy
his severe taste, his high sense of responsibility,
and his conscientious love of the perfect truth. It
is easy enough to make a book; but he wished to
make a book worth making and worth keeping.
And this to one of so high a standard, of so fastidious a taste, of so self-exacting a love of accuracy and completeness, and of so conscientious a
purpose, was not easy. But the slow ripening of
his mental harvests was amply compensated by
the final richness of the product.  It would be
well, in this surfeiting age of half-made books, if
more would follow the example.
Mr. Norton's position as a theologian has already been intimated, in the general account which
we have given of his writings and labors. But it
claims a more distinct and extended notice.  It




OF MR. NORTON.          XXXVii
is an extremely interesting one; and one too for
which, judged by its motives, even those who stood
in opposition to him on either side must yield him
their respect, as we do our grateful admiration.
The true key to that position is found in his
strong faith, beating through every pulse of his
life, in the divine mission of Jesus Christ, and in
his profound conviction of the supreme importance
of the Christian revelation to all the best hopes of
mankind. Misname him who will, if ever there
was a believer in Christ, it was he. He was a
believer with the head and with the heart too.
He was as fully persuaded of the truth of Christianity as of his own existence. The Gospel, —
the Gospel of Christ, and not the Gospel of Calvin,-the Gospel, as it came fresh from heaven in
its own native beauty and power, was in his eyes
the most precious gift of the Good Father. And
under this conviction, he felt it to be the work of
his life, the work to which God called him, to defend the Christian revelation, and to set forth its
heavenly character, with all the power which his
Maker had given him, not only against the assaults
of infidelity and scepticism without, but against
the undesigned yet perilous treachery within. He,
with a jealous care for the safety of the priceless
treasure, stood on the watch to keep it intact, on
which side soever the enemy might approach; and
by his words of wisdom, not always heeded as
they should have been, he threw new bulwarks
around the faith that he loved with a strength of
feeling proportioned to his strength of mind.
4




XXXViii      BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
With this intense faith, shining through his
powerful intellect, burning in his pure heart, and
ever urging him on with a calm but mighty impulse, he entered on his career, and pursued it
consistently, through all the different phases of his
life, to the end; whether, as he best liked, he
quietly labored by himself in the mine of truth,
seeking goodly treasure and pearls for his Master,
or, at his Master's call, girded on his armor for the
battle, and fearlessly laid siege to the intrenched
errors of the past, or with equal chivalry went out
to meet the novel errors, home-born or of foreign
race, that he saw springing up among us under
the very walls of the temple of Christ. He was
both a Reformer and a Conservative, as every
wise and good man must be, who in the spirit of
Paul resolves to prove all things, but to hold fast
that which is good and true. At his very first appearance in the theological arena, he was a bold,
zealous, uncompromising assailant of the Orthodoxy of the time. He as fearlessly maintained his
views, as he had carefully and conscientiously espoused them. " Nec temere nec timide," was the
motto which he placed over the opening article of
his first editorial work, and which he bore upon his
banner through life. He stood ready to avow and
to defend what he believed; and he proved himself as able as he was ready, uniting all the courage of Luther with all the scholarship of Erasmus.
While others, from love of peace, or fear of giving
offence, chose to maintain what seemed to them a
justifiable and prudent reserve, he spoke out boldly




OF MR. NORTON.           XXxix
and fully the conclusions to which he had deliberately come. In his doctrinal views he was no halfway man, -no double-minded one; and in his
phraseology there was a studious avoidance of that
vague mistiness of language, which is sometimes
used as a reconciling veil, and is sometimes the
cover of confused and cloudy ideas. Whenever he
had occasion to express his opinions, he expressed
them without obscurity and without reservation.
As a champion of Liberal Christianity, Mr. Norton stands, as a writer, unquestionably foremost
in the field. In the important controversy under
which its battles were fought at the commencement of this century, his was the leading mind.
He furnished the strong weapons of argument and
learning by which it best maintained its ground.
Others who stood at his side had more of the gift
of popular speech: his was the word of knowledge and of wisdom. He was the Moses in the
Exodus from the orthodox realm; Dr. Channing,
the Aaron. The one was the eloquent rhetorician
and advocate; the other, the profound scholar and
thinker and sure interpreter of the sacred word.
But this zealous Reformer for Christ and the Gospel's sake was a no less zealous Conservative for
Christ and the Gospel's sake, when the time called.
And there was no inconsistency in his course, any
more than in that of the leader of old, when, having shaken off the bondage of Pharaoh, he withstood the innovations of Korah. In one case, he
fought against ancient errors; in the other, against
the new. In both, he was contending, as he be



xl          BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
lieved, for the eternal truth, the truth as it is in Jesus.
When at a more recent period he wrote and published his views concerning the modern rationalism
and infidelity whose seeds, imported from the Old
World, had struck root and were springing up in
the New, - when he strove to tear up the poisonous root, hidden under the perfumed flowers, and
to put the Church and the community on their
guard against it, - he was animated by the same
spirit which had moved him from the beginning.
He made no bigot's war upon liberty of thought
and speech, but he had a right, and he felt himself
bound, to unmask and to resist those doctrines and
speculations which were leading, as he thought, to
infidelity. As his hostility to Calvinism was the
side-growth of his love to Christ and his love to
God, so his severity against Straussism and Spinozism was but one of the offshoots of his reverence for the Saviour and his faith in the Gospel.
It was the severity of an honest conviction, as
honestly expressed, of the pernicious tendency of
the views which he opposed. He believed them
to be, not only wholly unsound, but, whether so
intended or not, hostile to Christianity, betraying
it, like Judas, with a kiss, and in their tendencies
finally destructive of all religious faith. Without
entering at all into the question of the soundness
or unsoundness of the views against which Mr.
Norton uttered his sincere and solemn warning,
we think that all must admit the long-sighted
sagacity with which he foresaw the results of the
tone of thinking then beginning to show itself in




OF MR. NORTON.               xli
various forms, —the wisely prophetic ken with
which he announced the direction and final developments of the new school of German speculation. Just what he predicted came to pass.
But in all his labors and conflicts, in his attack
on the " Latest Form  of Infidelity," as well as in
his "Defence of Liberal Christianity," in his laborious, life-continued study and exposition of the
"Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels,"
and in his faithful, never-satisfied endeavors, persevered in to the very last, to unfold the true meaning of those Gospels, and to clothe them in our
own language in a form  in which their beauty
and power may be best seen, and the majesty of
the Saviour's life shine out in its own undimmed
light, he pursued a nobly consistent career. His
profound faith in the Christian revelation, his intense conviction of its inestimable value, was, we
repeat, the harmonizing key of his life.
But Mr. Norton was not only an accomplished
theologian, a powerful controversialist, a learned
and indefatigable critic, a most able and zealous
defender of the Christian revelation, a profound
and original expositor both of the meaning of its
records and the evidences of their truth; he was
also one of the pioneers of literary progress in this
country, a man of letters, interested in the advancement of all good learning.  He was a strong and
graceful writer on other subjects besides those
which formed the chief occupation of his life.
He had a vein of fine poetic talent also, occasionally exercised in his earlier days and in his inter4*




xlii          BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
vals of leisure, but only enough to open a glimpse
of the wealth within.  The few  specimens which
he has left behind are gems of rare lustre, finished
of their kind. Apart from their beauty of thought
and expression, they have a higher value derived
from  a higher source.  The well-known " Lines
written after a Summer Shower," which originally
appeared in the first volume of the Christian Disciple, are among the most beautiful in the language.  The hymn of resignation, beginning with
the words,
"My God, I thank thee! may no thought
E'er deem thy chastisements severe,"
is a favorite one in our churches, and has soothed
many a grief-stricken spirit  He did a good greater
than he could know when he wrote it out of his
own experience to  be as angel music  to  the
mourner.  Another, written  by him  to a friend
in bereavement, beginning,
"Oh, stay thy tears! for they are blest,
Whose days are past, whose toil is done,"
is in a similar spirit and of similar beauty.
Whenever we read the scattered effusions of his
Christian muse,* we are tempted to lament that he
has left us so few of these polished diamonds of
thought, till we remember that he was in quest of
other and larger treasures, hidden in the mine.
He had but one life to work with; and it must
select its prize, leaving the rest, however bright
and sparkling, unsought, or with now and then a
* These were collected into a small volume in 1853, and a few
copies printed for private distribution among his friends.




OF MR. NORTON.             xliii
passing glance and touch. And yet the little that
he did in this way shows how much good even a
little well done may do, when it is cast in beautiful forms.
But we pass on to what is much greater in God's
eye than any work of genius, however brilliant, or
any product of thought, however elaborate and
mature. Mr. Norton's character and life were
marked by the high virtues, the fruits of a Christian faith, whose rich aroma breathes through his
written works.
To say that he had none of "those infirmities
which," to use his own words, " have clung to the
best and wisest," would be ascribing to him  a
perfection which has belonged to but one who has
lived on the earth. To say that he never erred in
opinion or in action, would be to say what no man
can venture to say of himself or of any other.
Certainly he, who was truth itself, would claim
no such exemption from  human frailty. But
towering above these errors and infirmities, whatever they were, which, however magnified to'the
fault-finding eye, disappeared from  the friend's,
there were virtues which the world will not willingly let die, and which will make him  still a
blessing to it in death, as he was a benefactor to
it in life. And that which we think would be first
and above all remembered by those who had the
happiness to enjoy his friendship and to listen to
his wise discourse, whether in the lecture-room or
in his delightful home, was the peculiar devoutness of his spirit, —the profoundly religious tone




xliv         BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
of thought and of sentiment which seemed to
form  the atmosphere in which he lived, —the
unformal, unostentatious, but deep piety, so perfectly sincere and unaffected, that made his presence like the air of a temple, -the ever-present
sense of those higher relations in which we stand
to God and to eternity, springing naturally out
of that strong faith in Christ and in his truth
which had struck down its roots into his whole
being.
No man could be at all intimate with him, or be
brought into near communication with him, either
as a friend or a pupil, without receiving religious
impressions such as few  men whom  we have
known have the power to impart. There was
something mightier than any common eloquence,
which entered into the hearer's soul and led it by
a calm and spiritual force into the presence of God
and of things unseen and eternal. And this high
religiousness of spirit —born of his vital Christian
faith -was seen in union with other virtues which
are the proper fruits of that faith. Purity of heart,
singleness of purpose, devotion to duty, integrity
of dealing, perfect openness and honorableness in
all the affairs of life, marked his whole career.
Truth-truth in thought, truth in speech, truth
in manner, truth in conduct —shone through his
life. He especially honored it in others; it made
a vital part of his own being. All shams and falsehoods, all equivocations and, manoeuvring, all forms
of cant and hypocrisy, and all affectations of every
kind, were therefore peculiarly offensive to his




OF MR. NORTON.                 xlv
sincere and upright spirit. And in close union, as
it commonly is, with his perfect truthfulness, was
that Christian  courage which  dares always to
choose its own course and to carry it out without
asking leave except of conscience.  He held decided opinions upon every important subject that
bears upon human life and duty in all a man's
public and private relations, and he acted upon
them.  He did not fear to differ from others, or to
walk apart from others; —
"Nor number nor example with him wrought
To swerve from truth, or change his constant mind,
Though single."
Without any false pride of singularity, he cherished
a self-relying independence of thought and of action. As in his religious views and his religious
course, so in all other things he judged and acted
for himself: and judged and acted from high principles fearlessly applied. He sought to try each
case at the tribunal of a thoroughly Christianized
reason, and to follow out what he accepted as its
final decisions. We need not say that he always
did what was best, but we may say, what is in
truth greater praise, that he always did what he
thought was right.
But his independence was not a selfish or coldhearted independence.  It was united with the
truest and warmest kindness, when that kindness
was called for.  His retired habits, the habits of
a student and scholar,-the individuality of his
character and life, — his slowness and reserve of
manner,- his occasional severity of speech, - the




xlvi          BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
flashes of a pure and just indignation against
some act of folly, meanness, or misconduct, - his
decided and stern condemnation of opinions which
he held to be false and dangerous, - were not connected with any want of Christian tenderness or
Christian sympathy. It was a part of his creed,
and one of the first lessons which his pupils in the
Christian ministry learned from him, that timely
reproof is often the truest friendship; that the ex
posure of error, and the cure of it by the needec.
caustic of sharp and plain-spoken truth, may be
the highest charity.  But those who knew him
best knew the real warmth of his heart and the
real kindness — the kindness both of feeling and
of principle —which were sometimes hidden from
a stranger's eye by the peculiarities of his manner.
He was no ascetic, no declaimer against the innocent festivities of the world, no morose hater or
proud scorner of its pleasant triflings, no misanthrope, shunning converse with men. If he mingled little in the gayer scenes of society, it was
more from  his engrossment in the studies that
occupied his thoughts, and from  the want of a
quick flow of animal spirits, than from any unsocial feeling. As a friend, a neighbor, a citizen, he
was ever prompt to do his part. His hand was
always open to every work of charity. He knew
the Christian blessedness of giving. His generous
consideration of others, his readiness to help whenever his help was needed, his benevolence to the
poor, ever guided by his strong good-sense, his
judicious and thoughtful kindness in all the varied




OF MR. NORTON.             xlvii
occasions of life, his quiet and unostentatious charities, will be remembered by many who shared in
them. They were much better known to himself
than to the world. His alms were not done to be
seen of men.
But it was on the nearer circle around him, on
the Christian home in which he lived, that his
strong and tender affections beamed out most
brightly and warmly. What he was there, where
the true character most fully shows itself, they
know whose loss is the greatest, and whose grief
will be ever mingled with gratitude for the great
blessings which they have enjoyed in the privileges
of his society, in the tenderness of his love, in the
wisdom of his counsels, in the Christian influence
of his conversation and his life.  To them  his
memory will be peculiarly blessed, for it will be
associated, not only with the tenderest, most delicate, most sympathizing love, but with the highest,
holiest, happiest influences, -influences that do
not end at the grave. No man had more exalted
views than he of the duties and the happiness of
domestic life, and of the place which Christianity
should hold in it.
We know how difficult it is to draw an unbiassed portrait, in all points true to the life, of one
in whom we have a personal interest, or whose
name is identified with the religious faith which
is as father and mother to our hearts. In that
which we have attempted, we have at least wished
to avoid the exaggeration which in everything the
subject of it so greatly disliked. But it seems to




xlviii      BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
us, as we look upon it again, that a word more
may be necessary to place it in its full light, and
to give its features their true and best expression.
We believe that, on certain points of character, a
false impression exists in the minds of some who
did not know him intimately.  He was on some
accounts in danger of being misunderstood and
misjudged. In this, however, he shared the lot of
many others, whom the world sees through a glass
darkly. Every virtue has its shadow mocking it.
The near friend sees the virtue; the distant or
the fault-seeking eye may catch only the distorted
shadow. A man of strong thoughts and strong
feelings, Mr. Norton spoke strongly the truth that
was in his heart. When he aimed a blow at an
unsound doctrine or a dangerous error, he did not
strike with the sword in the sheath. He did not
attack it with roundabout phrases or with soft
innuendo. What he said, he said in plain English, never coarse indeed, but sometimes caustic,
always open and sincere.  He was "a good
hater"; not of persons, however, but of the false
opinions with which those persons were identified,
of which they were in his mind the living exponents.  He was a man of very decided convictions, and not a man given to compromises in
important matters. What he thought right to be
done or to be said, he went forward to do or to
say; alone, if necessary. He was not at all studious
of the arts of popularity. From the course and
habits of his life he was secluded from that free
personal intercourse with others of opposite opin



OF MR. NORTON.            xlix
ions, which is necessary to a perfect understanding
on either side. Hence, those who came into collision with him, and those who saw him at a distance in those situations in which the strong and
sharp points of his character were made to protrude, would be likely to do him  injustice. A
stranger or an opponent might sometimes, from
their point of view, imagine him to be deficient in
the softer and meeker virtues. The friend at his
side, seeing him  as he was, knew that nothing
could be farther from the truth. Under the constitutional coldness and restraint of his manner,
and the stateliness and occasional sternness of his
speech, there was a deep enthusiasm of character,
a sincere warmth of feeling, the truest and most
considerate tenderness. A person living with him
or in intimate connection with him would be particularly struck with his gentleness, indulgence, and
quick human sympathies; he would see as much
in him of the John, as others had seen of the Paul.
If he was ever severe towards any, it was from the
love which he bore to religion and to truth. If he
erred, in word or in deed, his errors were the errors
of a true-hearted and true-spoken man.
A most pure and gifted spirit has gone from us
to join the host that "have crossed the flood."
He has ascended from the study of God's word
and works in this lower world, where, with all his
knowledge, he could know but in part, to the
study of God's word and works in that more
glorious sphere, where, with Buckminster and
Eliot, he will know even as he is known.
5




1      BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE  OF MR. NORTON.
The hymn,* little known, we believe, which  he
composed  many  years  ago  for the  Christian's
dirge, was  written   unconsciously  for  his  own
funeral.   It now  chants  for us, as we stand  in
spirit at his grave, the farewell of many hearts
that honor and bless his memory.
"He has gone to his God; he has gone to his home;
No more amid peril and error to roam.
His eyes are no longer dim,
His feet no more will falter;
No grief can follow him,
No pang his cheek can alter.
" There are paleness, and weeping, and sighs below,
For our faith is faint, and our tears will flow:
But the harps of heaven are ringing;
Glad angels come to greet him;
And hymns of joy are singing,
While old friends press to meet him.
" 0 honored, beloved! to earth unconfined,
Thou hast soared on high, thou hast left us behind;
But our parting is not for ever:
We will follow thee, by heaven's light,
Where the grave cannot dissever
The souls whom God will unite."
* His first contribution to the Christian Examiner, and the first of
its poetical articles. Vol. I. p. 39.




STATEMENT OF REASONS.








PREFACE.
IN the year 1819, I published an article in a
periodical work,* of which a number of copies
were struck off separately under the title that
I have given to this volume. I have since been
requested to reprint it, and some years ago
undertook to revise and make some additions
to it for that purpose. Being, however, interrupted, I laid by my papers, and had given up
the intention, at least for an indefinite time.
But having lately received an application from
a highly esteemed friend, strongly urging its
republication, I resumed the task; and the
result has been, that I have written a new
work, preserving indeed the title of the former, and embodying a great part of its contents, but extending to three times its size.
I have said, "I resumed the task"; and the
[ The Christian Disciple. See Vol. I. New Series, pp. 370 -431.
The article referred to was occasioned by Professor -Stuart's Letters
to Dr. Channing.]
5"




4                PREFACE.
expression is appropriate, for the discussion is
one in which no scholar or intellectual man
can, at the present day, engage with alacrity.
To the great body of enlightened individuals
in all countries, to the generality of those who
on every subject but theology are the guides
of public opinion, it would be as incongruous
to address an argument against the Trinity, as
an argument against transubstantiation, or the
imputation of Adam's sin, or the supremacy of
the Pope, or the divine right of kings. These
doctrines, once subjects of fierce contention,
are all, in their view, equally obsolete. To
disprove the Trinity will appear, to many of
whom I speak, a labor as idle and unprofitable as the confutation of any other of those
antiquated errors; and to engage in the task
may seem to imply a theologian's ignorance of
the opinions of the world, and the preposterous and untimely zeal of a recluse student,
believing that the dogmas of his books still
rule the minds of men. It would be difficult
to find a recognition of the existence of this
doctrine in any work of the present day of es-,tablished reputation, not professedly theological. All mention of it is by common consent
excluded from the departments of polite literature, moral'science, and natural religion; and




PREFACE.                5
from  discussions, written or oral, not purely
sectarian, intended to affect men's belief, or
conduct.  Should an allusion to it occur in
any such production, it would be regarded as
a trait of fanaticism, or as discovering a mere
secular respect for some particular church.  It
is scarcely adverted to, except in works professedly theological; and theology, the noblest
and most important branch of philosophy, has
been brought into disrepute, so far, at least, as
it treats of the doctrines of revealed religion,
by a multitude of writers, who have seized
upon this branch of it as their peculiar province, and who have been anything but philosophers.
Why, then, argue against a doctrine, which
among intelligent men has fallen into neglect
and disbelief? I answer, that the neglect and
disbelief of this doctrine, and of other doctrines
of like character, has extended to Christianity
itself.  It is from  the public professions of
nations calling themselves Christian, from the
established creeds and liturgies of different
churches or sects, and from  the writings of
those who have been reputed orthodox il
their day, that most men derive their notions
of Christianity.  But the treaties of European
nations still begin with a solemn appeal to the




6                PREFACE.
" Most Holy Trinity "; the doctrine is still the
professed faith of every established church,
and, as far as I know, of every sect which
makes a creed its bond of communion; and if
any one should recur to books, he would find
it presented as an all-important distinction of
Christianity by far the larger portion of divines. It is, in consequence, viewed by most
men, more or less distinctly, as a part of Christianity. In connection with other doctrines, as
false and more pernicious, it has been moulded
into systems of religious belief, which have
been publicly and solemnly substituted in the
place of true religion. These systems have
counteracted the whole evidence of divine revelation. The proof of the most important fact
in the history of mankind, that the truths of
religion have not been left to be doubtfully
and dimly discerned, but have been made
known to us by God himself, has been overborne and rendered ineffectual by the nature
of the doctrines ascribed to God. Hence it
is, that in many parts of Europe scarcely an
intelligent and well-informed Christian is left.
It has seemed as idle to inquire into the evidences of those systems which passed under
the name of Christianity, as into the proof of
the incarnations of Vishnu, or the divine mis



PREFACE.                7
sion of Mahomet.  Nothing of the true character of our religion, nothing attesting its
descent from  Heaven, was to be discovered
amid the corruptions of the prevailing faith.
On the contrary, they were so marked with
falsehood and fraud, they so clearly discovered
the baseness of their earthly origin, that, when
imposed upon men as the peculiar doctrines
of Christianity, those who regarded them as
such were fairly relieved from the necessity
of inquiring, whether they had been taught by
God. The internal evidence of Christianity
was annihilated; and all other evidence is
wasted, when applied to prove that such doctrines have been revealed from Heaven.
It is true that in England, in some parts of
Continental Europe, and in our own country, a
large majority still desire the name of Christians, and have a certain interest in what they
esteem Christianity. Notwithstanding much
infidelity and skepticism, more or less openly
avowed, and notwithstanding that many, who
call themselves Christians, regard the teaching of Christ only as containing, when rightly
understood, an excellent system of doctrines
and duties, without ascribing to it more than
human authority, yet there still exists much
sincere and enlightened, as well as much tra



8                PREFACE.
ditionary faith in Christianity, as a revelation
from God. In the Protestant countries to
which I have referred, there has been great
freedom of inquiry into its character;'wise
and good men have labored to vindicate it
from misrepresentations; its evidences have
been forcibly stated; the more obnoxious
doctrines connected with it in the popular
creeds have not of late, except in this country, been zealously obtruded upon notice;
the moral character required by it has been
partially at least understood and inculcated;
and imperfectly and erroneously as our religion may have been taught, it has still been
a main support of public order and private
morals. Many enlightened men, therefore,
who have taken only a general view of the
subject, and have never given their time or
thoughts to determine what Christianity really
is, regard the prevailing form of religion with
a certain degree of respect. Though they may
disbelieve many of its doctrires, and have never
separated in their own minds what is true fiom
what is false, they think it, notwithstanding,
the part of a prudent and benevolent man to
let the whole pass in silence. They either do
not advert to Christianity at all; or if they do,
it is in ambiguous, though respectful terms,




PREFACE.                 9
and they refrain from implying either their
belief or their disbelief of what are represented
as- its characteristic doctrines. There is also
another class of able and intellectual men, who,
perceiving the value of religion in general, sincerely embrace the popular religion as they
find it in the creed of their church or sect;
being bound to it, perhaps, by strong sentiments and early associations, and believing
that he who quits this harbor must embark
upon a sea of uncertainties.  They form a
small exception to the remarks with which
I commenced, respecting the prevalent disbelief of the doctrine of the Trinity, and other
similar doctrines, by  the more intelligent
classes of society; - an exception which does
not extend to the ignorant, or bigoted, or
mercenary defenders of a church or sect.
But admitting these facts, what, after all, is
the prevailing state of opinion and feeling respecting Christianity in Protestant countries.
It is indicated by their literature. With some
considerable exceptions, the productions of the
English periodical press may be divided into
two great classes. In one of them, you rarely
find anything implying a sincere belief and
interest in Christianity; you find much that
an intelligent Christian could not have writ



10               PREFACE.
ten; and in some of the publications to be
arranged in this class, you find many thinly
veiled or naked  expressions of scorn  and
aversion for what passes under its name, and
especially for the established religion and its
ministers. In the other class, you observe a
party and political zeal for religion, the religion
established by law, " the religion of a gentleman," to borrow an expression from Charles the
Second, - a zeal for the church and its dignities
and emoluments, a zeal that accommodates itself
easily to a lax system of morals, and which
rarely displays itself more than in its contempt
for those who regard religion as something
about which our reason is to be exercised.
But beside these two classes of publications,
there is still another, extensively circulated,
below the notice, perhaps, of those who belong
to the aristocracy of literature, but which is
sapping the foundations of society; a class of
publications addressed to the lower orders, in
which Christianity is openly attacked, being
made responsible for all the wickedness, fraud,
oppression, and cruelty that have been perpetrated in its name, and for all the outrages upon
reason that have appeared in the conduct of its
professors, or been embodied in creeds.  There
are other proofs equally striking of the very




PREFACE.                11
general indifference that is really felt toward
Christianity; of the little hold it has upon men's
inmost thoughts and affections. The most popular English poet of the day, who has been the
object of such passionate and ill-judged admiration, appeared, not merely as a man, but as a
writer, under every aspect the most adverse to
the Christian character; yet the time has been,
when his tide of fashion was at its height, that
one could hardly remark upon his immorality
or profaneness without exposing himself to the
charge of being narrow-minded or hypocritical.
I observed not long since, in a noted journal,
the editor of which is said to be a Professor of
Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh, that he was
spoken of by a writer, fresh from the perusal
of his life by Moore, as having been throughout
his whole course "a noble being," "morally and
intellectually," as all but " the base and blind"
must feel.*  The patriarch of German literature has just left the world amid a general
chorus of applause from his countrymen, to
which a dissentient voice has for some time
scarcely been tolerated among them. His popularity may be compared with that which Voltaire enjoyed in France during the last century.
* The passage may be found in Blackwood's Magazine for Febru.
ary, 1830, p. 417.
6




12               PREFACE.
There may be different opinions respecting his
genius. He has nothing of the brilliant wit of
Voltaire, nor of his keenness of remark; and
nothing of the truly honest zeal in the cause of
humanity, which is sometimes discovered by
that very inconsistent writer. No generous sentiment ever prompted Goethe to place himself
in imprudent opposition to any misuse of power. The principles which are the foundation of
virtue and happiness, were to him as though
they were not. His strongest sympathies were
not with the higher feelings of our nature. In
his mind Christianity was on a level with the
Pagan mythology, except as being of a harsher
and gloomier character, and possessing less poetical beauty. In the Prologue to his Faust,
he introduces in a scene, meant to be ludicrous,
the Supreme Being as one of his dramatis persone, with as little reverence as Lucian shows
toward Jupiter. I cannot say what there may
be in his voluminous works; but in those of the
most note I have never met with the strong,
heartfelt expression of a high moral truth or
noble sentiment. In reading some of his more
popular productions, it may be well to recollect
the words of one incomparably his superior:
Cynicorum vero ratio tota est ejicienda; est enim
inimica verecundie, sine qua nihil rectum esse




PREFACE.                  13
potest, nihil honestum.r As regards the productions of such writers, it has become the
cant of a certain class of critics to set aside the
consideration of their influence upon men's
principles and affections and to consider them
merely as productions of genius. In this mode
of estimation it is forgotten that there can be
no essential beauty opposite to moral beauty,
and that a work which offends our best feelings can have no power over the sympathies
of a well-ordered mind.
The same absence of religious principle and
belief which characterizes so much of the popular literature of the day, appears also in the
speculations of men of a high order of intellect.
It is but a few years since, that the author of
the "Academical Questions " t was praised as a
profound thinker, in the most able and popular of modern journals, with scarcely a remark
upon the fact that his speculations conducted
directly to the dreary gulf of utter skepticism.
That work had its day, and is forgotten.  I
have just been turning over the leaves of another, " On the Origin and Prospects of Man,"
by one of the most powerful writers of our
* "The whole system of the Cynics is to be rejected, as at war
with modesty, without which there can be nothing right, nothing
honorable." CICERO. [De Officiis, Lib. I. c. 41.]
t [Sir William Drummond.]




14               PREFACE.
times, the author of " Anastasius." *  To me it
appears only a system of virtual atheism. It
excludes all idea of God, according to the conceptions formed of him by a Christian. The
Father of the Universe equally disappears from
the later systems of the most celebrated German metaphysicians. That which affects to be
regarded as the higher philosophy of the age, is
as intelligible upon this point, though upon few
others, as the system of Spinoza. Though allseeing in its mists, it does not discern the God
who MADE the world and all things therein, and
whose mercy is over all his works. In a large
proportion of writings which touch upon the
higher topics of philosophy, we perceive more
or less disbelief or disregard of what a Christian must consider as the great truths of religion. No one can read without interest the
work which, just as he was terminating his
brilliant career, Sir Humphry Davy left as a
legacy, containing the last thoughts of a philosopher.  Yet in this work, written as life
was fast receding, instead of the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the conscious individual, we find that his imagination rested on
a dream, borrowed from Pagan philosophy, of
the pre-existence and future glories of the think* [Thomas Hope.]




PREFACE.               15
ing principle, assuming new modes of being
without memory of the past. It is not simply
to the appearance of such speculations that we
are to look as characteristic of the age, but to
the fact that their appearance excites so little
attention, that they blend so readily with the
prevailing tone of its literature. I should not
be surprised if some intelligent readers of the
work last mentioned should even have forgotten the passage referred to.
Such being the state of things, we are led to
inquire, Who are the expositors and defenders
of religion, and what influence do they exert
upon public sentiment. In England the science of theology, so far as it is connected with
revealed religion, has fallen into general neglect. Of those who treat its subjects, few
deserve a hearing, and the few who deserve
cannot obtain it. A few professedly learned
works have of late appeared; but for the most
part they are mere compilations, made without
judgment or accuracy, and conformed to the
creed of the Church. There have been some
bulky republications of old divines little suited
to the wants of the age. Most other religious
works that appear are evidently intended only
for "the religious public"; a phrase that has
become familiar, and marks in some degree
6*




16               PREFACE.
the character of the times. Should they pass
beyond this narrow circle, they would, I fear,
contribute nothing to render Christianity more
respected. A very different class of writers
is required to assert for religion its true character and authority.  In Germany there is a
large body of theologians, of whom the most
eminent have been able and learned critics.
They have thrown much light upon the history, language, and contents of the books of the
Old and New Testament.  They have released
themselves from the thraldom of traditionary
errors. But they have, in many cases, substituted for these errors the most extravagant
speculations of their own. Nor, with some
exceptions, does the power of Christianity
show itself in their writings. On the contrary,
many of them, being infected with the spirit
of infidelity that prevails over the continent
of Europe, have regarded Christianity, not as a
divine revelation, but merely as presenting a
system of doctrines and precepts, for the most
part probable and useful, when relieved from
the mass of errors that have been added to
what was originally taught by its founder.
Christianity  thus becomes only a popular
name for a certain set of opinions.  Its authority and value are gone. The whole proof




PREFACE.                17
of the doctrines of religion, as taught by
Christ, consists solely in the fact that he was
a teacher from  God.  He did not reason;
he affirmed.  He adduced no arguments but
his miracles.  Considered  as a self-taught
philosopher, he did nothing to advance human knowledge, for he brought no new evidence for any opinion.  But considered as a
teacher from  God, he has provided the authority of God for the foundation of our faith.
In our country, if I am not deceived by
feelings of private friendship, true Christianity
has found some of its best defenders. But
the forms in which it is presented throughout
a great part of our land, and the feelings and
character of many who have pretended to be
its exclusive disciples, are little adapted to procure it the respect of intelligent men. They
are producing infidelity, and preparing the
way for its extensive spread. They are giving
to many a distaste for the very name of religion, and leading them to regard all appearance of a religious character with distrust or
aversion. In no other country is the grossest
and most illiberal bigotry so broadly exhibited
as among ourselves.  Nowhere else, at the
present day, have so many partisans of a low
order of intellect risen into notice, through a




18                   PREFACE.
spurious zeal, not for doctrines, for these are
changed as convenience may require, but for
the triumph of a sect; and no other region
has of late  been  ravaged  by  such  a moral
pestilence as, under the name of religion, has
prevailed in some parts of our land,-an insane fanaticism, degrading equally the feelings
and intellect of those affected by it.*
In past times, the false systems of religion
that have assumed the name of Christianity,
and ruled in its stead, have had a certain adaptation to the ignorance, the barbarism, the low
state of morals, and the perverted condition of
society, existing contemporaneously with them.
They were some restraint upon  vice.  They
led man to think of himself as something more
than a mere perishing animal.  Mixed up with
poison as they were, they served as an antidote
to other poisons more pernicious.   Though
Christianity was obscured by thick clouds, yet
a portion of its light and heat reached the
earth.  But the time for those systems has
* If any one should think these expressions too strong, let him
make himself acquainted with the transactions which not long since
were taking place in the western part of the State of New York. Authentic documents respecting them exist; but such scenes have not
been confined to that part of our country. [Some information on
this subject may be found in the Christian Examiner for May and
June, 1827, Vol. IV. pp. 242-265; and for March, 1829, Vol. VI.
pp. 101 -130.]




PREFACE.                19
wholly passed. A wilder scheme could not be
formed than that of re-establishing the Catholic religion in France, or calling a new Council of Dort to sanction Calvinism in Holland,
or giving to Lutheranism  its former power
over men's minds in Germany.  Their vitality
is gone, except that it now and then manifests
itself in a convulsive struggle. Yet zealots
are still claiming for them the authority which
belongs of right to true religion; and to the
inquiry what Christianity is, the public, official answer, as it may be called, is still returned, that it is to be found in the traditionary creed of some established church, or of
some prevalent sect; that it is to be identified with the grim decrepitude of some obsolete form of faith. We are referred back to
some one of those systems that have dishonored its name, counteracted its influence, perverted its sanctions, inculcated false and inadequate conceptions of the religious character,
and formed broods of hypocrites, fanatics, and
persecutors; that have been made to minister
to the lust of power, malignant passions, and
criminal self-indulgence; and that have striven,
if I may so speak, to retard the intellectual
and moral improvement of men, seeing in it
the approach of their own destruction.




20               PREFACE.
What, then, is to be done to give new power
to the great principles of religion? What is
to be done to vindicate its true influence to
Christianity.   We must vindicate its true
character. It must be presented to men such
as it is. The false doctrines connected with
it, in direct opposition to the truths which it
teaches, must be swept away. It is not enough
that they should be secretly disbelieved; they
must be openly disavowed. It must be publicly acknowledged that they are utterly foreign from Christianity. It is not enough that
those who defend them should be disregarded
or confuted. They must be so confuted as to
be silenced.  Those who would procure for
Christianity its due supremacy in the hearts
of men should feel that their first object is
so to operate upon the convictions and sentiments of men, that the public sanction which
has been given to gross misrepresentations of
it shall be as publicly withdrawn. In promoting the influence of Christianity, the main
duty of an enlightened Christian at the present day is to labor that it may be better understood. Till this be effected, all other exertions, it may be feared, if not ineffectual,
will be mischievous, as prolonging the authority of error, rather than establishing the truth.




PREFACE.               21
But what interest can a philosopher or a
man of intellect be expected to take in the
squabbles of controversial divines. What impression is to be produced upon indifference,
ignorance, traditionary faith, bigotry, and selfinterest, by one who has nothing to conjure
with but his poor reason? Why be solicitous to cure men of one folly on the subject
of religion, since it is sure to be replaced by
another. To him who should propose such
questions, I might answer, that I do not so
despair of mankind.  I compare the nineteenth century with the fifteenth, and I perceive that many hard victories have been won,
and much has been permanently secured in
the cause of human improvement. Truth and
Reason, though they work slowly, work surely. An abuse or an error, after having been
a thousand times confuted or exposed, at last
totters and falls, abandoned by its defenders;
and then
"One spell upon the minds of men
Breaks, never to unite again."
The disputes of controversial divines, however
mean the intellect, or vile the temper, of many
who have engaged in them, do in fact concern
the most important truths and the most pernicious errors. Having given these answers, I




22               PREFACE.
might then ask in return: Why should a
Christian, with a deep-felt conviction of the
efficacy of his religion to promote the best
interests of mankind, be earnestly desirous
that its influence may not be superseded and
opposed by any of those false systems of doctrine that have been substituted in its place.
Why should one, not devoid of common sympathy with his fellow-men, care whether they
believe the most ennobling truths, or some pernicious creed, respecting their God and Father,
their nature and relations as immortal beings,
their duty, motives, consolations, and hopes.
We know the efforts that are making by
enlightened men in Europe, particularly in
England, to spread  intellectual cultivation
among the uneducated classes of the Old
World.  So far as the knowledge thus communicated is what may be called secular, it
is beneficial in enlarging and exercising the
mind, affording innocent entertainment, and,
in some cases, furnishing the means of advancement in life.  But to the poor, as to
every other class, it is not the knowledge of
most value. Without the equal diffusion of
religious truth, it may become an instrument
of evil rather than of good. Mere intellectual
cultivation is as likely to be a source of dis



PREFACE.               23
content and disquietude as of happiness. An
access of knowledge may tend little to reconcile a man to his situation. The new power
it affords will be used according to the disposition of him who possesses it. But you
can impress no truth, you can remove no
error, respecting the duties and hopes of man
as an immortal creature of God, you can impress no truth, you can remove no error, concerning  religion, without surely advancing
men in morals and happiness.  This is the
instruction most needed for all classes, but
especially for the least informed. Among the
highly educated, and those accustomed to the
refinements of life, there are certain partial
substitutes for religious principle; - the feeling of honor, the desire of reputation, delicacy
of taste, the force of public opinion, and a
more enlarged perception of the sentiments
of their fellow-men, which, when they act on
the conduct of others, are generally on the
side of virtue. The levities or the business
of life, a ceaseless round of trifling or serious
occupation, which hurries them on with little
leisure to think or feel deeply, may have prevented them from becoming acquainted with
the essential wants of our nature.  But in
preaching to the poor, not the heartless, re7




24                PREFACE.
volting, debasing absurdities of some established creed, but the doctrines of Jesus Christ,
we may give them  consolations and hopes to
be most intimately felt, new views of their
nature, new motives and principles. It is on
the diffusion of this sort of instruction among
all classes, that the prospects of society now
depend.  Changes are coming fast upon the
world.  In the violent struggle of opposite
interests, the decaying prejudices that have
bound men together in the old forms of society are snapping asunder one after another.
Must we look forward to a hopeless succession of evils, in which exasperated parties
will be alternately victors and victims, till all
sink under some one power whose interest it
is to preserve a quiet despotism  Who can
hope for a better result, unless the great lesson be learned, that there can be no essential
improvement in the condition of society without the improvement of men as moral and
religious beings; and that this can be effected
only by religious TRUTH. To expect this
improvement from  any form of false religion,
because it is called religion, is as if, in administering to one in a fever, we were to take
some drug from an apothecary's shelves, satisfied with its being called medicine.




PREFACE.              25
That a people may be happy in the enjoyment of civil liberty, a certain degree of knowledge and culture must be spread through the
community. A general system of education
must be established. Self-restraint must supply the place of external coercion. The legitimate purpose of government is to guard the
rights of individuals and the community from
injury; and the best form of government is
that which effects this purpose with the least
power, and is least likely therefore to afford
the means of misrule and oppression.  But
the power not conceded to the government
must be supplied by the force of moral principle and sentiment in the governed. What
education, then, is required; what knowledge
is to be communicated; what culture is necessary? I answer, not alone, nor principally,
that education which the schoolmaster may
give; but moral culture, the knowledge of
our true interests and relations. There may
be much intellectual culture which will not
tend even indirectly to form men to the ready
practice of their duties, or to bind them together in mutual sympathy and forbearance,
unless it be united with just conceptions of
our nature and the objects of action. Let us
form in fancy a nation of mathematicians like




26                PREFACE.
La Place or La Lande, ostentatious of their
atheism; naturalists as irreligious and impure
as Buffon; artists as accomplished as David,
the friend of Robespierre; philosophers, like
Hobbes and Mandeville, Helvetius and Diderot; men of genius, like Byron, Goethe, and
Voltaire; orators as powerful and profligate
as Mirabeau; and having placed over them a
monarch as able and unprincipled as the second Frederic of Prussia, let us consider what
would be the condition of this highly intellectual community, and how many generations
might pass before it were laid waste by gross
sensuality and ferocious passions.  So far
only as men are impressed with a sense of
their relations to each other, to God, and to
eternity, are they capable of liberty and the
blessings of social order.  The great truths
that most concern us are those on which our
characters must be formed.  But religion is
the science that treats of the relations of man
as a responsible, immortal being, the creature
of God. By teaching the truth concerning
them, religion, properly so called, discloses to
us the ends of our being, preparing men, by
virtue and happiness here, for eternal progress in virtue and happiness hereafter. So
far as what bears the name of religion teaches




PREFACE.               27
falsehoods concerning them, it becomes the
ally of evil, counteracting the improvement
of our race. False religion has been the common sign, and often the most efficient cause,
of the corruption and misery of nations. All
great changes in the constitution of society for
the purpose of delivering men from traditionary abuses, must be accompanied with a correspondent advance in religious knowledge, or
they will be made in vain; Where the principles of Christianity-are operative, there only
can men be released from the strong control
of some superior power; which, however
profligately exercised, may find its own interest in preserving quiet among its subjects.
True Christianity urges the performance of
the duties of man to man, by the noblest and
most effectual motives; and in a community
where its influence were generally felt, how
little would there be to apprehend from public oppression or private wrong.  Where the
spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. I apply
the words of the Apostle in a different sense
from that in which he used them; but in one,
the truth of which he would have recognized.
In regarding the condition and changes of
societies and nations, we are apt to look
rather to the immediate occasions of events,
7*




28               PREFACE.
than to their radical and efficient causes. A
mere worldly politician, for instance, might
think it scarcely worth consideration, that the
established  church  should impose a creed
which a majority of its clergy do not believe;
or that oaths, not meant to be regarded, but
enforced as a traditionary ceremony, and subscriptions, to which the conscience can hardly
be cheated into assenting, should stand in the
path of advancement in church and state. To
a philosopher it may appear of far greater
moment. Othea topics, more exciting to the
generality, he might deem of secondary importance.  This he might view as a deep-seated
evil, working at the core, the natural progress
of which would leave but a false and hollow
show of religion and morals.  Who is there
that will deny the influence of true religion to
promote the happiness of individuals and the
good order of society   Who is there that
will deny the mischiefs of superstition, false
notions of God and our duty, bigotry, and
what is produced as their counterpart, irreligion and atheism?  Why is it, then, that
many are so little solicitous to discriminate,
on this most important subject, truth from
falsehood, that they fancy they are giving
their countenance to the former, while sup



PREFACE.               29
porting the latter; and that, if they aid the
cause of what is called religion, they do not
stop to inquire whether it be the religion that
exalts, or the religion that degrades?
In the present state of information and public sentiment, it will be vain to attempt to give
authority to false religion. The zeal of partisans, or the power of the state, will be equally
ineffectual. The only important consequence
of such attempts will be to disgust men with all
religion. The experiment has, in one instance,
been carried through. In France the forcing
of the Roman Catholic faith upon the nation
ended in the overthrow of all belief in Christianity. The consequences that ensued had
the effect, elsewhere, of frightening infidels
into hypocrites and bigots; and a sudden
show of religion followed the French Revolution. But from this, had it continued, as little
was to be hoped, as from a procession with relics and images going forth to stop a stream
of lava in its course.  It is only to true religion that we must look for aid in the cause of
human happiness. This alone, being in accordance with reason and with our natural sentiments, will find its way to the hearts of men.
THE tract which follows in relation to some




30               PREFACE.
of those false doctrines that have prevailed,
though it will give no new conviction to the
great body of enlightened men, may perhaps
awaken the attention of some to the grossness
of those corruptions that have been connected
with Christianity, and to the necessity of presenting it in a purer form, if its influence is to
be preserved. It may tend a little to swell the
flood of public sentiment by which they must
be. swept away. It may perhaps serve to convince some who have looked with offence upon
the absurdities taught as Christian doctrines,
and mistaken them for such, that one may be
a very earnest believer, whose respect for such
doctrines is as little as their own. But, especially, it may serve to spread a knowledge of
the truth among those who, from their habits of
life, have wanted leisure to think and examine
for themselves upon subjects of this nature;
and who are obliged, as all of us are in a
greater or less degree, to take many opinions
upon authority, till they see reason to distrust
the authority on which they have relied. In
addressing myself'to such readers, I may take
the credit (it is but small) of having avoided a
fault common in theological writings intended
for popular use. I have not presumed upon
their ignorance of the subject; I have not




PREFACE.               31
made statements which in a more learned
discussion I should be ashamed to urge; I
have given no explanations that I knew to be
unsatisfactory, because they might seem plausible; I have made no propositions which I do
not fully believe; I have urged no arguments
but what have brought conviction to my own
mind; I have written as one who, being fully
persuaded himself, and regarding his subject
as free from all doubt and difficulty, is satisfied that nothing more is to be done than to
explain to others in intelligible language the
views which are present to his own mind.
I have given one reason why it is little to
my taste to discuss this doctrine of the Trinity. Whoever treats of the subject is liable
to be confounded with a class of writers with
whom an intelligent Christian would not willingly be thought to have anything in common. By many who look with indifference
on the whole discussion, he who contends for
the truth will be placed on a level with those
who defend error. Others will think that he
is agitating questions which' might better be
left at rest; and those who hold the traditionary belief will regard him as a disturber of the
Christian community. It may, however, be a
consolation to him to remember, that even Soc



32                PREFACE.
rates - the great opposer of the sophists and
false teachers of his day —was called XaXos
iKa /3ato9, prating and turbulent,* and that the
very same epithets, by a singular coincidence,
were applied to Locke,t the most enlightened
theologian of his age and nation. The feeling,
however, naturally arising from the causes I
have mentioned, might prevent one from engaging in this controversy, were it not for the
deep sense which a sincere Christian must have
of the value of true Christianity, and of the
necessity of redeeming it from  the imputations to which it has been exposed. "' Love,'
says one of our old poets,' esteems no office
mean,' and, with still more spirit,' Entire affection scorneth nicer hands.'" +
But there are other causes which make this
an unpleasant subject. It presents human nature under the most humiliating aspect. The
absurdities that have been maintained are so
gross, the zeal in maintaining them has been
so ferocious, there is such an absence of any
redeeming quality in the spectacle presented,
that it spreads a temporary gloom  over our
whole view  of the character and destiny of
* V. Plutarch. in Catone. [Cat. Maj. c. 23.]
t By Wood, in his " Athenae Oxonienses."
t These quotations from Spenser have thus been brought together
by Burke.




PREFACE.               33
man. We seem ourselves to sink in the scale
of being, and it demands an effort to recollect
the glorious powers with which God has endued our race. While inquiring concerning
the truths of religion, we appear to have descended to some obscure region where folly
and prejudice are the sole rulers. We may
remember, with a feeling of painful oppression,
the mortifying language of Hume, in one of
those tracts in which he speculates as coldly
upon the nature and hopes of mankind as if
he were a being of another sphere, bound to
us by no common sympathies.  " All popular
theology, especially the scholastic, has a kind
of appetite for absurdity and contradiction. If
that theology went not beyond reason and
common sense, her doctrines would appear
too easy and familiar. Amazement must of
necessity be raised; mystery affected; darkness and obscurity sought after; and a foundation of merit afforded to the devout votaries,
who desire an opportunity of subduing their
rebellious reason by the belief of the most unintelligible sophisms." " To oppose the torrent
of scholastic religion by such feeble maxims as
these, that it is impossible for the same thing to
be and not 4to be, that the whole is greater than a
part, that two and three make five, is pretend



34               PREFACE.
ing to stop the ocean with a bulrush." *  And
is this all that mankind have to hope?  Must
this dreary prospect for ever lie before us? Is
this all that religion has been, and all that it
is to be?  We trust not.  Still, in the confutation of such doctrines as have been taught,
the triumph, if it may be so called, is humbling.  It is a triumph over our common
nature reduced to imbecility.  We discover
not how  strong human reason is, but how
weak. That it can confute them implies no
power; that it has been enslaved in their
service makes us feel, almost with apprehension, how far it may be debased. But the
hold which the doctrines of false religion have
had upon the hearts of men has never been
proportioned to the extent in which they
have been professed. The truths of Christianity have maintained a constant struggle
with the opposite errors that have been connected with them.  At the present time there
are many who acquiesce in these errors, and
who even regard them with traditionary respect,
in whose minds they lie inert and harmless.
But the very circumstance last mentioned
adds to the unpleasant character of the discussion that follows. Every one in his writ* [Natural History of Religion, Sect. XI.]




PREFACE.               35
ings sometimes turns his thoughts to those
individuals whose approbation would give
him most pleasure, and whose good opinion
he would most desire to confirm.  Among
those to whom my thoughts recur, there are
friends from whom I can hope for no sympathy in my present task. A difference of opinion upon this or any other subject cannot
lessen my respect or love for them; and
should the present work chance to fall in
their way, I could almost wish to know, that
this were the only paragraph that had fixed
their attention. I beg them to believe that I
am no zealot, no partisan of a sect, no disturber of social intercourse by a spirit of
proselytism; and that where I see the fruits
of true religion, I have no wish to conform
the faith from  which they proceed to the
standard of my own.  The same opinions,
true or false, may be held in a very different
temper, with very different associations, and
with very different effects upon character.
The doctrines most pernicious in their general results may be innoxious in many particular cases. The same system of faith which
established its autos de fe in Spain, numbering its victims by tens of thousands, and sinking that country to the lowest debasement,
8




36               PREFACE.
may have been consistent in Fenelon with
every virtue under heaven.
I have but a few words more to say in this
connection.  The tract that follows relates
only to one class of those false doctrines that
have been represented as doctrines of Christianity. There are others equally or more
important.  To re-establish true Christianity
must be a work of long and patient toil, to be
effected far more by the general diffusion of
religious knowledge, than by direct controversy. The views and results to which a few
intelligent scholars may have arrived, must be
made the common property of the community.
Essential and inveterate errors present themselves in every department of Christian theology. False religion has thrown its veil over
the character, and perverted the meaning, of
the books of the Old and New Testament.
Of the immense mass of volumes concerning
revealed religion, there is but a scanty number in which some erroneous system does not
form the basis of what is taught. In many
of the most important branches of inquiry, a
common Christian can find no trustworthy
and sufficient guide.  Of the multitude of
topics more immediately connected with Christianity, there is scarcely one which does not




PREFACE.               37
require to be examined anew from its foundation, and discussed in a manner very different
from  what it has been.  Religion must be
taken, I will not say out of the hands of
priests, —that race is passing away,-but
out of the hands of divines, such as the generality of divines have been; and its exposition and defence must become the study of
philosophers, as being the highest philosophy.
Some degree of attention to the fact is necessary, to be aware of the general and gross ignorance that exists concerning almost every
subject connected with our faith.  But they
who would communicate the instruction which
is so much needed, must expect to be continually impeded and resisted by prejudice
and misapprehension.  Let them, however,
understand their task and qualify themselves
for it. In the present state of opinion in the
world, it is evident that he is assuming a responsibility for which he is wholly unfit, who
comes forward as a teacher or defender of
Christianity, without having prepared himself
by serious thought and patient study.  The
traditionary believer, if he have taken this responsibility upon himself, should stop in his
course, till he has ascertained whether he is
doing good or evil.  A conflict between re



38                PREFACE.
ligion and irreligion has begun, which may
not soon be ended; and in this conflict, Christianity must look for aid, not to zealots, but
to scholars and philosophers. Our age is not
one in which there can be an esoteric doctrine
for the intelligent, and an exoteric for the uninformed.  The public profession of systems
of faith by Christian nations and churches,
which are not the faith of the more enlightened classes of society, has produced a state
of things that, it would seem, cannot long
continue. We may hope that in Protestant
countries its result will not be, as it was in
France, general infidelity.  We may hope
that it will not end in a mere struggle between fanaticism and irreligion, as seems to
be the tendency of things in some parts of
our own country.  But these results can be
prevented only by awakening men's minds to
inquire, What Christianity is?  How far it
has been misrepresented? What are its evidences?  What is its value?  And what is
to be done to remove those errors which now
deprive it of its power?
[Cambridge, 1833.]




A
STATEMENT OF REASONS.
SECTION I.
PURPOSE OF THIS WORK.
I PROPOSE, in what follows, to give a view of the
doctrines of Trinitarians respecting'the nature of
God and the person of Christ; to state the reasons
for not believing those doctrines; and to show in
what manner the passages of Scripture urged in
their support ought to be regarded.
8*




SECTION  II.
THE PROPER MODERN DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY CONTRADICTORY IN TERMS TO THAT OF THE UNITY OF GOD.FORMS IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN STATED,
WITH REMARKS.- THE DOCTRINE THAT CHRIST IS BOTH
GOD AND MAN, A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.- NO PRETENCE THAT EITHER DOCTRINE IS EXPRESSLY TAUGHT
IN THE SCRIPTURES. -THE MODE OF THEIR SUPPOSED
PROOF WHOLLY BY WAY OF INFERENCE.
THE proper modern doctrine of the Trinity, as it
appears in the creeds of latter times, is, that there
are three persons in the Divinity, who equally possess all divine attributes; and the doctrine is connected with an explicit statement that there is but
one God. Now, this doctrine is to be rejected,
because, taken in connection with that of the
unity of God, it is essentially incredible; one
which no man, who has compared the two doctrines together with right conceptions of both, ever
did or ever could believe.  Three persons, each
equally  possessing  divine attributes, are three
Gods. A person is a being. No one who has
any correct notion of the meaning of words will
deny this. And the being who possesses divine
attributes must be God or a God. The doctrine
of the Trinity, then, affirms that there are three
Gods. It is affirmed at the same time, that there




MODERN DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.    41
is but one God.  But no one can believe that
there are three Gods, and that there is but one
God.
This statement is as plain and obvious as any
which can be made.  But it is not the less forcible
because it is perfectly plain and obvious. Some
Trinitarians  have  indeed  remonstrated  against
charging those who hold the doctrine with the
" ABSURDITIES consequent upon the language of
their creed "; * and  have asserted  that in this
creed the word person is not used in its proper
sense.  I do not answer to this, that, if men will
talk absurdity, and insist that they are teaching
truths of infinite importance, it is unreasonable
for them to expect to be understood as meaning
something wholly different from what their words
express.  The true answer is, that these complaints are unfounded; and that the proper doctrine of the Trinity, as it has existed in latter
times, is that which is expressed by the language
used taken in its obvious sense. By person, says
Waterland, than whom  no writer in defence of
the Trinity has a higher reputation, " I certainly
mean a real Person, an Hypostasis, no Mode, Attribute, or Property...... Each divine Person is
an individual, intelligent Agent; but as subsisting
in one undivided substance, they are all together,
in  that respect, but one undivided  intelligent
Agent..... The church  never professed  three
Hypbstases in any other sense, but as they mean
* The words quoted are from Professor Stuart's Letters to the
Rev. W. E. Channing, p. 23, 2d ed.




42    ANCIENT DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
three Persons."' There is, indeed, no reasonable
pretence for saying, that the great body of Trinitarians, when they have used the word person,
have not meant to express proper personality. He
who asserts the contrary, asserts a mere extravagance. He closes his eyes upon an obvious fact,
and then affirms what he may fancy ought to have
been, instead of what there is no doubt really has
been maintained.. But on this subject there is
something more to be said; and I shall remark
particularly, not only upon this, but upon the
other evasions which have been resorted to, in
order to escape the force of the statement which
has just been urged
I WISH, however, first to observe, that the ancient
opinions concerning the Trinity, before the Council
of Nice (A. D. 325), were VERY DIFFERENT from the
modern doctrine, and had this great advantage over
it, that, when viewed simply in connection with the
unity of God, they were not essentially incredible.
According to that form of faith which approached
nearest to the modern Orthodox doctrine, the Father alone was the Supreme God, and the Son and
Spirit were beings'deriving their existence from
him, and far inferior, to whom the title of God
could be properly applied only in an inferior sense.
The subject has been so thoroughly examined, that
the correctness of this statement will not, I think,
be questioned, at the present day, by any respect* Vindication of Christ's Divinity, pp. 350,351, 3d ed.




ANCIENT DOCTRINE  OF THE  TRINITY.                43
able writer. The theological student, who wishes
to see in a small compass the authorities on which
it is founded, may consult one or more of the works
mentioned in the note below.* I have stated that
form of the doctrine which approached nearest to
modern Orthodoxy.  But the subject of the personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit, it may be observed, was in a very unsettled state before the
Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381).  Gregory
Nazianzen, in his Eulogy of Athanasius, has the
following passage, respecting that great father of
Trinitarian Orthodoxy.  "For when all others who
held our doctrine were divided into three classes,
the  faith  of many being  unsound  respecting  the
Son, that of still more concerning the Holy Spirit
(on  which   subject  to  be  least  impious  was
thought to be piety), and a small number being
sound in both respects; he first and alone, or with
a very few, had the courage to profess in writing,
clearly and explicitly, the true doctrine of the one
* Petavii Dogmata Theologica, Tom. II. De Trinitate; particularly Lib. I. cc. 3, 4, 5.- Huetii Origeniana [appended to Tom.
IV. of De la Rue's edition of Origen], Lib. II. Qumest. 2.Jackson's edition of Novatian, with his annotations. - Whitby,'Disquisitiones Modeste in Cl. Bulli Defensionem Fidei Nicaenae.Whiston's Primitive Christianity, Vol. IV. - Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. - Priestley's History of Early Opinions, Vol. II.
-Miunscher's Dogmengeschichte, I. ~~ 85 - 111.- [Martini, Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte des Dogma von der Gottheit
Christi in den vier ersten Jahrhunderten. - Christian Examiner, Jan.
1830, Vol. VII. p. 303, seqq.; Sept. 1831, Vol. XI. p. 22, seqq.;
July, 1832, Vol. XII. p. 298, seqq.; and July, 1836, Vol. XX. p. 343,
seqq. The articles referred to were written by the Rev. Alvan Lamson, D. D.]




44          MODIFICATIONS OF THE
Godhead and nature of the three persons. Thus
that truth, a knowledge of which, as far as regards
the Son, had been vouchsafed to most of the Fathers before, he was fully inspired to maintain in
respect to the Holy Spirit." 
So much for the original doctrine of the Trinity.
I shall now proceed to state the different forms
which the modern doctrine has been made to assume, and in which its language has been explained, by those who have attempted to conceal
or remove the direct opposition between this and
the doctrine of the unity of God.
I. MANY Trinitarian writers have maintained a
modification of the doctrine, in some respects sitnilar to what has just been stated to be its most ancient form. They have considered the Father as
the " fountain of divinity," whose existence alone is
underived, and have regarded the Son and Spirit
as deriving their existence from him and subordinate to him; but, at the same time, as equally
with the Father possessing all divine attributes.
Every well-informed Trinitarian has at least heard
of the Orthodoxy and learning of Bishop Bull. His
Defence of the Nicene Creed is the standard work
as regards the argument in support of the doctrine
of the Trinity from Ecclesiastical History. But
one whole division of this famous book is employed in maintaining the subordination of the
Son. "No one can doubt," he says, "that the
* Orat. XXI. Opp. I. 394.




DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.          45
Fathers who lived before the Nicene Council
acknowledged this subordination. It remains to
show that the Fathers who wrote after this Council taught the same doctrine."* Having given
various quotations from different writers to this
effect, he proceeds: "The ancients, as they regarded the Father as the beginning, cause, author,
fountain, of the Son, have not feared to call Him
the one and only God. For thus the Nicene Fathers themselves begin their creed: We believe in
one God, the Father omnipotent; afterwards subjoining: and in one [Lord] Jesus Christ, -  God of
God. And the great Athanasius himself concedes,
that the Father is justly called the only God, because he alone is without origin, and is alone the
fountain of divinity." t Bishop Bull next proceeds
to maintain as the catholic doctrine, that though
the Son is equal to the Father in nature and every
essential perfection, yet the Father is greater than
the Son even as regards his divinity; because the
Father is the origin of the Son; the Son being
from  the Father, and not the Father from the
Son. Upon this foundation, he appears to think
that the doctrine of the divine unity may be preserved inviolate, though at the same time he contends that the Son, as a real person, distinct from
the Father, is equally God, possessing equally all
divine perfections, the only difference being that
the perfections as they exist in the Son are derived, and as they exist in the Father are underived.
* Defensio Fidei Nicene, Sect. IV. c. 1. ~ 3.  t Ibid., ~ 6.




46          MODIFICATIONS OF THE
The same likewise, according to him, is true of the
Spirit.*
But in regard to all such accounts of the doctrine, it is an obvious remark, that the existence
of the Son, and of the Spirit, is either necessary,
or it is not. If their existence be necessary, we have
then three beings necessarily existing, each possessing divine attributes; and consequently we have
three Gods. If it be not necessary, but dependent
on the will of the Father, then we say, that the
distance is infinite between underived and independent existence, and derived and dependent; between the supremacy of God, the Father, and the
subordination of beings who exist only through his
will. In the latter view of the doctrine, therefore,
we clearly have but one God; but at the same
time the modern doctrine of the Trinity disappears. The form  of statement too, just mentioned, must be abandoned; for it can hardly be
pretended that these derived and dependent beings
possess an equality in divine attributes, or are
equal in nature to the Father. Beings whose
existence is dependent on the will of another
cannot be equal in power to the being on whom
they depend. The doctrine, therefore, however
disguised by the mode of statement which we are
considering, must, in fact, resolve itself into an
assertion of three Gods; or must, on the other
hand, amount to nothing more than a form of
Unitarianism. In the latter case, however objec* Ibid., Sect. IV. cc. 2- 4.




DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.         47
tionable and unfounded I may think it, it is not my
present purpose to argue directly against it; and
in the former case, it is pressed with all the difficulties which bear upon the doctrine as commonly
stated, and at the same time with new difficulties,
which affect this particular form  of statement.
That the Son and the Spirit should exist necessarily, as well as the Father, and possess equally
with the Father all divine attributes, and yet be
subordinate and inferior to the Father, — or, in
other words, that there should be two beings or
persons, each of whom is properly and in the highest sense God, and yet that these two beings or
persons should be subordinate and inferior to another being or person, who is God, - is as incredible a proposition as the doctrine can involve.
II. OTHERS again, who have chosen to call
themselves. Trinitarians, profess to understand by
the word person something very different from
what it commonly expresses; and regard it as
denoting neither any proper personality, nor any
real distinction, in the divine nature. They use
the word in a sense equivalent to that which the
Latin word persona commonly has in classic
writers, and which we may express by the word
character.  According to them, the Deity considered as existing in three different persons is the
Deity considered as sustaining three different characters. Thus some of them regard the three persons
as denoting the three relations which he bears to
men, as their Creator (the Father), their Redeemer
9




48          MODIFICATIONS OF THE
(the Son), and their Sanctifier (the Holy Spirit).
Others found the distinction maintained in the
doctrine on three attributes of God, as his goodness, wisdom, and power. Those who explain the
Trinity in this manner are called modal or nominal
Trinitarians. Their doctrine, as every one must
perceive, is nothing more than simple Unitarianism, disguised, if.it may be said to be disguised,
by a very improper use of language. Yet this doctrine, or rather a heterogeneous mixture of opinions
in which this doctrine is conspicuous, has been, at
times, considerably prevalent, and has almost come
in competition with the proper doctrine.
III. THERE are others, who maintain, with those
last mentioned, that, in the terms employed in
stating the doctrine of the Trinity, the word person is not to be taken in its usual sense; but who
differ from them, in maintaining that those terms
ought to be understood as affirming a real threefold distinction in the Godhead. But this is nothing more than a mere evasion, introduced into the
general statement of the doctrine for the purpose
of rescuing it from the charge of absurdity, to
which those who thus explain it allow that it
would be liable, if the language in which it is
usually. expressed were to be understood in its
common acceptation. They themselves, however,
after giving this general statement, immediately
relapse into the common belief. When they speak
particularly of the Father, the Son, or the Spirit,
they speak of each unequivocally as a person in




DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.       49
the proper sense of the word. They ascribe to
them personal attributes. They speak of each as
sustaining personal relations peculiar to himself,
and performing personal actions, distinct from
those of either of the others. It was the Son
who was sanctified and sent into the world; and
the Father by whom he was sanctified and sent.
It was the Son who became incarnate, and not
the Father. It was the Son who made atonement for the sins of men, and the Father by whom
the atonement was received. The Son was in
the bosom of the Father, but the Father was not
in the bosom of the Son. The Son was the Logos
who was with God, but it would sound harsh to
say that the Father was with God. The Son
was the first-born of every creature, the image of
the Invisible God, and did not desire to retain his
equality with God. There is no one who would
not be shocked at the thought of applying this
language to the Father. Again, it was the Holy
Spirit who was sent as the "Comforter" to our
Lord's Apostles, after his ascension, and not the
Father nor the Son. All this, those who assert the
doctrine of three distinctions, but not of three persons, in the divine nature, must and do say and
allow; and therefore they do in fact maintain, with
other Trinitarians, that there are three divine persons, in the proper sense of the word, distinguished
from each other. They have adopted their mode
of stating the doctrine merely with a view of avoiding those obvious objections which overwhelm it
as commonly expressed; without any regard to its




50          MODIFICATIONS OF THE
consistency with their real opinions, or with indisputable and acknowledged truths. The God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is an intelligent
being, a person.  There may seem something like
irreverence in the very statement of this truth; but
in reasoning respecting the doctrine of the Trinity,
we are obliged to state even such truths as this.
The Son of God is an intelligent being, a person.
And no Christian, one would think, who reflects a
moment upon his own belief, can doubt that these
two persons are not the same. Neither of them,
therefore, is a mere distinction of the divine nature,
nor the same intelligent being regarded under different distinctions. Let us consider for a moment
what sort of meaning would be forced upon the
language of Scripture, if, where the Father and the
Son of God are mentioned, we were to substitute
the terms, "the first distinction in the Trinity," and
"the second distinction in the Trinity"; or, "God
considered in the first distinction of his nature,"
and " God considered in the second distinction of
his nature." I will not produce examples, because
it would appear to me like turning the Scriptures
into burlesque.
If you prove that the person who is called the
Son of God possesses divine attributes, you prove
that there is another divine person beside the Father. In order to complete the Trinity, you must
proceed to prove, first, THE PERSONALITY, and then
the divinity, of the Holy Spirit. This is the only
way in which the doctrine can be established. No
one can pretend that there is any passage in the




DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.         51
Scriptures, in which it is expressly taught, that
there is a threefold distinction of any sort in the
divine nature. He who proves the doctrine of the
Trinity from the Scriptures, must do it by showing that there are three persons, the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are respectively
mentioned in the Scriptures as each possessing
divine attributes.  There is no other medium of
proof. There is no other way in which the doctrine can be established. Of course, it is the very
method of proof to which, in common with other
Trinitarians, those resort, who maintain that form
of stating the doctrine which we are considering.
It follows from this, that their real opinions must
be in fact the same with those of other Trinitarians. Indeed, the whole statement appears to be
little more than a mere oversight, a mistake, into
which some have fallen in their haste to escape
from  the objections which they have perceived
might be urged against the common form of the
doctrine.
The remarks that have been made appear to me
plain, and such as may be easily understood by
every reader. I have doubted, therefore, whether
to add another, the force of which may not be at
once perceived, except by those who are a little
familiar with metaphysical studies.  But as it
seems to  show  decisively, that the statement
which we are considering is untenable by any
proper Trinitarian, I have thought, on the whole,
that it might be worth while to subjoin it.
In regard to the personality of the divine nature,
9*




52          MODIFICATIONS OF TIlE
the only question is, whether there are three persons, or but one person. Those with whom we
are arguing deny that there are three persons.
Consequently they must maintain that there is
but one person. They affirm, however, that there
is a threefold distinction in the divine nature; that
is, in the nature of this one person. But of the
nature of any being, we can know nothing but by
the attributes or properties of that being. Abstract all the attributes or properties of any being,
and nothing remains of which you can form even
an imagination. These are all that is cognizable
by the human mind. When you say, therefore,
that there is a threefold distinction in the nature
of any being, the only meaning which the words
will admit (in relation to the present subject) is,
that the attributes or properties of this being may
be divided into three distinct classes, which may
be considered separately from  each other.  All,
therefore, which is affirmed by the statement of
those whom we are opposing is, that the attributes
of that ONE PERSON who is God may be divided
into three distinct classes; or, in other words, that
God may be viewed in three different aspects in
relation to his attributes. But this is nothing more
than a modal or nominal Trinity, as we have before
explained these terms.  Those, therefore, whose
opinions we are now  considering, are, in fact,
nominal Trinitarians in their statement of the doctrine, and real Trinitarians in their belief. They
hold the proper doctrine, with an implicit acknowledgment in the very statement which they have




DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.           53
adopted, that the proper doctrine is untenable;
and have involved themselves, therefore, in new
difficulties, without having effected an escape from
those with which they were pressed before.
IV. BUT a very considerable portion of Trinitarians, and some of them  among the most eminent, have not shrunk from understanding the doctrine as affirming the existence of three equal divine
minds, and consequently, to all common apprehension, of three Gods; and from decidedly rejecting
the doctrine of the unity of God, in that sense
which is at once the popular and the philosophical
sense of the term. All the unity for which they
contend is only such as may result from  those
three divinities being'inseparably conjoined, and
having a mutual consciousness, or a mutual inbeing: which last mode of existence is again expressed in the language of technical theology by
the terms perichoresis and circumincession.  " To
say," says Dr. William  Sherlock, " they are three
divine persons, and not three distinct infinite minds,
is both heresy and nonsense."* "' The distinction
of persons cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men;
for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as really distinct persons as Peter, James, and John." t  "We
must allow the Divine persons to be real, substantial beings." t There are few names of higher authority among Calvinists than that of Howe. The
* Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 66. London, 1690.
t Ibid., p. 105.           t Ibid., p. 47.




54           MODIFICATIONS OF THE
mode of explaining the doctrine to which he was
inclined is well known.  He was disposed to regard the three divine persons as "three distinct,
individual, necessarily existent, spiritual beings,"
who formed together "the most delicious society." 
Those who give such accounts of the doctrine may
at least claim the merit of having rendered their
opinions in some degree consistent with each other.
They have succeeded, at a dear purchase to be
sure, in freeing their creed from intrinsic absurdity,
and have produced a doctrine to which there is no
decisive objection, except that it contradicts the
most explicit declarations of the Scriptures, and
the first principles of natural religion; and is, therefore, irreconcilable with all that God has in any
way taught us of himself.
After the Council of Nice, that which we have
last considered became gradually the prevailing
form of the doctrine, except that it was not very
clearly settled in what the divine unity consisted.
The comparison of the three persons in the Trinity
to three different men was borrowed by Sherlock
from the Fathers of the fourth century.' Gregory
Nazianzen, who himself maintained zealously this
form of Orthodoxy, says that " those who were too
Orthodox fell into polytheism," t i. e. tritheism. It
might have been difficult to determine the precise
distance from tritheism of those who were not too
Orthodox.
* Howe's Calm Discourse of the Trinity in the Godhead. Works,
Vol. II. p. 537, seqq., particularly pp. 549, 550.
t Orat. I. Opp. I. 16.




DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.          55
THIS, then, is the state of the case. The proper
modern doctrine of the Trinity is, when viewed in
connection with that of the unity of God, a doctrine essentially incredible. In endeavoring to present it in a form in which it may be defended, one
class of Trinitarians insist strongly upon the supremacy of the Father, and the subordination of
the Son and the Spirit. These, on the one hand,
must either affirm this distinction in such a manner as really to maintain only a very untenable
form of Unitarianism; or, on the other hand, must
in fact retain the common doctrine, encumbered
with the new and peculiar difficulty which results
from  declaring that the Son and Spirit are each
properly God, but that each is a subordinate God.
Another class, the nominal Trinitarians, explain
away the doctrine entirely, and leave us nothing
in their general account of it with which to contend, but a very unjustifiable use of language. A
third class, those who maintain three distinctions,
and deny three persons, have merely put a forced
meaning upon the terms used in its statement;
and have then gone on to reason and to write, in
a manner which necessarily supposes that thoseterms are used correctly, and that the common
form of the doctrine, which they profess to reject,
is really that in which they themselves receive it.
And afourth class have fallen into plain and bald
tritheism, maintaining the unity of God only by
maintaining that the three Gods of whom  they
speak are inseparably and most intimately united.
To these we may add, as a fifth class, those who




56      MODIFICATIONS OF THE TRINITY.
receive, or profess to receive, the common doctrine,
without any attempt to modify, explain, or understand it. All the sects of Trinitarians fall into one
or other of the five classes just mentioned. Now
we may put the nominal Trinitarians out of the
question. They have nothing to do with the present controversy. And if there be any, who, calling
themselves Trinitarians, do in fact hold such a subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, that
their doctrine amounts only to one form of Unitarianism, we may put these out of the question
likewise. After having done this, it will appear
from the preceding remarks that the whole body
of real Trinitarians may be separated into two
great divisions; namely, those who, in connection
with the divine unity, hold the proper doctrine,
either with or without certain modifications, —
which modifications, though intended to lessen,
would really, if possible, add to its incredibility;
and those who, maintaining the unity only in
name, are in fact proper believers in three Gods.
Now we cannot adopt the doctrine of those first
mentioned, because we cannot believe what appears to us a contradiction in terms; nor the doctrine of those last mentioned, because neither revelation nor reason teaches us that there are three
Gods. If there be any one who does not acquiesce in the conclusion to which we have arrived,
I beg him to read over again what precedes, and
to satisfy himself, either that there is, or that there
is not, some error in the statements and reasonings. The subject is not one with which we are




IYPOSTATIC UNION.             57
at lberty to trifle, and arbitrarily assume opinions
without reason. It behooves every one to attend
well to the subject; and to be sure that he holds
the doctrine with no ambiguous or unsteady faith,
before he undertakes to maintain, or professes to
believe it, or in any way gives countenance to its
reception among Christians.
WITH the doctrine of the Trinity is connected
that of the HYPOSTATIC UNION, as it is called, or
the doctrine of the union of the divine and human
natures in Christ, in such a manner that these two
natures constitute but one person.  But this doctrine may be almost said to have pre-eminence in
incredibility above that of the Trinity itself. The
latter can be no object of belief when regarded in
connection with that of the Divine Unity; for
these two doctrines directly contradict each other.
But the former, without reference to any other
doctrine, does in itself involve propositions as
clearly self-contradictory as any which it is in the
power of language to express.  It teaches that
Christ is both God and man. * The proposition is
very plain and intelligible.  The words God and
man are among those which are in most common
use, and the meaning of which is best defined and
understood. There cannot (as with regard to the
terms employed in stating the doctrine of the
Trinity) be any controversy about the sense in
which they are used in this proposition, or, in other
words, about the ideas which they are intended to
express.  And we perceive that these ideas are




58             DOCTRINE OF THE
wholly incompatible with each other.  Our idea
of God is of an infinite being; our idea of man is
of a finite being; and we perceive that the same
being cannot be both infinite, and finite. There is
nothing clear in language, no proposition of any
sort can be affirmed to be true, if we cannot affirm
this to be true, —that it is impossible that the
same being should be finite and infinite; or, in
other words, that it is impossible that the same
being should be man and God. ~ If the doctrine
were not familiar to us, we should revolt from it,
as shocking  every feeling of reverence toward
God; and it would appear to us, at the same
time, as mere an absurdity as can be presented to
the understanding.  No words can be more destitute of meaning, so far as they are intended to
convey a proposition which the mind is capable of
admitting, than such language as we sometimes
find used, in which Christ is declared to be at once
the Creator of the universe, and a man of sorrows;
God omniscient and omnipotent, and a feeble man
of imperfect knowledge.*
I know  of no way in which the force of the
statement just urged can appear to be evaded,
except by a sort of analogy that has been instituted between the double nature of Christ, as it
is called, and the complex constitution of man, as
consisting of soul and body. It has been said or
implied, that the doctrine of the union of the
divine and human  natures in Christ does not
* [See Professor Stuart's Letters, p. 48.]




HYPOSTATIC UNION.              59
involve propositions more self-contradictory than
those which result from the complex constitution
of man; — that we may, for instance, affirm  of
man, that he" is mortal, and that he is immortal;
or of a particular individual, that he is dead, and
that he is living (meaning by the latter term, that
he is existing in the world of spirits). The obvious
answer is, that there is NO analogy between these
propositions and  those  on which we have remarked. The proposition's just stated belong to
a very numerous class, comprehending all those in
which the same term is at once affirmed and denied of the same subject, the term being used in
different senses; or in which terms apparently opposite are affirmed of the same subject, the terms
being used in senses not really opposed to each
other. When I say that man is mortal, I mean
that his present life will terminate; when I say
that he is immortal, I mean that his existence
will not terminate.  I use the words in senses
not opposed, and bring together no ideas which
are incompatible with each other.  The second
proposition just mentioned is of the same character with the first, and admits, as every one
will perceive, of a similar explanation. In order
to  constitute an  analogy between  propositions
of this sort and those before stated, Trinitarians  must say, that, when they  affirm  that
Christ is finite and not finite, omniscient and
not omniscient, they  mean  to  use the words
"finite" and  "omniscient" in different senses
in the two parts of each proposition.  But this
10




60             DOCTRINE OF THE
they will not say; nor do the words admit of
more than one sense.
A being of a complex constitution like man is
not a being of a double nature. The very term
double nature, when one professes to use it in a
strict, philosophical sense, implies an absurdity.
The nature of a being is ALL which constitutes
it what it is; and when one speaks of a double
nature, it is the same sort of language as if he
were to speak of a double individuality. With regard to a being of a complex constitution, we may,
undoubtedly, affirm that of a part of this constitution which is not true of the whole being; as
we may affirm of the body of man, that it does
not think, though we cannot affirm this of man;or, on the other hand, we may affirm of the being
itself what is not true of a part of its constitution,
as by reversing the example just given. This is
the whole truth relating to the subject.  Of a
being of a complex constitution, it is as much an
absurdity to affirm contradictory propositions, as
of any other being.
According to those who maintain the doctrine
of the two natures in Christ, Christ speaks of himself, and is spoken of by his Apostles, sometimes
as a man, sometimes as God, and sometimes as
both God and man. He speaks, and is spoken of,
under these different characters indiscriminately,
without any explanation, and without its being
anywhere declared that he existed in these different conditions of being. He prays to that being
whom he himself was. He declares himself to be




HYPOSTATIC UNION.             61
ignorant of what (being God) he knew, and unable
to perform what (being God) he could perform.
He affirms that he could do nothing of himself, or
by his own power, though he was omnipotent.
He, being God, prays for the glory which he had
with God, and declares that another is greater
than himself.* In one of the passages QUOTED IN
PROOF OF HIS DIVINITY, he is called the image of
the invisible God; in another of these passages,
he, the God over all, blessed for ever, is said to
have been anointed by God with the oil of glad;
ness above his fellows; and in a third of them, it
is affirmed that he became obedient to death, even
the death of the cross.t If my readers are shocked
by the combinations which I have brought together, I beg them to do me the justice to believe
that my feelings are the same with their own.
But these combinations necessarily result from the
doctrine which we are considering. Page after
page might be filled with inconsistencies as gross
and as glaring. The doctrine has turned the Scriptures, as far as they relate to this subject, into a
book of riddles, and, what is worse, of riddles admitting of no solution. I willingly refrain from
the use of that stronger language which will occur
to many of my readers.
The doctrine of the Trinity, then, and that of
the union of two natures in Christ, are doctrines
which, when fairly understood, it is impossible,
from the nature of the human mind, should be be* [See John xvii.; Mark xiii. 32; John v. 30; xiv. 28.]
t [Colossians i. 15, seqq.; Hebrews i. 8, 9; Philippians ii. 5-8.]




62        NEITHER DOCTRINE TAUGHT
lieved. They involve manifest contradictions, and
no man can believe what he perceives to be a contradiction. In what has been already said, I have
not been bringing arguments to disprove these
doctrines; I have merely been showing that they
are intrinsically incapable of any proof whatever;
for a contradiction cannot be proved; - that they
are of such a character, that it is impossible to
bring arguments in their support, and unnecessary
to adduce arguments against them.
HERE, then, we might rest. If this proposition
have been established, the controversy is at an end,
as far as it regards the truth of the doctrines, and
as far as it can be carried on against us by any
sect of Christians.  Till it can be shown that there
is some ESSENTIAL mistake in the preceding statements, he who chooses to urge that these doctrines
were taught by Christ and his Apostles must do
this, not as a Christian, but as an unbeliever. If
-Christ and his Apostles communicated a revelation from God, these could make no part of it, for
a revelation from God cannot teach absurdities.
But here I have no intention of resting. If I
were to do so, I suppose that the old, unfounded
complaint would be repeated once more, that
those who reject these doctrines oppose reason to
revelation; for there are men who seem unable to
comprehend the possibility that the doctrines of
their sect may make no part of the Christian revelation. What pretence, then, is there for asserting
that the doctrines in question are taught in the




IN THE SCRIPTURES.            63
Scriptures? Certainly they are nowhere expressly
taught. It cannot even be pretended that they
are. There is not a passage from one end of the
Bible to the other on which one can by any violence force such a meaning as to make it affirm
the proposition, "that there are three persons in
the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in
substance, equal in power and glory"; or the
proposition that Christ "was and continues to be
God and man in two distinct natures and one person for ever."*  There was a famous passage in
the First Epistle of John (v. 7), which was believed
to affirm something like the first-mentioned proposition; but this every man of tolerable learning and
fairness, at the present day, acknowledges to be
spurious. And now this is gone, there is not one
to be discovered of a similar character. THERE IS
NOT A PASSAGE TO BE FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES
WHICH CAN BE IMAGINED TO AFFIRM EITHER OF
THOSE DOCTRINES THAT HAVE- BEEN REPRESENTED AS
BEING AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY.
What pretence, then, is there for saying that
those doctrines were taught by Jesus Christ and
are to be received upon his authority?  What
ground is there for affirming that he, being a man,
announced himself as the infinite God, and taught
his followers also that God exists in three persons?
But I will state a broader question. What pretence is there for saying that those doctrines were
* [Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism, Answers 6 and 21.]
10*




64        REASONING OF TRINITARIANS.
taught by any writer, Jewish or Christian, of any
book of the Old or New Testament?  None whatever;-if, in order to prove that a writer has
taught a doctrine, it be necessary to produce some
passage in which he has affirmed that doctrine.
What mode of reasoning, then, is adopted by
Trinitarians? I answer, that, in the first place,
they bring forward certain passages, which, they
maintain, prove that Christ is God. With these
passages they likewise bring forward some others,
which are supposed to intimate or prove the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit. It cannot
but be observed, however, that, for the most part,
they give themselves comparatively little trouble
about the latter doctrine, and seem to regard it as
following almost as a matter of course, if the former be established. Now there is no dispute that
the Father is God; and it being thus proved that
the Son and Spirit are each also God, it is inferred,
not that there are three Gods, which would be the
proper consequence, but that there are three persons in the Divinity.  But Christ having been
proved to be God, and it being at the same time
regarded by Trinitarians as certain that he was a
man, it is inferred also that he was both God and
man. The stress of the argument, it thus appears,
bears upon the proposition that Christ is God, the
second person in the Trinity.
Turning away our view, then, for the present,
from the absurdities that are involved in this proposition, or with which it is connected, we will proceed to inquire, as if it were capable of proof, what
Christ and his Apostles taught concerning it.




SECTION  III.
THE PROPOSITION, THAT CHRIST IS GOD, PROVED TO BE
FALSE FROM THE SCRIPTURES.
LET us examine the Scriptures in respect to the
fundamental doctrine of Trinitarianism; I mean,
particularly, the Christian Scriptures; for the evidence which they afford will render any consideration of the Old Testament unnecessary.
I. In the first place, then, I conceive, that, putting every other part of Scripture out of view, and
forgetting  all that it teaches, this proposition is
clearly proved to be false by the very passages
which are brought in its support. We have already
had occasion to advert to the character of some of
these passages, and I shall now remark upon them
a little more fully. They are supposed to prove
that Christ is God in the highest sense, equal to
the Father. Let us see what they really prove.
One of them is that in which our Saviour prays:
"And now, Father, glorify thou me with thyself,
with that glory which I had with thee before the
world was." John xvii. 5.
The being who prayed to God to glorify him,
CANNOT be God.
The first verse of John needs particular explanation, and I shall hereafter recur to it. I will here




66   REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
only observe, that if by the term Logos be meant,
as Trinitarians believe, an intelligent being, a person, and this person be Christ, then the person
who was WITH God could not have been God,
except in a metaphorical or secondary acceptation
of the terms, or, as some commentators have supposed, in an inferior sense of the word Oeo' (God),
-it being used not as a proper, but as a common
name.
In John v. 22, it is said, according to the common version, " The Father judgeth no man; but
hath committed all judgment unto  the Son."
" The Father judgeth no man, that is, without
the Son," says a noted Orthodox commentator,
Gill, "which is a proof of their equality." A
proof of their equality! What, is it God to whom
all judgment is committed by the Father?
We proceed to Colossians i. 15, &c., and here
the first words which we find declare, that the
being spoken of is "the image of the Invisible
God."  Is it possible that any one can believe,
that God is affirmed by the Apostle to have been
the image of God?
Turn now  to Philippians ii. 5-8.  Here, according to the modern Trinitarian exposition,* we
are told, that Christ, who was God, as the passage
is brought to prove, did not regard his equality
with God as an object of solicitous desire, but
humbled himself, and submitted to death, even
* [The exposition and translation of Professor Stuart are here
referred to. See his Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 93.]




REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  67
the death of the cross. Can any one imagine,
that he is to prove to us by such passages as
these, that the being to whom they relate is the
Infinite Spirit?
There is no part of the New Testament in which
the language concerning Christ is more figurative
and difficult, than that of the first four verses of
the Epistle to the Hebrews. But do these verses
prove that the writer of the Epistle believed Christ
to be God?  Let us take the common version,
certainly as favorable as any to this supposition,
and consider how the person spoken of is described. He is one appointed by God to be heir
of all things, one by whom God made the worlds,
the image of his person, one who hath sat down at
the right hand of God, one who hath obtained a
more excellent name than the angels. Is it not
wonderful that the person here spoken of has
been believed to be God? And, if the one thing
could be more strange than the other, would it
not be still more wonderful that this passage has
been regarded as a main proof of the doctrine?
Look next at Hebrews i. 8, 9, in which passage we
find these words: "Therefore God, even thy God,
hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above
thy fellows."  Will any one maintain that this
language is used concerning a being who possessed essential divinity? If passages of this sort
are brought by any one to establish the doctrine,
by what use of language, by what possible statements, would he expect it to be disproved?
There are few arguments on which more stress




68  REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
has been laid by Trinitarians, than on the application of the title " Son of God " to Christ. Yet one
who had for the first time heard of the doctrine
would doubt, I think, whether a disputant who
urged this argument were himself unable to understand the meaning of language, or presumed
on the incapacity of those whom  he addressed.
To prove Christ to be God, a title is adduced
which clearly distinguishes him from  God. To
suppose the contrary, is to suppose that Christ is
at once God and the Son of God, that is, his own
son, unless there be more than one God.
I think it evident, that the conclusion of the fifth
verse of the ninth chapter of Romans, and the quotation, Heb. i. 10-12, do not relate to Christ. I
conceive that they relate to God, the Father. Putting these, for the present, out of the question, the
passages on which I have remarked are among the
principal adduced in support of the doctrine. They
stand in the very first class of proof texts. Let
any man put it to his conscience what they do
prove.
Again, it is inferred that Christ is God, because
it is said that he will judge the world. To do this,
it is maintained, requires omniscience, and omniscience is the attribute of divinity alone. I answer,
that, whatever we may think of the judgment of the
world spoken of in the New Testament, St. Paul
declares that God will judge the world by A MAN*
(not a God) whom HE has APPOINTED.
"A man," so the original should be rendered, not " that man":




REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  69
Again, it is argued that Christ is God, because
supreme dominion is ascribed  to  him.  I do not
now inquire what is meant by this supreme dominion; but I answer, that it is nowhere ascribed to him
in stronger language than in the following passage.
" Then will be the end, when he will deliver up the
kingdom to God, even the Father; after destroying all dominion, and all authority and power.
For he must reign till He [that is, God] has put
all his enemies under his feet.......  And when
all things are put under him, then will the Son
himself be subject to  Him   who  put  all things
under him, that God may be all in all." *
No words, one would think, could more clearly
discriminate Christ from God, and declare his dependence and inferiority; and, of necessity, his
infinite inferiority. I say, as I have said before,
infinite inferiority; because an inferior and deev av8apl  O &pLcre. Acts xvii. 31. [Compare Acts x. 42; John v.
22, 27; Rom. ii. 16.]
* 1 Cor. xv. 24 - 28. [Compare Matthew xxviii. 18; Ephesians i.
17-23; Philippians ii. 9-Il; John iii. 35; Acts ii. 36.-As an illustration of the sort of reasoning which we often find in Trinitarian
writings, it may, perhaps, be worth while to mention, that the first
three passages just referred to, or rather fragments of them, are quoted
in a publication of the American Tract Society, as incontrovertible
proofs that Christ is GOD. See Tract No. 214, entitled "More than
One Hundred Scriptural and Incontrovertible Arguments for believing in the Supreme Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ." The 21st of these "Arguments," for example, runs thus:Christ is God, "because it is said he has a name that is above
every name. Phil. ii. 9." The whole verse, of which a few words
are thus quoted, reads: " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him,
and GIVEN him a name which is above every name."  See also
Arg. 1, 40, 72.]




70   REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
pendent must be a finite being, and finite and
infinite do not admit of comparison.
It appears, then, that the doctrine under consideration is overthrown by the very arguments
brought in its support.
II. BUT further; it contradicts the express and reiterated declarations of our Saviour. According to
the doctrine in question, it was THE SON, or the
second person in the Trinity, who was united to
the human nature of Christ. It was HIS words,
therefore, that Christ, as a divine teacher, spoke;
and it was through His power that he performed
his wonderful works. But, this is in direct contradiction to the declarations of Christ. He always refers the divine powers which he exercised,
and the divine knowledge which he discovered,
to the Father, and never to any other person, or to
the Deity considered under any other relation or
distinction. Of himself, AS THE SON, he always
speaks as of a being entirely dependent upon the
Father.
"If of myself I assume glory, my glory is
nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me."
John viii. 54.
" As the Father has life in himself, so HAS HE
GRANTED to the Son also to have life in himself."
John v. 26.
This is a verbal translation. A more intelligible
rendering would be: " As the Father is the source
of life, so has he granted to the Son also to be
the source of life."




REASONING FROM THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  71
"The works which the Father HAS GIVEN ME TO
PERFORM [i.e. has enabled me to perform], the very
works which I am  doing, testify of me, that the
Father has sent me." John v. 36.
" As the living Father has sent me, and I LIVE
BY THE FATHER," &C. John vi. 57.
" I have not spoken from myself; but He who
sent me, the Father himself, has given me in
charge what I should enjoin, and what I should
teach.....  What, therefore, I teach, I teach
as the Father has directed me." John xii. 49, 50.
" The words which you hear are not mine, but
the Father's who sent me." John xiv. 24.
" If I do not the works of my Father, believe me
not." John x. 37.
" The words which I speak to you, I speak not
from myself; and the Father, who dwells in me,
himself does the works." John xiv. 10.
"THE  SON can do NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but
only what he sees his Father doing." John v. 19.
" When you have raised on high the Son of Man
[i. e. crucified him], then you will know that I am
He [i. e. the Messiah], and that I do nothing of myself, but speak thus as the Father has taught me.
And He who sent me is with me." John viii. 28, 29.
I do not multiply passages, because they must
* "In quoting the words as given above, I have followed the
Common Version; but the verse should be rendered thus: "As
the ever-blessed Father sent me, and I am blessed through the Father, so he, whose food I am, shall be blessed through me." Zeo,
in this verse, is used in the secondary signification which it so often
has, denoting, lam blessed, I am happy.
11




72   REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
be familiar to every one. From  the declarations
of our Saviour, it appears that he constantly referred the divine power manifested in his miracles,
and the divine inspiration by which he spoke, to
the Father, and not to any other divine person
such as Trinitarians suppose. According to their
hypothesis, it was the divine power and wisdom
of the Son which were displayed in Jesus; to
him, therefore, should the miracles and doctrine
of Jesus have been referred; which they never
are.  No mention of such a divine person appears in his discourses.  But of himself, as the
Son of God, he speaks as of a being entirely
dependent upon his Father and our Father, his
God and oir God.  These declarations are decisive of the controversy. Every other argument
might be laid aside.
III. BUT, in the third place, the doctrine that
Christ is God is opposed to the whole tenor of the
Scriptures, and all the facts in the history of Christ.
Though conceived by a miracle, he was born into
the world as other men are, and such as other men
are. He did not come, as some of the Jews imagined their Messiah would come, no man knew
whence.*  He was a helpless infant. Will any
one, at the present day, shock our feelings and
understanding to the uttermost, by telling us that
Almighty God was incarnate in this infant, and
* "We know whence this man is; whereas when the Messiah
comes, no one will know whence he is." John vii. 27.




REASONING FROM THE NEW  TESTAMENT.   73
wrapped  in  swaddling-clothes?*   He  grew  in
wisdom, and in stature, and in favor with God
and men.  Read over his history in the Evangelists, and ask yourselves if you are not reading the
history of a man; though of one indeed to whom
God had given his spirit without measure, whom
he had intrusted with miraculous powers, and constituted a messenger of the most important truths.
He appears with all the attributes of humanity.
He discovers human  affections.   He is moved
even to tears at the grave of Lazarus. He mourns
over the calamities about to overwhelm his country. While enduring the agony of crucifixion, he
discovers the strength of his filial affection, and
consigns his mother to the care of the disciple
whom  he loved.  He was sometimes excited to
indignation, and his soul was sometimes troubled
by the sufferings which he endured, and which he
anticipated.  "Now  is my soul troubled; and
what shall I say?  Father, save me from  this
hour?  But for this I came,-for this very hour."t
Devotion is the virtue of a created and dependent
being.  But our Saviour has left us not less an
example of piety than of benevolence.  His ex* Dr. Watts in one of his hymns says:
"This infant is the MIGHTY GoD,
Come to be suckled and adored." - B. I., H. 13.
The language is almost too horrible to be quoted. - Dr. Watts
was a man of piety, and of very considerable intellectual powers; yet
to this extreme point could his mind be debased by a belief of the
doctrine against which we are contending.
t John xii. 27.




74   REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
pressions of dependence upon his Father and upon
our Father, are the most absolute and unequivocal.
He felt the common wants of our nature, hunger,
thirst, and Teariness. He suffered death, the common lot of man. He endured the cross, despising
the shame, and he did this for THE JOY SET BEFORE
HIM.* "Therefore God has HIGHLY EXALTED HIM." t
But it is useless to quote or allude to particular
passages, which prove that Christ was a being
distinct from, inferior to, and dependent upon
God.  You may find them  on every page of
the New Testament.  The proof of this fact is,
as I have said, imbedded and ingrained in the
very passages brought to support a contrary proposition.
But it is useless, for another reason, to adduce
arguments in proof of this fact. It is conceded by
Trinitarians explicitly and fully. The doctrine of
the humanity of Christ is as essential a part of
their scheme as the doctrine of his divinity. They
allow, or, to speak more properly, they contend,
that he was a man. But if this be true, then the
only question that need be examined is, whether it
be possible for Christ to have been at once God
and man, infinite and finite, omniscient and not
omniscient, omnipotent and not omnipotent. To
my mind, the propositions here supposed are as if
one were to say, that to be sure astronomers have
correctly estimated the size of the earth; but that
it does, notwithstanding, fill infinite space.
* Hebrews xii. 2.      t [Philippians ii. 9.]




REASONING FROM THE NEW  TESTAMENT.   75
IV. IN the next place, the doctrine is proved to
be false, because it is evident from the Scriptures
that none of those efects were produced which would
necessarily have resulted from its first annunciation
by Christ, and its subsequent communication by his
Apostles.  The disciples of our Saviour must, at
some period, have considered him  merely as a
man.  Such he was, to all appearance, and such,
therefore, they must have believed him to be. Before he commenced his ministry, his relations and
fellow-townsmen certainly regarded him as nothing more than a man.  "Is not this the carpenter,
the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses
and Judas and Simon?  And are not his sisters
here with us?"*  At some particular period, the
communication must have been made by our Saviour to his disciples, that he was not a mere man,
but that he was, properly speaking, and in the
highest sense, God himself.  The doctrines with
which we are contending, and other doctrines of a
similar character, have so obscured and confused
the whole of Christianity, that even its historical
facts appear to be regarded by many scarcely in
the light of real occurrences.  But we may carry
ourselves back in imagination to the time when
Christ was on earth, and place ourselves in the
* Mark vi. 3. I have retained the words "brother" and "sisters," used in the Common Version, not thinking it important, in the
connection in which the passage is quoted, to make any change in
this rendering; but the relationship intended I believe to be that of
cousins. [See the note on Matthew xiii. 55, in the author's Notes on
the Gospels.]
11*




76   REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
situation of the first believers. Let us, then, reflect
for a moment on what would be the state of our
own feelings, if some one with whom we had associated as a man were to declare to us that he
was really God himself.  If his character and
works had been such as to command any attention to such an assertion, still through what an
agony of incredulity, and doubt, and amazement,
and consternation must the mind pass, before it
could settle down into a conviction of the truth of
his declaration! And when convinced of its truth,
with what unspeakable astonishment should we
be overwhelmed!  With what extreme awe, and
entire prostration of every faculty, should we approach and contemplate such a being! if indeed
man, in his present tenement of clay, could endure
such intercourse with his Maker. With what a
strong and unrelaxing grasp would the idea seize
upon our minds! How continually would it be
expressed in the most forcible language, whenever
we had occasion to speak of him! What a deep
and indelible coloring would it give to every
thought and sentiment in the remotest degree
connected with an agent so mysterious and so
awful! But we perceive nothing of this state of
mind in the disciples of our Saviour; but much
that gives evidence of a very different state of
mind. One may read over the first three Evangelists, and it must be by a more than ordinary exercise of ingenuity, if he discover what may pass for
an argument that either the writers, or the numerous individuals of whom they speak, regarded our




REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  77
Saviour as their Maker and God; or that he ever
assumed that character. Can we believe, that, if
such a most extraordinary annunciation as has
been supposed had ever actually been made by
him, no particular record of its circumstances, aid
immediate effects, would have been preserved? —
that the Evangelists in their accounts of their
Master would have omitted the most remarkable
event in his history and their own? —and that
three of them at least (for so much rmust be conceded) would have made no direct mention of far
the most astonishing fact in relation to his character?  Read over the accounts of the conduct
and conversation of his disciples with their Master,
and put it to your own feelings whether they ever
thought that they were conversing with their God.
Read over these accounts attentively, and ask yourself if this supposition do not appear to you one
of the most incongruous that ever entered the
human mind.  Take only the facts and conversation which occurred the night before our Saviour's crucifixion, as related by St. John.  Did
Judas believe that he was betraying his God?
Their Master washed the feet of his Apostles.
Did the Apostles believe -but the question is too
shocking to be stated in plain words. Did they
then believe their Master to be God, when, surprised at his taking notice of an inquiry which
they wished to make, but which they had not in
fact proposed,* they thus addressed him? "Now
* See John xvi. 17-19.




78   REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
we perceive that you know all things, and need
not that any one should question you. By this
we believe that you came from God."* Could
they imagine that he who, throughout his conversation, spoke of himself only as the minister of
God, and who in their presence prayed to God,
was himself the Almighty? Did they believe that
it was the Maker of heaven and earth whom they
were deserting, when they left him upon his apprehension? But there is hardly a fact or conversation recorded in the history of our Saviour's ministry which may not afford ground for such questions as have been proposed. He who maintains
that the first disciples of our Saviour did ever
really believe that they were in the immediate
presence of their God, must maintain at the same
time that they were a class of men by themselves,
and that all their feelings and conduct were immeasurably and inconceivably different from what
those of any other human beings would have been
under the same belief. But beside the entire absence of that state of mind which must have been
produced by this belief, there are other continual
indications, direct and indirect, of their opinions
and feelings respecting their Master, wholly irreconcilable with the supposition of its existence
during any period of his ministry, or their own.
Throughout the New Testament, we find nothing
which implies that such a most extraordinary
change of feeling ever took place in the disciples
*John xvi. 30.




REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  79
of Christ as must have been produced by the communication that their Master was God himself
upon earth. Nowhere do we find the expression
of those irresistible and absorbing sentiments
which must have possessed their minds under the
conviction of this fact. With this conviction, in
what terms, for instance, would they have spoken
of his crucifixion, and of the circumstances with
which it was attended?  The power of language
would have sunk under them in the attempt to
express their feelings.  Their words, when they
approached the subject, would have been little
more than a thrilling cry of horror and indignation. On this subject they did indeed feel most
deeply; but can we think that St. Peter regarded
his Master as God incarnate, when he thus addressed the Jews by whom  Christ had just been
crucified?  " Men of Israel, hear these words:
Jesus of Nazareth, proved to you TO BE A MAN
FROM GOD, by miracles and wonders and signs,
which God did by him in the midst of you, as you
yourselves know, him, delivered up to you in
conformity to the fixed will and foreknowledge of
God, you have crucified and slain by the hands
of the heathen. Him has God raised to life." *
But what have been stated are not the only consequences which must necessarily have followed
from the communication of the doctrine in question. It cannot be denied by those who hold the
doctrine of the deity of Christ, that, however satis* Acts ii. 22 - 24.




80   REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
factorily it may be explained, and however well it
may be reconciled with that fundamental principle of religion to which the Jews were so strongly
attached, the doctrine of the Unity of God, yet it
does, or may, at first sight, appear somewhat inconsistent with it.  From  the time of the Jew
who is represented by Justin Martyr as disputing
with him, about the middle of the second century,
to the present period, it has always been regarded
by the unbelieving Jews with abhorrence. They
have considered the Christians as no better than
idolaters; as denying the first truth of religion.
But the unbelieving Jews, in the time of the
Apostles, opposed Christianity with the utmost
bitterness and passion.  They sought on every
side for objections to it. There was much in its
character to which the believing Jews could hardly
be reconciled. The Epistles are full of statements,
explanations, and controversy relating to questions
having their origin in Jewish prejudices and passions.  With regard, however, to this doctrine,
which, if it had ever been taught, the believing
Jews must have received with the utmost difficulty, and to which the unbelieving Jews would
have manifested the most determined opposition,
-with regard to this doctrine, there is no trace
of any controversy.  But if it had ever been
taught, it must have been the main point of attack and defence between those who assailed and
those who supported Christianity. There is nothing ever said in its explanation. But it must have
required, far more than any other doctrine, to be




REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  81
explained, illustrated, and enforced; for it appears
not only irreconcilable with the doctrine of the
Unity of God, but equally so with that of the
humanity of our Saviour; and yet both these doctrines, it seems, were to be maintained in connection with it. It must have been necessary, there.
fore, to state it as clearly as possible, to exhibit it
in its relations, and carefully to guard against the
misapprehensions to which it is so liable on every
side.  Especially must care have been taken to
prevent the gross mistakes into which the Gentile
converts from polytheism were likely to fall. Yet,
so far from any such clearness of statement and
fulness of explanation, the whole language of the
New Testament in relation to this subject is (as I
have before said) a series of enigmas, upon the
supposition of its truth.  The doctrine, then, is
never defended in the New  Testament, though
unquestionably it would have been the main object of attack, and the main difficulty in the Christian system.  It is never explained, though no
doctrine could have been so much in need of explanation. On the contrary, upon the supposition
of its truth, the Apostles express themselves in
such a manner, that, if it had been their purpose
to darken and perplex the subject, they could not
have done it more effectually.  And still more,
this doctrine is never insisted upon as a necessary
article of faith; though it is now represented by
its defenders as lying at the foundation of Christianity. With a few exceptions, the passages in
which it is imagined to be taught are introduced




82   REASONING FROM THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
incidentally, the attention of the writer being principally directed to some other topic; and can be
regarded only as accidental notices of it.  It appears, then, that while other questions of far less
difficulty (for instance, the circumcision of the
Gentile converts) were subjects of such doubt and
controversy that even the authority of the Apostles
was barely sufficient to establish the truth, this
doctrine, so extraordinary, so obnoxious, and so
hard to be understood, was introduced in silence,
and received without hesitation, dislike, opposition, or misapprehension.  There are not many
propositions, to be proved or disproved merely by
moral evidence, which are more incredible.
I WISH to repeat some of the ideas already suggested, in a little different connection. The doctrine that Christ was God himself, appearing upon
earth to make atonement for the sins of men, is
represented, by those who maintain it, as a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, affecting essentially the whole character of our religion. If true,
it must indeed have affected essentially the whole
character of the writings of the New Testament.
A truth of such awful and tremendous interest, a
fact "at which reason stands aghast, and faith
herself is half confounded,"* a doctrine so adapted
* Such is the language of Bishop Hurd in defending the doctrine.
"In this awfully stupendous manner, at which REASON STANDS
AGHAST, AND FAITH IIERSELF IS HALF CONFOUNDED, was the
grace of God to man at length manifested." Sermons preached at
Lincoln's Inn, Vol. II. p. 287. London, 1785.




REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  83
to seize upon and possess the imagination and
the feelings, and at once so necessary and so
difficult to be understood, must have appeared
everywhere in the New  Testament in the most
prominent relief. Nobody, one would think, can
seriously imagine it any answer to this remark, to
say that "the Apostles doubtless expected to be
believed when they had once plainly asserted anything"; or to suggest that their veracity might
have been suspected, if they had made frequent
and constant asseverations of the truth of the doctrine.*- What was the business of the Apostles
but to teach and explain, to enforce and defend,
the fundamental doctrines of Christianity? *I say
to defend these doctrines; for he who reads the
Epistles with any attention, will not think that
the mere authority of an Apostle was decisive in
bearing down at once all error, doubt, and opposition among believers. Even if this had been the
case, their converts must still have been furnished
with some answer to those objections with which
the unbelieving Jews would have assailed a doctrine so apparently incredible, and so abhorrent to
their feelings. From the very nature of the human
mind, if the minds of the Apostles at all resembled
those of other men, the fact that their Master was
the Almighty, clothed in flesh, must have appeared
continually in their writings, in direct assertions, in
allusions, in the strongest possible expressions of
feeling, in a thousand different forms. The intrin* See Professor Stuart's Letters, p. 128.
12




84   REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
sic difficulty of the doctrine in question is so great,
and such was the ignorance of the first converts,
and their narrowness of conception, that the Apostles must have continually recurred to it, for the
purpose of explaining it, and guarding it against
misapprehension. As a fundamental doctrine of
our religion, it is one which they must have been
constantly employed in teaching. If it were a
doctrine of Christianity, the evidence for it would
burst from every part of the New Testament in a
blaze of light. Can any one think that we should
be left to collect the proof of a fundamental. article
of our faith, and the evidence of incomparably the
most astonishing fact that ever occurred upon our
earth, from some expressions scattered here and
there, the greater part of them being dropped incidentally; and that really one of the most plausible arguments for it would be found in the omission of the Greek article in four or five texts?
Can any one think that such a doctrine would
have been so taught, that, putting out of view'the
passages above referred to, the whole remaining
body of the New Testament, the whole history of
our Saviour, and the prevailing and almost uniform language of his Apostles, should appear, at
least, to be thoroughly irreconcilable with it? I
speak, it will be remembered, merely of the proposition that Christ is God. With regard to the
doctrine of his double nature, or the doctrine of
the Trinity, it cannot, as I have said, be pretended
that either of these is anywhere directly taught.
The whole New Testament, the Gospels and the




REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  85
Epistles, present another aspect from what they
must have done, if the doctrines maintained by
Trinitarians were true.  If true, it is incredible
that they should not have appeared in the Scriptures in a form essentially different from that in
which alone it can be pretended that they do at
present.
V. IN treating of the argument from Scripture,
I have thus far reasoned ad hominem; as if the
doctrine that Christ is God, in the Trinitarian
sense of the words, were capable of proof. But I
must now advert to the essential character of the
doctrine. It admits of being understood in no sense
which is not obviously false; and therefore it is impossible that it should have been taught by Christ,
if he were a teacher from God.
From the nature of the Trinitarian doctrines,
there is a liability to embarrassment in the whole
of our reasoning from Scripture against them; it
being impossible to say definitely what is to be
disproved. I have endeavored, however, to direct
the argument in such a manner as to meet those
errors in any form they may assume.  That so
many have held, or professed to hold them, (a phenomenon one of the most remarkable' in the history of the human mind,) is principally to be explained by the fact, that the language in which
they are stated, taken in its obvious sense, expresses propositions so utterly incredible. Starting
off from its obvious meaning, the mind has recourse to conceptions of its own, obscure, unde



86   REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
fined, and unsettled; which, by now  assuming
one shape and then another, elude the grasp of
reason.  In disproving from  the Scriptures the
proposition that Christ is God, the arguments
that have been urged, I trust, bear upon it in any
Trinitarian sense which it may be imagined to
express. But what does a Trinitarian mean by
this proposition?  Let us assume that the title
" Son of God," applied to Christ, denotes, in some
sense or other, proper essential divinity. But the
Son is but one of three who constitute God. You
may substitute after the numerals the word person,
or distinction, or any other; it will not affect the
argument. God is a being; and when you have
named Christ or the Son, you have not, according
to the doctrine of the Trinity, named all which
constitutes this being.  The Trinitarian asserts
that God exists in three persons; or, to take the
wholly unimportant modification of the doctrine
that some writers have attempted to introduce,
that " God is three in a certain respect."  But
Christ, it is also affirmed, is God, the Son is God.
Does he, then, exist in three persons? Is he three
in a certain respect?  Unquestionably not. The
word " God" is used in two senses. In one case,
as applied to the Supreme Being, properly, in the
only sense which a Christian can recognize as the
literal sense of the term; in the other case, as applied to Christ, though professedly in the same,
yet clearly and necessarily in a different signification, no one can tell what.
Again: the Father is God.  Nothing can be




REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  87
added to his infinity or perfections to complete
our idea of God. Confused as men's minds have
been by the doctrine we are opposing, there is no
one who would not shrink from expressly asserting
anything to be wanting to constitute the Father
God, in the most absolute and comprehensive
sense of the term. His conceptions must be miserably perplexed and perverted, who thinks it possible to use language on this subject too strong or
too unlimited. In the Father is all that we can
conceive of as constituting God.  And there is
but one God. In the Father, therefore, exists all
that we can conceive of as constituting the One
and Only God. But it is contended that Christ
also is God. What, however, can any one mean
by this proposition, who understands and assents
to the perfectly intelligible and indisputable propositions just stated? Is the meaning, that Christ
as well as the Father - or, if the Father be God,
we must say, as well as God -is the One and
Only God? Is it that we are in error about the
unity of God, and that Christ is another God?
No one will assent to either of these senses of the
proposition. Does it imply, then, that neither the
Father nor the Son is the One and Only God, but
that together with another, the Holy Spirit, they
constitute this mysterious Being? This seems at
first view more conformed to the doctrine to be
maintained; but it must be observed, that he who
adopts this sense asserts, not that Christ is God,
but that he is not God; and asserts at the same
time that the Father is not God.
12 




88  REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Once more: if Christ be God, and if there be
but one God, then all that is true of God is true
of Christ, considered as God; and, on the other
hand, all that is true of the Son is true of God.
This being so, open the Bible, and where the name
of God occurs, substitute that of the Son; and
where the name of the Son occurs, that of God.
" The Son sent his beloved Son"; "Father, the
hour is come; glorify thy Son that thy Son also
may glorify Thee." I will not, for the sake of confuting any error, put a change on this most solemn
and affecting passage. I have felt throughout the
painful incongruity of introducing conceptions that
ought to be accompanied with very different feelings and associations into such a discussion, and I
am not disposed to pursue the mode just suggested of exemplifying the nature of the errors
against which I am  contending. But one who
had never seen the New Testament before would
need but to read a page of it to satisfy himself
that " the Son of God " and " God" are not convertible terms, but mean something very different.
But a Trinitarian may answer me, that the wofd
"God" in the New Testament almost always denotes either the Trinity or the Father; and that
he does not suppose it to be applied to the Son in
more than about a dozen instances. One would
think that this state of the case must, at the first
view of it, startle a defender of the doctrine that
Christ is God. It is strange that one equal to the
Father in every divine perfection should so rarely
be denoted by that name to which he is equally




REASONING FROM  THE NEW  TESTAMENT.   89
entitled. But passing over this difficulty, what is
the purport of the answer?   You maintain that
Christ is God, that the Son is God. If so, are not
all the acts of God his acts?  Is not all that can
be affirmed of God to be affirmed of him? You
hesitate, perhaps; but there is no reason why you
should.   If there be any meaning in the  New
Testament, these questions must be answered in
the negative. It is clear, then, that, whatever you
may imagine, you do not use the term " God" in
the same sense when applied to the Son, as when
applied by you to what you call the Trinity, or to
the First Person of the Trinity; or as when applied either by you or us to the Supreme Being.
But, as regards the question  under discussion,
the word  admits of no variety of signification.
The proposition, then, that Christ is God, is so
thoroughly irreconcilable with the New Testament, that no one could think of maintaining it
except through a confused misapprehension of its
meaning.
HERE, then, I close/the argument from  Scripture; not because it is exhausted, but because it
must be useless to pursue it further.* I will only
add a few  general remarks, founded in part on
what has been already said concerning the pas* [The reader who wishes to pursue it further is referred to Wilson's "Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism,"
3d ed., 1846, 870, - a work which gives a fuller view than can easily
be found elsewhere, not only of the Scripture proofs of Unitarianism,
but of the alleged Scripture evidence for Trinitarianism.]




90   REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
sages adduced by Trinitarians in support of their
doctrines.
In the first place, it is to be recollected that the
passages urged to prove that Christ is God are
alone sufficient evidence against this proposition.
A large portion of them contain language which
cannot be used concerning God, which necessarily
distinguishes Christ from God, and which clearly
represents him as an inferior and dependent being.
In the next place, I wish to recall another remark to the recollection of my readers. It is, that
the doctrines maintained by Trinitarians, upon the
supposition of their possibility and truth, must
have been taught very differently from the manner.
in which they are supposed to be. Let any one
recollect, that THERE IS NO PRETENCE THAT ANY
PASSAGE IN SCRIPTURE AFFIRMS THE DOCTRINE OF
THE TRINITY, OR THAT OF THE DOUBLE NATURE
OF CHRIST; and then let him look over the passages brought to prove that Christ is God; let him
consider how they are collected from one place and
another, how thinly they are scattered through the
New  Testament, and how incidentally they are
introduced; let him observe that, in a majority of
the books of the New Testament, there is not one
on which a wary disputant would choose to rely;
and then let him remember the general tenor of
the Christian Scriptures, and the undisputed meaning of far the greater part of their language in
relation to this subject. Having done this, I think
he may safely say, before any critical examination
of the meaning of those passages, that their mean



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  91
ing must have been mistaken; that the evidence
adduced is altogether defective in its general aspect; and that it is not by such detached passages
as these, taken in a sense opposed to the general
tenor of the Scriptures, that a doctrine like that in
question can be established.  We might as reasonably attempt to prove, in opposition to the
daily witness of the heavens, that there are three
suns instead of but one, by building an argument
on the accounts which we have of parhelia.
Another remark of some importance is, that, as
Trinitarians differ much in their modes of explaining the doctrine, so are they not well agreed in
their manner of defending it.  When the doctrine
was first introduced, it was defended, as Bishop
Horsley tells us, " by arguments drawn from  Platonic principles."' To say nothing of these, some
of the favorite arguments from  Scripture of the
ancient Fathers were such as no Trinitarian at the
present day would choose to insist upon. One of
those, for instance, which was adduced to prove
the Trinity is found in Ecclesiastes iv. 12, "A
threefold cord is not soon broken." Not a few of
the Fathers, says Whitby, explain this concerning
the Holy Trinity.t  Another passage often adduced, and among others by Athanasius, as declarative of the generation of the Son from the
substance of the Father, was discovered in the
* Charge, IV. ~ 2, published in Horsley's Tracts in Controversy
with Dr. Priestley.
t Dissertatio de S. Scripturarum Interpretatione secundum Patrum
Commentarios, pp. 95, 96.




92   REASONING FROM THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
first verse of the 45th  Psalm.  The  argument
founded upon this disappears altogether in our
common version, which renders it: " My heart is
inditing a good matter."  But the word in the
Septuagint corresponding to matter in the common version is Log'os; and the Fathers understood the passage thus: My heart is throwing
out a good Logos.*  A  proof that the second
person in the Trinity became incarnate, was found
in Proverbs ix. 1: " Wisdom  hath builded her
house "; t for the second person, or the Son, was
regarded in the theology of the times as the Wisdom of the Father.  These are merely specimens
taken from many of a similar character, a number
more of which may be found in the work of Whitby just referred to in the margin. Since the first
introduction of the doctrine, the mode of its defence has been continually changing.  As more
just notions respecting the criticism and interpretation of the Scriptures have slowly'made their
way, one passage after another has been dropped
from  the Trinitarian roll.  Some which are retained by one expositor are given up by another.
Even two centuries ago, Calvin threw  away or
depreciated the value of many texts, which most
Trinitarians would think hardly to be spared. t
* Dissertatio de S. Scripturarum Interpretatione secundum Patrum
Commentarios, p. 75.
t Ibid., p. 92.
t [Thus, for example, in his note on John x. 30, "' I and my Father
are one," Calvin says: " The ancients improperly used this passage
to prove that Christ is of the same substance with the Father. For




REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  93
There  are  very  few   of  any  importance  in  the
controversy, the  Orthodox   exposition  of  which
has not been abandoned by some one or more of
the principal Trinitarian critics among Protestants.*
Among  Catholics, thereare many  by whom  it is
rather affirmed than conceded, that the doctrine
of the Trinity is not to be proved from the Scriptures, but rests for its support upon  the tradition
of the Church.
WHENCE, then, was the doctrine  of the Trinity
derived?   The answer to  this question  is important. Reason and Scripture have borne their testimony against the doctrine; and I am now about
to call another witness, Ecclesiastical History.
he is not speaking of a unity of substance, but of his agreement
(consensu) with the Father; implying that whatever he does will be
confirmed by the Father's power." - Opp. VI. P. II. 103.
It may be observed, that the earlier Christian Fathers who treat
of this passage do not explain it in the manner which is censured by
Calvin. They understood the word "one," which is in the neuter
gender in the original, as denoting, not a unity of nature, but of will
and affection, a moral unity; referring for this use of language to
other passages of Scripture, as John xvii. 11, 21-23; Acts iv. 32;
1 Cor. iii. 8, &c. So Tertullian, Advers. Praxeam, c. 22; Novatian,
De Trinitate, c. 27; Origen, Cont. Celsum, Lib. VIII. c. 12, Opp. I.
750, 751; Comm. in Joannem, Tom. xiii. c. 36, Opp. IV. 245; and
elsewhere. See also the citations from Hippolytus, Alexander of
Alexandria, and Eusebius, in Jackson's notes on Novatian, pp. 368,
369. The passage is understood in a similar manner by Erasmus,
Grotius, Bp. Pearce, Abp. Newcome, Bp. Middleton, Knapp, Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, Stuart, Schleusner, Wahl, and Robinson.]
* [For abundant proof of this fact, see Wilson's " Concessions of
Trinitarians," Manchester, Eng., and Boston, U. S., 1845. 8vo.]




SECTION IV.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
WE can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but
in the Platonic philosophy; * which was the prevalent philosophy during the first ages after the introduction of Christianity, and of which all the more
eminent Christian writers, the Fathers as they are
called, were, in a greater or less degree, disciples.
They, as others have often  done, blended  their
philosophy  and  their religion  into  one complex
and  heterogeneous system; and taught the doctrines of the former as those of the latter. In this
manner, they introduced errors into the popular
faith. " It is an old complaint of learned men,"
says Mosheim, "that the  Fathers, or teachers of
the ancient church, were too much inclined to the
philosophy of Plato, and rashly confounded what
was taught by that philosopher with the doctrines
of Christ, our Saviour; in consequence of which,
the religion of Heaven was greatly corrupted, and
* I state the proposition in this general form, in which the authorities to be adduced directly apply to it. But it is to be observed, that
the doctrine of the personality of the Logos, and of his divinity, in an
inferior sense of that term, which was the germ of the Trinity, was
immediately derived from Philo, the Jewish Plato as he has been
called, which fact I shall hereafter have occasion to advert to.




ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 95
the truth much obscured." * This passage is from
the Dissertation of Mosheim, Concerning the Injury done to the Church by the Later Platonists.
In the same Dissertation, after stating some of the
obstructions thrown in the way of Christianity by
those of the later Platonists who were its enemies,
he proceeds to say: " But these evils were only
external, and although they were injurious to our
most holy religion, and delayed its progress, yet
they did not corrupt its very nature, and disease,
if I may so speak, its vitals. More fatal distempers
afflicted Christianity, after this philosophy had entered the very limits of the sacred city, and had
built a habitation for herself in the minds of those
to whom  the business of instruction was committed.  There is nothing, the most sacred in our
faith, which from that time was not profaned, and
did not lose a great part of its original and natural
form." t  " Few of the learned," he adds in another place, "are so unacquainted with ecclesiastical history, as to be ignorant what a great
number of errors, and most preposterous opinions,
flowed in from this impure source." $  Among the
false doctrines thus introduced from the Platonic
philosophy is to be reckoned, pre-eminently, that
of the Trinity.  Gibbon says, with a sneer, that
"the Athenian sage [Plato] marvellously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the
* Mosheim, De turbat, per recentiores Platonicos Ecclesia Commentatio, ~ vi.
t Ibid., ~ xxxiii.
t Ibid., ~ xlviii.
13




96  ORIGIN  OF THE  DOCTRINE  OF THE  TRINITY.
Christian revelation."*   In  making this assertion,
Gibbon adopted a popular error, for which there is
no foundation.   Nothing  resembling  the  doctrine
of the Trinity is to be found in the writings of
Plato himself.t But there is no question that, in
different forms, it was a favorite doctrine of the
later Platonists, equally of those who were not
Christians as of those who  were.  Both  the  one
and the other class expressed the doctrine in similar terms, explained it in a similar manner, and
defended it, as far as the nature of the case allowed, by similar arguments; and  both  appealed
in its support to the authority of Plato. Clement
of Alexandria, one of the earliest of the Trinitarian
and Platonizing Fathers, (he flourished about'the
commencement of the third century,) endeavors to
show, that the doctrine was taught by that philosopher.   He quotes a passage from  one of the epistles ascribed to him,t in which mention is made of
a second and third principle, beside the " King of
all things."   In  this passage, he observes, he " can
* [Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. xxi.]
t Mosheim  says, ironically: " Certainly the three famous hypostases of the later Platonists may be discovered in the Timaeus of
Plato, as easily and readily as the three principles of the chemists,
salt, sulphur, and mercury."  " Certe tres illas celeberrimas hypostases Platonicorum in Timneo Platonis ostendere, seque facile et promptum est, atque tria chymicorum principia, sal, sulphur, et mercurium
ex hoc Dialogo eruere."  (See his Notes to his Latin Translation of
Cudworth's Intellectual System, 2d ed., Tom. I. p. 901.) The doctrine of the Trinity is as little to be discovered in any other genuine'writing of Plato as in the Timaeus.
t The second epistle to Dionysius; which, with all the other epistles ascribed to Plato, is now generally regarded as spurious.




ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THF TRINITY. 97
understand nothing to be meant but the Sacred
Trinity; the third principle being the Holy Spirit,
and the second principle being the Son, by whom
all things were created according to the will of the
Father." * A similar interpretation of the passage
is referred to by Eusebius;t and in the oration
which he ascribes to  Constantine, as addressed
" To the Assembly of Saints," Plato is eulogized
as teaching, conformably to the truth, that " there
is a First God, the Father, and a Second God, the
Logos or Son."t  Augustine tells us in his Confessions, that he found the true doctrine concerning the Logos in a Latin translation of some Platonic writings, which the providence of God had
thrown in his way.~  Speaking of those ancient
philosophers who were particularly admired by the
later Platonists, he says: " If these men could revive, and live over again their lives with us, with
the change of a few  words and sentences they
would become  Christians, as very many Platonists of our own time have done."' l  Theodoret
gives the following account of the Platonic Trinity as compared with the  Christian: "Plotinus
and Numenius, explaining the opinion of Plato,
represent him as teaching the existence of three
principles which are beyond time and eternal, The
* Stromat. Lib. V. c. 14. p. 710, ed. Potter.
t Praeparatio Evangelica, Lib. XI. c. 20.
t Cap. 9.
~ "Tu, Domine..... procurasti mihi..... quosdam Platonicorum libros," &c. [Confess. Lib. VII. cc. 8, 9.] Opp. I. col. 128.
Basil. 1556.
II Lib. de Ver& Religione. [Cap. 4, al. 7.] Opp. I. col. 704.




98 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
Good, Intellect, and the Soul of the World. He
gives the name of The Good to the being whom
we call Father; of Intellect, to him  whom  we
name Son and Logos; and the power which animates and gives life to all things, which the Divine Word names Holy Spirit, he calls Soul. But
these doctrines, as I have said, have been stolen
from  the philosophy and theology of the Hebrews."* Basnage had good reason for observing, that the Fathers almost made Plato to have
been a Christian, before the introduction of Christianity. Immediately after this remark, Basnage
quotes a writer of the fifth century, who expresses
with honest zeal his admiration at the supposed
fact, that the Athenian sage should have so marvellously anticipated the most mysterious doctrines
of revelation.t
I will produce a few  passages from  modern
Trinitarian writers, to  show  the near resemblance between the Christian and Platonic Trinity. The very learned Cudworth, in his great
work on the  Intellectual System, has brought
together all that antiquity could furnish to illustrate the doctrine. He institutes a long and minute comparison between the forms in which it was
held by the Heathen Platonists, and that in which it
was held by the Christian Fathers. Toward the conclusion of this, we find the following passages:"Thus have we given a true and full account,
how, according to Athanasius, the three divine
* Graec. Affect. Curat. Serm. II. Opp. IV. 500, ed. Sirmond.
t Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, Liv. IV. ch. 4. ~ 20.




ORIGIN  OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 99
hypostases, though not monoousious, but homoousious only, are  really  but one  God or Divinity.
In all which doctrine of his, there is nothing but
what a true and genuine Platonist would readily
subscribe to." *
" As the Platonic Pagans after Christianity did
approve of the Christian doctrine concerning the
Logos, as that which was exactly agreeable with
their own; so did the generality of the Christian
Fathers, before and after the Nicene Council, represent the genuine Platonic Trinity as really the
same thing with the Christian, or as approaching
so near to it, that they differed chiefly in circumstance>, or the manner of expression." t
In proot of this, Cudworth produces many passages similar to those which I have quoted from
the Fathers. Athanasius, he observes, " sends the
Arians to school to the Platonists.":
Basnage was not disposed to allow  such a resemblance  between  the  Christian  and  Platonic
Trinity as that which  Cudworth  maintains, and
has written expressly in refutation of the latter.
It is not necessary to enter into this controversy.
The  sentence  with  which  he concludes his re* Ch. IV. ~ 36. p. 620. [Vol. II. p. 15, Andover edit.]
t Page 621. [al. II. 17.]
t Page 623. [al. II. 19, 20.] The study of Cudworth is strongly
recommended by Bishop Horsley for the information which his work
contains respecting the tenets of the Platonists. See his Charge,
before quoted, V. ~ 5. I would recommend it also, with particular
reference to the subject before us; for I know no other work from
which so much information can be derived concerning the origin of
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
13*




100 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
marks on the subject, is enough for our purpose.
" Christianity, in its triumph, has often reflected
honor on the Platonists; and as the Christians
took some pride in finding the Trinity taught
by a philosopher, so the Platonists were proud in
their turn to see the Christians adopt their principles." *
I quote the authorities of learned Trinitarians,
rather than adduce the facts on which they are
founded, because the facts could not be satisfactorily stated and explained in a small compass.
It is to be observed, that Trinitarians, in admitting the influence of the Platonic doctrine upon the
faith of the early Christians, of course do not regard the Platonic as the original source of the
Orthodox doctrine, but many of them represent
it as having occasioned errors and heresies, and
particularly the Arian heresy. Such was the opinion of Petavius, who in his Theologica Dogmata,t
after giving an account of the Platonic notions
concerning the Trinity, thus remarks.
" I will now proceed to consider the subject on
account of which I have entered into so full an
investigation of the opinions of the Platonists
concerning the Trinity; namely, in what manner
this doctrine was conceived of by some of the
ancients, and how the fiction of Plato concerning
the Trinity was gradually introduced into Christianity by those of the Platonists who had become
converts to our religion, or by others who had been
* Histoire des Juifs, Liv. IV. ch. 3,4.
t De Trinitate, Lib. I. c. 3. ~ 1.




ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 101
in any way indoctrinated in the Platonic philosophy.  They are to be separated into two classes.
One consists of such as, properly speaking, were
unworthy the name of Christians, being heretics.
The other, of those who were true Christians, Catholics, and saints; but who, through the circumstances of their age, the mystery not yet being
properly understood, threw out dangerous propositions concerning it."
The very Orthodox Gale, in his Court of the
Gentiles, says: " The learned Christians, Clemens
Alexandrinus, Origen, &c., made use of the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy, which was at
this time wholly in request, as a medium to illustrate and prove the great mysteries of faith, touching the Divine Xodyos, word, mentioned John i. 1,
hoping by such symbolisings, and claiming kindred
with these philosophic notions and traditions (originally Jewish) touching the Platonic Xo.yo9, vov%, and
rpta, [the Platonic trinity,] they might gain very
much credit and interest amongst these Platonic
Sophistes." *
Beausobre, in his History of Manichaeism, adverts to this subject. His opinion concerning the
resemblance of the Platonic and Christian Trinity
appears in the following passage.
"Such, according to Chalcidius,t was the Platonic Trinity. It has been justly regarded as defective. 1. It speaks of a first, a second, and a
* Part III. B. II. c. 1. ~ 9.
t Chalcidius was a Platonic philosopher, who lived before the close
of the fourth century.




102 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
third God; expressions which Christianity has
banished.  Still, as appears from  what I have
said, Plato really acknowledged but a single God,
because he admitted, properly speaking, but a single First Cause, and a single Monarch. 2. This
theology is still further censured for the division
of the Divine Persons, who are not only distinguished, but separated.  The objection is well
grounded. But this error may be pardoned in a
philosopher; since it is excused in a great number
of Christian writers, who have had the lights of
the Gospel. 3. In the last place, fault is found
with this theology on account of the inequality of
the Persons. There is a supreme God, to whom
the two others are subject. There was the same
defect in the theology of the Manichaans. They
believed the consubstantiality of the Persons, but
they did not believe their equality. The Son was
below the Father, and the Holy Spirit below the
Father and Son. But if we go back to the time
when Manichaus lived [about the middle of the
third century], we shall be obliged to pardon an
error which was then very general...... Huet,
who acknowledges that Origen has everywhere
taught that the Son is inferior to the Father, excuses him on the ground that this was the common doctrine of those writers who preceded the
Council of Nice. And Petavius not only does not
deny it, but proves it at length in his First Book
on the Trinity."*
* Histoire du Manich6isme, Tom. I. pp. 560, 561.




ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 103
There has been no more noted defender of the
doctrine in modern times than Bishop Horsley.
The following is a quotation from his Letters to
Dr. Priestley.
" I am very sensible that the Platonizers of the
second century were the Orthodox of that age. I
have not denied this. On the contrary, I have endeavored to show that their Platonism brings no
imputation upon their Orthodoxy. The advocates
of the Catholic faith in modern times have been
too apt to take alarm at the charge of Platonism.
I rejoice and glory in the opprobrium. I not only
confess, but I maintain, not a perfect agreement,
but such a similitude as speaks a common origin,
and affords an argument in confirmation of the
Catholic doctrine [of the Trinity], from its conformity to the most ancient and universal traditions." *
In another place he says: " It must be acknowledged, that the first converts from the Platonic
school took advantage of the resemblance between
the Evangelic and Platonic doctrine on the subject
of the Godhead, to apply the principles of their
old philosophy to the explication and confirmation
of the articles of their faith. They defended it by
arguments drawn from Platonic principles; they
even propounded it in Platonic language." t
The celebrated Bentley, upon taking his degree
of Doctor of Divinity in 1696 at Cambridge, defended " the identity of the Christian and Platonic
* Letters to Dr. Priestley, Letter 13.    t Charge, IV. ~ 2.




104 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
Trinity," together with "the  Mosaic account of
the Creation and the Deluge," and " the proof
of divine authority by the miracles recorded in
Scripture." Nor does it appear that the first-mentioned position was regarded with surprise or obloquy, any more than the last two.*
I might produce more authorities in support of
the facts which have been stated. But I conceive
it to be unnecessary.  The fair inference from
these facts every reader is able to draw for himself.  The doctrine of the Trinity is not a doctrine
of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the
school of the later Platonists, introduced into our
religion by the Fathers, who were admirers and
disciples of the philosophy taught in this school.
The want of all mention of it in the Scriptures is
abundantly compensated by the ample space which
it occupies in the writings of the heathen Platonists, and of the Platonizing Fathers.
But what has been stated is not the only evidence which Ecclesiastical History affords against
this doctrine.  The conclusion to which we have
just arrived is confirmed by other facts. But these,
however important, I will here but barely mention.
They are the facts of its gradual introduction; of
its slow growth to its present form; of the strong
opposition which it encountered; and of its tardy
reception among the great body of common Christians.t
* See Monk's Life of Bentley, p. 57.
t On these subjects, see Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions
concerning Jesus Christ. [Compare Mr. Norton's "Account of the




ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 105
CUDWORTH, after remarking " that not a few of
those ancient Fathers, who were therefore reputed
Orthodox because they zealously opposed Arianism," namely, Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandria, and others, entertained the opinion that the
three persons in the Trinity were three distinct
individuals, "like three individual men, Thomas,
Peter, and John," -the divine nature being common to the former as the human nature is to the
latter, — observes that " some would think that the
ancient and genuine Platonic Trinity, taken with
all its faults, is to be preferred before this Trinity."
He then says:" But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decried for tritheistic, so in the room
thereof started there up that other Trinity of persons numerically the same, or having all one and
the same singular existent essence, — a doctrine
which seemeth not to have been owned by any
public authority in the Christian Church, save that
of the Lateran Council only." *
This is the present Orthodox form of the doctrine of the  Trinity.   Cudworth  refers to the
fourth  general Lateran  Council, held in 1215,
under Pope Innocent the Third.  The same Council which, in the depth of the Dark Ages, established the  modern doctrine  of the  Trinity,
established, likewise, that of Transubstantiation;
Cottroversy between Dr. Priestley, Dr. Horsley, and others," in the
General Repository and Review (Cambridge, 1812, 1813), Vols.
I. - III.]
* Intellectual System, Ch. IV. ~ 36. pp. 602-604. [I. 791-793,
Andover edit.]




106 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
enforced with the utmost rigor the persecution of
heretics, whom  it ordered to be sought out and
exterminated; and prepared the way for the tribunals of the Inquisition, which were shortly after
established.*
* See Fleury, Histoire Ecclesiastique, An. 1215.




SECTION  V.
CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE
HYPOSTATIC UNION.
IT may throw some further light upon the human origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, briefly to
notice the history of that of the Hypostatic Union.
By Trinitarians it is represented as a doctrine of
fundamental importance, that Christ was at once
God and man, the two natures being so united as
to constitute but one person. It is this, indeed,
which is supposed to give its chief interest to the
doctrine of the Trinity; since only he who was at
once God and man could, it is said, have made for
men that infinite atonement which the justice of
God, or rather the justice of the Father, required.
But in the minds of most of those who profess the
doctrine, it exists, I conceive, merely as a form of
words, not significant of any conceptions, however
dim or incongruous. They have not even formed
an imagination, possible or impossible, of what is
meant by the Hypostatic Union. It is a remarkable fact, that while new attempts to explain the
doctrine of the Trinity, new hypotheses and illustrations of it, have been abundant, this other doctrine has, in modern times, been generally left in the
nakedness of its verbal statement; that " the God14




108           HISTORY  OF THE DOCTRINE
head  and manhood being joined together in one
person never to be divided, there is one Christ,
very God  and very man, who truly suffered, was
crucified, dead, and buried."
IT  was in the  fifth  century that the doctrine
assumed  its present form.   The Fathers  of the
second century believed in the incarnation of the
Logos, or the Son of God; they believed that he
became a man, that is, they believed that he manifested himself in a human body; but their conceptions concerning the particular nature of the relation between the divinity and humanity of Christ
were obscure and unsettled.   Their general notions respecting the Incarnation may more easily
be ascertained, though they have not till of late
been made the subject of much critical inquiry.
IN Justin Martyr there is, I think, but one passage concerning the mode and results of the connection between the two natures in Christ, which
has been regarded as of much importance; and
that has been differently explained, and, as the text
now stands, is, I believe, unintelligible.* What,
* Justin (Apologia Sec. p. 123, ed. Thirlb.) [c. 10, p. 48, C. ed.
Morel.] is speaking of the superiority of Christ to all other lawgivers.
These, he admits, possessed a portion of the Logos, that is, were enlightened, in a certain degree, by the Wisdom of God; but Christ was
the Logos himself; therefore the doctrines he taught and Christians
believed (ra c71erepa) were far higher than all which had been taught
before. The passage in question, by the insertion of a comma and a
letter, may receive a certain meaning, but one which throws little
light on the subject. - MEyaXetLorpa.... p.(alveraL ra?7jeTrpa 8ia




OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.                 109
however, is more important, it appears from the
general tenor of  his language  on  this subject,
that Justin regarded the Logos alone as, properly
speaking, Christ himself. His notions of the incarnation of the Logos were essentially those which
we usually connect with that word as denoting
the assumption  of a body by  a spiritual being,
and  not as implying  any union  or combination
of a superior nature with  the human.   Though
he uses the term  "man" in reference to the animate body of Christ, yet the real agent and sufferer
whom  he seems always to have had in view is the
Logos; for the conceptions of Justin concerning
the Logos were not such as to exclude the idea of
his suffering. Speaking of the agony of Christ in
the garden of Gethsemane, he says it was recorded,
" that we might know that it was the will of the
Father that his Son should truly thus suffer for our
sakes; and that we might not say that he being
the Son of God had no feeling of what was done
to him  or what befell him."  In later times, indeed, language was used, and its use has continued
to our own day, —language not utterly intolerable
only because it is utterly without meaning, —in
TOVTO [,] XOyLKO' TO [f. rov] oXov TOV f)avevra Al' Aias Xplor7v yeyovYval, Kai crocod, Kai Xoyov, Kay +vvxqv. " It appears that our doctrines are far superior, for this reason, that the whole Christ who
appeared for us, body, Logos, and animal soul, pertained to the
Logos (XoytlKo yeyovevat).
Perhaps the use of such language may be illustrated by a passage
of Origen (Cont. Cels. Lib. III. ~41, Opp. I. 474), which will be
quoted hereafter. See also Lib. II. ~ 51. Opp. I. 426.
* Dial. cum Tryph. pp. 361, 362. [al. c. 103, p. 331, D.]




110       HISTORY OF THE DQCTRINE
which God is spoken of as having suffered and
been crucified. But Justin, and other early Fathers, when they spoke of the sufferings of the
Logos, meant what they said.  This is evident,
not merely from passages as explicit as that just
quoted, but from  the manner in which they regarded the doctrine of those who denied the personality of the Logos, and maintained that the
divinity in Christ was the divinity of the Father.
Such opinions, it was affirmed, necessarily led to
the belief that the Father himself had suffered.
Those who held them were charged with this belief, and hence denominated Patripassians. The
charge, without doubt, was unjust; but it shows
that the doctrine of those who made it was, that
the Logos, the divine nature of the Son, had suffered in Christ. If they had not held this belief
concerning the Logos, or Son, there would have
been no pretence for charging their opponents with
holding a corresponding belief concerning the Father; especially as their opponents maintained,
what they themselves did not maintain, that Christ
was properly and in all respects a man; and this
being so, had no occasion to turn their thoughts to
any other sufferer than the man Christ.
THE opinions of Irenmeus were similar to those
of Justin. He regarded the Logos as supplying in
Christ the place of the intelligent soul or mind of
man. I use these expressions, because Irenaeus, in
common with other ancient philosophers, distinguished between the mind, intellect, or spirit, and




OF THE  HYPOSTATIC  UNION.                    1ll
the  principle  of life, or animal soul, which  was
also  considered as the  seat of the passions.   The
vagueness with  which  the  names were  used, denoting these two principles in man, is one cause of
obscurity in the present inquiry. But Irenaeus, it
appears, conceived that the Logos in becoming
incarnate assumed only a body and an animal
soul, the place  of the human  intellect being  supplied   by  the  Logos  himself.*    In  holding  this
doctrine, he, though the champion of the chuch
against the heretics of his own day, was himself
a precursor both of the Arian and the Apollinarian
* See the passages quoted by Matnscher, in his Handbuch  der
christlichen Dogmengeschichte. Band II. ~ 181. MUnscher, however, is incorrect in representing Irenaeus as having supposed the
Logos to have assumed a human BODY only. According to Irenaeus,
an animal soul (anima, #vX,) was also conjoined with the Logos. In
opposition to the Gnostics, who denied that Christ had a proper human body, he says (Lib. III. c. 22. ~ 2): "If the Son of God had
received nothing from Mary,.....he would not have said, My soul
(s +vXy /ov) is exceedingly sorrowful."  Dr. Priestley, on the other
hand, contends (Hist. of Early Opinions, Vol. II. p. 203, seqq.) that,
according to Irenaeus, Christ had a proper human soul. His error
arises from his not adverting to the distinction above mentioned, between the intellect or spirit and the animal soul. This distinction
is stated and illustrated by Irenseus, Lib. V. c. 6. ~ 1. The latter
passage is to be compared with that quoted by Dr. Priestley, of
which his rendering is erroneous.
It may be observed that the mistake of Manscher is followed by
Neander (Geschichte der christ. Relig. u. Kirche, Band I. s. 1063),
who says, speaking of the early opinions concerning Christ: "The
assumption of the human nature was conceived of merely as the assumption of a human body, as we find it clearly expressed by Ireneus."  [This statement of Neander's was modified in the second
edition of this part of his work, published in 1843. See Torrey's
Translation, I. 634.]
14*




112            HISTORY  OF THE  DOCTRINE
heresies concerning the Incarnation; for the error
of both consisted in regarding the Logos as having supplied the place of the human intellect in
Christ.
In opposition to those Gnostics who maintained
that the  AEon, as they  denominated  him, or the
divine being, Christ, at the time of the crucifixion,
departed from the man, Jesus, and left him to suffer alone, Irenueus often speaks of the proper sufferings of the Logos.*
Of the opinions of Clement of Alexandria concerning the mode of connection between the two
natures, nothing, I think, can be affirmed definitely
and  with  assurance.t   Of the passages adduced
* See many passages to this effect collected by Jackson in his Annotations to Novatian, pp. 357, 358. On this subject, and on the
opinions of the earlier Fathers generally respecting the Incarnation,
see also Whiston's Primitive Christianity, Vol. IV. pp. 272-321.
Dr. Priestley (History of Early Opinions, Vol. II. pp. 205, 215,
216) produces a single passage from Ireneus (Lib. III. c. 19. ~ 3), on
which he relies for proof that Irenaeus did not conceive of the Logos
as suffering. The Greek of this passage is quoted by Dr. Priestley.
It is preserved by Theodoret, who may probably have somewhat altered the expressions to conform them to his own opinions, as they
do not agree with those of the old Latin version, which is here the
better authority. Nor does Dr. Priestley's translation correspond
even with the Greek. He renders: " The Logos being quiescent in
his temptation, crucifixion, and death'; thus separating the Logos
from Christ, and representing Christ as a distinct person by the use
of the personal pronoun, his. The Greek is, javx(-vovTos pev roV
AOyov e' Tr) 7retpa'eo'Oac Kal o'aavpovo'Oat Kal aTro0vfo-KetV; which
should be rendered: "The Logos being quiescent (i e. suspending
his powers) when tempted, when crucified, and at death."
t See the quotations from and references to him in Mtnscher.
Ibid., ~ 183.




OF  THE  HYPOSTATIC  UNION.                   113
from  him, one of the  principal has, I tlnk, no relation to the subject; but refers throughout to the
indwelling of the Logos in all true believers. It
is, however, so remarkable, as showing how loosely
language was used, on which, in the writings of
the earlier Fathers, too much stress has often been
laid, that it deserves quotation.  "That man," he
says, " with whom the Logos abides, does not assume various appearances, but preserves the  form
of the Logos; he is made like to  God; he is beautiful, not adorned with factitious beauty, but being
essential beauty; for such God is. That man becomes a god, because God so wills it. It has been
well said  by  Heraclitus,'Men  are  gods  and  the
gods are men'; for the Logos himself, a conspicuous mystery, is God in man, and man becomes a
god; the Mediator accomplishing the will of the
Father; for the Mediator is the Logos common
to both; being the Son of God and the Saviour
of men, being  his  minister and  our  instructor."*
* The following is the original of the passage. See Potter's edition of Clement, p. 251. I have altered his pointing, as the sense
seems to me to require, and in one instance, in the last sentence,
Oeo'd is printed with a small initial letter where he has used a capital.'O  e       a(vOpCo)ro  EKEVOKel   Yvos KO    A,  o oOVvOKOS  L A oos X,  oV 7ro Xa, o
7rXaTTerTac * popfr1v EXEL T)V TOV Aoyov. * etoLLotvra T) e0E  * KaX\OS
EcrTtV, ov KaXX oTrlerTat  KaXXdos crT TO a\rXqvoYv, Kal yap 6  et'o
ETTrrl.  Qeos  e EKevoS 0 avOpOpTroS y7Iveral OTt  aovXeraL 6  eos'.'OpO&s  i pa eLire'HpCaKXELros, t AvpcoTroL, AEI posoEM, aeo v' O rol.
Adyog yapp avros', IvcrTplov eLJ)aves,  eovs Ev avpOpco7r, KaL 5
avOpoCrros, Oe's  Kal Tor 0leXn)ta Tro  Ilaarpos 6  corlrrTs 7eKTeXe'
piE~crqTrl  yap   Ao yos  KOOS,  KOleoV  e     eo v vlos', or)T7p 86
av0pco7tov, Kal  ro  /Itv 8ltaKOvoS, ilCtv 8e raLaayoyo'r.  Padagog.
Lib. III. c. 1.




114          HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE
Archbishop Potter, in the notes to his edition of
Clement, observes, " that Clement often says, that
men through piety and virtue are not only assimilated to God, but as it were transformed into the
divine nature, and become gods." 
But the opinions of Clement respecting the Incarnation appear perhaps with sufficient distinctness in what he says of the body of Christ. According to him, " It would be ridiculous to suppose that the body of our Saviour required the
aliments necessary to others for his support. He
took food not for the sake of his body, which was
sustained by a holy power, but that he might not
give occasion to those with whom he was conversant to form a wrong opinion concerning him; —
as, in fact, some [the Doceta] afterward supposed,
that he had been manifested with only the appearance of a body.  But he was wholly impassible;
liable to be affected by no motions either of pleasure or pain." t It would seem that Clement here
excludes all conception even of an animal soul in
Christ; and that he regarded the appearance of the
Logos on earth as merely the manifestation of him
to the senses of men in a body, answering in form
and substance to a human body, but not subject
to the same necessities and accidents.
* See note 11, p. 71, and note 7, p. 88. In the latter he produces
remarkable examples of this use of language. See also numerous
examples from other early Christian writers, in Sandii Interpretationes Paradoxae, p. 227, seqq. [and Whiston's Primitive Christianity, Vol. IV. p. 100, seqq.]
t Stromat. VI. ~ 9. p. 775.




OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.         115
THE language of Tertullian is vacillating and
self-contradictory. His conceptions on the whole
subject of the Logos were unsteady; and no form
of words had as yet been settled which might
serve as a guide to one without ideas of his own.
He rejected the philosophical distinction of his
day between the intellect (mens, animus), and the
animal soul (anima), and maintained, in conformity
with our modern belief, the proper unity of the
soul (anima), of which he regarded the intellect as
a part. But this soul, in common with many of
the ancient philosophers, he conceived of as corporeal. He regarded it as diffused through the
body, possessing its shape, and constituting its
principle of life.*  A  living body he probably
considered as essentially united with a soul; and
in believing the Logos to have assumed a living body, he represents him as having assumed
also a human soul. The soul being, in his view,
corporeal as well as the body, the conception or
the imagination thus became more easy to be
apprehended. But that, in assigning a human soul
to Christ, he assigned to him likewise a human
intellect, is not, I think, to be proved. This part
of the soul, he may have thought was supplied
by the Logos; and there is much in his writings
which favors the supposition. It appears, I think,
to have been his prevalent conception, in common
with the other Fathers of his time, that the Logos
alone was the proper agent in Christ. I will pro* See his treatise De Animd.




116       HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE
duce only two passages, to which there are many
more or less analogous. In arguing against the
Gnostics, who denied that Christ had a fleshly
body, he compares the assumption of such a
body by Christ to the appearances of angels related in the Old Testament. " You have read,
and believed," he says, "that the angels of the
Creator were sometimes changed into the likeness of men, and bore about so true a body, that
Abraham washed their feet, and Lot was drawn
away from Sodom by their hands; an angel also
wrestled with a man, the whole weight of whose
body was required to throw him down and detain
him. But that power which you concede to the
angels, who may assume a human body and yet
remain angels, do you take away from a divine
being more powerful than they? (hoc tu potentiori deo aufers?) As if Christ could not continue a
divine being (deus) after having put on humanity."  He often speaks, though, I think, not with
clear or consistent conceptions, of the sufferings of
the Logos. He represents him as the agent in all
those operations referred to God in the Old Testament, which the Gnostics regarded as unworthy of
the Supreme Being. They are ignorant, he says,
that, though not suitable to the Father, they were
suitable to the Son; and proceeds to express conceptions very different from those which, as we
have seen, were entertained by Clement of Alexandria. "They are ignorant that*those things
* De Came Christi, c. 3.




OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.             117
were suitable to the Son, who was about to submit to the accidents of humanity, thirst, and hunger, and tears, to be born, and even to die." *
THUS far, the loose general notion of most of
those who  speculated on the subject seems to
have been, that the incarnation of the Logos was
analogous to the appearance of angels in human
shapes; and to the supposed incarnations of heathen deities, with the imagination of which a great
majority of Christians were familiar, as converts
from  Gentilism. t  One of the latest writers on
the history of Christian doctrines, Minter, late
Bishop of Zealand, observes, that " The Catholic Fathers, who maintained in opposition to the
Gnostics the reality of the body of Christ, appear
in part to have placed the human nature of Christ
in this body; and their common expressions and
representations show clearly, that they had very
imperfect conceptions concerning this nature, corresponding to those entertained by the heathen, by
the learned Jews, and by all parties of Christians,
concerning the appearances of God or of gods in
the ancient world." -" The well-known error of
Apollinaris, that Jesus had only an animal soul,
the principle of life; and that the Divine Logos
* Advers. Praxeam, c. 16. [See, further, Norton's Evidences of
the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. II. p. 252, seqq., and Vol. III.
p. 174, seqq.]
t " Alia sunt qua Deus in amulationem elegerit sapientie secularis. Et tamen apud illam facilius creditur Jupiter taurus factus aut
cygnus, quam vere homo Christus penes Marcionem." Tertullian,
De Came Christi, c. 4.




118        HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE
performed in him all the functions of an intelligent
soul, was by no means so new as it was represented to be in the fourth century." Among the Fathers, according to Miinter, Tertullian was perhaps
the first who affirmed Jesus to have a proper human soul; although he adds, that some passages
may be adduced from him which appear to favor
the contrary opinion.* Similar remarks to those
quoted from  Miinter are made by Neander in his
Ecclesiastical History. t
Such, we may conclude, was the state of opinion respecting the Incarnation from the time of
Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second
century, to that of Origen, in the third century.
It is a remarkable fact, that the foundations of
the doctrine of the deity of Christ were laid in
the virtual rejection of the truth of his being,
properly speaking, a man; a truth at the present
day almost undisputed.  This fact was admitted
only in words; the sense of which was nearly the
same, as when angels assuming a human shape
are spoken of as men in the Old Testament.  It
may be observed, also, that in this, as in other
doctrines, the ancient Fathers had a great advantage over those who in later times have been
denominated Orthodox; as their doctrine, which
represented the Logos as constituting the whole
of the intelligent nature of Christ, or, in other
words, made the Logos and Christ identical, was
* Dogmengeschichte, Band II. H. I. 269 - 274.
t Band I. 1063, 1064; II. 905. [See Torrey's Translation, I. 635:
II. 425.]




OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.          119
neither absurd in its statement, nor abhorrent to
our natural feelings. But there is another remark,
which, though not immediately to our present purpose, is still more important. When we find that
in the second century Christ was no longer considered as a man, properly speaking, but as the
incarnate Logos of God, we perceive how imperfect a knowledge had been preserved by unwritten
tradition, not merely of the doctrines of our religion, but of the impression which its historical facts
must have made upon the first believers; for if
Christ were a man in the proper sense of the
word, those who were conversant with him while
on earth undoubtedly believed him to be so. In
the passage of our religion from the Jews to whom
it had been taught, to the Gentiles through whom
it has been transmitted to us, the current of tradition was interrupted. Hence followed, even in the
second century, a state of opinion respecting the
facts and doctrines of Christianity, which renders
it evident, that neither Christianity itself, nor those
writings from which we derive our knowledge of
it, had their origin, or received their character, in
that age.  The Christianity of the Gospels is not
that of the earliest Christian Fathers. Though
they had departed but little from the spirit of our
religion, or from its essential doctrines; and though
their works, (I speak of the Fathers of the first three
centuries,) notwithstanding the disrespect and unjust prejudices of many in modern times, are monuments of noble minds; yet it is equally true, that
we find in their writings the doctrines of Chris15




120          HISTORY  OF THE DOCTRINE
tianity intimately blended with opinions derived
either from the philosophy of the age, or from the
popular notions of Jews and Gentiles, or having
their source in the peculiar circumstances in which
they themselves were placed.
WE come now to Origen, in the first half of the
third  century, and with him  new  opinions open
upon  us.   Origen  fully  and  consistently  maintained  the  doctrine  of a  human  soul in  Jesus.
Imbued with the principles of Platonism, he believed this soul, in common with all other souls,
to have pre-existed, and in its pre-existent state
to have, through its entire purity and moral perfection, become thoroughly filled  and  penetrated
by the Logos, of whom all other souls partake in
proportion to their love toward him. It thus becamne one with the Logos, and formed the bond of
union between the body of Jesus and the divinity
of the Logos; in consequence of which both the
soul and body of the Saviour, being wholly mixed
with and united to the Logos, partook of his divinity and were transformed into something divine.*   But from  the  illustrations which  Origen
* EL OEov IE7raclefiE3Sceval. Cont. Cels. Lib. III. ~ 41. p. 474. The
words should not be rendered, as they are by Minscher, " transformed
into God " (in Gott ubergegangen). Origen, here, as often elsewhere,
uses 0esd (God), not in our modern sense, as a proper name, but as a
common name. This use of the term, which was common to him
with his contemporaries, and continued to be common after his
time, is illustrated by his remarks upon the passage, " and the Logos
was God" (Opp. IV. p. 48, seqq.); in which he contends, that the
Logos was " god" in an inferior sense; - not, as we should say, God,




OF THE HYPOSTATIC  UNION.                121
uses, respecting the connection between the Logos
and the human nature of Christ, it is clear that he
had no conception of that form of the doctrine
which prevailed after his time. " We do not,"
he says, "suppose the visible and sensible  body
of Jesus to have been God, nor yet his soul, of
which he declared, My soul is sorrowful even unto
death.  But as  he who says, I the Lord  am  the
God of all flesh, and, There was no other God
before me and there shall be none after me, is believed by the Jews to have been  God using the
soul and body of the prophet as an organ; and
as, among the Gentiles, he who said,'I know the number of the sands and the measure of the deep,
And I understand the mute and hear him who speaks not,'
is understood to be a god, addressing men by the
voice of the Pythoness;-so we believe that the
divine Logos, the Son of the God of all, spoke in
Jesus when he said, I am the way and the truth and
the life;....  I am  the living  bread which has
descended from heaven; and when he uttered other
similar declarations." A little after, Origen compares that union of the soul and body of Jesus
but a god, or rather, not the Divine Being, but a divine being; and in
which he maintains that " beside the True God, many beings, by participation of God, become divine," literally, " become gods."
The full illustration of the use of the term god as a common name
would, I think, throw much light upon the opinions both of the ancient Heathens and Christians. But this is not the place to enter
upon it. [On this subject see the author's Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. III. Additional Note D, "On the Use of
the words eosd and Deus." Compare also the quotation before given
from Clement of Alexandria, p. 113, and p. 114, note *.]




122        HISTORY OF TIIE DOCTRINE
with the Logos, by which they are made one, to
the union of all Christians with their Lord as described by St. Paul (1 Cor. vi. 17), " He who is
joined to the Lord is one spirit with him," though
he represents it as a union of a far higher character, and more divine.*
IN this unsettled state the doctrine of the Incarnation continued till the fourth century. It is remarked by Miinscher, when he comes to treat of
the controversies which then arose, that " Most of
the earlier Fathers spoke simply of a human body,
which the Logos or Son of God had assumed.
Origen, on the contrary, ascribed to Christ an intelligent human soul, and considered this as the
bond of union between his divine nature and his
human body.  Some Fathers had also spoken
occasionally of a union or commingling of man
with God; but their propositions concerning it
were indefinite and incidental, and had obtained
no authority in the Church; and the opinion of
Origen was far from  being an hypothesis generally  received."t  I quote this as the statement of a respectable writer; without assenting
to all the expressions, as may appear from what
precedes.
IN the fourth century, the doctrine of Athanasius
concerning the Trinity being established by the
Council of Nice, and its partisans, in opposition
* Origen, Cont. Cels. Lib. II. ~ 9. Opp. I. 392 - 394.
t Dogmengeschichte, Band IV. ~ 77.




OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.         123
to the Arians, zealously using the strongest language concerning the divinity of the Son as consubstantial with that of the Father, the Orthodox
faith was now verging to such a profession of their
equality, that to represent the Logos as suffering
in his divine nature began to appear an error, like
that of representing the Father as suffering. On
the other hand, the Arians, viewing the Logos as
a created being, found no difficulty in retaining the
ancient doctrine concerning his simple incarnation
in a human body, and his having suffered in the
proper sense of the words. Among their opponents,
likewise, Apollinaris, who had been the friend of
Athanasius, and distinguished for his zeal in asserting the Orthodox faith concerning the Trinity,
undertook, with a less fortunate result, to define
the doctrine of the Incarnation. He, with the Arians and the ancient Fathers, maintained that the
Logos supplied in Christ the place of the human
intellect. He also freely used the language, which
has since become common, concerning the sufferings of the Divinity in Christ; and his opponents,
in consequence, represented him as believing the
Divine Nature to be passible. But it seems most
probable that he, like others, used this language
without meaning.  His doctrine was condemned
by the second general council, that of Constantinople (A. D. 381), in which it was decreed that
Christ was not only " the perfect Logos of God,"
but also "'a perfect man possessed of a rational
soul"; and the latter- doctrine was thus at last
established as Orthodox.
15*




124       HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE
THE Deity being impassible, it would seem, indeed, if Christ really suffered, that it was necessary
to regard him as a perfect man, capable of suffering. But, on the other hand, if the sufferings of
Christ were those of a man only, it might seem to
follow that Christ was only a man, and the whole
mystery of the Incarnation would disappear.
In this state of things recourse was had to a
doctrine which has been denominated the Communication of Properties.*  It was maintained
that, the divine and human natures in Christ being
united in one person, what was true of either nature might be asserted of Christ.  Christ then
being God, it might be affirmed with truth that
God was born, hungered, thirsted, was crucified,
and died. It was maintained, at the same time,
that the Divine Nature was impassible and unchangeable. The last proposition annihilated all
meaning in the former, not leaving it even the
poor merit of being the most offensive mode of
expressing some conception that might be apprehended as possible. What sense those who have
asserted the sufferings of God have fancied that
the words might have, is a question which, after
all that has been written upon the subject, is left
very much to conjecture. I imagine that it is, at
the present day, the gross conception of some who
think themselves Orthodox on this point, that the
divine and human natures being united in Christ
as the Mediator, a compound nature, different from
either and capable of suffering, was thus formed.'AvrTloLts. - KoLvoova L.aiLdTrowv.




OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.        125
THIE doctrine of the Communication of Properties, says Le Clerc, "is as intelligible as if one
were to say that there is a circle which is so united
with a triangle, that the circle has the properties
of the triangle, and the triangle those of the circle." * It is discussed at length by Petavius, with
his usual redundance of learning. The vast folio
of that writer containing the history of the Incarnation, is one of the most striking and most melancholy monuments of human folly which the
world has to exhibit. In the history of other departments of science, we find abundant errors and
extravagances; but Orthodox theology seems to
have been the peculiar region of words without
meaning; of doctrines confessedly false in their
proper sense, and explained in no other; of the
most portentous absurdities put forward as truths
of the highest import; and of contradictory propositions thrown together without an attempt to
reconcile them.  A main error running through
the whole system, as well as other systems of false
philosophy, is, that words possess an intrinsic
meaning, not derived from  the usage of men;
that they are not mere signs of human ideas, but
a sort of real entities, capable of signifying what
transcends our conceptions; and that when they
express to human reason only an absurdity, they
may still be significant of a high mystery or a
hidden truth, and are to be believed without being
understood.
* Ars Critica, P. II. S. I. c. 9. ~ 11.




126       HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE
IN the fifth century, the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union was still further defined. Before this
time, says Mosheim, "it had been settled by the
decrees of former councils [those of Nice and Constantinople] that Christ was truly God and truly
man; but there had as yet been no controversy
and no decision of any council concerning the
mode and effect of the union of the two natures
in Christ. In consequence, there was a want of
agreement among Christian teachers in their language concerning this mystery." *  The controversy which now arose had its origin in the denial of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, that
Mary could in strictness of speech be called "the
Mother of God," a title which had been applied to
her by Athanasius himself. Though we are accustomed to expressions more shocking, yet this title
may perhaps sound harshly in the ears of most
Protestants. Mosheim, however, who is solicitous
to pass some censure upon Nestorius, finds but
two faults or errors to impute to him, the first of
which is, that " he, rashly, and to the offence of
many, wished to set aside an innocent title which
had been long in common use." t  The other is,
that he presumptuously employed unsuitable expressions and comparisons in speaking of a mystery transcending all comprehension. Cyril was at
this time patriarch of Alexandria, and the rival of
Nestorius, — a turbulent, ambitious, unprincipled
man. He took advantage of the opinions of Nes* Hist. Eccles. Seec. V. Pars II. c. 5. ~ 5.
t "- vocabulum dudum tritum et innocens." Ibid., ~ 9.




OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.          127
torius to charge him with heresy, and procured the
calling of the third general council, that of Ephesus, A. D. 431. In this council Cyril presided, and
the heresy of Nestorius was anathematized, and
Nestorius himself deposed, and denounced as a
"second Judas."  On a subject concerning which
the parties understood neither each other nor themselves, it has been found by modern inquirers hard
to determine in what particulars the heresy of the
"new Judas " differed from the Orthodoxy of Cyril,
except in the denial that Mary could in strictness
of speech be called " the Mother of God." In general, Nestorius was charged with making so wide
a distinction between the human and divine natures in Christ, as to separate Christ into two persons. There is, however, no ground for supposing
that Nestorius maintained so heretical and so rational an opinion, as that God was one person, and
the inspired messenger of God another. Whatever
was meant by the accusation of his dividing Christ
into two persons, he himself earnestly, denied its
truth; while, on the other hand, it appears that
Cyril, in his eagerness to widen the distance between himself and his rival, either fell into the
snare of the Apollinarian heresy, or at least grazed
its limits. Cyril prevailed in his factious contest,
through his influence with the officers of the imperial household, and the bribes which he lavished
upon them; for what was Orthodoxy was to be
determined in the last resort by the Emperor Theodosius, or rather by the women and eunuchs of his
court. " Thanks to the purse of St. Cyril," says




128        HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE
Le Clerc, "the Romish Church, which regards
councils as infallible, is not, at the present day,
Nestorian."* The creeds of Protestants are equally
indebted to St. Cyril for their purity.
BUT notwithstanding the decision of the Council
of Ephesus, the contest still raged. The monophysite
doctrine, as it was called, that is, the doctrine of
but a single nature in Christ, the heresy of Apollinaris, on the very borders of which lay the Orthodoxy of Cyril, was maintained by Eutyches, who
had been a friend of Cyril and a bitter opponent
of the Nestorians. EVtyches was condemned and
deposed by Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople.
But though Cyril was dead, his party still predominated.  A council was called at Ephesus, the
proceedings of which were determined by the will
and the violence of Dioscurus, who had succeeded
him as patriarch of Alexandria. The opinions of
Eutyches were sanctioned by it; and Flavian, who
was present, suffered such personal outrages from
his theological opponents, that he only escaped to
die on the third day following.  This council,
however, the Church of Rome does not regard as
oecumenical and entitled to authority. Leo, then
pope, joined the party opposed to Dioscurus, which
through his aid finally prevailed; and the Council
of Ephesus received a name, of which we may best
perhaps express the force in English by calling it
a Council of Banditti.t
* Biblioth. Univers., Suite du Tome XXI. p. 27.
t Svvo0oJ \XnfoTpLK'q.




OF THE IYPOSTATIC UNION.        129
So far, however, as its authority was acknowledged, the Church had been plunged by it into
the monophysite heresy. But a new council was
called, which is reckoned as the fourth general
council, that of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. The majority of this council was composed of monophysites; but the Emperor and the Pope favored the
opposite party.  Their authority prevailed; and
the result may be given in the words of Gibbon.
" The Legates threatened, the Emperor was absolute.....In the name of the fourth general council, the Christ in one person, but in two natures,
was announced to the Catholic world: an invisible line-was drawn between the heresy of Apollinaris and the faith of St. Cyril, and the road to
paradise, a bridge as sharp as a razor, was suspended over the abyss by the master hand of the
theological artist."   "This council," says Mosheim, " decided that all Christians should believe
that Jesus Christ is one person in two distinct
natures without any confusion or mixture, which
has continued to be the common faith." t  It has
continued to be the doctrine of creeds; what is
now the faith of those who consider themselves as
believers in the Incarnation, is probably a question
which the greater number have never thought of
answering.
OF the language, however, that has been used
in modern times concerning this doctrine, it may
* [Decline and Fall, &c., Ch. XLVII.]
t Hist. Eccles. Saic. V. P. II. c. 5. ~ 15.




130       HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE
be worth while to produce one or two specimens.
Lord Bacon gives us this account of the belief
of a Christian:"He believes a Virgin to be a Mother of a
Son; and that very Son of hers to be her Maker.
He believes him to have been shut up in a narrow room, whom heaven and earth could not contain.  He believes him  to have been born in
time, who was and is from everlasting. He believes him to have been a weak child carried in
arms, who is the Almighty; and him  once to
have died, who only hath life and immortality
in himself."*
The following passage is from a sermon by Dr.
South:"But now was there ever any wonder comparable to this! to behold Divinity thus clothed in flesh!
the Creator of all things humbled not only to the
company, but also to the cognation, of his creatures!
It is as if we should imagine the whole world not
only represented upon, but also contained in, one of
our little artificial globes; or the body of the sun
enveloped in a cloud as big as a man's hand; all
which would be looked upon as astonishing impossibilities; and yet as short of the other, as the
greatest Finite is of an Infinite, between which the
disparity is immeasurable. For that God should
thus in a manner transform Himself, and subdue
and master all his glories to a possibility of human
* Characters of a Believing Christian.




OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.          131
apprehension and converse, the best reason would
have thought it such a thing as God could not do,
had it not seen it actually done. It is (as it were)
to cancel the essential distances of things, to remove the bounds of nature, to bring heaven and
earth, and (which is more) both ends of the contradiction, together." 
To one wholly ignorant of theological controversy, these passages might have the air of malicious irony.  But a little further acquaintance
with creeds and theological systems would satisfy him  that such  language may be used in
earnest.
It is with some hesitation that I adduce another
passage from  the same sermon of South, which
occurs a few pages after what has been quoted.
When thus treating, as it were, of the morbid
anatomy of the human mind, it is often a question
how far one ought to proceed in exhibiting to common view the more disgusting cases of disease.
The reverence due to the subjects which are profaned, and an unwillingness to shock the feelings
of his readers, should restrain a writer from any
unnecessary display. But it is not a little important that the character of the doctrine under consideration, and the monstrous extravagances to
which it leads, should be well understood.  In
reading, then, the following words, it is to be recollected that the author was a man distinguished
as a fine writer, whose uncommon natural talents
* South's Sermons, 6th ed., 1727, Vol. III. p. 299. Sermon on
Christmas Day, 1665.
16




132       HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE
had been cultivated by learning. From the works
of grosser minds, it would be easy to produce many
passages more intolerable.
"Men," says South, "cannot persuade themselves that a Deity and Infinity should lie within
so narrow a compass as -the contemptible dimensions of an human body; that Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence should be ever wrapt
in swaddling-clothes, and abased to the homely
usages of a stable and a manger; that the glorious Artificer of the whole universe, who spread
out the heavens like a curtain, and laid the foundations of the earth, could ever turn carpenter, and
exercise an inglorious trade in a little cell. They
cannot imagine that He who commands the cattle
upon a thousand hills, and takes up the ocean in the
hollow of his hand, could be subject to the meannesses of hunger and thirst, and be afflicted in all
his appetites.  That he who once created, and at
present governs, and shall hereafter judge, the
world, shall be abused in all his concerns and relations, be scourged, spit upon, mocked, and at last
crucified.  All which are passages which lie extremely cross to the notions and conceptions that
reason  has framed to itself, of that high and
impassible perfection that resides in the divine
nature."
There is a short poem written by Watts after
the death of Locke,* in which, on account of " the
wavering and the cold assent" which that great
* On Mr. Locke's Annotations, left behind him at his death. [See
Watts's Works, IV. 396, 397.]




OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.              133
man was  supposed  by him  to  have  given to
" themes divinely true," he invokes the aid of
Charity that he may see him  in heaven.  What
were these " themes divinely true," appears in the
following verses:"Reason could scarce sustain to see
The Almighty One, the Eternal Three,
Or bear the infant Deity;
Scarce could her pride descend to own
Her Maker stooping from his throne,
And dressed in glories so unknown.
A ransomed world, a bleeding God,
And Heaven appeased by flowing blood,
Were themes too painful to be understood."
The Eternal Three! The Deity an infant! God
bleeding!  The Maker of the universe appeasing
Heaven by his flowing blood!  These are not doctrines to be trifled with.  Consider what meaning
can be put upon these words; take the least offensive sense they can be used to express, and then
let any one ask himself this question: If these
doctrines are not doctrines of Christianity, what
are they? It is a question that deserves serious
consideration.  There is but an alternative.  If
they are not doctrines of Christianity, then they
are among the most insane fictions of human
folly: the monstrous legends of Hindoo superstition present nothing more revolting, or more in
contrast with the truths of our religion.
But, in fact, some of the most portentous of
these expressions are used utterly without meaning.  They can express nothing which an intelligent man will admit that he intends to express.




134       HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE
Attempt to give a sense to the propositions, God
was an infant; God poured out his blood; God
died.  Even he whom  familiarity has rendered
insensible to language really equivalent, may
shudder at so naked a statement of what he
professes to believe.  Let him  attempt to give
a sen.se to these words, and just in proportion
as he approaches toward the shadow of a meaning, will he approach toward a conception, from
which, if he have the common sentiments of a
man and a Christian, he will shrink back with
abhorrence.
Since Christianity, then, has been represented as
teaching such doctrines, and even as suspending
the salvation of men upon their belief, is it wonderful that it has had, and that it has, so little
power over men's minds and  hearts?  Could
means more effectual have been devised for destroying its credit and counteracting its efficacy?
If TRUE RELIGION be the great support of the moral
virtues, and essential to the happiness of individuals and the well-being of society, is it strange
that there has been so little virtue, happiness, or
peace in the world?  And what, then, are our
duties as Christians, and as friends of human
kind? What is the duty of all enlightened men, -
of all qualified to inquire into the character and
history of these doctrines, -of all who profess or
countenance them with an uncertain faith?  Of
such as are fitted to think and act upon subjects
of this nature, there is but one class to whom a
solemn appeal may not be made. It consists of




OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.        135
those who, after a thorough examination, have felt
themselves compelled to receive these doctrines -
if the thing be possible - as doctrines taught by
Christ and his Apostles.
16l




SECTION  VI.
DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY REMAIN IN SOME MINDS RESPECTING THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ALLEGED BY TRINITARIANS.
As I have endeavored to express myself as concisely as possible, I shall not recapitulate what I
have written. If any one should think the arguments that have been urged deserve consideration,
but yet not be fully satisfied of their correctness,
it will be but the labor of an hour or two to read
them  over again.  The time will be well spent,
should it contribute toward freeing his faith from
an essential error, and giving him clearer, more
correct, and consequently more ennobling and operative conceptions of Christianity.
Here, then, as I have had occasion to say before,
I might close the discussion. But even if the truth
for which I am contending be fully established, still
difficulties may remain in some minds which it is
desirable to remove. Like a great part of Scripture, the passages adduced in support of the Trinitarian doctrines have been interpreted upon no
general principles, or upon none which can be
defended. But many persons have been taught
from their childhood to associate a false meaning with words and texts of the Bible. This




PREJUDICES TO BE REMOVED.       137
meaning, borrowed from the schools of technical
theology, is that which immediately presents itself
to their minds, when those words and texts occur.
They can hardly avoid considering the expositions
so familiar to them, as those alone that could
be obvious to an unprejudiced reader. He who
would break the associatious which they have between certain words and a certain meaning, and
substitute the true sense for that to which they
are accustomed, appears to them to be doing violence to the language of Scripture.
Now these prejudices, so far as they are capable
of being removed, can be removed only by establishing correct principles of interpretation, applying
them to the subject in hand, and pointing out the
true or the probable meaning of the more important passages thathave been misunderstood. This,
therefore, I shall endeavor to do in the sections that
follow.




SECTION VII.
ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE.
SUPPOSING the doctrines maintained by Trinitarians to be capable of proof, the state of the
case between them and their opponents would be
this. They quote certain texts, and explain them
in a sense which, as they believe, supports their
opinions. We maintain that the words were intended to express a very different meaning. How
is the question to be decided?  We do not deny
that there are certain expressions in these texts,
which, nakedly considered, will bear a Trinitarian
sense; how is it then to be ascertained, whether
this sense or some other was intended by the
writer?
In order to answer this question, it is necessary
to enter into some explanation  concerning the
nature of language and the principles of its interpretation. The art of interpretation derives its
origin from  the intrinsic ambiguity of language.
What I mean to express by this term is the fact,
that a very large portion of sentences, considered
in themselves, that is, if regard be had merely to
the words of which they are composed, are capable
of expressing not one meaning only, but two or
more different meanings; or (to state this fact in




PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.    139
other terms) that in very many cases, the same
sentence, like the same single word, may be used
to express various and often very different senses.
Now in a great part of what we find written concerning the interpretation of language, and in a
large portion of the specimens of criticism which
we meet with, especially upon the Scriptures, this
fundamental truth, this fact which lies at the very
bottom of the art of interpretation, has either been
overlooked, or not regarded in its relations and
consequences. It may be illustrated by a single
example. St. John thus addresses the Christians to
whom he was writing, in his First Epistle, ii. 20:"You have an anointing from the Holy One, and
know all things."
If we consider these words in themselves merely,
we shall perceive how uncertain is their signification, and how many different meanings they may
be used to express. The first clause, " You have
an anointing from the Holy One," may signify, -
1. Throughl the favor of God, you have become
Christians or believers in Christ; anointing being
a ceremony of consecration, and Christians being
considered as consecrated and set apart from the
rest of mankind.
2. Or it may mean, You have been truly sanctified in heart and life: a figure borrowed from outward consecration being used to denote inward
holiness.
3. Or, You have been endued with miraculous
powers: consecrated as prophets and teachers in
the Christian community.




140     PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
4. Or, You have been well instructed in the truths
of Christianity.*
I forbear to mention other meanings, which the
word anointing might be used to express.  These
are sufficient for our purpose.
The term  Holy  One, in such a relation as it
holds to the other words in the present sentence,
may denote either God, or Christ, or some other
being.
You know all things, literally expresses the meaning, You have the attribute of omniscience. Beside
this meaning it may signify, You are fully acquainted with  all the  objects of human knowl~edge; or, You know  every truth connected with
Christianity; or, You have all the knowledge ne-.
cessary to form  your faith and direct your conduct; or the proposition may require some other
limitation; for all things is one of those terms,
the meaning of which is continually to be restrained and modified by a regard to the subject
present to the mind of the writer.
This statement may afford some imperfect notion
of the various senses which the words before us
may be used to express; and of the uncertainty
that must exist about their meaning, when they
are regarded without reference to those considerations by which it ought to be determined. I say,
imperfect, because we have really kept one very
important consideration in mind, that they were
written by an Apostle to a Christian community.
* See Wetstein's notes on this passage, and on 1 Tim. iv. 7.




PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.      141
Putting this out of view, it would not be easy to
fix the limit of their possible meanings. It must
be remembered that this passage has been adduced
merely by way of illustration; and that, if it were
necessary, an indefinite number of similar examples might be quoted.
I will mention, and I can barely mention, some
of the principal causes of the intrinsic ambiguity
of language. 1. Almost every word is used in a
variety of senses; and some words in a great
variety. Now, as we assign one or another of
these senses to different words in a sentence, we
change the meaning of the whole sentence. If
they are important words, and the different senses
which we assign vary much from each other, we
change its meaning essentially. 2. But beside their
common significations, words may be used in an
undefined number of figurative senses. A large
proportion of sentences may, therefore, be understood either figuratively or literally. Considered in
themselves, they present no intrinsic character that
may enable us to determine whether they are literal or figurative. They may often be understood in
more thla one literal, and in more than one figurative sense; and a choice is then to be made among
all these different senses. 3. A very large portion
of sentences which are not what rhetoricians call
figurative, are yet not to be understood strictly,
not to the letter, but with some limitation, and
often with a limitation which contracts exceedingly
their literal meaning. " I do not," says Mr. Burke,
addressing the friend to whom he is writing, in his




142     PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
Reflections on the French Revolution, -" I do
not conceive you to be of that sophistical, captious spirit, or of that uncandid dulness, as to require for every general observation or sentiment an
explicit detail of the correctives and exceptions,
which reason will presume to be included in all
the general propositions which come from reasonable men."  Sentences that are general or universal in their terms, are often to be regarded merely
in relation to the subject treated of, or the persons
addressed; and their meaning is often to be greatly
limited by a regard to one or another of these considerations. 4. In eloquence, in poetry, in popular
writing of every sort, and not least in the Scriptures, a great part of the language used is the
language of emotion or feeling. The strict and
literal meaning of this language is, of course, a
meaning which the words may be used to express; but this is rarely the true meaning. The
language of feeling is very different from that of
philosophical accuracy. The mind, when strongly
excited, delights in general, unlimited propositions,
in hyperboles, in bold figures of every sort, in forcible presentations of thought addressed indirectly
to the understanding through the medium of the
imagination, and in the utterance of those temporary false judgments which are the natural result, and consequently among the most natural
expressions, of strong emotion. Different senses
in which such language may be understood often
present themselves; and it is sometimes not easy
to determine which to adopt.




PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.       143
But further, language is conventional; and the
use of it varies much in different ages and nations. No uniform standard has existed by which
to measure the expressions of men's conceptions
and feelings. In one state of society, language
assumes a bolder character, more unrestrained,
and more remote from its proper sense; in another, the modes of speech are more cool and exact.
The expressions of compliment and respect, for
instance, in France or Italy, and the expressions
of the Orientals generally, are not proportional
to our own.  A sentence translated verbally from
one language into another wTill often convey a
stronger or more unlimited meaning than was
intended by him  who uttered it. "John," says
our Saviour, " came neither eating nor drinking." *
These words, as spoken by him, had nothing of
the paradoxical character which would belong to
them if now uttered for the first time in our own
language.  They meant only that John, leading
an ascetic life, refrained from taking food after
the common fashion, at regular meals.-  Work
out your salvation," says St. Paul," with fear and
trembling." t  The Apostle, who elsewhere exhorts
Christians to "rejoice always," did not here intend
that their life should be one of anxious dread; and
we may express his purpose by saying, " with earnest solicitude." He tells the Corinthians that they
had received Titus with "fear and trembling,":
by which words, in this place, he means what we
* Matthew xi. 18.    t Philippians ii. 12.    1 2 Cor. vii. 15.
17




144     PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
might call "respect and deference."- Christ says,
that he who would be his follower must " hate father and mother." * The genius of our language
hardly admits of so bold a figure, by which, however, nothing more was signified, than that his
followers must be prepared to sacrifice their dearest affections in his cause.- But even where there
is no peculiar boldness or strength of expression in
the original, we are liable to be deceived by a want
of analogy to our modes of speech. Figures and
turns of expression familiar in one language are
strange in another; and an expression to which
we are not accustomed strikes uis with more force,
and seems more significant, than one in common
use, of which the meaning is in fact the same.
We are very liable to mistake the purport of words
which appear under an aspect unknown or infrequent in our native tongue.  The declaration,
" I and my Father are one," t may seem to us at
first sight almost too bold for a human being to
use concerning God, merely because we are not
accustomed to this expression in grave discourse.
But in familiar conversation no one would misunderstand me, if, while transacting some business as the agent of a friend, I should say, "I
and my friend are one"; meaning that I am fully
empowered to  act as his representative.  The
passage quoted is to be understood in a similar
manner; and the liability to mistake its meaning
arises only from our not being familiar with its
* Luke xiv. 26.        t John x. 30.




PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.    145
use on solemn occasions.-" ~The Son of Mal
came to give his life a ransom for many."  We
do not express the intended figure in this particular form, the noun " ransom" being commonly
employed by us only to denote a price paid to
him who has had power over the ransomed. The
passage has, consequently, been misunderstood;
but the verb "ransom" has a wider significancy,
corresponding to the sense of our Saviour; and
by a very slight change in the mode of expression, the occasion of mistake is removed: " The
Son of Man came to give his life to ransom
many"; that is, to deliver them from the evils of
ignorance, error, and sin. -" Whatever," said our
Saviour to St. Peter, "thou shalt bind on earth
will be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt
loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." t  This
passage and another corresponding to it, in which
the same authority is extended to the Apostles
generally, $ have been perverted to the worst purposes. The figure in which our Saviour expressed
his meaning is not found in modern languages,
but was familiar to the Jews. "To bind" with
them signified "to forbid," and "to loose" signified "to permit"; ~ and the meaning of Christ
was, "I appoint you to preach my religion, by
which what is forbidden is forbidden by God,
and what is permitted is permitted by God."
As its minister, you will speak in his name and
with his authority, forbidding or permitting on
* Matthew xx. 28.  t Matthew xvi. 19. t Matthew xviii. 18.
~ See Wetstein's note on Matthew xvi. 19.




146      PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
earth what is forbidden or permitted in heaven.
-It is further to  be remarked, that, in  some
cases where there is this want of correspondence
between languages, the verbal rendering of a passage may be unintelligible, and even offensive; as
in the address of St. Paul to the Corinthians, thus
translated in the Common Version: " Ye are not
straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your
own bowels." *  The meaning of St. Paul, which a
reader of those words might hardly conjecture, is
this: " You do not suffer from any deficiency in us,
but you are deficient in your own affections."Sometimes a verbal rendering gives a sense altogether false: "Now  I beseech  you, brethren,
that ye all speak  the  same  thing." t  So  St.
Paul is represented as addressing the Corinthians
in the  Common  Version.  But " to speak  the
same' thing" was a phrase used in Greek in a
sense unknown in English, to denote "agreeing
together"; and the exhortation in fact was, that
they should "all agree together." -These  examples, few as they are, may serve to illustrate
the mistakes to which we are exposed from  the
want of analogy between languages; and to show
that the true meaning of a passage may be very
different from the sense which, without further in* 2 Cor. vi. 12.- To one acquainted with the French language,
the character of the rendering in the Common Version may be illustrated, by supposing a verbal translation of the following account of
a tragic actress: "Elle sait 6mouvoir et toucher; jamais comedienne
n'eut plus d'entrailles."
t 1 Cor. i. 10.




PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.         147
quiry, we should receive from a verbal rendering
of it into English.  A verbal rendering of an ancient author must be often false, ambiguous, or
unintelligible, and when not exposed to graver
charges, will commonly fail in preserving the full
significancy, the spirit and character, of the original.
Those which have been mentioned are some of
the principal causes of the ambiguity of language;
or, as we may say in other terms, they are some of
the principal modes in which this ambiguity manifests itself. But a full analysis of the subject, accompanied by proper examples, would fill many
pages.  From  what has been already said, the
truth of the propositions maintained will, I think,
appear, at least sufficiently for our present purpose.
It is, then, to the intrinsic ambiguity of language, that the art of interpretation owes its origin. If words and sentences were capable of expressing but a single meaning, no art would be
required in their interpretation. It would be, as a
late writer,* thoroughly ignorant of the subject,
supposes, a work to be performed merely with
the assistance of a lexicon and grammar.  The
object of the art of interpretation is to enable us
to solve the difficulties presented by the intrinsic
ambiguity of language.  It first teaches us to
perceive the different meanings which any sentence may be used to express, as the different
* Dr. Thomas Chalmers. See the conclusion of the article Christianity, in the Edinburgh Encyclopedia.
17*




148     PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
words of which it is composed are taken respec.
tively in one sense or another; as it is understood
literally, or figuratively; strictly and to the letter,
or popularly and in a modified sense; as the language of emotion, or as a calm and unimpassioned
expression of thoughts and sentiments; as the language of one age or nation, or that of another;
and it then teaches us (which is its ultimate purpose) to distinguish, among possible meanings, the
actual meaning of the sentence, or that meaning
which, in the particular case we are considering,
was intended by the author.  And in what manner does it enable us to do this?  Here, again,
a full and particular answer to this question is
not to be comprised in the compass of a few
pages.  The general answer is, that it enables
us to do this by directing our attention to all
those considerations which render it probable that
one meaning was intended by the writer rather
than another.
Some of these considerations are, the character
of the writer, his habits of thinking and feeling, his
common style of expression, and that of his age or
nation, his settled opinions and belief, the extent
of his knowledge, the general state of things during the time in which he lived, the particular local
and temporary circumstances present to his mind
while writing, the character and condition of those
for whom  he wrote, the opinions of others to
which he had reference, the connection of the sentence, or the train of thought by which it is preceded and followed, and, finally, the manner in




PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.      149
which he was understood by those for whom he
wrote, - a consideration, the impdrtance of which
varies with circumstances. The' considerations to
be attended to by an interpreter are here reduced
to their elements.  I cannot dwell long enough
upon the subject, to point out all the different
forms and combinations in which they may appear. But where the words which compose a sentence are such, that the sentence may be used to
express more than one meaning, its true meaning
is to be determined SOLELY by a reference to EXTRINSIC CONSIDERATIONS, such as have been stated.
In the case supposed (a case of very frequent occurrence), all that we can learn from the mere
words of the sentence is the different meanings
wttich the sentence is capable of expressing. It is
obvious that the words, considered in themselves,
can afford no assistance in determining which of
those different meanings was that intended by the
author. This problem is to be solved solely by a
process of reasoning, founded upon such considerations as have been stated.
I will illustrate this account of the principles of
interpretation by an example of their application.
Of MILTON, Dr. Johnson says, that
"He had considered creation in its whole extent,
and his descriptions are therefore learned." *
"But he could not be always in other worlds, he
must sometimes return to earth, and talk of things
visible and known." t
* [Life of Milton. Works, IX. 167.]  t [Ibid., p. 168.]




150      PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
Addison tells us, that " he knew all the arts of
affecting the mind."'
Bentley, in the Preface to his edition of the Paradise Lost, speaks of him thus:"He could spatiate at large through the compass of the whole universe, and through all heaven
beyond it; could survey all periods of time from
before the creation to the consummation of all
things."
"Milton's strong pinion now not heaven can
bound," are the words of Pope.t
"He passed," says Gray, "the flaming bounds
of place and time, and saw the living throne" of
God.:
In the age subsequent to his own, "he continued," says Aikin, "to stand alone, an insulated
form of unrivalled greatness." ~
Why do wre not understand all this language
strictly and to the letter? Why, without a moment's hesitation, do we put upon the expressions
of all these different authors a sense so very remote from that which their words are adapted to
convey, when viewed independently of any extrinsic consideration by which they may be explained?
The answer is, because we are satisfied (no matter
how) that all these writers believed Milton to be a
man, and one not endued with supernatural powers. This consideration determines us at once to
* [Spectator, No. 333.]
t [Imitations of Horace, Book II. Ep. I. 99.]
I [Ode on the Progress of Poesy, III. 2.]
~ [Letters to a Young Lady on English Poetry, Letter XI.]




PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.      151
regard their language as figurative, or as requiring
very great limitation of its verbal meaning.
Let us attend to another example of the application of those principles which have been laid down.
Our Saviour says, " Whoever lives and has faith
in me will never die ";* and similar declarations,
as every one must remember, were often repeated
by him. I recollect to have met with a passage in
an infidel writer, in which it was maintained that
these declarations were to be understood literally;
and that Christ meant to assure his disciples that
they should not suffer the common lot of man.
Why do we not understand them literally?  Because we are satisfied that our Saviour's character
was such that he would not predict a falsehood.
An infidel, likewise, might easily satisfy himself
that his character was such that he would not predict what the next day's experience might prove to
be a falsehood.
I will give one more example: " Unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood,
you have not life within you." t  He who will turn
to the context of the passage may see that this
declaration is repeated and insisted upon by our
Saviour, in a variety of phrases and in different
relations. The Roman Catholics understand this
passage, when viewed in connection with the
words used in instituting our Lord's supper, as a
decisive argument for the doctrine of transubstantiation. If either doctrine were capable of proof,
* John xi. 26.              t John vi. 53.




152     PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
I should certainly think that there was no passage
in Scripture which went so far to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, as this does to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. Why, then, do we not
understand the words in the sense of the Roman
Catholics?  Why do we suppose a figure so bold,
and to our ears so harsh, as we are compelled to
suppose, if we do not understand them literally?
Solely because we have such notions of the character and doctrines of our Saviour, that we are
satisfied that he would not teach anything irrational or absurd; and that the declaration in question would be very irrational, if understood literally
without reference to the doctrine of transubstantiation; and altogether absurd, if supposed to imply the truth of this doctrine. It is upon the same
principle that we interpret a very large proportion
of all the figurative language which we meet with.
We at once reject the literal meaning of the words,
and understand them as figurative, because, if we
did not do this, they would convey some meaning
which contradicts common sense; and it would
be inconsistent with our notions of the writer, to
suppose him to intend such a meaning. But this
principle, which is adopted unconsciously in the
interpretation of all other writings, has been grossly disregarded in the interpretation of Scripture.
If one should interpret any other writings (except
those in the exact sciences) in the same manner in
which the Scriptures have been explained, he might
find as many absurdities in the former as there are
pretended mysteries in the latter.




PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.    153
Upon the principle just stated, we may reject
the literal meaning of a passage, when we cannot
pronounce with confidence what is its true meaning. The words of our Saviour just quoted are
an example in point. One may be fully justified
in rejecting their literal meaning, who is wholly
unable to determine their true meaning. To do
this is certainly no easy matter. Similar difficulties, that is, passages about the true meaning of
which we can feel no confidence, though we may
confidently reject some particular meaning which
the words will bear, are to be found in all other
ancient writings as well as the Scriptures.
If the facts and principles respecting interpretation which have been stated are correct, any one
who will examine what has been written concerning this subject may perceive how little it has
been understood by a large proportion of those
who have undertaken to lay down rules of exposition, and how much it has been involved in obscurity and error. There are many writers who
appear, neither to have had any distinct conception
of the truth, that sentences are continually occurring which may severally express very different
senses when we attend only to the words of which
they are composed, nor, of consequence, any just
notions of the manner in which the actual meaning of such sentences is to be determined. Yet
it is to such sentences that the art of interpretation is to be applied; and its purpose is, to
teach us in what manner their ambiguity may
be resolved.




154     PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
WE are now, then, prepared to answer the question formerly proposed. Certain passages are adduced by Trinitarians in support of their opinions.
We do not deny that there are expressions in some
of these passages, which, the words alone being
regarded, will bear a Trinitarian sense. How is it
to be ascertained whether this sense, or some other,
was intended by the writer?
Now this is a question which, as we have shown,
is to be determined solely by extrinsic considerations; and all those considerations that have been
brought into view in the former part of this discussion bear directly upon the point at issue. My
purpose has been to prove that the Trinitarian doctrines were not taught by Christ and his Apostles.
If this has been proved, it has been proved that
they were not taught by them  in any particular
passage.  All the considerations that have been
brought forward apply directly to the interpretation of any words that may be adduced; and if
these considerations are decisive, then it is certain
that the Trinitarian exposition of every passage of
the New Testament must be false. Their force can
be avoided but in one way; not by proving, positively, that certain words will bear a Trinitarian
meaning,-that is conceded; but by proving, negatively, that it is impossible these words should be
used in any other than a Trinitarian meaning,that they admit of but one sense, which, under all
circumstances, they must be intended to express.
But this no man of common information will maintain. If, then, there be not some gross error in the




PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.       155
preceding reasonings, the controversy respecting
the Trinitarian exposition of those passages is decided.  Whatever may be their true sense, the
Trinitarian exposition must be false.
But I will now recur to the essential character
of the Trinitarian doctrines, for the purpose of
showing, that, though there are words in the New
Testament which, abstractly considered, will bear
some one or other Trinitarian sense, yet that this
sense can be ascribed to them only in violation'of
a fundamental principle of interpretation.
19




SECTION  VIII.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION VIOLATED
BY TRINITARIAN EXPOSITORS. —NO PROPOSITION CAN BE
INCOMPREHENSIBLE, IN ITSELF CONSIDERED, FROM THE
NATURE OF THE IDEAS EXPRESSED BY IT.
THE principle of interpretation to which I refer
is so constantly present to the mind of every one,
and is acted upon so unconsciously in reading all
other books but the Scriptures, that, except in reference to them, it is scarcely necessary to announce
it or advert to it. It has been already mentioned.
In many cases, as I have said, we at once reject
the literal meaning of words, and understand them
as figurative, because if we did not do this they
would convey some meaning which contradicts
common sense; and it would be inconsistent with
our notions of the writer to suppose him to intend
such a meaning.  Men's minds being constituted
alike, so that, when a subject is. clearly understood,
what appears an absurdity to one will appear an
absurdity to another, we do not ascribe an absurd
meaning to the language of any writer, except
upon the special consideration of some well-known
peculiarity of belief, or defect or cloudiness of intellect. Yet a great part of all language diverted
in any way from its literal sense will bear an ab



ERROR CONCERNING LANGUAGE.       157
surd meaning, that is, admits of being so interpreted when the words alone are regarded.
We may take as instances of this the examples
of the use of language quoted in the preceding section.  But I will produce a few more passages,
from which it may appear to those not familiar
with the subject how absurd or false the literal
meaning of language often is, and how instantly
and unconsciously it is rejected upon the principle
I have stated. I give them without comment, for
none is required. My purpose is merely to call
attention to a fact respecting the use of language,
which, though frequently overlooked, must be acknowledged as soon as it is pointed out.
Speaking of the conciliatory measures toward
the American colonies adopted by the Rockingham administration just before its dissolution, Mr.
Burke says: "The question of the repeal [of the
Stamp Act] was brought on by ministry in the
committee of this house, in the very instant when
it was known that more than one court negotiation was carrying on with the heads of the opposition.  Everything upon every side was full of
traps and mines.  Earth below  shook; heaven
above menaced." 
Speaking of the rapid increase of numbers in
these colonies, he says: "Such is the strength
with which population shoots in that part of the
world, that, state the number as high as we will,
whilst the dispute continues, the exaggeration
* [Speech on American Taxation.]




158          ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
ends.  Whilst we are discussing any given magnitude, they are grown to it."*
"A  strong  and  habitually  indulged  imagination," says Foster, "has incantations to  dissolve
the rigid laws of time and distance, and to place
a man in something so like the presence of his
object, that he seems half to possess it; and it is
hard, while occupying the verge of paradise, to be
flung far back in order to find or make a path to
it, with the slow and toilsome steps of reality." t
Remarking upon the responsibility of writers of
fictitious narratives, in regard to the characters
they delineate, the same author has the following
passage: "They  create  a new  person; and  in
sending him into society, they can choose whether
his example shall tend to improve or pervert the
minds that will be compelled to admire him.":
I will quote a few more sentences, from Young.~
"The death-bed of the just....
Is it his death-bed? No; it is his shrine:
Behold him there just rising to a god."
"Shall we this moment gaze on God in man;
The next, lose man for ever in the dust i"
"A Christian dwells, like Uriel, in the sun."
Speaking of the beauty of the material world, as
relative to our perceptions, and existing only so far
as it is perceived by-the eye of man: —
* [Speech on Conciliation with America.]
t [Essay on the Application of the Epithet Romantic, Letter III.]
t [On the Aversion of Men of Taste to Evangelical Religion,
Letter VIII.]
~ [Night Thoughts, II. 629; VII. 222, 1354; VI. 429.]




CONCERNING LANGUAGE.                159
"But for,the magic organ's powerful charm,
Earth were a rude, uncolored chaos still......
Ours is the cloth, the pencil, and the paint,
Which Nature's admirable picture draws......
Like Milton's Eve, when gazing on the lake,
Man makes the matchless image man admires.
Say then, shall man, his thoughts all sent abroad.....
His admiration waste on objects round,
When Heaven makes him the soul of all he sees "
Any person in his common reading may find
numberless similar passages, of which we reject
without hesitation the verbal meaning, simply because it is absurd or evidently false.   But this
principle has not been regarded in the interpretation of Scripture.  The believer in transubstantiation contends that we are to understand verbally
the declaration: " Unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have not
life within you."* The sect of the Antinomians
would have us take to the letter the words of St.
Paul, as rendered in the Common Version: "But
to  him  that worketh not, but believeth on him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness." f And of the believers in the doctrine of Atonement, some contend, that, when the
Apostle speaks of the church as being " purchased
by the blood of Christ," or, as they would have it
read, " by the blood of God," we are to regard the
blood of the Son as being paid, as it were, to the
Father to deliver us from his wrath. All the errors
connected with Christianity have appealed for support to such verbal misinterpretations of particular
* [John vi. 53.]                  t [Romans iv. 5.]
18*




160           ON  A  FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
passages.  Hence it has been  said, that anything
may  be proved  from  the  Scriptures.   And  it is
true, that, if we proceed in so erroneous a method,
and neglect every fact and  principle which  ought
to be attended to in the interpretation of language,
there is no meaning too false, too absurd, or too
ridiculous, to be educed from the words of Scripture, or, equally, from those of any popular writing. An experiment may be made upon the passages just quoted in the preceding paragraphs.*
* "Que lex, quod senatAs-consultum, quod magistrates edictum,
quod foedus, aut pactio, quod (ut ad privatas res redcam) testamentum, qua judicia, aut stipulationes, aut pacti et conventi formula non
infirmari, aut convelli potest, si ad verba rem deflectere velimus; consilium  autem eorum, qui scripserunt, et rationem, et auctoritatem
relinquamus?  Sermo mehercule et familiaris et quotidianus nob
cohasrebit, si verba inter nos aucupabimur. Denique imperium domesticum nullum erit, si servulis hoc nostris concesserimus, ut ad
verba nobis obediant; non ad id, quod ex verbis intelligi possit, obtemperent."
" What law, what decree of the Senate, what ordinance of a magistrate, what treaty or convention, or, to return to private concerns,
what testament, what judicial decision, what stipulation, what form
of agreement, may not be invalidated or annulled, if we insist on
bending the meaning to the words, and neglect the intent, purport,
and will of-the writer? Truly, our familiar and every-day discourse
would have little coherence, if we lay in wait for each other's words.
There would be no domestic government, if we allowed our slaves to
obey our commands in their verbal meaning, and not in that sense in
which the words are to be understood."
Cicero, Orat. pro A. Cecina, ~ 18.
A late writer, however, to whom I have before adverted, p. 147, Dr.
Chalmers (in the article there mentioned), contends earnestly that
the verbal method of interpreting the Scriptures is the true method.
" The examination of the Scriptures," he says, " is a pure work of
grammatical analysis.  It is an unmixed question of language."
" We admit of no other instrument than the vocabulary and the lexi



CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.                    161
It is in the verbal manner spoken of, that the
passages brought to prove the Trinitarian doctrines
have been interpreted. But in order to withdraw
the propositions thus resulting, from the jurisdiction of reason, they have been called incomprehensible mysteries. A certain obscurity has thus been
thrown over the subject, by which some minds are
perplexed. I will now, therefore, attempt to show,
what, I think, may be shown clearly, that no proposition can be incomprehensible from the nature of
con."  "The mind and meaning of the author who is translated is
purely a question of language, and should be decided upon no other
principles than those of grammar or philology." But this principle
"has been most glaringly departed from in the case of the Bible;.....the meaning of its author, instead of being made singly and
entirely a question of grammar, has been made a question of metaphysics, or a question of sentiment:..... instead of the argument
resorted to being, Such must be the rendering, from the structure
of language, and the import and significancy of its phrases; it has
been, Such must be the rendering, from the analogy of the faith, the
reason of the thing, the character of the Divine mind, and the wisdom of all his dispensations."  There are Christians "who in addition to the word of God talk also of the reason of the thing." " Could
we only dismiss the uncertain fancies of a daring and presumptuous
theology, sit down like a school-boy to his task, and look upon the
study of divinity as a mere work of translation, then wd would expect the same unanimity among Christians, that we meet with among
scholars and literati about the system of Epicurus, or philosophy of
Aristotle."
The illustration is particularly unhappy, at least so far as regards
the philosophy of Aristotle. But I do not insist on this, nor on the
looseness and uncertainty of some of the'language which I have
quoted. The main ideas are sufficiently apparent. We are to come
to the study of the Scriptures merely with our grammar and lexicon.
Having done so, let us consider how we shall proceed. Our lexicon
will exhibit to us ten or twenty different meanings, perhaps, of some
of the most important words in a sentence. Our grammar, beside




162            ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
the ideas expressed; that there can be no meaning
conveyed in words, which is not perfectly intelligible, I do not say by this or that individual, but by
the human understanding.
Words are only human  instruments for the expression  of  human  ideas;  and  it is  impossible
that  they   should  express  anything  else.   The
meaning  of words  is that idea  or aggregate  of
ideas  which  men  have  associated  with  certain
teaching us the relatibns of words to each other, will discover to us
the various and often numerous modifications of meaning, which
some alteration in the form of a word renders it capable of expressing. If it happen to have an appendix treating of the rhetorical
figures, we may also learn something from it concerning the many
changes of signification to which words are subjected according to
established modes of speech; though our knowledge, if derived
merely from  this source, may not be extensive. But as yet we
are furnished only with objects of choice among a variety of meanings, without anything to decide us how to choose. We have only
learned, and that but very imperfectly, what the words may signify;
our business is to learn what they do signify.  Take a sentence,
which in different relations may be used to express different meanings with equal propriety, - and such sentences are constantly occurring, -what assistance will our grammar or lexicon afford, to
determine in any particular case its actual meaning?  Certainly
none at all.
But in the process of interpretation, we are to have recourse to no
other instruments. We are expressly enjoined, for instance, to exclude all consideration of the reason of the thing. By this must be
meant, that we are not to consider what may reasonably be said
upon any subject; or, in other words, what a reasonable man, with
no false opinions, would say concerning it. Let us try, then, how we
shall succeed in interpreting Scripture, after having excluded this
and every other extrinsic consideration. St. Luke ascribes these
words to our Saviour: " Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."  Shall we exclude all consideration of the reason of
the thing, and, taking the word poor in its most common and obvious
sense, understand our Saviour as asserting for a universal truth, that




CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.                     163
sounds or letters. They have no other meaning
than what is given them by men; and this meaning  must be  always  such  as the  human  understanding  is  capable  of conceiving; for we  can
associate  with  sounds  or letters  no  idea  or aggregate  of  ideas  which  we  have   not.   Ideas,
therefore, with which the human understanding
is conversant, are all that can be expressed by
words.  If an  angel have faculties of a different
all men destitute of property are blessed? But these words, it will
be said, are explained by the parallel passage in St. Matthew. Explained by a parallel passage! We are, then, very soon obliged to
have recourse to something beside our grammar and lexicon. But
how are they explained by the passage in St. Matthew? "Blessed
are the poor in spirit."  Without taking any extrinsic consideration
into view, but confining ourselves to the mere words before us, in
which of the many meanings of the word spirit shall we here understand it? Shall we receive it in a sense which occurs repeatedly
in the New Testament, according to which it denotes the temper
and virtues of a Christian, and understand the words as meaning:
" Blessed are they who are poor in the temper and virtues of a Christian"? But leaving these difficult passages, he who chooses to put
out of view the reason of the thing, and all those other circumstances
which ought to determine our judgment, may proceed with his grammar and lexicon to the next beatitude of our Saviour, and then to the
next; and then he may open at random upon any passage of the
New Testament, till he has satisfied himself respecting the practicability of his method.
If the opinions on which I have remarked were the'extravagances
of an individual writer alone, so long a notice of them would hardly
be justifiable. But the assertions, I cannot say the arguments, of
Dr. Chalmers, are intended to maintain a system of interpretation in
which the false doctrines that have been connected with Christianity
have found their main support. It is to be observed, however, that
the verbal method of interpretation is, in fact, principally confined to
passages brought in proof of those doctrines, and is abandoned in regard to other portions of Scripture, to which its application would
produce some unsanctioned error oi absurdity.




164       ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
nature from those which we possess, he can make
no use of our language to convey to our minds
the results of their exercise. If any being have
more senses than we have, he can find no words
of ours to express to us his new perceptions. It
being impossible, therefore, that words should be
employed to denote anything but human ideas;
whenever they have a meaning, this - meaning,
though liable to be mistaken, must in its own
nature be capable of being fully understood.
To talk of an incomprehensible meaning, if we
use the word " incomprehensible " in a strict sense,
is to employ terms which in themselves express an
absurdity. It is the same sort of language, as if
we were to speak of an invisible illumination.
The meaning of a sentence is the ideas which it
is adapted to convey to the mind of him who reads
or hears it. But if it be capable of conveying any
ideas, that is, if it have any meaning, it is merely
stating the same fact in other terms, to say that
those ideas are capable of being received and
understood.
No one, indeed, will deny, that there are many
truths incomprehensible by us; which are above
reason, or, in other words, which are wholly out
of the grasp of our present faculties. But these
truths cannot be expressed in human language.
Nor, while our faculties remain what they are,
can they be in any way revealed to us. To reveal is to make known. But what cannot be comprehended cannot be made known, and therefore
cannot be revealed.




CONCERNING LANGUAGE.         165
This very plain subject has been obscured by a
oose and ambiguous use of language. It is said,
that we believe truths which we do not comprehend; -that we believe that the grass grows;
but do not know how it grows; —that we believe
that some things are infinite; but that we do not
comprehend infinity; —that we believe that God
knows all things; but that we cannot form  a
conception of omniscience. Let us examine these
propositions. The grass grows: do we not know
what we mean when we use these words?  It
is as intelligible a proposition as can be stated.
We affirm, and we intend nothing more than to
affirm, that certain well-known, sensible phenomena take place. It is true that we do not know
how it grows, that is to say, we do not know
the proximate causes of its growth; and it is
equally true, that we affirm nothing about those
causes in the proposition stated. Our affirmation
does not extend beyond our knowledge. The fact
that there are many phenomena of which we cannot assign the causes, does not tend to prove that,
when we affirm those phenomena to exist, we utter
incomprehensible propositions.
But we say of many things, that they are or may
be infinite; that space and duration are infinite;
that the attributes of God are infinite; that our
own existence will be infinite or without termination; and we do not understand what is meant by
infinity; we do not comprehend these truths. I
answer, that if we do not understand those propositions, - if they are unintelligible, - it is very idle




166        ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
to make them. We do not comprehend infinity
in itself considered; but we comprehend our own
idea of infinity, with the knowledge, as in very
many other cases, that it is an inadequate idea.
Our ideas of things infinite are, as that word implies,* essentially negative ideas. They consist in
the conception of certain things, accompanied with
the belief of the absence of all limit or termination.
We not only have an idea of infinity, but it is impossible we should not have. The very constitution of our minds is such that we cannot, for instance,,imagine a period when time began, or when
it may end. It is true that we are unable to conceive of infinity positively, we do not understand
all its nature; and we can reason about it therefore but very partially. It belongs to the class of
inadequate ideas, which includes far the greater
portion of all our ideas; and the propositions relating to it are no more unintelligible than the
propositions which relate to other ideas of this
class. I affirm, that the same person who called
on me to-day visited me yesterday; and there is
no one, I think, who will maintain that this is an
incomprehensible proposition. Yet there are few
who will pretend to have a perfectly adequate
idea of identity, the notion of which is involved
in the proposition.just stated; and many questions may be raised respecting this subject, as
well as respecting infinity, by which most minds
would be perplexed. I say that the sun is the
* From the Latin in negative, and finitus.




CONCERNING LANGUAGE.           167
principal source of light and heat; and the proposition is perfectly intelligible. But I have not
an adequate idea of the sun; there are many
things concerning it, as well as concerning infinity, which I can neither affirm  nor deny. I
cannot say, for instance, whether, as some have
imagined, it be adapted to the support of animals
and vegetables, in any respect similar to those
which exist upon the earth.  Our idea of infinity
differs from most other ideas of the class to which
I have referred it, only in this respect,- that its inadequacy is occasioned by the fact, that the subject is beyond the grasp of our faculties; while the
inadequacy of most other ideas seems to arise
from the deficiency of our means of information.
But this is a difference which does not in any degree affect the nature of the propositions made
concerning it, so as to distinguish them from other
propositions relating to inadequate ideas.
But it will be said, that we have no conception
of omniscience; and yet that we make propositions concerning it, which have a meaning and
a very important one. I answer, that they have
not only an important, but a perfectly intelligible
meaning; and that this subject is of a similar
kind to many others,.of the nature and relations
of which the understanding has distinct ideas,
though they are subjects of which the imagination cannot form distinct conceptions. Fix on any
particular object of knowledge, and I can conceive,
in every sense of the word, that this should be
known to God. But when these objects are in19




168      ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
finite, or when they are multiplied beyond very
narrow limits, my imagination fails and is altogether confounded. But the same is the case
with regard to much humbler subjects. No ideas
can be more definite, considered as objects of the
understanding, than those which relate to number
and quantity; yet it is principally collective and
aggregate ideas involving the notion of great numbers or vast quantity, that the imagination is thus
unable to embrace. When I am told that there
are more than six hundred millions of inhabitants
upon the earth, I. understand the proposition as
perfectly, as when I am told that there are six individuals in a certain room. But of the latter my
imagination can form a distinct conception, of the
former it cannot. I have no images in my mind
which correspond in any considerable degree to
the immense number of individuals mentioned;
or to that vast mass of matter with all its various modifications which constitutes the earth.
Still less can one form distinct images of what
astronomy has made known to us respecting the
universe. But who will pretend that man cannot
comprehend the truths which man has discovered?
We need not, however, go so far for examples. I
can form no image of a figure with twenty equal
sides,-none which shall distinguish it from a
similar figure of nineteen or twenty-one. But I
am  surely able to comprehend propositions respecting such a figure with twenty sides; and I
have a very clear idea of it as an object of the
understanding. The fact therefore that our imagi



CONCERNING LANGUAGE.         169
nations cannot conceive of omniscience, has no
bearing to prove that our reason cannot comprehend the propositions which we make concerning it. When indeed we regard omniscience as
infinite knowledge, then our ideas respecting it,
however clear, must be inadequate. But, as I
have just shown, propositions relating to inadequate ideas may be altogether intelligible.
Language then cannot be formed into propositions having a meaning, which meaning is not, in
itself considered, fully to be comprehended. This
is merely saying, in other terms, that the human
mind is capable of comprehending the ideas of
the human mind, for no other ideas are associated
with, or can be expressed by, language. What
then is the character of those propositions, said to
be derived from the Scriptures, which are called
incomprehensible; and which, it is affirmed, express mysteries above human reason? I answer,
that so far as they have a meaning, they are intelligible; and that many of them are, in fact, propositions which are perfectly intelligible. When
I am told that the same being is both God and
man, I recognize, as I have before said,* a very
intelligible, though a very absurd proposition, that
is, I know well all the senses which the words admit. When it is affirmed that " the Father is God,
and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God;
and yet there are not three Gods, but one God";
no words can more clearly convey any meaning,
* See pp. 57, 58.




170       ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
than those propositions express the meaning, that
there are three existences of whom the attributes
of God may be predicated, and yet that there is
only one existence of whom the attributes of God
may be predicated. But this is not an incomprehensible mystery; it is plain nonsense.
It seems to me in one respect a most futile, and
in another a most irreverent, sort of discussion, to
inquire, what would be, or what ought to be, our
state of mind, if such propositions were found
in revelation; or had been taught us by any being
performing miracles in evidence of his mission
from God. It is a thing impossible, and not to
be imagined. When we have once settled the
real nature of those propositions, all controversy
about their making a part of Christianity is at
an end; unless, indeed, we urge this controversy,
not as Christians, but as unbelievers.
The propositions, then, of which we speak, are
altogether intelligible, and are not mysteries. It
is only in violation of that fundamental rule of
criticism, which continually prevents us from misunderstanding the words of other books in an
irrational or absurd meaning, that any support
has been found for them in the writings of the
New Testament. These writings have been explained in a manner, in which if any other work
were explained, we should think that its author
was regarded by his expositor as destitute of common sense; unless we ascribed this character to
the expositor himself. It may give us some idea
of the extent to which the misinterpretation of the




CONCERNING LANGUAGE.         171
Scriptures has been carried, and of the degree to
which the religion of Christians has been corrupted,
to recollect that the creed attributed to Athanasius, but which is in fact a spurious work of some
unknown author, which Athanasius himself would
have regarded with abhorrence, —a creed which
seems to have been formed in a delirium of folly,
-was for ages the professed faith of the whole
Western Church; and is still the professed faith
of a great portion of Protestants.
I have said, "the professed faith "; for although
the propositions which it embodies, considered in
themselves, may have one or more distinct meanings, they have no meaning in the mind of him
who proposes them as religious truths. The words
cannot be understood in any sense which he will
acknowledge to be what he intends to express.
He may have obscure, unsettled, and irrational
notions, which appear to him to answer in some
sort to the proposition affirmed; but he can have
no belief that really corresponds to it; for though
men may, and often do, believe contradictory propositions which they have never compared together, yet no. man can believe an obvious contradiction. While he is maintaining these propositions, he may, perhaps, hold a doctrine which
might properly be expressed in different words;
and which does not in fact differ from the doctrine of those to whom he fancies himself most
opposed. But whatever he does in fact believe,
that he may express distinctly and fully, in words
which carry no contradiction upon their face. The
19 




172        ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
obscurity of the subject cannot be made a plea for
the want of the utmost propriety and perspicuity
of language; for it is not the subject which he is
required to explain, but only his own belief concerning it. But what one man believes may be,
made perfectly intelligible to  another of equal
capacity and information.
ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON said of the Athanasian
creed, that he wished the Church of England " were
well rid of it." *  There are other parts of her service which it is even more desirable that church
should be well rid of. Familiarity may reconcile
us to what is most offensive. But let us imagine
it as possible that one should be ignorant of the
errors prevailing among Christians, and, at the
same time, penetrated with just conceptions of
the Divinity.  With what inexpressible astonishment and horror would he listen for the first time
to an assembly of Christian worshippers, thus addressing their God:" By the mystery of thy holy incarnation, by thy
holy nativity and circumcision, by thy baptism,
fasting, and temptation,- Good Lord, deliver us.
" By thine agony and bloody sweat, by thy cross
and passion, by thy precious death and burial, by
thy glorious resurrection and ascension,.....
Good Lord, deliver us."
How many join in these petitions with an intelligent belief of the propositions implied in them?
* In a letter to Bishop Burnet, about a month before Tillotson's
death. See Birch's Life of Tillotson.




CONCERNING LANGUAGE.          173
I answer, Not one; for when understood, they
cannot be believed. How many fancy that they
believe them, having some obscure notions, which
they think answer to what is intended? Certainly
not a majority of those listeners who have at all
exercised their reason upon the subject. But the
doctrines implied are not doctrines of the Church
of England alone. Other churches and sects are
equally responsible for their promulgation. And
what must we think of the public sanction thus
given to such representations of God and Christianity? What, in the present state of the world,
will be the effect upon the religious sentiments
of men, if absurdities so revolting are presented to their minds as essential doctrines of our
faith? If there be any honor due to God, if Christianity be not a mere vulgar superstition, if there
be any worth in religion, if any respect is to be
paid to that reason which God gave us when he
formed us in his own likeness, if any concern is
to be felt for man who has been insulted and degraded, it is a matter of the most serious importance, that this solemn mockery of all that is most
venerable, and most essential to human happiness,
should cease.




SECTION IX.
EXPLANATIONS OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT, ADDUCED BY TRINITARIANS.
I WILL now proceed to examine the principal
passages urged by Trinitarians. I do this, not
chiefly for the purpose of showing that they do
not support their doctrines, -that point, I trust,
is already settled, -but in order to assist those
who may wish to attain a correct notion of their
meaning, and particularly such as are familiar only
with the Trinitarian application of them. Most of
them present more or less difficulty to a modern
reader; otherwise they could not, with any appearance of reason, have been perverted to the support
of such doctrines; and one may reasonably desire
to know how they are probably to be understood.
But it is to be remarked, that the case is the same
with some of these as with many other passages in
the New Testament. We may confidently reject a
particular sense, as not having been intended by the
speaker or writer, while, at the same time, we doubt
whether we have ascertained his true meaning.
Of different expositions we may sometimes hesitate which to prefer, or question whether any one
be correct, though no other that seems preferable
occur to us. In the study of ancient authors, we
must often content ourselves with an approxima



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 175
tion to the thoughts intended to be expressed; and
for the most part have not a full and clear view of
all that was present to the mind of the writer. It
would require a mastery which none can attain over
the whole power of an ancient language as used
by different individuals, and an intimacy which
none can acquire with all the circumstances affecting the conceptions and feelings of an ancient
writer and his contemporaries, to determine in
every case the exact force and bearing of his words.
Our knowledge is not unfrequently so imperfect,
that we are unable fully to estimate the relative
importance of the different considerations which
may incline us to adopt one meaning or another.
The explanations, therefore, of some of the passages to be examined may be more or less probable or accurate, without in any degree affecting
the force of the preceding arguments.  However
much those who reject the Trinitarian exposition
of certain words may differ among themselves as
to their true meaning; there is, in consequence, as
little reason for assenting to the Trinitarian exposition, as is furnished by the differences among
Protestants for adopting the creed of the Church
of Rome, or the differences among Christians for
becoming an unbeliever. An equal diversity of
opinion has existed among interpreters concerning
the meaning of many passages not particularly
obnoxious to controversy. Nor is this variety of
explanation to be supposed peculiar to the New
Testament. In proportion to the attention which
has been paid to the ancient philosophers, to Plato




176  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
and Aristotle, for example, there has been a similar
want of agreement concerning their doctrines and
sentiments. It may be worth while to illustrate
what has been said, and to show the difficulty that
may exist in ascertaining the meaning of words,
even when the discussion excites no prejudice or
party feeling, by attending to a few of the first
declarations of our Saviour, which it is probable
many readers pass over with scarcely a question
as to their sense.
" Reform; for the kingdom  of Heaven is at
hand."*'The Common Version, instead of "Reform," has " Repent." To correct this error, nothing more is necessary than a knowledge of the
proper sense of the original word. But what was
intended by the words " kingdom of Heaven," as
used by Christ? and how were they understood by
the Jews, his contemporaries, when first uttered?
Both questions are important. The Jews had expected that their Messiah would come to establish
a temporal kingdom; and the idea of a temporal
kingdom was suggested to their minds by those
words when they first heard them. The fact concerning their expectations is ascertained by a process of investigation and reasoning. But such a
kingdom was not intended by our Saviour. Under
common circumstances, we endeavor to use words
in that sense in which they will at once be understood by our hearers. But we learn from an examination of the Gospels, that Christ employed
* Matthew iv. 17.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 177
terms, familiar to his hearers, in new senses, and
left his meaning to be gradually ascertained and
settled, as the minds of his disciples might open to
the truth.  What then was his meaning?  This is
a question to which, I think, many readers may
find it more difficult to return a clear and precise
answer, than it appears to be at first thought. He
who will look into the commentators may perceive
how indefinitely and inaccurately it is liable to be
understood.  For myself, I conceive him to have
intended by the " kingdom of Heaven," or, in other
words, " the kingdom of God," that state of things
in which men should recognize the authority of
God as the supreme lawgiver, and submit themselves to his laws, as human subjects to those of a
human government.  This I suppose to be  the
radical idea of the term as used by him, an idea
which is to be regarded under various relations, is
united with different accessory thoughts, and suggests different associations, according to the various connections in which it is presented.*
" Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the
kingdom  of Heaven," t -that is, they will enjoy
the blessings which God confers upon the subjects
of his kingdom, upon those who obey his laws.
But are they blessed for what they are, or for the
peculiar advantages which they enjoy for becorning what they ought to be? Is the blessing absolute and universal? Or does it refer only to the
* [See also the note on Matthew xiii. 11, in the author's Notes on
the Gospels.]
t Matthew v. 3.




178  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
favorable circumstances of the class spoken of?
Or is it confined to some particular individuals of
that class?  That these are not idle questions,
may appear from the words which St. Luke ascribes to Christ: "Blessed are you poor," the qualification "in spirit" being omitted; "for yours is
the kingdom  of Heaven";* which we cannot understand as referring without exception  to the
whole class of the poor. The words given by St.
Matthew have been by some critics so constructed
as to correspond to those of St. Luke.t  Thus
Wetstein understands them as addressed particularly to Christ's poor disciples, and as meaning,
Blessed in the view of the Spirit, Blessed in the
sight of God, are the poor, that is, you poor. It
would detain us too long, to enter into the reasons
for which, as it seems to me, this interpretation is
to be rejected. Let us attend, then, to some other
expositions.  Many commentators of the Romish
Church understand by the " poor in spirit" those
who voluntarily submit to poverty.  Among Protestants, Whitby and others understand " men of a
truly humble and lowly spirit." Paley, apparently
led astray by the sound of the words in the Common Version, supposes our Saviour to declare that
"the poor-spirited are blessed"; and has, in consequence, misrepresented the character of Christian, that is, of true morality.:   We may, with
some reason, suppose Christ to have meant, that,
* Luke vi. 20.
t By connecting rT 7rvvcvlart with zaKCaptot.
t See his Evidences of Christianity, Part II. Ch. 2.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 179
in the existing circumstances of the Jews, the poor
were far more likely than the rich to have the dispositions which would lead them  to become his
followers; and that in consequence he pronounced
those blessed who had the spirit of the poor. But
I think it most probable that his meaning was still
different. The word used in the original is to be
distinguished from that which denotes simply the
want of wealth. It implies destitution, and was
used to denote such as lived by charity. Looking
around him upon the multitude, he saw perhaps
many who had no earthly goods; and there stood
near him the few disciples who had at that time
left all to follow him. Borrowing, as was usual
with him, a figure from present objects, he speaks
of that poverty which is not in external circumstances, but the poverty of the mind, the destitution felt within.  The meaning of his words, I
believe, was, Blessed are such as feel that they are
destitute of all things; and he referred to such as,
free from the high pretensions and spiritual pride
of the generality of the Jews, might feel that as
Jews they had no claims upon God, might recognize their own deficiencies in goodness, and be
sensible how much was wanting to their true happiness.
Let us go on a little further. " Blessed are the
mourners; for they will be comforted."'  Does this
intend those who deny themselves the blessings of
life and endure voluntary penance, as some Cath* Matthew v. 4.
20




180  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
olics explain the passage?  You will say not.
Does it mean those who mourn for their sins, as
many Protestant commentators tell us?  I think
otherwise. The purpose of our Saviour was, I believe, simply to announce that his religion brought
blessed consolation to all who mourned.
"Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit
the earth." So the next words are rendered in the
Common Version. I will not go over the different
meanings that have been assigned to them, but
will only ask my reader, if he have not particularly attended to the subject, in what sense he
has understood them?  The rendering should be,
"Blessed are the mild, for they will inherit the
land"; that is, "the promised land."  The passage cannot be understood without attention to
the conceptions of the Jews. They believed, that,
if they obeyed God, they should remain in possession of "the promised land"; if they disobeyed
him, that they would be removed from  it, and
scattered among other nations. Hence "the inheriting of the land " was in their minds but another name for the enjoying of God's favor. In
this associated and figurative sense the terms
were used by Christ. His meaning was, literally,
Blessed are the mild, for they will enjoy the favor
of God. In the Psalm (xxxvii. 11) from which he
borrowed the words, they are, probably, to be understood literally.
These examples may serve in some measure to
show, that it is not always easy to determine the
meaning even of passages which may seem at first




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  181
view to present little difficulty. If, therefore, we
may hesitate about the true sense of those quoted
by Trinitarians, this circumstance will afford no
ground for hesitation in rejecting the Trinitarian
sense.  We must not assign  an  absurd meaning
to a passage, because we are unable to satisfy ourselves about the  meaning  intended.   He would
reason very. ill, who, because he was unable to
satisfy  himself as to  what  was  meant by  our
Saviour when  he spoke of eating  his flesh  and
drinking his blood, should, on that account, adopt
the Roman Catholic exposition of his words.
In what follows, I shall confine my remarks to
passages of the New  Testament.  If the doctrines
of Trinitarians were not taught by Christ and  his
Apostles, it would be a superfluous labor to examine the passages of the  Old  Testament which
have been represented as containing indications of
them.*   There  are  arguments  so  futile that one
may be excused from  remarking upon  them.  At
the present day, it can hardly be necessary to
prove that the writer of the first chapters of Genesis was not a Trinitarian; or that there is no evi* [" The Old Testament," says Professor Stuart, "does but obscurely (if at all) reveal the doctrine of a Trinity...... On the supposition that has been made, namely, that the full development of
Trinity was not made, and could not be made, until the time of the
Saviour's incarnation, it is easy to see why nothing more than preparatory hints should be found in the Old Testament respecting it.
He who finds more than these there, has reason, so far as I can see,
to apprehend that his speculations in theology have stronger hold
upon him than the principles of philology." - Biblical Repository for
July, 1835, pp. 105 - 108.]




182   EXPLANATIONS  OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.
dence  for  the  doctrine  in  the  words  of Isaiah
(vi. 3), " Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts ";
though, according to Dr. William Lowth, a standard  commentator on the  Prophets, " the Christian
Church  hath  always thought that the doctrine of
the blessed Trinity was implied in this repetition."
Another expositor of equal note, Bishop Patrick,
tells us, that " many of the ancient Fathers think
there is a plain intimation of the Trinity in these
words,' The Lord our God is one Lord' "; yet it
cannot be expected that one should go into an explanation of this proposition, for the sake of removing  any difficulty  in comprehending  it.  The
passage of the Old  Testament which  is most relied upon by Trinitarians is found in Isaiah ix. 6.
It has been often explained. There is, I think, no
evidence that it relates to Christ; and if it do, the
common version of it is incorrect.  It may be thus
rendered  -
" For unto us a child is born,
Unto us a son is given;
And the government shall be upon his shoulder;
And he shall be called
Wonderful, counsellor, mighty potentate,
Everlasting father, prince of peace." *
I quote the translation given by the Rev. George R. Noyes in
his Sermon upon Isaiah ix. 6, lately published, and refer to the same
discourse for its explanation and defence. I do so the more readily,
as it gives me an opportunity of expressing my respect for that able
and accurate scholar, and my strong interest in those labors by which
he is contributing so much toward a better understanding of the
Hebrew Scriptures.
[The sermon here referred to was republished in No. 78 of the
Tracts of the American Unitarian Association. See also, on this




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 183
I proceed, then, to  remark  upon  the  principal
passages adduced by Trinitarians professedly from
the  New  Testament in support of their doctrines;
and in doing so shall distribute them into several
different classes, according to the different errors
which  have  led  to  their misuse.   The  sources of
misinterpretation and mistake will thus appear,
and in regard to the texts of less importance which
I shall omit to notice, it will in general be easy to
determine to what head they are to be referred, and
in what manner understood.
CLASS I.
To  the first class we may refer Interpolated and
Corrupted "Passages. Such are the following.
passage, the remarks of the Rev. Dr. Noyes in the Christian Examiner for January, 1836, Vol. XIX. pp. 292-295. The article just
cited examines the question, " Whether the Deity of the Messiah be
a doctrine of the Old Testament," with particular reference to the
statements and reasonings of Hengstenberg, in his Christology. In
connection with two others by which it was followed, on the " Meaning of the Title Angel of Jehovah, as used in Scripture," and " The
Angel of Jehovah mentioned in the Old Testament, not identical with
the Messiah," (see the Christian Examiner for May and July, 1836,)
it presents, probably, the ablest and most satisfactory discussion of
the subject of which it treats that is to be found in the English language. - It may be mentioned, that the translation given above,
" mighty potentate," instead of " the mighty God," as in the Common
Version, is supported, substantially, by the authority of Luther,
Gesenius, De Wette, and Maurer.]
20*




184  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Acts xx. 28. Here in the Common Version, we
find these words: " To feed the church of GOD,
which  he  hath  purchased  with  his own  blood."
Instead of "the church of God," the true reading
is " the church of the Lord." *
1 Timothy iii. 16. " GOD was manifested in the
flesh."   The reading Oekd  (God) is spurious; but
it has  been  doubted  whether we should read  o'?
(who or le who) or o (which).
1 John v. 7. The famous text of the three heavenly witnesses.       The value that has been formerly
attached to this passage, though unquestionably
* [Among the critics and commentators who regard this as the
genuine or as the most probhable reading, may be mentioned the
names of Grotius, Wetstein, Michaelis (Anmerk. in loc.), Bp. Marsh,
Griesbach, Schott, Heinrichs, Rosenmiller, Kuinoel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, De Wette, Olshausen, Baumgarten, Adam Clarke,
John Pye Smith, Stuart (Bibl. Repos. for April, 1838, p. 315), Barnes,
Hackett, Davidson, Tregelles.]
t [This text is generally referred to, for conciseness, as "1 John
v. 7," though in fact the spurious words form a part of the 7th and
8th verses. It would hardly be worth while to notice this, had not
some who have written on the subject been so ignorant as to argue
the genuineness of the seventh verse from the assumed genuineness
of the first part of the eighth; though the latter, equally with the
spurious portion of the former, is wanting in all known Greek manuscripts written before the invention of printing, in all the ancient versions but the Latin Vulgate, and even in the oldest manuscripts of
that; is quoted by no ancient Greek Father, and by no Latin Father
before the latter part of the fifth century. The following are the
verses in question, as translated in the Common Version, the spurious portion being enclosed in marks of parenthesis: -
"For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. 8. And there
are three that bear witness in earth), the spirit, and the water, and
the blood: and these three agree in one."]




EXPLANATIONS  OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  185
interpolated, may be estimated from the obstinacy
with which it has been contended for, from its still
retaining its place as genuine in the editions of
the  Common Version, and  even in editions of the
original professedly formed on the text of Griesbach, from the lingering glances cast toward it by
such writers  as Bishop  Middleton, and  from   the
pertinacity with which the more ignorant or bigoted class of controversialists continue to quote
and even defend it.
After all that has been written concerning these
texts, no one of them requires particular notice except that from the First Epistle to Timothy. Of
this the true reading and proper explanation are
both  doubtful.   In  respect to  the  reading, the
question  is, as I have mentioned, between oI  (who
or he who)  and  o  (which).   Griesbach  gives the
preference to the former, but it has been shown, I
think, that he is incorrect in the citation of his authorities.* The original reading, I believe to have
* See Laurence's Remarks upon Griesbach's Classification of Manuscripts, pp. 71 - 83. According to Griesbach, of the Versions (which
as regards this text afford by far the most important evidence to be
adduced), the Arabic of the Polyglot, and the Slavonic, alone support the reading  eoes; in all the others, a pronoun is used answering
to os or to o. That is to say, the Coptic, the Sahidic, and the Philoxenian Syriac in its margin, express the pronoun or; the Vulgate,
and the older Latin versions, o, quod; and the Peshito or vulgar Syriac, the Philoxenian Syriac in its text, the Erpenian Arabic, the 2Ethiopic, and the Armenian, use a pronoun which may be translated indifferently " whov' or " which."
But according to Dr. Laurence, whose statements I see no reason
to distrust, "the Coptic, the Sahidic, and the Philoxenian versions do
not necessarily read os, but most probably o," and " the Peshito or




186   EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
been  o  (which).  For this the  external evidence,
when fairly adjusted, seems greatly to preponderate; and it may have been altered by transcribers
first into  o, and  afterwards into  Oeo, in  consequence of the theological interpretation of the passage, according  to  which  the  mystery  spoken  of
was  Christ,-  an  interpretation  that appears  to
vulgar Syriac, the Erpenian Arabic, and the JEthiopic, do not indifferently read osr or o, but indisputably o." " The Armenian reads
neither Os nor O, but, in conjunction with the Byzantine text, OEos."
Of all these versions, therefore, Griesbach's account is incorrect; and
the number and importance of those which favor the reading o, taken
in connection with the fact of its having been, from the first, the reading of the whole Western Church, produce a preponderating weight
of evidence in its favor.
In regard to the Philoxenian version, Dr. Laurence, as may appear
from what is quoted, expresses himself with some obscurity. But I
presume his opinion was, that both in the text and in the margin it
probably reads o. See White's note in his edition of this version.
[Later investigations have shown that the statements of Dr. Laurence here relied on are in several respects erroneous. But before
pointing out their inaccuracy, it may be well, for the better understanding of the subject, to mention the dates generally assigned by scholars to the ancient versions which contain this passage. The Old
Latin or Italic, and the Peshito Syriac, are supposed to have been
made in the second century; the Coptic and Sahidic, in the third, or
the latter part of the second; the 2Ethiopic, Gothic, and Latin Vulgate, in the fourth; the Armenian, in the fifth; the Philoxenian or
Harclean Syriac was completed A. D. 508, and revised A. D. 616.
Later versions are the Georgian, of the sixth century, but since altered from the Slavonic, made in the ninth; and the Arabic versions,
one edited by Erpenius, supposed to be made from the Syriac, another published in the Paris and London Polyglots, made from the
Greek, - both of uncertain date and very little value, - and still another of the ninth century, made from the Greek at Emesa in Syria
by one Daniel Philentolos, a manuscript of which is preserved in the
Vatican Library.
In regard to the reading of the present passage in these versions,




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 187
have  been  given  it at an  early period.  But the
passage, I believe, has no reference to Christ personally.
The words translated " mystery of godliness,  as
if purposely to obscure the sense, should be rendered "the new  doctrine  of piety," or "concerning
piety"; and in order to  avoid  an  awkward  collothe following is believed to be a correct account of the facts which
may now be considered as established. The Old Latin or Italic version, and the Latin Vulgate, read quod, corresponding to 5, which;the Gothic, as edited by Gabelentz and Loebe, has the masculine relative, answering to os, who, though the word corresponding to MfvrrOpLov, runa, is feminine; - the Peshito Syriac, the Coptic, the Sahidic,
the JEthiopic, the Armenian, the Philoxenian Syriac both in the text
and in the margin, the Erpenian Arabic, and the Arabic of Philentolos (see Hug's Introd. to the N. T., ~ 107, 3d ed.), use a pronoun
which may here be indifferently translated who or which; - the Arabic
of the Polyglot, the Slavonic, and the Georgian, support the reading
eeos, God. In most of the ambiguous versions, the relative pronoun
has the same form for all the genders; in the Coptic and Sahidic it
is masculine, but the word answering to,Lvo-TrpLov being also masculine, we have no means of determining whether the translators had
before them os or o. In respect to the Armenian version, the Eclectic
Review for January 1831, p. 48, gives a quotation, apparently from
a later edition of Dr. Laurence's Essay, according to which he no
longer claims it as supporting the reading OEo', but leaves its testimony doubtful. The Eclectic Reviewer himself, Dr. Henderson, and
Dr. Tregelles, for whom a special collation of Zohrab's edition of this
version has been made by a competent scholar, represent it as reading a pronoun equivalent to either Os or o, as stated above. As to
the Philoxenian Syriac, see the note of White, referred to by Mr.
Norton.
The evidence of the ancient versions is particularly important in
regard to this passage, on account of the slight difference between
the three readings as written in the ancient Greek manuscripts. In
the uncial or more ancient manuscripts, Oeos, o's, and o were written nearly as follows: O0, OC, 0. The change from one of these
readings to another could therefore be much more easily made in the




188  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
cation  of words in  English, we may connect the
epithet " great" with  the substantives " pillar and
foundation "; an  arrangement which, though  contrary to the construction of the original, sufficiently
expresses the sense. The following rendering, then,
I believe, gives the meaning of the Apostle.
" I thus write to you, hoping to come to you
Greek manuscripts than in those of the ancient versions. The more
important of these versions represent the text of manuscripts far
older, probably, than any that have come down to us. They represent, moreover, the text of manuscripts found in countries widely separated from each other. Their testimony has therefore not only the
weight of the highest antiquity, but is far more independent, than
that of the great mass of modern manuscripts. A large majority of
these were written in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, or later,
within the narrow limits of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and
under influences which tended to produce a uniformity of text. (See
Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I., Additional Note A,
pp. xxx.-xxxii.)  In many passages the reading which the great
body of them present differs from that which is proved to be genuine by the agreement of the most ancient witnesses combined with
internal evidence. It is accordingly a well-established principle of
criticism, to use the words of Tregelles, that "the mass of recent
documents possesses no determining voice, in a question as to what
we should receive as genuine readings." When, therefore, we find
that the evidence of the nine oldest versions in favor of a relative
pronoun as the original reading in this passage is confirmed by the
five oldest and best manuscripts which we possess (the Alexandrine,
Ephrem, Augian, and Boernerian reading 5s, the Clermont 5), and
also by the earliest Fathers to whose testimony we can appeal with any
confidence, we can have little doubt that the reading Oeos, though
found in all but three of the cursive, and in two of the later uncial
manuscripts, is a corruption of the original. It is perhaps worth
noting, that one of the more recent manuscripts which read 5s, the
Codex Colbertinus 2844 (numbered 17 in the Epistles by the critical
editors), is of peculiar value.. Eichhorn, as quoted by Tregelles,
speaks of it as " full of the most excellent and oldest readings"; and
styles it " the Queen of the manuscripts in cursive letters."




EXPLANATIONS OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  189
shortly; but should I be delayed, that you may
know  how  you  ought to  conduct yourself in  the
house of God, that is, the assembly of the living
God.  Beyond doubt, the great pillar and  foundation of the true religion is the new doctrine concerning piety, which has been made known in human weakness, proved true by divine power, while
We are left then to decide between gs and G. The question which
of these readings is to be preferred is rendered more difficult of solution by the ambiguous evidence of most of the versions, and, it may
be added, of many of the Fathers. It is not necessary to discuss it
here. Among modern critics, gs is regarded as the most probable
reading by Benson, Griesbach, Schott, Vater, Rosenmuller, Heinrichs, Meyer, De Wette, Olshausen, Wiesinger, Huther, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Davidson, and Tregelles; o is preferred by Erasmus,
Grotius, Sir Isaac Newton, Wetstein, and Professor Porter.
One who wishes to pursue the subject further, and to examine the
authorities for the statements which have here been made, may consult, in addition to the notes of Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, and
Tischendorf, in their editions of the Greek Testament, the Eclectic
Review for January 1831, Art. III.; Porter's Principles of Textual
Criticism, (London, 1848,) pp. 482-493; Davidson's Biblical Criticism, (London, 1853,) Vol. II. pp. 382 - 403; Tregelles's Account of
the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, (London, 1854,) pp.
227 - 231; and the able reviews of Porter and Davidson, by the Rev.
Dr. Noyes (who prefers the reading os'), in the Christian Examiner
for January 1850, and May 1853. The note of Wetstein deserves
particularly to be studied. - Of the earlier defenders of the common
reading of this passage, the ablest, perhaps, is Berriman, whose
"Critical Dissertation upon 1 Tim. iii. 16 " appeared in 1741. Among
its later champions, the most prominent is Dr. Ebenezer Henderson, whose essay on the subject, entitled "The Great Mystery
of Godliness Incontrovertible," &c., was published in London in
1830, and reprinted, with additional observations by Professor Stuart, in the Biblical Repository for January 1832.  The remark of
Dr. Davidson, that "Henderson's reasoning to show that the Old
Syriac version may have had Oeos equally well as o, is a piece of
special pleading undeserving of notice," may be applied with justice




190  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
angels were looking on, which has been proclaimed
to the Gentiles, believed in the world, and has obtained a glorious reception."
In the beginning of the second chapter of this
Epistle, St. Paul speaks earnestly, and at length,
of the prayers to be offered by Christians in their
public assemblies.   The  main  object of their thus
to many other parts of this essay. The careful inquirer will find that
it abounds in misstatements and false assumptions; and will be astonished at the suppression of important facts, of which it hardly
seems possible that the author can have been ignorant. Some of
Dr. Henderson's errors are pointed out in the article in the Eclectic
Review before referred to, and in the Christian Examiner for January 1850, p. 29, note. There are other important mistakes and omissions not there noted, particularly in his account of the evidence of
the Fathers.
Professor Stuart, in the new edition of his Letters to Dr. Channing contained in his "Miscellanies," published in 1846, has some
remarks on this passage, in which he has repeated many of Dr.
Henderson's errors, and added others of his own. After the statements and references which have been made, it is not worth while to
point these out in detail.  But though the accuracy of Professor
Stuart cannot be relied on, he has shown his candor in the following
honest concession, whicn is quoted with approbation by Dr. Davidson, himself a Trinitarian.
"I cannot feel," he says, in concluding his remarks supplementary
to Dr. Henderson's essay, "that the contest on the subject of the
reading can profit one side so much, or harm the other so much,
as disputants respecting the doctrine of the Trinity have supposed.
Whoever attentively studies John xvii. 20-26, 1 John i. 3, ii. 5,
iv. 15, 16, and other passages of the like tenor, will see that'God
might be manifest' in the person of Christ, without the necessary
implication of the proper divinity of the Saviour; at least, that the
phraseology of Scripture does admit of other constructions besides
this; and other ones, moreover, which are not forced.  And conceding this fact, less is determined by the contest about os and eo'E,
in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than might seem  to be at first view."-Biblical
Repository for January, 1832, p. 79.]




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT. 191
associating together was to excite their feelings of
piety by mutual sympathy.  Then follow directions respecting the well-ordering of a Christian
community or church, and the proper character of
its officers; and, in conclusion, the Apostle recurs
to the great distinctive character of Christianity,
its new  doctrine of piety to God, that state of
mind which their assemblies were particularly intended to cherish.  Thus we have a connected
train of thought.  But if the conclusion of the
passage be  explained  of the  manifestation  of
Christ, or of God, in the flesh, a new subject is
abruptly introduced, having but a remote connection with what precedes; and one which we perceive no reason for the Apostle's adverting to in
this place.*
CLASS II.
Passages relating to Christ which have been mistranslated.
To this class belongs Philippians ii. 5, seqq.
Here the Common Version makes the Apostle
say of Christ, that'he "thought it not robbery to
be equal with God."   This has been considered
a decisive argument that Christ is God; though
* [For a notice of the various readings of some other passages
supposed to have a bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity, see Appendix, Note C.]
21




192  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
it is an absurdity to say of any being, that he
"thought it not robbery to be equal with himself."  Perhaps no text, however, has been more
frequently quoted or referred to.*  But it now
seems to be generally conceded that the words
have been mistranslated. In the verses that follow, the verbal rendering of ev Popjy  9eov is, " in
the form of God," and that of /opqrv SovXov, " the
form of a servant." But as these phrases do not
correspond to our modes of expression, they can
hardly convey a distinct meaning to most readers.
"To be in the form  of another," as here used,
means " to appear as another," " to be as another."
In a translation it is better to substitute one of
these equivalent, but more intelligible phrases.
The whole passage may be thus rendered:"Let the same disposition [Let the same humility and benevolence] be in you which was in
Jesus Christ, who being as God did not think that
his equality with God was to be eagerly retained;
but divested himself of it, and made himself as a
servant and was as men are, and being in the common condition of man, humbled himself, and was
submissive, even to death, the death of the cross."
Christ was "in the form  of God," or "the image of God," or "as God"; he was "like God,"
Thus Dr. Watts in one of his hymns:"Yet there is one of human frame,
Jesus arrayed in flesh and blood,
Thinks it no robbery to claim
A full equality with God.
Their glory shines with equal beams," &c.
Book II., H. 51.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 193
or he was "equal with God" (the latter words
being correctly understood); because he was a
minister in the hands of God, wholly under his
direction; because his words were the words of
God, his miracles, the works of the Father who
sent him, and his authority as a teacher and legislator, that of the Almighty, not human, but divine.
Yet notwithstanding that he bore the high character of God's messenger and representative to
men, with all the powers connected with it, he
was not eager to display that character, or exercise those powers, for the sake.of any personal
advantage, or of assuming any rank or splendor
corresponding to his pre-eminence over all other
men.  "Being  rich, for our sakes he became
poor."*  He divested himself as it were of his
powers, lowered himself to the condition of common men, lived as they live, exposed to their
deprivations and sufferings, and voluntarily, as if
weak as they, submitted to an ignominious and
torturing death. - When it is affirmed that Christ
made himself as a servant, these words are illustrated by those which he himself used, while inculcating, like the Apostle, the virtues of humility
and benevolence, with a like reference to his own
example: "The Son of Man came not to be
served, but to serve." t It is in imitation of this
example, that he directs him, "who would be
chief among his disciples, to become the servant
of all." $
* [2 Cor. viii 9.]    t Matthew xx. 28.    $ [Mark x. 44.]




194   EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
I PROCEED to another example.  It is the mistranslation of the word alWve? by the English word
" worlds," in the commencement of the Epistle to
the Hebrews.*  For giving this sense to the original term, there is not, I think, any authority to be
found either in Hellenistic or classic Greek. It
was not so used till long after the composition
of this Epistle.  In the theological dialect of Christians, this sense was assigned to it in reference to
the present passage and to another in this Epistle
(Ch. xi. 3.); and the corresponding Latin word sceculum acquired the same meaning.  The Greek word
alco was used to denote a space of time of considerable length, leaving its precise limits undefined.  Hence it denotes, secondarily, the state of
things existing during such a period. In this sense
it often occurs in the New Testament.  We use
the word age in a like signification, employing it
to denote the men of a particular period, considered in reference to their circumstances and character, as when we speak of the "manners of an
age," "the learning of an age," &c.  So, likewise,
the word time is used, though, by an idiom of our
language, rather in the plural than the singular, as
in the phrase, " the times of the Messiah."  Shake-,speare, however, says in the singular, " the time is
* There can be no reason for not explaining the passages in the
Epistle to the Hebrews which I believe to have been misunderstood,
though I do not regard the Epistle as the work of St. Paul or any
other Apostle. My reasons for this opinion I have formerly given
in the Christian Examiner (Vols. IV., V., VI.), in a series of articles
which I may, perhaps, at some time republish.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  195
out of joint,"  meaning, "the present state of things
is in disorder."
In the passage under consideration, arlves, " ages,"
most probably, I think, denotes the " different states
of things which, in successive periods, would result
from Christianity." In the Epistle to the Ephesians, it is used, I suppose, in the same sense, Ch.
iii. ver. 11, KarTa 7po6eo  t 70W  atLoYwvw l)v  ETroLr)OeV
ev Xplto' ^r'lqoov T7) KVpl p    c ^wv, is conformably to
a disposition of the ages which he has made by
Christ Jesus our Lord"; t and probably also in
the same Epistle (ii. 7) where the Apostle speaks
of the favor of God that will be manifested " in the
ages to come."  In these passages, as well as in
that from the Epistle to the Hebrews, the reference, I presume, extends  beyond this life to the
future condition of Christians, to "the ages" after
death. $   Thus, then, I would render and explain
the meaning of the writer to the Hebrews in the
first five verses of this Epistle:" God, who at different times and  in  different
ways formerly spoke to our fathers by the Prophets, has at last spoken to us by his Son, whom
* [Hamlet, Act I. Sc. V.]
t Not, as in the Common Version, "according to the eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."
$ In Hebrews xi. 3, al&ves is again translated " worlds." Here we
may render thus: " Through faith we understand that the ages have
been so ordered by the power of God, that what is seen had not its
origin in what was conspicuous." The meaning of the writer I conceive to have been, that through faith we believe that Christianity
with all its results is to be referred to the power of God, not having
had its origin in any state of things previously existing.
21*




196   EXPLANATIONS OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.
he has appointed heir of all,* through whom also
he has given form  to the ages,J who being a reflection of his glory, and an image of his perfections,
and  ruling  all things with  authority  from   hirn,
after having cleansed us from our sins by himself
alone,~ has sat down  at the right hand  of the
Majesty on high; being as much greater than the
angels, as the title which he has obtained is preeminent above theirs. For to which of the angels
did God ever say, Thou art my Son, this day have
I made thee so?   And again, I will be to him  a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
ANOTHER  passage which may be mentioned is
the conclusion of the First Epistle of St. John, thus
rendered in the Common Version: 
" 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, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the
* We may suppose that, the preceding dispensations of God being
intended to prepare the way for Christianity, Christ is represented
as "heir of all " which has been accomplished by them; or the figurative term heir may be used with reference to the title of Son immediately before given to Christ, and "heir of all" may be equivalent to " Lord of all," denoting that Christ has been appointed " head
over all" in the Christian dispensation.
t Or, in other words, " has given form to what exists and is to exist," as the results of Christianity.
t Read avrrov, and not avror, as is suggested, and almost required,
by the occurrence of avro3 in the preceding clause, and by the use of
eavrov immediately after without the insertion of Kat
~ That is, without the intervention of the sacrifices of the Jewish
law.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT. 197
true God  and  eternal life.  Little  children, keep
yourselves from idols."
According to the Trinitarian exposition of these
words, the true God is the Son of God, and the
two persons, who are so clearly distinguished by
St. John, are one being. But the appearance of
a  Trinitarian  meaning  is the result of a  false
translation, particularly of the improper insertion
of the word "even."   The passage may be thus
rendered. Its sense may be made clearer by going
back a little, and beginning at verse 18.
" We know that whoever is born of God avoids
sin; the  child  of God  guards himself, and  the
WVicked  One  cannot touch  him.  We  are  assured  that we are  of God, and  that the whole
world is subject to  the Wicked  One.  And we
are assured that the Son of God has come, and
has given us understanding to know  Him  who is
True.  And we are with Him who is True through
his Son Jesus Christ.  He is the True God, and
eternal life. Children, keep yourselves from idols."
The meaning is, that He with whom Christians
are, He who is True, is the True God, and the
giver of eternal life.* In the former part of the
* [Compare verse 11. The pronoun translated " He  by Mr. Norton, or " This " in the Common Version, is regarded as referring to
"Him who is True " by the most unprejudiced interpreters, whether
Trinitarian or Unitarian; among others, by Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Morus, Abp. Newcome, Rosenmuller, Jaspis, Schott,
Winer (Gram. ~ 23. 1), Lucke, De Wette, Neander, Huther, Meyer
(on Rom. ix. 5, 2d ed.), and Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, I. 128). The
pronoun OVTro often refers not to the nearest preceding noun, but to
a remoter antecedent, more prominent in the mind of the writer. See
2 John 7,\Acts iv. 11, and the Lexicons of the N. T. sub voce.




198 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
passage St. John expresses the Jewish conception
of the personality and power of Satan. To him,
the Wicked One, he regarded the heathen world
as subject; while believers were through Christ
with Him who is True, the True God. They
were, therefore, to keep themselves from idols.
Should it be said that these ideas are not happily expressed, I answer, it is evident that the author
of this Epistle was as unskilful a writer as we
might expect to find one originally a Galilean
fisherman; and should it be brought as an objection against his being an inspired Apostle, that he
adopted a popular error of his countrymen respecting the existence and power of a being, the supposed author of evil, I would ask in return, how,
if he were not an inspired Apostle, one thus exposed in common with others to the errors of his
age, rose so high above his contemporaries in
his comprehension of the ESSENTIAL truths of religion?
With the passage quoted from St. John may be
compared the words of his Master, which he had
previously recorded: " And this is eternal life, to
know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom thou hast sent."   After having recorded
these words, with what amazement would he have
been seized, had it been revealed to him that an
epistle of his own would be interpolated in one
place, and its meaning perverted in another, for
the sake of proving a doctrine, about to be generally received by Christians, that he who thus ad* John xvii. 3.




EXPLANATIONS  OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  199
dressed the only true God, that he whom God had
sent, was himself the only true God!
To the class of mistranslations are likewise to
be referred those  passages which, on  account of
the  omission  of the  Greek article, have  been  so
rendered as to apply to Christ the title of " God."
These, however, are  in  this  particular  correctly
translated in the Common  Version.  As the question is purely a critical one, I will place the remarks to be made upon it in a note.'
* The argument for the deity of Christ founded upon the omission of the Greek article was revived and brought into notice in the
last century by Granville Sharp, Esq. He applied it to eight texts
which will be hereafter mentioned. The last words of Ephesians
v. 5 may afford an example of the construction on which the argument is founded:
ev 7T f3atXl\ea rov XPL(rrov KaL eeov.
From the article being inserted before Xpiwrrov and omitted before
OEou, Mr. Sharp infers that both names relate to the same person,
and renders, " in the kingdom of Christ our God." Conformably to
the manner in which he understands it, it might be rendered, " in the
kingdom of him who is Christ and God."  The proper translation I
suppose to be that of the Common Version, " in the kingdom of Christ
and of God," or " in the kingdom of the Messiah and of God."
The argument of Sharp is defended by Bishop Middleton in his
Doctrine of the Greek Article. By attending to the rule laid down
by him, with its limitations and exceptions, we shall be able to judge
of its applicability to the passages in question. His rule is this: --
"When two or more attributives, joined by a copulative or copulatives, are assumed of [relate to] the same person or thing, before the
first attributive the article is inserted, before the remaining ones itis
omitted." (pp. 79, 80.)
By attributives, he understands adjectives, participles, and nouns
which are significant of character, relation, and dignity.
The limitations and exceptions to the rule stated by him are as
follows:



200  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
To the class of mistranslations might strictly be
referred  a very large part of all the passages adduced by Trinitarians, as will appear from what
I. There is no similar rule respecting " names of substances considered as substances." Thus we may say 6 Xl0oO Kal Xpvufoy, without
repeating the article before Xpvro-s, though we speak of two different
substances. The reason of this limitation of the rule is stated to be
that "distinct real essences cannot be conceived to belong to the
same thing "; or, in other words, that the same thing cannot be supposed to be two different substances. -In this case, then, it appears
that the article is not repeated, because its repetition is not necessary to
prevent ambiguity. This is the true principle which accounts for all
the limitations and exceptions to the rule that are stated by Bishop
Middleton and others. It is mentioned thus early, that the principle
may be kept in mind; and its truth may be remarked in the other
cases of limitation or of exception to be quoted.
II. No similar rule applies to proper names. "The reason," says
Middleton, "is evident at once; for it is impossible that John and
Thomas, the names of two distinct persons, should be predicated of an
individual." (p. 86.) This remark is not to the purpose; for the same
individual may have two names. The true reason for this limitation
is, that proper names, when those of the same individual, are not
connected by a copulative or copulatives, and therefore that, when
they are thus connected, no ambiguity arises from the omission of the
article.
III. "Nouns," says Middleton, " which are the names of abstract
ideas, are also excluded; for, as Locke has well observed,'Every
distinct abstract idea is a distinct essence, and the names which stand
for such distinct ideas are the names of things essentially different."'
(Ibid.) It would therefore, he reasons, be contradictory to suppose that
any quality were at once carelpla and aTrallevro-a. But the names of
abstract ideas are used to denote personal qualities, and the same personal qualities, as they are viewed under different aspects, may be
denoted by different names.  The reason assigned by Middleton is
therefore without force.  The true reason for the limitation is, that
usually no ambiguity arises from the omission of the article before
words of the class mentioned.
IV. The rule, it is further conceded, is not of universal applit ation
as it respects plurals; for, says Middleton, " Though one individual




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 201
follows; but my purpose under the present head
has been to remark only on a few, in which the
error is more gross than usual, or the misuse of
may act, and frequently does act, in several capacities, it is not likely
that a multitude of individuals should all of them act in the same several capacities: and, by the extreme improbability that they should be
represented as so acting, we may be forbidden to understand the second plural attributive of the persons designed in the article prefixed
to the first, however the usage in the singular might seem to countenance the construction." (p. 90.)
V. Lastly, " we find," he says, " in very inany instances, not only
in the plural, but even in the singular number, that where attributives
are in their nature absolutely incompatible, i. e. where the application
of the rule would involve a contradiction in terms, there the first
attributive only has the article, the perspicuity of the passage not requiring the rule to be accurately observed." (p. 92.)
Having thus laid down the rule, with its limitations and exceptions,
Bishop Middleton applies it to some of the passages in the New
Testament adduced by Mr. Sharp in proof of the divinity of Christ.
These were Acts xx. 28 (supposing the true reading to be tro Kvplov
Kal Oeov); Ephes. v. 5; 2 Thess. i. 12; 1 Tim. v. 21 (if Kvplov
should be retained in the text); 2 Tim. iv. 1 (if we read 7oV eeov
KaL Kvplov); Titus ii. 13; 2 Peter i. 1; Jude 4 (supposing  eo'y
to belong to the text). In four of these eight texts, the reading
adopted to bring them within the rule is probably spurious, as may
be seen by referring to Griesbach; and they are in consequence either
given up, or not strongly insisted upon, by Middleton. In one of
the remaining, 2 Thess. i. 12, the reading is Kar'a TrV Xaptv ro0 eeov
),UlV KaL KVpLOV'Ilov Xptcr'ro.  Of this Middleton is " disposed to
think that it affords no certain evidence in favor of Mr Sharp," because he " believes that KptLOS in the form of Kvplos'Irqovso Xplcros
became as a title so incorporated with the proper name as to be subject to the same law." (pp. 554, 564.) The three remaining texts are
those on which he principally relies.
By the application of the rule to the passage last mentioned, it is
inferred that Christ is called " God," and " the great God "; and it is
affirmed that the rule requires us to understand these titles as applied
to him. The general answer to this reasoning is as follows.
It appears by comparing the rule with its exceptions and limita



202  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
which has principally arisen from their being incorrectly rendered.   As may readily be supposed,
the different classes of texts that I have formed
tions, that it in fact amounts to nothing more than this: that when substantives, adjectives, or participles are connected together by a copulative or copulatives, if the first have the article, it is to be omitted
before those which follow, when they relate to the same person or
thing; and is to be inserted, when they relate to different persons
or things, EXCEPT when this fact is sufficiently determined by some
other circumstance. The same rule exists respecting the use of the
definite article in English.
The principle of exception just stated is evidently that which runs
through all the limitations and exceptions which Middleton has laid
down and exemplified, and is in itself perfectly reasonable. When,
from any other circumstance, it may be clearly understood that different persons or things are spoken of, then the insertion or omission
of the article is a matter of indifference.
But if this be true, no argument for the deity of Christ can be
drawn from the texts adduced. With regard to this doctrine, the
main question is, whether it were taught by Christ and his Apostles,
and received by their immediate disciples. Antitrinitarians maintain
that it was not; and consequently maintain that no thought of it was
ever entertained by the Apostles and first believers. But if this supposition be correct, the insertion of the article in these texts was
wholly unnecessary. No ambiguity could result from its omission.
The imagination had not entered the minds of men, that God and
Christ were the same person. The Apostles in writing, and their
converts in reading, the passages in question, could have no more
conception of one person only being understood, in consequence of
the omission of the article, than of supposing but one substance
to be meant by the terms 6 XL'0o  Kal Xpvco'S, on account of the
omission of the article before Xpvoo's. These texts, therefore, cannot
be brought to disprove the Antitrinitarian supposition, because this
supposition must be proved false, before these texts can be taken
from the exception and brought under the operation of the rule.
The truth of the supposition accounts for the omission of the
article.
[On the subject of this note, one may further consult the able tract
of the Rev. Calvin Winstanley, entitled "A Vindication of certain




EXPLANATIONS  OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  203
run  into  each  other; the  misinterpretation  of a
passage  not  unfrequently  having  its  origin  in
more than  one cause.*
CLASS III.
Passages relating  to  God, which have been incorrectly applied to Christ.
THE first which I shall mention belongs likewise
to the head of mistranslations. It is Romansix. 5,
thus rendered in the  Common Version: " Whose
Passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament.
Addressed to Granville Sharp, Esq."; published in 1805, and reprinted, with additions, at Cambridge (Mass.) in 1819. See also an
essay by Professor Stuart, entitled " Hints and Cautions respecting
the Greek Article," in the Biblical Repository for April 1834; and
the Rev. T. S. Green's f" Grammar of the New Testament Dialect,"
(London, 1842,) p. 205, seqq.,- a work containing many acute observations. Winer, in his Grammar of the New Testament Idiom,
~ 18. 5, shows that there is no ground for the inference which Middieton and others would draw from the omission of the article in
Titus ii. 13 and Jude 4.]
* [It may here be proper to notice the gross mistranslation of
Hebrews ii. 16, which reads, " For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."  The
Italics are those of the Common Version, the words thus printed
being a wholly unauthorized addition of the translators. The verse
should be rendered: "For he, truly, does not give aid to angels
[i. e. is not the Saviour of angels]; but he gives aid to the offspring
of Abraham."'The passage is thus understood by all modern interpreters of any note.-It may also be remarked, that in the 14th
verse of the same chapter "took part of" is improperly used for
"partook of," " shared."]
22




204  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
are the fathers, and of whom  as concerning the
flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for
ever. Amen."
It must, one would think, strike a Trinitarian,
who maintains the correctness of this construction
and rendering, as a very extraordinary fact, that
the title of " God over all blessed for ever," which
is nowhere else given to Christ, should be introduced thus incidentally and abruptly, without explanation or comment, and without any use being
made of the doctrine. The supposed fact appears
still more extraordinary and unaccountable, when
we recollect that one main purpose of the Epistle
to the Romans was to meet the prejudices and
errors of the unbelieving Jews respecting Christianity; and that the doctrine which the Apostle
is imagined to have asserted so briefly and explicitly, and then to have left without attempting
to clear it from a single objection, must have been
in the highest degree obnoxious to them; and one,
therefore, which, in consistency with the design of
the Epistle, required the fullest illustration and
defence.  In the second century, Justin Martyr,
though far indeed from affirming that Christ was
" God over all," maintained that he was " another
god," the Logos of the Supreme. In the Dialogue
which he represents himself as having held with an
unbelieving Jew, Trypho, in defence of Christianity, he brings forward views and arguments similar
to those in the Epistle to the Romans; but in addition to these we find a new topic, the deity of
Christ, occupying a great part of the discussion.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 205
If the doctrine had been maintained by St. Paul,
as it was by Justin, one would think that, in answering the objections ot the Jews, it would have
been as necessary for the Apostle, as for Justin, to
explain and defend it.  The sentiments of the
Jews concerning  it, which  undoubtedly would
have been as strong in the time of St. Paul as
they were a century later, appear from the words
which Justin ascribes to Trypho: " You undertake to prove an incredible and almost impossible
thing,-that a god submitted to be born and to
become a man."    "As for what you say, that
this Christ existed as a god before time was, and
afterwards becoming a man, submitted to be born,
and that he was born out of the common course of
nature, it seems to me not only paradoxical, but
foolish." t  " All we [Jews]," says Trypho in another place, "expect that the Messiah will be a
man born of human parents." J  The whole argument of St. Paul in opposition to the prejudices of
the unbelieving Jews must have been incomplete
and unsatisfactory, if he asserted this "incredible
and almost impossible " doctrine in the clause of
a sentence without attempting any vindication of
its truth.
The passage has, I believe, no bearing whatever
upon the doctrine which it has been adduced to
prove.  The fact is well known, that the present
pointing of the New Testament is of no authority;
* Dial. cum Tryph., p. 283, ed. Thirlb. [c. 68. p. 292, D. ed. Morel.]
t Ibid., p. 233. [al. c. 48. p. 267, B.]
t Ibid., p. 235. [al. c. 49. p. 268, A.]




206  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
the more ancient manuscripts having been unpointed; and the points which we now find having been introduced by later transcribers and by
editors. Let any one, then, turn to the passage in
his Greek Testament, and put a dot at the top of
the line (equivalent to a semicolon) after o'aptca
instead of a comma, as at present, and a comma
after 7rarTV7v, and he will perceive that the following meaning immediately results: " He who was
over all was God blessed for ever."
" He who was over all," that is, over all which
has just been mentioned by the Apostle.  The
rapidity of expression in the original, however,
does not fully appear in such a rendering; because
in our language we are obliged to supply the
ellipsis of the substantive verb. It may be imitated, however, by employing the participle instead
of the verb. Doing this, I will give what seems
to me a more correct translation of the passage,
and of its context, than that in the Common
Version: -
"- My brothers, my natural kinsmen; who are
Israelites, whose was the glory of being adopted as
sons, whose were the covenants, and the Law, and
the service of the temple, and the promises; whose
were the fathers, and from among whom the Messiah was to be born; he who was over all being
God blessed for ever. Amen."
This conclusion, as every one must perceive, is
in the highest degree proper and natural. Among
the privileges and distinctions of the Jews, it could
not be forgotten by the Apostle, that God had pre



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 207
sided over all their concerns in a particular manner.  With regard to the ellipsis of the substantive
verb, which  we  have  supposed, nothing  is more
common.   In  the five verses, including  the verse
we  are  considering, between  the  3d  and  9th, it
occurs at least six times.*
* The following texts, to which many others might be added,
afford examples of a similar ambiguity of construction in the writings of St. Paul from the omission of the substantive verb: Romans viii. 33, 34; x. 12; 1 Cor. i. 26; 2 Cor. iii. 14 (i advaKacXvr7rTuievov for E'orT  yap /r)q avaKaXvTrrodEVov); 2 Cor. v. 5; Ephes. iv. 4
(comp. 5); Coloss. ii. 17.
[Considering the importance which has been attached to this passage, and the different explanations which have been given of it by
distinguished scholars, a few additional remarks will perhaps be pardoned.
The past privileges of the Jews being referred to by the Apostle,
Mr. Norton has used the past tense in supplying the ellipsis of the
substantive verb. So Conybeare and Howson, in their recent work
on St. Paul, with Locke, Taylor, Wakefield, our countryman Charles
Thomson, Semler, Stolz, and other translators and commentators.
The past tense of the verb should similarly be supplied in 1 Cor. xv.
47, 48, though the authors of the Common Version have improperly
used the present. As the present participle denotes present time not
absolutely, but relatively to the time of the leading verb of the sentence, or to the time, whatever it may be, which the writer has in
mind, there can of course be no objection, if this view of the ellipsis
is correct, to rendering o6  v Em 7rctvrao)v "he who was over all."
(See John xii. 17, and Winer, Gram. des neutest. Sprachidioms,
~ 46. 6.) It has, indeed, been contended by some critics, as Noesselt
and Flatt, that o acv must refer to XpLtoTOs as the antecedent, and be
rendered "who is"; as if the article 6 with wv or any other participle could not form the subject of an independent proposition. It
can hardly be necessary to refer to such passages as John iii. 31,
vi. 46, viii. 47, Rom. viii. 5, 8, etc., to prove a fact which belongs to
the elements of Greek grammar.
In the first part of the fifth verse, Mr. Norton has translated e' &v
6 XptLo-Ts  Kara c-apKa, " from among whom the Messiah was to be
22 *




208  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The  passage was at an  early period  applied  to
Christ, particularly  by  the Latin  Fathers.   With
the notions, however, of the earlier Christians, respecting the inferiority of the Son to the Father,
the passage, when thus constructed, presented a
difficulty  as well as an  argument.   Hippolytus,*
born." The verbal rendering is, " from whom [was] the Messiah as
to the flesh."  It has been urged by many Trinitarians that the
phrase " as to the flesh," which they would render " as to his human
nature," implies that Christ possessed also a higher nature, namely,
the divine; and that it is necessary to understand the last part of the
verse as referring to him, to complete the antithesis. Let us examine these points. In the third verse of this chapter Paul speaks of
his " kinsmen as to the flesh." Did Paul or his countrymen have also
a divine nature? In 1 Cor. x. 18 we find the words, "Behold Israel
as to the flesh "; or, to translate more freely, "Look at those who are
Israelites by natural descent"; that is, in distinction from Christians, the spiritual Israel, the true people of God. See also Galatians iv. 23, 29, and compare the eighth verse of the present chapter.
The phrase Karah -apKa is a common one in the Epistles of St. Paul
in reference to natural descent, or to other outward circumstances
and relations, in distinction from what is spiritual. It certainly suggests an antithesis; but it does not follow that the antithesis must be
expressed, as is manifest from the first two passages quoted above.
It was not to the Apostle's purpose, in this enumeration of the peculiar distinctions of the Jews, to supply the antithesis. It was only
"as to the flesh " that Christ belonged peculiarly to the Jews. This
view is confirmed by a passage in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to
the Corinthians, cited by Yates in his " Vindication of Unitarianism."'Et avrov yap LepeLs Kal Aevtrat 7ravres ol XetrOVpyOZ vres Tr3
Ovo'ctaorlpL) TO  eEov' fe  aVrov o KVpLOS'Irovs'o  TO Kara capKa.
T avrov 13aoatXsT  KaL aPXovres Kat,/yOV/EvOL, Kara TOV'Iov8av.
"For from him [Jacob] were all the priests and Levites who served
at the altar of God; from him was the Lord Jesus as to the flesh;
from him were kings and rulers and leaders, in the line of Judah."
(Cap. 32. Patr. Apost. Opp. ed. Hefele, p. 98, ed. tert.) If Clement.
* Contra Noetum, ~ 6. Opp. I. 237.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 209
or some writer  under  that name, explains it in
reference to the declaration of Christ rendered in
the  Common  Version,   All things  are  delivered
unto  me of my Father; conceiving the dominion
over all things not to have been essentially inherent in Christ as properly the Supreme God, but
in a passage so similar to the present, did not think it necessary to
express the antithesis implied in rT  Kara o'-pKa, St. Paul may not
have thought1it necessary here.
In another place, however, the Apostle has supplied the antithesis
suggested by the words in question; but there, instead of describing
Christ as " God over all, blessed for ever," he clearly distinguishes
him from God. See the beginning of this Epistle, where he speaks of
himself as " set apart to preach the gospel of God," "the gospel concerning his Son, who was of the race of David by natural descent [verbally, as to the flesh], but clearly shown to be the Son of God. as to his
holy spirit, by his resurrection from the dead." (I quote from the unpublished translation of Mr. Norton.) Though this passage has also
been brought to prove the Son of God to be God himself, it does
not appear to call for any remark, except perhaps this: that if any
doctrine is unequivocally taught by St. Paul, it is, that the divine
power displayed in the resurrection of Christ from the dead was
not his own, but the power of God, the Father. See Acts xiii.
30-37; xvii. 31; Rom. iv. 24; vi. 4; viii. 11; x. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 14;
xv. 15; 2 Cor. iv. 14; xiii. 4; Galat. i. 1; Ephes. i. 19, 20; Coloss.
ii. 12; 1 Thess.i. 10.
But to return to our text. Among the examples of the ellipsis of
the substantive verb referred to in Mr. Norton's note, we find one in
which the construction is strikingly similar to that here supposed, as
will be seen on placing the passages in juxtaposition: -
Romans ix. 5. 6 Cv iri 7ravTrCv eEcs, evXOyrros, K. r. X.
2 Cor. v. 5.   6 8e KarepyacraIuevos jP.La eLs avro TOVTo Oeos.
To this may be added,
2 Cor. i. 21. o 8e f3ef3atLcv'/las..... Kal Xplo-as p pas1  eos.' and
Heb. iii. 4. 6 3E 7rdvra KaraorKevacras  eos'.
The construction of the passage thus illustrated, though apparently
first suggested by Mr. Norton, not only seems to be liable to no well



210   EXPLANATIONS OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.
as assigned  to  him  by the  Father.   It was, perhaps, understood in a similar manner by Novatian,
who has twice quoted the passage,* but who clearly
did not believe Christ to be the Supreme Being.
Tertullian  says: " We never speak  of two  Gods
or two Lords, but, following the Apostle, if the
grounded philological objection, but agrees admirably with the rapid,
earnest style of the Apostle Paul. The ellipsis of the substantive verb
when OEos forms the predicate of the sentence, is certainly in accordance with his usual manner.
There is another method, however, of understanding the passage,
proposed by Erasmus, and since adopted by many distinguished
scholars, according to which the last part of the sentence in question forms a doxology, a period or colon being placed after o(rpKa,
as by Mr. Norton. It may be observed, that, although ip a question of punctuation manuscripts are of no authority, we actually
find a point placed after crapKa in this passage in several Greek manuscripts, among them the celebrated Codex Ephrbemi. This punctuation is also followed by two of the most eminent critical editors,
Lachmann and Tischendorf. The words may then be rendered, "He
who is over all (or, He who was over all), God, be blessed for ever!"
or, "God, who is over all, be blessed for ever! Amen."  This construction is adopted by Whiston, Semler, Bohme, Paulus, Reiche,
Glckler, Winzer, Kollner, Meyer, Fritzsche, Rickert (in his second
edition, though strongly opposing it in his first), Schrader, and Krehl.
(Many of these names are given on the authority of Meyer and De
Wette.)
It has been very confidently asserted by Stuart and others; that
this construction is forbidden by the laws of grammar, and wholly
inadmissible, on the ground that, in forms of doxology in the New
Testament and the Septuagint, the word EvXo/Yrros always precedes
the subject, as we commonly say in English, "Blessed be God! "
and not, " God be blessed! " The answer to this is, in the first place,
that the usage referred to is not invariable in the Septuagint. In
Psalm lxvii. 20 (al. lxviii. 19), in the first instance in which it occurs
the subject precedes: Kvplos   eds vec oro s oyo   ros, EVXOyTr  KvpLos
* [De Trinitate, cc. 13, 30.]




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 211
Father and Son are to be named together, we call
the  Father, God, and  Jesus Christ, Lord."   "But
when  speaking  of Christ alone, I may  call him
God, as does the same Apostle: Of wihom  is Christ,
who is God over all blessed for ever. For speaking
of a ray of the sun by itself, I may call it the sun;
tyLepav KaO' ziye'pav.  See also Genesis xxvii. 29, o Karapcoevos oTe
ertlKaraparos, 6         8e evXoyuv are evXoyr 1ezos, " Cursed be he that
curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee." Attempts have
indeed been made to get rid of the passage in Psalm lxvii., by asserting that the reading is corrupt.  But for this there is no critical
authority.  See Holmes and Parsons's edition of the Septuagint.
All that can be said is, that the Septuagint here, as often elsewhere,
does not literally correspond with the Hebrew, which in this passage the translator probably misunderstood.-In the second place,
the question whether the predicate or subject shall precede in Greek
is determined, not by any arbitrary rule, but by the comparative emphasis which the writer intends to give the one or the other, and by
its connection with other words in the sentence. To write in Greek,
evXoyrTOS o 0e6s o    v EiT 7ravTrov Eis TroV  alZvas, as Koppe and
others assert would be necessary if Paul had intended to close the
sentence with a doxology, would be as unnatural as to say in English,
" Blessed be God who is over all for ever," to say nothing of the ambiguity thus created. On a grammatical point like this there is no
higher authority than Winer, who, after mentioning the fact that in
the doxologies of the Old Testament the predicate usually precedes,
goes on to remark: "But only empirical interpreters could regard
this position as an unalterable rule; for where the subject forms the
leading idea, particularly where it stands in contrast with another
subject, the predicate may and will be placed after it, comp. Ps. lxvii.
20. And so also in Romans ix. 5, if the words 6 63v e71r 7rdrvrov OEos
evXoyrlros, etc. are'referred to God, the position of the words is altogether suitable, and even necessary." (Gram. des neutest. Sprachidioms, ~ 65. 3, p. 636, 5te Aufl.) The Trinitarian Olshausen also
says: "Riicert's remark, that ev\Xoyrr, when applied to God,
must, according to the idiom of the Old and New Testament, always
precede, is of no importance. K6llner rightly observes, that the position of the words is altogether [everywhere] not a mechanical thing,




212  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
but when  I mention  at the  same time the  sun,
from  which  this ray proceeds, I do not then  give
that name to the latter." *
But it is to be observed that some of the earlier
Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers, expressly
denied  that Christ is "the  God  over all."   This
title was applied  to  him   by  the  Sabellians, and
was considered as a distinguishing mark of their
but is rather determined, in each particular conjuncture, by the connection, and by the mind of the speaker."  (Comm. on Romans,
p. 326, note, Engl. Transl. published in Clark's Foreign Theol. Libr.)
It may be mentioned that some critics, placing the colon or period
after 7ravrov instead of o-apKa, refer the words "who is over all " to
Christ, and make the remainder of the verse a doxology. So Locke,
Wetstein, Oertel, Justi, Stolz, Ammon, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
De Wette in his German translation (3d ed., 1839), though in his
Commentary (4th ed., 1847) he appears more inclined to the construction just remarked upon. But this latter mode of understanding
the passage seems to make the doxology too abrupt, and is exposed
to other objections.
It is not the purpose of this note to discuss the question of the
comparative merits of Mr. Norton's interpretation, and that which
regards the words 6 xv'ri 7rarvTcov, etc., as forming a doxology. It is
enough if it has been shown that neither is open to any valid philological objection, and that the pretence that the "laws of grammar"
require us to understand the latter part of the verse as referring to
Christ is groundless. The impartial reader will place a proper estimate on the language of such writers as Haldane, who speaks of " the
awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their perversions of this passage" as "more fully manifesting the depravity
of human nature, and the rooted enmity of the carnal mind against
God, than the grossest works of the flesh." (Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, Amer. reprint of the 5th Edinb. ed., p. 454.)]
* "Solum autem Christum potero deum dicere, sicut idem Apostolus, Ex quibus Christus; qui est, inquit, deus super omnia, benedictus
in cevum omne. Nam et radium solis seorsum, solem vocabo; solem
autem nominans cujus est radius, non statim et radium solem appellabo." - Advers. Praxeam, c. 13.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  213
heresy.   There is no  one of the  Fathers more
eminent than Origen.  " Supposing," says Origen
in his work against Celsus, "that some among the
multitude of believers, likely as they are to have
differences of opinion, rashly suppose that the
Saviour is the God over all; yet we do not, for
we believe him  when he said,'The Father who
sent me is greater than  I."' *   Even  after the
Nicene Council, Eusebius, in writing against Marcellus, says: " As Marcellus thinks, He who was
born of the holy virgin, and clothed in flesh, who
dwelt among men, and suffered what had been
foretold, and died for our sins, was the very God
over all; for daring to say which, the church of
God numbered Sabellius among atheists and blasphemers." t  Now it is incredible that the text in
question should have been overlooked.  But the
early Fathers, in making these, and a multitude of
other similar declarations, concerning the inferiority
of the Son to the Father, never advert to it.  It
evidently follows from this, that they had not the
same conception as modern  Trinitarians have of
the meaning of the passage.  They had read the
words of the Apostle in which he speaks of "the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is
* Origen. cont. Cels., Lib. VIII. ~ 14. Opp. I. 752.
t Euseb. Eccles. Theol., Lib. II. c. 4. This, and the passage from
Origen, are'given by Wetstein in his critical remarks on the text,
with other authorities to the same purpose. See also Whitby, Disquisitiones Modestse, passim, but particularly pp. 26, 27, p. 122, and
p. 197, ed. secund. —For placing a period after oa'oKa, Griesbach
quotes the authority of " many Fathers who denied that Christ could
be called' the God over all.'"




214   EXPLANATIONS OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.
blessed  for evermore";*  and  the  mystery  of the
Trinity being as yet but ill understood, they had
not made such an advance in Orthodoxy as to believe that Jesus Christ was the same being as his
God and Father.
WE pass to Hebrews i. 10-12.  It is unneces.
sary to give the words at length. This passage
belongs  to  the  present class.   The  words were
originally addressed by the Psalmist (Psalm cii. 25)
not to Christ, but to God, and are so addressed by
the author of the Epistle.t
* 2 Cor. xi. 31.
t The following are the remarks of Emlyn: —"Here we may
observe, that the tenth verse, And thou Lord, &c., (though it is a new
citation,) is not prefaced with, And to the Son he saith, as ver. 8, or
with an again, as ver 5, 6, and so chap. ii. 13, but barely, And thou
Lord.  Now the God last mentioned was Christ's God, who had
anointed him; and the author thereupon, addressing himself to this
God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his
unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon, as what he principally cites the text for; in order, I conceive, to prove the stability of
the Son's kingdom, before spoken of: Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever
and ever; God, thy God, has anointed thee; and thou, Lord, i. e. thou
who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation
of the earth, and by thy hands made the heavens, which, though of long
and permanent duration, yet will at length perish; but thou remainest,
thou art the same, thy years shall not fail. So that it seems to be a declaration of God's immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ's kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in
the 102d Psalm, viz. to infer thence this conclusion, vei. ult.: The
children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before
thee. In like manner it here proves the Son's throne should be es-.
tablished for ever and ever, by the same argument, viz. by God's immutability; and so was very pertinently alleged of God, without
being applied to the Son; to show how able his God, who had anoint



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT. 215
CLASS IV.
Passages that might be considered as referring  to
the doctrine of the Trinity, supposing it capable
of proof and proved, but which in themselves present no appearance of any proof or intimation of it.
SUCH is the case with some of those urged with
the most confidence; as the form of baptism recorded in Matthew  (xxviii. 19), and thus rendered
in the Common Version:
" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them  in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Here, as in many other passages, the error and
obscurity of the version have favored the imposition of a sense upon the passage which the original
does not suggest.  " To baptize in the name of another" is to baptize by authority from him, as his
representative. But this every scholar knows is not
the sense of our Saviour's direction. The Greek
word rendered " name" is in this passage, as often
in the Scriptures, redundant. It is used pleonastically, by an idiom  of the Hebraistic Greek, in which
ed him, was to make good and maintain what he had granted him,
viz. a durable kingdom for ever." - Emlyn's Examination of Dr. Bennet's New Theory of the Trinity. Works, Vol. II. pp. 340, 341. London, 1746.
Beside the purpose pointed out by Emlyn, the author of the Epistle may have had another in view, which was to declare, that while
the throne of Christ, being upheld by God, should endure for ever,
the heavens, the local habitation, as they were considered, of angels,
should, on the contrary, perish, be rolled up as a garment and changed.
23




216 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
the Septuagint and New Testament are written.
We have not the same turn of expression in our
own language. In the original, it adds nothing
to the sense of the passage. When literally rendered into another language in which the same
idiom does not exist, it tends only to obscure the
meaning. It should not therefore appear in a
translation into English.
But even if the term " name " be retained, there
is no ground for the rendering, " baptizing them in
the name."  The Greek preposition e69 should here
be rendered to. The whole passage may be thus
translated: 
" Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations; baptizing them to the Father, and to the
Son, and to the holy spirit."
The meaning of which is, Go and make converts of men of all nations, dedicating them by
baptism, through which they are to make a solemn
public profession of their faith, to the worship of
the Father, the only true God, to the religion
which he has taught men by his Son, and to the
enjoyment of those holy influences and spiritual
blessings which accompany its reception.
One may easily understand how this passage
has appeared to Trinitarians to convey so clear
a notice of the Trinity, since they have adopted
its terms as technical in their theology, and imposed upon them new and arbitrary senses, which
have become strongly associated with the words,
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But he who contends that any proof of the doctrine is to be de



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 217
rived from it, must proceed altogether upon assumptions  obviously  false.   Let  us  state  them
clearly.
In the first place, to prove the personality of the
holy spirit from this passage, it must either be assumed,That when three objects are mentioned together
in  a  sentence, and two  of them   are persons, the
third  must be a person  also;* that is, the Father
and  Son being persons, the  holy spirit must be a
person also:
Or, the personality and deity of the holy spirit,
and the deity of the Son, may all be rested upon
the assumption, -
That baptism   was a rite  of such  a  character,
that to be baptized "in  the  name  of," or "to  the
name of," or " to " any person or object, necessarily
implies, that such person or object possesses the
character of God: t
Or, it may be assumed,That when  three  persons  or  objects  are  thus
* [As to the tenableness of this assumption, see 1 Samuel xxv.
32, 33: "Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, who sent thee this day
to meet me; and blessed be thy advice; and blessed be thou." Acts
xx. 32: " I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which
is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all
them which are sanctified." Tobit xi. 13: "Blessed art thou, 0 God,
and blessed is thy name for ever; and blessed are all thine holy angels."
See also Psalm lxxii. 18, 19; cv. 4; Hosea iii. 5; Ephesians vi. 10.]
t [See 1 Corinthians x. 2: The Israelites "were all baptized unto
Moses in the cloud and in the sea."  Ch. i. 13: " Were ye baptized
in the name of Paul? " Romans vi. 3: " Know ye not, that so many
of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"
See also Matthew iii. 11; 1 Corinthians xii. 13.]




218   EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
mentioned  together, they must all be  of equal
dignity; * so that, in the present case, the Father
being  God, the same character must also belong
to the Son and holy spirit.
These are the only grounds on which the deity
of the Son and of the holy spirit can be inferred
from  the passage before us.  But at this point of
the reasoning, if we have arrived at any doctrine, it
is the doctrine of the existence of three Gods. In
order, therefore, to conclude the proof of the Trinity from this passage, it is necessary further to assume, -
That when three persons are thus mentioned together in  a sentence, they  must be regarded as
constituting but one Being.
UNDER  this head  may  be explained  the  title
" SON OF GOD "'as applied to Christ; on which I
have before had occasion to remark.t  The Trinitarian supposes it to be evidence of the deity of
Christ; because as the son of a man has the nature of a man, so the  Son of God must have a
divine nature.
* [See 1 Timothy v. 21: "I charge thee before God, and the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the elect angels." Revelation i. 4, 5:" Grace be unto
you and peace from Him who is, and was, and will be; and from the
seven spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, the
faithful witness."  1 Chronicles xxix. 20: "And all the congregation....bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD and
the king." See also Luke ix. 26; Exod. xiv. 31; 1 Samuel xii. 18;
Prov. xxiv. 21; Acts xv. 28; and the passages quoted in the first
note on the preceding page.]
I See p. 68.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT, 219
If the doctrine of the deity of Christ involved
no absurdity, the title in question might, without
doubt, be used according to the analogy supposed;
but the proof of the doctrine must still be derived
from  other sources.  No evidence of it could be
drawn from  this title alone; because the title is
one in common use, and its significancy in every
other application of it is wholly different from the
meaning ascribed to it by Trinitarians when applied to Christ.  For this entire difference, they
must necessarily contend; and in doing so virtually acknowledge that there is no usage to justify
them in understanding the title in the sense which
they assign to it, and consequently that no inference can be drawn from this title alone in proof of
the deity of Christ.
Nor is there any  difficulty in  explaining its
application to our Saviour.   The author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews (i. 5) quotes the words
which God in the Old Testament is represented
to have used concerning Solomon, as applicable
to  Christ: "I will be to him  a father, and he
shall be to me a son."    By these words was
meant, that God would distinguish Solomon with
peculiar favors; would  treat him  as a father
treats a son; and they are to be understood in
a similar manner when applied to Christ.  "We
* [2 Samuel vii. 14; compare 1 Chronicles xvii. 13; xxviii. 6.
The same term is applied to the Israelites collectively, as the chosen
people of God. See Exodus iv. 22, "Israel is my son, my firstborn "; and Hosea xi. 1, "When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and called my son out of Egypt."]
23 *




220   EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
beheld,"  says  St. John  in  his  Gospel (i. 14),
"his glory, glory like that of an only son from
a father";* that is, we beheld the glorious powers and offices conferred upon him, by which he
was distinguished from all others, as an only son
is distinguished by his father. It is in reference
to  this analogy, and  probably, I think, to  this
very  passage  in  his  Gospel, that St. John  elsewhere calls Christ " the only Son of God," a title
applied  to  him  by no other writer  of the  New
Testament.t
But the title was also familiarly used to denote
those qualities which recommend moral beings to
the  favor of God; those which bear such a likeness to his moral attributes as may be compared
with the likeness which a son has to his father;
those which constitute one, in the Oriental style,
to be of the family  of God.  Thus our Saviour
exhorts his disciples to do good to their enemies,
that they may be " sons of their Father in heaven.":
Nor is this use of the term confined to the Scriptures. Philo urges him who is "not yet worthy to
*'EOcao-d'eOa T7V  avdrav awsro, 0'av o IXovoyevovs 7rapa 7ra7pos.
These words should not be rendered, as in the Common Version,
" We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father."  To justify this rendering, both liovoyevovs and rrarpos should
have the article.
t There is a doubt whether the words, John iii. 16-21, in which
this title occurs, are to be considered as the language of Christ or of
the Evangelist. If St. John intended to ascribe them to Christ, he
has probably clothed the ideas of his Master in his own language;
and we may so account for the use of a title in this passage, which
Christ never elsewhere applies to himself.
t Yiol roe 7rarpros vi5iv, Matthew v. 45; compare Luke vi. 35.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 221
be called a son of God," to aim at higher excellence.*
In reference to both these analogies, the term
was  pre-eminently  applicable  to  Christ;  and  he
was  therefore  called  by  others, and  by  himself,
" THE   Son  of  God," the  article  being  used, as
often, to denote pre-eminence.t
THERE are two subjects, that of Prayer to Christ,
and that of the Pre-existence of Christ, each involving the consideration of several particular passages, which  may  properly  be  treated  under the
present head. I will first speak
Of Prayer to Christ.
IT  has been  maintained  that Christ is God, for
the supposed reason that prayers were addressed
to him by the first Christians. But the fact, if admitted, would afford no support for this conclusion.
* De Confusione Linguarum.  Opp. I. 427, ed. Mang. - Ata rv
o/,orLdr-ra vioL EKEIVov eiVat Xoytlr;Tres, "through likeness to God
accounted to be his sons," is an expression in the Clementine Homilies, X. ~ 6.
t The words ascribed (Luke i. 32) to the angel who foretold to
Mary the birth of Christ, are sometimes quoted as explanatory of the
title " Son of God," with reference to his miraculous conception. I
believe, however, these words to mean: " He shall be great; and he
shall be [not shall be called] a son of the Most High"; Ka\eo'-OaL
being equivalent to EivaL, as in other passages. We find the same
expression in Psalm lxxxii. 6. In verse 35, 8to, rendered in the
Common Version "therefore," may be understood as meaning,
"whence it may be inferred," "conformably to which," "so that."
[It may be remarked, that our Saviour himself has expressly stated
the ground which justified him in calling himself " the Son of God'.
See John x. 36.]




222  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
To pray is to ask a favor. In a religious sense, it
is to ask a favor of an invisible and superior being.
There is nothing in the nature of prayer which renders it improper to be addressed to a being inferior to God. Whether such address be proper or
not, must depend upon other considerations.  In
itself considered, there would be nothing more inconsistent with the great principles of natural religion in our asking a favor of an invisible being,
an angel, or a glorified spirit, than in our asking a
favor of a fellow-mortal.  For anything we can
perceive, God might have committed the immediate government of our world, of this little particle of the universe, or the immediate superintendence of the Christian church, to some inferior
minister of his power.  Such a being might thus
have become an object of prayer. Nay, in consistency with all that we know of the character of
God, there might have been an intercourse, very
different from what now exists, between the visible and the invisible world.  The spirits of our
departed friends might have become our guardian
angels, with power to confer benefits and to answer our petitions. Prayers then might have been
addressed to them. If, therefore, it were to appear
that God has revealed to us that Christ is an
object of prayer, as was believed by Socinus and
his followers, this would afford no reason for concluding that Christ is God. What follows respecting prayer to Christ is, consequently, a mere digression; but a digression on a topic so important
that it needs no excuse.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  223
Those, at the present day, who reject the doctrine of the Trinity, believe that God * is the only
object of prayer. To him alone they believe that
Christ taught his followers to pray, by his precepts
and  example.   He nowhere  enjoined  prayer to
himself. And though the subject of prayer, viewed
in the abstract, may appear under the aspect just
presented; yet, regarded in relation to the actual
character and condition of man, we may perceive
the goodness of that appointment of God which
teaches us to direct our prayers to him alone. We
may understand the privilege of raising our undivided thoughts to our God and Father, and reposing our whole trust in him. Man is thus brought
into an intimate connection with his Maker, which
could hardly have otherwise existed.
Of the passages in the New  Testament which
have been supposed to favor the doctrine of prayer
to Christ, the first that may be noticed is his own
declaration to his disciples: " Again, I say to you,
If two of you agree on earth concerning everything
which they ask, their prayers will be granted by
my Father in heaven.  For where two or three
come together as my disciples, there am I in the
midst of them." t By the latter words our Saviour
* To a Trinitarian, I may say that I use the term "God" to denote "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
t Matthew xviii. 19, 20: "Concerning everything which they ask,"
rrepL 7ravor 7rpdynaroS; not, " concerning anything," as in the Common Version. The object of Christ, in the discourse from which the
words are taken, was to inculcate upon his disciples perfect concord
among themselves, and an entire unity of feeling and purpose as
ministers of his religion. The reference is to those prayers which




224  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
did not mean to affirm, that he would be present
with them to hear their prayers, which would be
inconsistent with the words preceding, in which he
refers them to his Father in heaven, as him who
would grant their requests.  His purpose was to
declare, that the designs, labors, and prayers in
which his followers might unite for the promotion
of his cause, would be equally blessed with his
own.  It would be as if he were praying with
them.  They might feel the same confidence that
his actual presence would inspire.
Another passage commonly adduced in relation
to this topic has, I think, no bearing upon it. It
is the address of Stephen to Christ at his martyrdorm.*  Upon this occasion Christ is represented
as having been visibly present to Stephen. The
prayer of the martyr, therefore, that he would receive his spirit, or, in other words, that he would
receive him to himself, is of no force to prove that
it is proper to offer prayers to Christ as an invisible being.  We might with as much propriety adduce in support of this proposition the requests
which were addressed to him  when conversant
among men, - those, for instance, in which his
miraculous aid was implored.  There is no evidence that the last words of Stephen, in which he
prayed for his murderers, were addressed to Christ.
St. Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 8), speaking of " the thorn in his flesh,"
they might offer as his ministers, and in which they might all accord.
* Acts vii. 59.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 225
says that he thrice besought the Lord, meaning, I
think, Christ, that he might be relieved from it.
Immediately before, he speaks of the extraordinary
nature of the revelations that had been granted
him. He was converted by the personal interposition of Christ. He himself mentions a subsequent
period when Christ was present with him, and
directed his conduct.*  Considering the peculiar
miraculous intercourse subsisting between him and
our Lord, his addressing a request to him cannot
be considered as affording any example or authority for prayer to Christ under ordinary circumstances.  The request of Paul may have been
offered when he had a miraculous sense or perception of his Master's presence.
VWe have indeed sufficient ground for believing,
generally, that after our Saviour's removal from
earth there still continued a peculiar connection
between him and his Apostles and first followers;
that he exercised a miraculous superintendence over
their concerns, and held miraculous intercourse with
them. Of the nature and extent of this connection
the Apostles were probably ignorant, having never
been enlightened on the subject by express revelation.  The facts with which we know  them  to
have been acquainted are sufficient to account for
their expressions concerning it, in the very few
passages that may be supposed to relate to it.
Among these may, perhaps, be reckoned the passages in which St. Paul expresses his wish, that
* Acts xxii. 17, seqq. [See also Acts xix. 9, 10; xxiii. 11; Galatians i. 1, 11, 12.]




226  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
the "favor of Christ" may be with those whom
he addresses. But it seems to me most probable,
that by the favor of Christ the Apostle means
principally, if not solely, that favor, those blessings,
of which Christ was the minister to man.
The only other passages of importance in which
prayer is supposed to be addressed to Christ by a
writer of the New Testament, are the following:1 Thess. iii. 11, 12. " May our God and Father
himself, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way
toward you; and may the Lord make you increase
and abound in your love toward each other and
toward all, as we do toward you."
2 Thess. ii. 16, 17. " May our Lord Jesus Christ
himself, and our God and Father who has loved us,
and has, through his favor, given us everlasting encouragement and good hope, encourage your hearts
and confirm you in every good word and work."
In the former of these passages, we find St. Paul
expressing a wish that Christ under God might
direct his way to the Thessalonians. It may be
explained by the fact of that peculiar and miraculous superintendence over his preaching which was
exercised by his Master.  We know  that he had
first preached to the Thessalonians in consequence
of a miraculous direction.* In the latter passage,
* " But Paul and Silas having passed through Phrygia and Galatia, and being restrained by the holy spirit from preaching the religion in Asia, came to Mysia, and were preparing to go to Bithynia;
but the spirit of Jesus did not permit them. So, passing through
Mysia, they went down to Troas. And a vision appeared by night
to Paul. A certain man, a Macedonian, was standing by him and
entreating him, saying, Pass over to Macedonia and help us. Then,




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT. 227
in his wishes that the Thessalonians might enjoy
spiritual blessings from Christ, he may probably
refer to the blessings flowing from the gospel which
Christ taught.  The effects of the gospel are ascribed to its great teacher; and sometimes, in the
figurative style of the New Testament, with a turn
of expression which, according to our more restrained use of language, might imply an immediate agency in their production which was not
intended by the writer. If, however, the Apostle
had in view, not the power of the gospel, but a
present agency of Christ, we must consider his
language as founded upon the conception which
he entertained of Christ's extraordinary agency
over the concerns of the first Christians.
This agency, as I have said, was miraculous.
We have no reason to believe in its continuance
after the Apostolic age.  A  connection of the
same nature, a miraculous connection between
Christ and his followers, does not exist at the present day; nor have we any ground for believing
that God has committed to him a superintendence
of their concerns.  Though it should, therefore,
appear, that, in consequence of the extraordinary
and peculiar relation  subsisting between  Christ
and the first Christians, he was, under certain circumstances and conditions, regarded by his Apostles as one to whom requests might be addressed;
yet, upon the ceasing of that relation, no reason
immediately after this vision, we endeavored to go to Macedonia,
concluding that the Lord [Christ] had directed us to preach the Gospel to them." Acts xvi. 6-10.
24




228  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
would remain for his being regarded by common
Christians as an object of prayer.
But it has been contended that the first Christians, generally, were accustomed to offer prayers
to Christ.  This belief is founded upon a few passages in which Christians, according to the rendering of the Common Version, are represented as
" calling upon his name."  Thus, Acts ix. 14, " He
[Saul] hath authority to bind all that call on thy
name; - the address of Ananias to Saul, Acts
xxii. 16, " And now why tarriest thou? arise and
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on
the name of the Lord";- 1 Cor. i. 2, " To the
church of God which is at Corinth,..... with all
that in every place call upon the name of Jesus
Christ, our Lord." Another passage to the same
effect may be found in Acts ix. 21.
The expression in the original, rendered " to call
on the name of," is one often used in the Septuagint
in relation to God, where direct address in prayer
to him is intended. But its meaning varies, I believe, when used concerning a different being.
In this, as in many other cases, the term rendered "name" is pleonastic, and should be omitted
in a translation. This being premised, it may next
be remarked, that the Greek verb 67rtcaXeaOOat, rendered "to call upon," does not properly and directly denote religious invocation. In its primary
sense, it signifies "to call" or "to call upon" any
one; in a secondary meaning, "to call on one for
help." By a very easy extension of this meaning,
it denotes, I believe, " to look to one for help," " to




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 229
rely upon one for help, protection, deliverance,"
"to trust in one."  In this use of it, no verbal address is implied; the word is used metaphorically.
It literally denotes " calling for help "; it is used
to express the state of mind in which we trust in
another for help. In this sense, I think, the word
ought to be understood, when used concerning
Christ. The meaning of the terms rendered " calling on the name of Christ," would, I believe, be
properly and fully expressed in English by the
words, " looking to Christ for deliverance," that is,
through the power of the gospel.
But, it may be asked, why, when the words in
question have a meaning in which they are often
used in the Septuagint, and according to which
they would describe Christians generally as invoking, that is, praying to, Christ, should this meaning be set aside? I repeat what I have said, that
the verb eirLtaXeUaOat does not properly and directly denote religious invocation; and that, its
object being changed, there is nothing improbable
in the supposition that the signification of the verb
is changed also. I answer further, that there seem
to be insuperable objections to the belief that prayer
was offered to Christ by the first Christians. His
followers were not commanded by our Saviour to
pray to him.  Without such a command, they
could not have supposed that he whom they had
known habitually to offer prayers to his Father and
our Father, was himself an object of prayer. Our
Saviour referred his Apostles from himself to God,
as the invisible being to whom their requests were




230   EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
to  be addressed  when he should  be taken  from
them,-as the only proper object of prayer: " Then
you will have no need to question  me.'  Truly,
truly I tell you, Whatever you may ask the Father in my name, he will grant you." f Conformably to this, we find no precept enjoining prayer
to Christ in their writings. But whether Christians were or were not to pray to Christ, could not
have been a matter of indifference. It was either
to be done, or it was not to be done. If a duty, it
differed from other duties, in the circumstance that
it must have been founded solely upon revelation
and an express command.   At the same time, if
Christians were to have two objects of prayer, peculiar directions, explanations, and cautions must
have been necessary. But nothing appears in the
New   Testament answering  to  the  suppositions
which have been made.  There is an entire want
of that evidence of the fact which must have existed, if prayer to Christ had been commanded by
himself and  his Apostles.   But if not so commanded, it was not practised by the first Christians. The case was the same with them as with
us; if it be not a duty to pray to Christ, it is a
duty not to pray to him.
[See John xvi. 17- 19.]
t John xvi. 23. The words e' e'Keiv rj s;)pa, rendered [in the
Common Version] " in that day," are merely equivalent to the adverb "then."  The time intended is that following our Saviour's
ascension, when, in figurative language, he says that he shall be with
his Apostles again, not referring to his personal presence, but to his
presence with them in the power and blessings of his gospel, and in
the aid afforded them by God as his ministers.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 231
IT appears, therefore, from the New Testament,
that the first Christians did not offer prayers to
Christ. But there is still other evidence of this
truth, to which, though of less importance, it may
be worth while to advert.
It has been urged that Pliny, in his celebrated
letter to Trajan,* states (on the authority of some
who said that they had been Christians, but who
had deserted the religion) that Christians in their
assemblies were "accustomed to sing together a
hymn in alternate parts to Christ as to a god," -
carmen Christo, quasi deo, dicere secum invicem."
These words have been alleged to prove, both
that Christians prayed to Christ, and that they
believed him to be God. But the only fact which
appears is, that Christians sung hymns in celebration of Christ. The rest is the interpretation of a
heathen, who compared in his own mind these
hymns to those which the heathens sung in honor
of their gods, who like Christ had dwelt on the
earth, and like him, having died, were supposed
to be still living in a higher state of being. With
his heathen notions, he conceived of the Christians as making a sort of apotheosis of their Master. But there is evidence on the subject before
us much more direct and more important than that
of Pliny.
It is the evidence of Origen, who wrote a treatise " On Prayer" in the former half of the third
century.  Of prayer, properly speaking, Origen
says: 
* [Plinii Epist. Lib. X. Ep. 96 (al. 97).]
24 *




232  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
" If we understand what prayer is, it will appear
that it is never to be offered to any originated
being, not to Christ himself, but only to the God
and Father of all; to whom our Saviour himself
prayed, and taught us to pray.  For when his
disciples asked him, Teach us to pray, he did not
teach them to pray to himself, but to the Father...... Conformably to what he said, Why callest
thou me good? there is none good except one, God
the Father, how could he say otherwise than,' Why
dost thou pray to me? Prayer, as you learn from
the Holy Scriptures, is to be offered to the Father
only, to whom  I myself pray.'.....' You have
read the words which I spoke by David to the
Father concerning you; I will declare thy name to
my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I
sing hymns to thee.  It is not consistent with reason for those to pray to a brother, who are esteemed
worthy of one Father with him.  You, with me
and through me, are to address your prayers to
the Father alone.'..... Let us then, attending to
what was said by Jesus, and all having the same
mind, pray to God through him, without any division respecting the mode of prayer.  But are we
not divided, if some pray to the Father and some
to the Son?  Those who pray to the Son, whether
they do or do not pray to the Father also, fall into
a gross error, in their great simplicity, through
want of judgment and examination."*
* De Oratione, cc. 25, 26. Opp. I. pp. 222 - 224. I quote the last
passage principally because it is erroneously rendered by Dr. Priestley (History of Early Opinions, II. 161) in a manner directly adverse
to his own argument.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  233
In learning and talents, Origen, during his lifetime, had no rival among Christians. There was
none who possessed the same weight of character.
The opinions which he expresses in the passages
just quoted were undoubtedly the common opinions of the Christians of his time.
Origen himself, indeed, in other passages, asserts
or implies that prayer in an inferior sense may be
addressed to the Logos or Christ.  In his work
against Celsus, he says, for instance: " Every supplication, prayer, request, and thanksgiving is to be
addressed to Him who is God over all, through the
High-Priest, superior to all angels, the living and
divine Logos.  But we shall also supplicate the
Logos himself, and make requests to him, and give
thanks and pray, whenever we may be able to distinguish between prayer properly speaking and
prayer in a looser sense."    Probably what is here
meant may appear from two other passages, in his
work against Celsus, in which he says: " We first
bring our prayers to the only Son of God, the
First-born  of the whole creation, the Logos of
God, and pray to him and request him, as a HighPriest, to offer up the prayers which reach him to
the God over all, to his God and our God." t  It
is, indeed, most likely that the doctrine of Origen
concerning the propriety of offering prayers, in any
sense of the term, to the Logos or Christ, had its
* Cont. Cels. Lib. V. ~ 4. Opp. I. 580. - lav avvO)leOa KaraKOveLV
Tr7 7repl 7rpocKevxrjs KVpLOXESLaga KaL Karaxppcr~eos.
t Ibid., Lib. VIII. ~ 13. p. 751, et ~ 26. p. 761. Compare, however, Lib. V. ~ 11, ad fin. p. 586. [See also Lib. III. c. 34. p. 469.]




234  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
origin rather in his own philosophical opinions,
than in the belief and practice of the generality of
Christians.
The Trinitarian supposes that the first Christians were taught to pray to Christ or the Son, as
God equal to the Father, and that they were distinguished, by the circumstance of offering such
prayers, as "those who called upon the name of
the Lord."  How is it possible to reconcile this
supposition with the state of opinion and practice
which we find among Christians during the time
of Origen, the first half of the third century? The
Antitrinitarian believes that the doctrine of the
deity of Christ had been making gradual progress.
When, therefore, he finds that, at the period just
mentioned, Christ was still spoken of, by a writer
so eminent as Origen, as not being an object of
prayer properly so called, no doubt remains on his
mind that he had never been so regarded at any
preceding period, that he was not so represented
by himself or his Apostles, nor so esteemed by the
first Christians.
On the Pre-existence of Christ.
I WILL now turn to the passages which are supposed particularly to assert the pre-existence of
Christ.  If this doctrine were proved, it would
afford no proof of his being God; but the prejudices in favor of the Trinitarian doctrine have,
notwithstanding, been strengthened by a misunderstanding of the passages referred to. The figurative language in which several of them  are




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 235
expressed may, I think, be explained by the following considerations.
One of the main objections of the generality of
the Jews to Christianity was its being a novelty,
an innovation, subverting their former faith. The
Pharisees said: " We are disciples of Moses. We
know that God spoke to Moses; but as for this
man, we know not whence he is."' The doctrine
of Christ was in direct opposition to the popular
religion of the Jews, which, though a religion of
hypocrisy, formalities, superstition, and bigotry,
they had identified in their own minds with the
Law; - and the Law, their ancient Law, which
for fifteen centuries, as they believed, had been
their distinguishing glory, they looked upon as an
immutable covenant made by God with his chosen
people. Were the doctrines of Christ, they might
ask, to be opposed to what they believed, and what
their fathers had believed, upon the faith of God?
Was a teacher of yesterday to be placed in competition with Moses and the Prophets? Was it to
be supposed that God would change his purposes,
alter the terms of their allegiance, and substitute a
new religion for that which he had so solemnly
sanctioned?
One mode of meeting these feelings and prejudices of the Jews was by the use of language
adapted to their modes of conception, asserting or
implying that the sending of Christ, and the establishment of his religion, had always been purposed
* John ix. 28, 29.




236  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
by God.  This was done in part by figurative
modes of speech, conformed to the Oriental style,
and more or less similar to many which we find in
the Old Testament.  Facts connected with the
introduction of Christianity were spoken of by
Christ and his Apostles - according to the verbal
meaning of their language - as having taken place
before the world was; the purpose being to express
in the most forcible manner, that their existence
was to be referred immediately to God, and had
from eternity been predetermined by him. What
they meant to represent God as having foreordained, they described as actually existing.
Thus St. Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans
(viii. 29, 30), " For those whom God foreknew, he
predestined should be conformed to the image of
his Son, that he might be the first-born among
many brethren; and whom he predestined he summoned, and whom he summoned he made righteous, and whom he made righteous he glorified."
I refer particularly to the last clause, in which God
is spoken of as having already glorified the disciples of Christ, because it is certain that he will.*
Thus also in writing to the Ephesians (i. 3, 4):
" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who, having exalted us to heaven, is blessing us with every spiritual blessing through Christ,
he having, in his love chosen us throug'h him before
the foundation of the world."
To Timothy (2 Ep. i. 8, 9) he says: " Suffer to* Compare verses 17 - 25.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 237
gether with me for the gospel, sustained by the
power of God, who has delivered us, and summoned us by a sacred call, not in consequence of
our works, but conformably to his own purpose,
and the favor bestowed upon us through Christ Jesus
before time was."
So also to Titus (i. 1, 2): "Paul, a servant of
God, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to preach
the faith of the chosen of God, and to make known
the truth which leads to the true worship of God,
founded on the expectation of eternal life, which
God who cannot deceive promised before time was."
For other passages in which that which is purposed by God is figuratively spoken of as actually
existing, see Exodus xv. 13, comp. 17; 1 Samuel
xv. 28; Psalm  cxxxix. 16; Isaiah xlix. 1; John
x. 16; Acts xviii. 10; Galatians i. 15.
When Christianity, after having been preached
to the Jews, was, if I may so speak, committed in
trust to its Gentile converts, it had to encounter
the same objection of its being a novel dcctrine;
and this objection was met in a similar manner,
and by a similar use of language. In his " Exhortation to the Gentiles," Clement of Alexandria
says: " Error is ancient, truth appears a novelty." Then, after mentioning some of those nations
which made the most extravagant pretensions to
antiquity, he adds: " But we [Christians] were
before the foundation of the world; through the
certainty of our future existence, previously existing in God himself." *
* Ipo 8e rTjs rov KOr'LOV KaTa3o\Xj jpeL  oL rO 8eO  ( E'rEolOal,




238 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
We  should  hardly  expect to  find  in  the  New
Testament a critical explanation of any figurative
mode of speech; but something very like  such  an
explanation of that which we are considering is
found in St. Paul, when his words are properly
translated and understood.
In the book of Genesis (xvii. 4, 5) God is represented as saying to Abraham, " Behold, my covenant is with  thee, and  thou  shalt be a father of
many nations. Neither shall thy name any more
be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham;
for a father of many  nations  have  I made  thee."
Ev avTw 7rp0oepov 7EyEyVw)LEVOL rCi T e, p. 6, ed. Potter.- Thus
too in a book which in very early times was in considerable repute
among Christians, " The Shepherd of Hermas," Hermas represents
himself as being told by an angel in a vision, that " the Church was
the first created of all things, and for her sake the world was made."
(Lib. I. Vis. 2.)
We find the same figurative use of language in the writings of the
later Jews. In the Talmud it is recorded that R. Eliezer said:
" Seven things were created before the world; the Garden of Eden,
the Law, the Righteous, the Israelites, the Throne of Glory, Jerusalem, and the Messiah, the Son of David." This, in the Book Cosri,
is explained as meaning, that "they were prior in the intention of
God "; they constituting the end for which the world was created;
and the end being in intention precedent to the means. (Liber Cosri,
ed. Buxtorf. p. 254.)  Many similar passages are quoted or referred
to by Schoettgen (Horme Hebr., Tom. II. pp. 436, 437), among which
are the following. Sohar Levit., fol. 14, col. 56: " Rabbi Hezekiah
sat down in the presence of Eleazar, and asked, How many lights
were created before the foundation of the world? He answered,
Seven; the light of the Law, the light of Gehenna, the light of Paradise, the light of the Throne of Glory, the light of the Temple, the
light of Repentance, and the light of the Messiah." In various other
Rabbinical books cited by Schoettgen we find the same enumeration,
except that the word "light" is omitted throughout, and "the name
of the Messih " is substituted for "the light of the Messiah."  But in




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 239
Referring to this passage, St. Paul says, in his
Epistle to the Romans (iv. 16, 17): " The promise
was sure to all the offspring of Abraham, not to
those under the Law only, but to those who have
the faith  of Abraham, who  is the father of us all
(as it is written, I have made thee a father of many
nations) in the sight of God in whom he trusted,of Him who restores life to the dead, and speaks
of the things which are not, as though they were."
In the view of the Apostle, God, as it were, restored life to the dead, in enabling Abraham and
Sarah  to  have a son;*  and, in  calling  Abraham
Bereshith Rabba, sect. 1, fol. 3, 3, there is a different statement:" Six things preceded the creation of the world: some of these were
created, as the Law and the Throne of Glory; others it was in the
mind of God to create, namely, the Patriarchs, Israel, the Temple,
and the name of the Messiah." In Midrash Tehillim, fol. 28, 2, it is
said that the use of the word D0   in Psalm lxxiv. 2 "teaches us, that
God created Israel before the foundation of the world." The same
commentary elsewhere says, that " Repentance preceded the creation
of the world"; and in Sohar Levit., fol. 29, col. 113, the following
passage occurs: "Before God created the world, he created Repentance, and said to her, It is my will to create man in such a relation
to thee, that, when he returns to thee from his transgressions, thou
shalt be ready to forgive his transgressions, and to make expiation
for them."
* That this was the meaning of the Apostle appears from  the
verses which immediately follow those quoted above: "For he [Abraham] had confident hope of that which was past hope, that he should
be the father of many nations, according to the declaration, Tilus will
thy offspring be. And, not being weak in faith, he did not regard his
own body then dead, he being about a hundred years old, nor the
deadness of-Sarah's womb; nor had he any doubt or mistrust about
the promise of God."
Compare also Hebrews xi. 19, where, in reference to the birth of
Isaac, Abraham is said to have received him, " figuratively speaking,
from the dead."
25




240  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
the father of many nations, spoke of the things
which were not, as though they were.
Using language in the manner which has been
illustrated, our Saviour spoke, in his last prayer
with his disciples, on the night before his death, of
the glory which he had with God before the world
was.
" When Jesus had thus spoken, he raised his
eyes to heaven and said: -
" Father! the hour has come. Glorify thy Son,
that thy Son may glorify thee,    through the
power that thou hast granted him over all men,
to give to all those whom thou hast given him
eternal life. And this is eternal life, to know thee,
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou
hast sent. I have glorified thee on earth. I have
finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
And now, Father! glorify thou me with thyself,
with that glory which I had with thee before the
world was." *
Afterwards, in speaking of his disciples, our
Saviour says: " The glory which thou hast given
me, I have given them";  words implying that
the glory which he had with the Father was such
as might be conferred on men; and such as, by
constituting them his Apostles, he had enabled
them to attain.
" Father!" he continues, " I desire for those
whom thou hast given me, that where I am they
also may be with me, so that they may behold my
* John xvii. 1- 5.          t Ibid., verse 22.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 241
glory, which thou gavest me, for thou didst love
me before the foundation of the world." *
The character and purport of these expressions
of Jesus are explained by what has been said. A
principal object of our Saviour in the language of
this prayer, as well as throughout the discourse
which precedes it, was to strengthen the minds of
his Apostles to meet that fearful trial of their faith
which was close at hand, and to prepare them for
their approaching separation from him. He uses,
in consequence, the most forcible modes of speech,
in order to produce the deepest impression. He
desired, by the whole weight of his authority, by
every feeling of affection and awe, by language
the most pregnant and of the highest import, and
by figures too strong and solemn ever to be forgotten, to make them  feel his connection, and
their own connection, with God. Their teacher,
their master, their friend, was the special messenger of God, distinguished by his favor beyond all
other men; and in this favor they shared, as his
followers.  He was, in the Oriental style, " one
with God" in the work in which he had been
engaged; and they, in like manner, were to be one
with God and him. God had from eternity regarded him with love; and they were like objects
of God's love.t  They were hereafter to behold in
heaven the consummate glory of him, who before
the close of another day was to be exposed to the
* John xvii. 24.
t "- that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast
loved them as thou hast loved me." John xvii. 23.




242  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
mockery of the Roman soldiers, to suffer the outrages of an infuriated mob, and to expire by a
death as ignominious as it was cruel.
HAVING furnished the key to passages of this
kind, of which there are not many, I will notice
particularly but one other. John viii. 52, 53, 5658: " The Jews said to Jesus, Now we are sure
that you are possessed by'a demon.  Abraham
died, and the Prophets; and you say, Whoever
obeys my teaching will never taste of death. Are
you greater than our father Abraham, who died?
And the Prophets died.  Whom  do you make
yourself to be? Jesus answered,..... Your father Abraham exulted that he might see my day;
and he saw it, and rejoiced. Then the Jews said
to him, You are not yet fifty years old; and have
you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly,
truly I tell you, Before Abraham was born, I was
He."
The rendering of the Common Version, " Before
Abraham was, I am," is without meaning,-the
present tense, " I am," being connected with the
mention of past time, " before Abraham  was";
and this circumstance has doubtless assisted in
producing the belief that the words express a
mystery.  But our Saviour says that Abraham
saw his day, that is, the times of the Messiah.
This declaration no one understands verbally, and
there is as little reason for giving a verbal meaning to that under consideration. In the explanation of it two things are to be attended to.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 243
In the first place, after the words'eya ell, rendered in the Common Version, " I am," we must
understand o XptorTO, "the Messiah"; as is evident from two preceding passages in the same discourse. In verse 24, Jesus says, with the same
ellipsis, " Unless you believe that lam [that is, that
lam the Messiah], you will die in your sins "; and
in verse 28 he tells the Jews, " When you have
raised on high [crucified] the Son of Man, then
you will know that Iam," meaning, that I am the
Messiah. The same ellipsis occurs repeatedly in
the Gospels and Acts; as, for instance, in Mark
xiii. 6 and Luke xxi. 8 we find the words, " Many
will come in my name, saying I am"; while in
Matthew xxiv. 5 the ellipsis is supplied, "Many
will come in my name, saying, I am the Messiah."
Other examples are referred to below.*
This apparently strange omission of the predicate of so important a proposition may, I think, be
thus explained.  The Messiah was expected by
the Jews as one who, placing himself at the head
of the nation, would deliver them from the tyranny under which they were suffering. Equally to
Herod, the ruler of Galilee, and to the Roman procurator of Judaea, an individual, publicly announcing himself as the Messiah, must have appeared
a daring rebel, exciting the nation to revolt. The
subject was one about which the Jews must have
communed together with the feelings of conspirators; and in discussing it, they would use imper* Acts xiii. 25 (comp. John iii. 28); John iv. 26; xiii. 19.
25*




244  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
feet and ambiguous language, indicating, rather
than expressing, their meaning. Even when danger was not feared, a certain degree of secrecy
might be affected, and there might be a disposition to employ terms the full significance of which
would be understood only by those who felt with
the speaker. Upon the appearance of Jesus, the
multitude being excited by his miracles and preaching, and the intimations concerning his character,
the inquiry arose among them, whether he were
the Messiah. The question was often asked, we
may suppose, eagerly, but cautiously, "Is it he?"
OvTO4 EoTL; - not broadly and rashly, " Is he the
Messiah? " and a corresponding answer returned,'EOTr, " He is," - OvK eo'ar, "He is not."  I have
adverted to the dangerous nature of the subject, as
connected with the purpose of revolt against the
Roman power.  The mere fact, however, of its
being one of universal interest; on which the
thoughts of men were strongly bent, may be alone
sufficient to account for the use of abbreviated
expressions to convey a meaning that every one
was ready to apprehend. Still, the predicate of
the proposition we are considering being suppressed, and the language, in consequence, being
in itself wholly ambiguous, this manner of speaking might be adopted by Christ for the purpose of
at once intimating his claims to be the Messiah,
and leaving his meaning in some degree uncertain.
Thus in the present discourse, when he tells the
Jews (verse 24)," Unless you believe that I aam He,
you will die in your sins "; they ask in return,




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 245
" Who  are  you?"    The  use, therefore, of this
mode of expression corresponded to that reserve as
to openly and explicitly avowing himself to be the
Messiah, which the expectations and feelings of
the Jews compelled him to maintain till the closing scenes of his ministry.*
In the next place, the verb ctlel is here to be understood as having the force of the perfect tense,
that is, as denoting, literally or figuratively, a state
of being, commenced at a distant time, and continued to the present. It is thus elsewhere used
in  St. John's  Gospel.   " Have  I  been  [verbally,
Am  I] so long  with  you, and  yet have you  not
known  me, Philip? "           But such  is our use  of
language, that this meaning is here to be expressed
in English by the imperfect tense, " I was."   If we
should  say, "Before  Abraham   was born, I have
been," the idea of uninterrupted continuance of
being to the present time is so far from being conveyed, that it is rather excluded.
The full meaning  of Jesus, then, was this: Be* It may be objected to this account, that the Jews of Jerusalem
are represented in the seventh chapter of John's Gospel as explicitly
discussing the question, whether Jesus were or were not the Messiah.
(See verses 26, 27, 31, 41, 42.) I answer, that it is not necessary to
suppose that the caution of the Jews respecting the subject in question was always maintained. It might disappear in the heat of controversy, and it gave way, without doubt, to the excitement of strong
feelings; as when the multitude wished to compel Jesus to place
himself at their head, as their king (John vi. 15); and upon his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, just before his crucifixion. It is sufficient for the purpose of explaining our Saviour's language, if the
mode of expression he adopted were common.
t John xiv. 9.




246  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
fore Abraham was born, I was the Messiah; that
is, I was designated by God as the Messiah. The
words cannot be understood verbally, because " the
Messiah" was the title of one bearing an office
which did not exist till it was assumed by Jesus
on earth. Before Abraham, there was no Messiah
except in the purpose of God. The language used
by Christ is of the same figurative character with
that which we find at the commencement of the
prophecy of Jeremiah, as addressed to him by God
(i. 5): "Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew
thee; and before thou camest forth at thy birth, I
sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet to
the nations."
WE will now consider some passages of a different character. In his conversation with Nicodemus, our Saviour says (John iii. 12, 13): "If I
tell you earthly things and you believe not, how
will you believe should I tell you heavenly things?
And no one has ascended to heaven, except him
who has descended from heaven, the Son of Man,
who is in heaven."
Heaven being considered by the Jews as the
local habitation  of the Deity, "'to  ascend to
heaven" is here a figure used to denote the becoming acquainted with the purposes and will of
God, with things invisible and spiritual, " heavenly things"; "to be in heaven" is to possess such acquaintance; and " to descend from
heaven," or "to come from heaven," is to come
from God.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 247
IN this sense the expression "to descend from
heaven" is used by our Saviour in his discourse
with the Jews, recorded in the sixth chapter of
John's Gospel.  The Jews, whom  he had disappointed the day before in their attempt " to make
him their king," or, in other words, to compel him
to assume publicly the character of the Messiah,
according to their conception of it, had now collected about him with very different feelings. They
were disposed to disparage his miracles in comparison with those of Moses.  He had fed five
thousand men with a few loaves and fishes; but
Moses, they said, quoting the Old  Testament,
" had given them," the Jews, "bread from heaven
to eat."* In what follows, this expression is used
figuratively by our Saviour, to denote that his doctrine came from God, or, to express the same idea
in other words, that he himself came from God.
It was usual for him to draw his figures from
something which had just been said, or some present object or recent event.  " Moses," he says,
" gave you not the bread from heaven "; meaning
that Moses had not given them a religion like his
own, adapted to supply all their spiritual wants;
" but my Father," he continues, " is giving you the
true bread from heaven; for the bread of God is
that which is now  descending from  heaven and
giving life to the world." t  By " the bread of God
which gives life to the world," our Saviour here
means his doctrines, his religion; and with this, by
* John vi. 31.             t Verses 32, 33.




248  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
an obvious figure, common in the New Testament, he afterwards identifies himself. " I am the
bread of life; he who comes to me will never hunger, and he who has faith in me will never thirst." 
" I have descended from heaven, not to do my own
will, but the will of Him who sent me";- that
is, I who bring this religion from heaven have no
other purpose but to perform the will of God.
The Jews, that is, some of the Jews, his enemies,
carped, as usual, at his words. " Then the Jews
murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread
which has descended from heaven. And they said,
Is not this man Jesus, the son of Joseph? one
whose father and mother we know?  What, then,
does he mean by saying, I have descended from
heaven? "    We have no reason to suppose that
they understood him as meaning that he, being a
man, had descended from heaven; or that he, being
a pre-existent spirit, had assumed a human form.
Their objection was to the absolute authority
which this man, Jesus, the son, as they called
him, of Joseph and Mary, claimed as the delegate
of God. They had the same feeling as was shown
by his fellow-townsmen of Nazareth, when they
asked: " Is not this man the carpenter, the son of
Mary, and kinsman of James and Joses and Judas
and Simon? "~
IN verse 62 of this chapter, there is a passage
thus rendered in the Common Version: " What
* John vi. 35.              t Verse 38.
i Verses 41, 42.            ~ Mark vi. 3.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 249
and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up
where he was before?"  It has been thought to
refer to his ascension to heaven, and to imply that
he existed in heaven before his appearance on
earth. In order to understand it, we must attend
to its connection.
In the preceding part of the discourse, our Saviour had spoken of his religion as bread or food
descending from  heaven, and having figuratively
identified himself with his religion, he describes
this food as giving eternal life. " Truly, truly I
tell you, He who puts his trust in me has eternal
life. I am the bread of life; your fathers ate the
manna in the desert and died; but if any one eat
of this bread which is descending from heaven, he
shall not die. I am the bread of life which has
descended from  heaven; if any one eat of this
bread, he shall live for ever."*  As food is the
means of prolonging the natural life, so the religion of Christ was the means of enjoying eternal
life. Metaphors of a similar kind, derived from
taking food, and applied to the partaking of what
is desirable, the being compelled to endure what is
painful, or the experiencing the consequences, good
or evil, of our own conduct, occur elsewhere in the
Scriptures, and are probably common in most languages.  In such metaphors, however, as well as
in other figurative modes of speech, the Oriental
style passes beyond the limits within which we are
confined. Thus in Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom is per*John vi. 47-51.




250  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
sonified and represented as saying: " Those who
eat me shall yet be hungry, and those who drink
me shall yet be thirsty."" Thus too in the Talmud, R. Hillel, who asserted that the Messiah had
already come, is said to have been opposed by
other doctors, who maintained that " the Israelites
were yet to eat the days of the Messiah." He, on
the contrary, affirmed that "they had eaten their
Messiah in the days of Hezekiah." t
But in the words following those last quoted
from our Saviour's discourse, there is an accession
to the figure. It becomes the vehicle for expressing a new fact. He says: " But the bread which
I will give is my body, which I will give for the
life of the world." In this language, he refers, I
conceive, to his own death. He goes on: " Unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his
blood, you have not life within you"; and he
repeats and insists upon this strong figure. When
he thus describes the food of life, of which his followers were to partake, as his own flesh and his
own blood, the only purpose, I believe, of this amplification of the figure is to show that the blessings to be enjoyed through him were to be pur.
chased by his violent death. It was, I think, so
understood, at least partially, by those who heard
him. His object was to destroy all hope of his
establishing a splendid temporal kingdom, such as
the Jews had been expecting; and thus to repress
* Chapter xxiv. 21.
t See Wetstein's note on John vi. 51. [See also Noyes's note on
Ezekiel iii. 1.]




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT. 251
all worldly motives in those who were inclined to
be his followers. Their Master was not to be a conqueror and a monarch, as they might have hoped,
dispensing honors and favors to his adherents and
countrymen; the sacrifice of his own life was required, a bloody death was to be suffered by him,
in order that his followers might enjoy those blessings of which he was the minister.  So, as I have
said, he appears to have been understood; and
many of his followers in consequence deserted him.
" Thus taught Jesus in a synagogue at Capernaum.  Then many of his disciples, when they
heard him, said, This is hard teaching; who can
listen to it?   But Jesus, knowing in his own
mind that his disciples were murmuring on account of his discourse, said to them, Does this
give you offence?  What, then, if you should see
the Son of Man ascending where he was before?"'
The meaning is, Does it offend you that I speak
of my death?  What, then, if you shall see me
rising from the dead, and appearing where I was
before?  When Jesus made mention of his death,
he on other occasions connected it with the prediction that he should rise from  the dead.  To his
resurrection he alludes as a signal proof to be
given of the divinity of his mission, but never
elsewhere to  his ascension.t   After the words
* John vi. 59 - 62.
t See an explanation of this verse in Simpson's Essays on the
Language of Scripture. [For a somewhat different explanation,
taken from Mr. Norton's Notes on the Gospels, see Appendix,
Note A.]
26




252  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
which have been quoted, he goes on, contrary in
some degree to his usual custom, to explain in
part the figurative language which he had used:
" What is spiritual," he says, "gives life. The
flesh profits nothing"; - that is, my flesh would
profit you nothing; -"the words which I speak
to you are spiritual, and give life." *
IT has been contended by some modern German
divines, who appear themselves to regard Christ
merely as a human teacher, that he was believed
or represented by his Apostles, if not by himself,
to have been a pre-existent being, the Logos of
God.  They appeal, of course, to some of the
same passages which are brought forward by
Trinitarians and others in support of this doctrine,
and in proof of the deity of Christ in which it is
implied.  But we may here make the general
remark, that if the Apostles had regarded their
Master as an incarnation of a great pre-existent
spirit, far superior to man, they would not have
left us to gather their belief from a doubtful interpretation of a few scattered passages.  No fact
concerning him, personally, would have been put
forward in their writings with more prominence
and distinctness. None would have been oftener
brought into  notice.  None would have more
strongly affected their imaginations and feelings.
None would have been adapted more to affect
their disciples.  St. Matthew  would not have
written an account of his Master, as it must be
* John vi. 63.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT. 253
conceded that he has, without anywhere expressly
declaring the fact. The Apostles would have left
us in as little doubt concerning their belief of it, as
concerning their belief of his crucifixion and resurrection.
CLASS V.
Passages relating to the divine authority of Christ
as the minister of God, to the manifestation of
divine power in his miracles and in the establishment of Christianity, and to Christianity itself,
spoken of under the name of Christ, and considered as a promulgation of the laws of God's moral
government, - which have been misinterpreted as
proving that Christ himself is God.
FOR example: there are two passages in the
prophecies of the Old Testament which speak of a
messenger as going before Jehovah to prepare his
way and announce his coming.  They are: -
Isaiah xl. 3. " A voice is crying, Prepare ye in
the waste the way of Jehovah, make straight in
the desert a road for our God."
Malachi iii. 1. " Lo! I will send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me."
These passages are in the Gospels applied to
John the Baptist, the precursor of Christ.*
* Matthew iii. 3; xi. 10; Mark i. 2, 3; Luke i. 76; iii. 4; vii. 27;
John i. 23.




254  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The angel, who, according to the narrative in the
first chapter of Luke's Gospel, announced the birth
of John, is likewise represented as saying to Zachariah -
" And many of the sons of Israel will he turn
back to the LORD, their God; and he will go before him with the spirit and the power of Elijah."*
From these passages, it is inferred that Christ is
Jehovah. But they admit of an easy explanation.
In conformity to the rude apprehensions of the
Jews, we often find in the Bible, particularly in
the Old Testament, strong, and, in themselves considered, harsh figures applied to God, which are
borrowed from  the properties, passions, and actions of man, and even of the inferior animals.
Among them is the common figure by which God,
in giving any peculiar manifestation of his power,
is represented as changing his place, and coming
to the scene where his power is displayed. But if
we except the case of miraculous operations exerted directly upon the minds of men, the power
of God must be manifested by means of sensible
objects. It is often represented as exerted through
the agency of human beings, and other conscious
ministers of.his will.  When thus exerted, its
effects, and the circumstances by which its display
is attended, are sometimes referred to God as the
ultimate cause, and sometimes to the immediate
agent. What is said in one case to be done by an
angel, or by Moses, or by Christ, or by some other
* Luke i. 16, 17.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 255
instrument of God's will, is in another case said
to  be done by God.   The power displayed  is regarded, according to different modes of conceiving
the same thing, as appertaining to him or to them.
God  comes, according  to  the language  of Scripture, when a commissioned instrument of his will
appears; and the precursor of the latter is the precursor of God. Thus, too, as the power and goodness of God were displayed in Christ, he might be
denominated " Immanuel," a name meaning " God
is with us." * [See Matthew i. 23; Isaiah vii. 14.]' In the usage supposed, there is nothing extraordinary, or foreign
from our modes of expression. But in the Pentateuch the agent of
God's will, Moses, is confounded with God himself in a very strange
and almost inexplicable manner; which at least illustrates the fact,
how far we ought to be from insisting upon the bare letter of a passage, picked out here and there, in opposition to common sense and
the general tenor of a writing.
In Deuteronomy xi. 13-15, Moses is represented as thus addressing the Israelites:" And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently to my
commandments which I command you this day, to love Jehovah,
your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your
soul, that I will give you the rain of your land in its due season,.....
and I will send grass in thy fields."
Instead of "I will give," the Samaritan text, the Septuagint, and
the Vulgate here read, "He will give"; but this reading appears
obviously to have been introduced to remove the difficulty of the
passage.
Again, Deuteronomy xxix. 2, 5, 6:" And Moses called together all Israel, and said to them,..... I
have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not
waxen old upon you, nor your shoes waxen old upon your feet; ye
have not eaten bread, nor drunk wine nor strong drink; that ye may
know that I, Jehovah, am your God."
Here the Samaritan text agrees with the Hebrew; the Septuagint
in the Alexandrine manuscript, and the Vulgate and Syriac versions,
26*




256   EXPLANATIONS  OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.
In the first part of the discourse of our Saviour
with  the  Jews, recorded  in  the  fifth  chapter  of
John's Gospel (verses 16-30), which  took place
after he had excited their enmity against him by
miraculously curing a man on the Sabbath, there
are expressions as strong as are anywhere used
concerning his authority as a minister of God, and
concerning his religion as taught and sanctioned
by God, as a promulgation of the laws of God's
moral government.   The  words  of  Christ were
bold and figurative. The style of St. John, who
alter as in the preceding passage, changing the pronoun of the first
person for that of the third.
Once more, Deuteronomy xxxi. 22, 23:"Moses, then, wrote this song the same day, and taught it the
children of Israel.
"And he gave Joshua, the son of Nun, a charge, and said: Be
strong and of good courage; for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them, and I will be with thee."
Here, to avoid the difficulty, the Septuagint reads, "which the
Lord sware unto them, and he will be with thee "; expressly ascribing the speech to Moses, as the connection requires, and supplying
his name, thus: " And Moses charged Joshua." The Vulgate takes
a different course, ascribing the whole speech to Jehovah, thus: " And
the Lord charged Joshua."
The various readings of the Versions evidently deserve no consideration, as the origin of them is apparent. Whoever may look into
a number of commentators, unless he be more fortunate than myself,
will be surprised to find, either that these passages are passed over in
silence, or that the attempts to explain them are but slight and unsatisfactory. How they are to be explained, or accounted for, is a
question which it is not here the place to discuss, and one which it
is not easy to answer. But it may be remarked, that if a passage
corresponding to them had been found in the discourses of Christ,
it must have appeared, I think, to a Trinitarian a much stronger
argument than any that can now be adduced in support of the doctrine of the deity of Christ.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 257
has reported them, is in general obscure, except in
mere narrative; and the same style appears in his
own compositions and in the discourses of our
Saviour as recorded by him, which differ in this
respect from those given by the other three Evangelists. It appears probable, therefore, that St.
John, preserving essentially the thoughts uttered
by his Master, conformed the language, more or
less, to his own modes of expression. The passage, from these causes, is in the original somewhat difficult to be understood; and in the imperfect and erroneous rendering of the Common Version, its bearing and purpose are scarcely to be
discerned. As in similar cases, the obscurity thus
spread over it has served to countenance the supposition that it involves some mysterious meaning.
Yet, even as rendered in the Common Version, the
passage, so far from affording any proof of the
deity of Christ, presents only the conception of his
entire dependence upon God.
In order to enter into its character and purpose,
we must consider that the Jews in general, having
little moral desert to recommend them to the favor
of God, placed their reliance upon external ceremonies; and among these, there was none to
which they attached more importance than a superstitious observance of the Sabbath. The majority of the Jews had that enmity toward Christ,
which the bigots of a false religion always feel
toward a teacher of the truth, who discloses the
nothingness and the falsehood of their pretensions.
As the descendants of Abraham, as performing




258  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
"the works of the Law," which in their view were
little more than the ceremonies of the Law, as
God's chosen people, they considered themselves
as holy, and looked upon Christ as a profane heresiarch.  Their feelings toward him were such as
in the fifteenth century might have been excited
among the members of the Romish Church in any
Catholic country, by one openly teaching, I do not
say Protestantism, but pure Christianity, the essential truths of religion and morals, and fearlessly
reproving the vices, superstitions, and hypocrisy of
the age. They regarded him, as such a reformer
would have been regarded, as an enemy of God;
for if he were not at enmity with God, they were.
In opposition to this state of feeling among
them, our Saviour used the strongest expressions
to declare, that he was acting wholly under the
guidance of God, and that his authority was the
authority of God. It is an obvious remark, though
it may be worth pointing out, that the expressions
of the most absolute dependence upon God, and
the boldest assertions of divine authority, amount
to the same thing, and occur indiscriminately in his
discourses. So far as he was a mere instrument
in the hands of God, so far was his authority identical with that of God. These considerations will
perhaps explain the general character of the passage we are considering, which may be thus rendered:
" Upon this the Jews came in pursuit of Jesus,
because he had done thus on the Sabbath. But
Jesus said to them, As my Father is continually




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 259
working, so I also work. -Then, for this, the Jews
were more bent on killing him, because he had not
only broken the Sabbath, but also had spoken of
God as particularly his Father, putting himself on
an equality with God. Then Jesus said to them,
Truly, truly I tell you, The Son can do nothing of
himself, but only what he sees his Father doing.
But what his Father does, the Son also does in
like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and
directs him in all that he does, and will direct him
in greater works than these, to your astonishment.
For as the Father raises the dead and gives them
life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
Nor does the Father condemn any one, but has
committed all condemnation to the Son; that all
may honor the Son as they honor the Father. He
who honors not the Son, honors not the Father
who sent him. Truly, truly I tell you, He who
hears my words, and puts his trust in Him who
sent me, has eternal life, and shall not come under
condemnation, but has passed from death to life.
Truly, truly I tell you, that the hour is coming,
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of
the Son of God, and those who hear it shall live.
For as the Father is the fountain of life, so has he
given to the Son to be the fountain of life; and
he has intrusted him with authority to pass condemnation also, because he is the Man. Be not
astonished at this; for the hour is coming, when
all who are in their tombs shall hear his voice, and
come forth; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to




260  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
the resurrection of condemnation. I can do nothing of myself. I condemn as I am directed, and
my condemnation is just; for I regard not my own
will, but the will of Him who sent me."
We will now attend to some passages in this
discourse, which require or admit further illustration. The Jews, exasperated against Jesus, had
represented him to themselves as one who impiously impugned the authority of their Law, having openly manifested his contempt for it by a
wanton violation of the Sabbath. The immediate
purport of the first address of our Saviour to them
may be thus expressed: I am executing the works
of God, to whom my relation is like that of a son
to a father; and as the immediate works of God
are not suspended from a regard to the rest of the
Sabbath, neither is there reason that mine should
be,-'" As my Father is continually working, so I
also work." (Verse 17.)  The ultimate object of
these words was to affirm, in a manner very striking, at once from its indirectness and its brevity,
that he was acting as the minister of God with his
full approbation and authority. The Jews did not
familiarly speak of God as their father; and when
Jesus called him " MiY Father," they understood
him at once as meaning to express, that his relation to God was different from that of all other
men.  They understood, likewise, that he "put
himself on an equality with God," in implying
that he was no more bound by a regard to the law
of the Sabbath than God, by whose authority he
acted.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 261
There is nothing, I think, in what follows, that
requires particular explanation, till we come to the
words: " As the Father raises the dead and gives
them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he
will." (Verse 21.)  With rw0, "life," in the New
Testament, the idea of happiness is associated.
"Eternal life," for example, denotes eternal happiness.  The meaning of Christ, then, in these
words, may be thus expressed: The Father raises
the dead to a new and happy state of being; but
in this work he has appointed the Son as his minister, who by his religion affords the means of securing this blessedness, which will be conferred on
all his followers without exception, as if by his
own act and will.
" Nor does the Father condemn any, but has
committed all condemnation to the Son." (Verse
22.) This language, it is obvious, must on any
supposition be regarded as figurative. What was
meant by it is, that Christ, being the teacher of
that religion through which the laws and sanctions of God's moral government are made known,
might be regarded as the minister of God appointed to pronounce the sentence of condemnation
on all exposed to it. He condemned only those
whom  God condemned, and he condemned all
those whom  God condemned.  It is as such a
minister that he afterward represents himself, when
he says, " I condemn as I am directed."  At the
close of the discourse (verse 45), dropping this
figure, he represents God in person as the judge
who passes sentence. " Think not," he says, " that




262  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
I shall accuse you to the Father. There is one
who is accusing you, Moses, in whom you have
trusted." In another discourse (ch. xii. 47, 48) he
explains what is meant by him when he speaks of
judging and condemning men.  It signifies that
men will be judged and condemned according to
those laws and sanctions of moral conduct which
he has made known to them in his religion: " If
any one who hears my words regards them not, I
do not pass sentence on him; for I have not come
to pass sentence on the world, but to save the
world. There is a judge for him who rejects me
and receives not my words; -- THE DOCTRINE I
HAVE TAUGHT, that will pass sentence on him hereafter."
In the discourse before us, our Saviour used the
words on which we are remarking in reference to
the Jews, his enemies, who considered themselves
as secure of not being condemned by God, however their characters and conduct might be condemned by Jesus. It will be, he gives them  to
understand, as if all condemnation were committed
to the Son.
" Truly, truly I tell you, He who hears my words,
and puts his trust in Him who sent me, has eternal life, and shall not come under condemnation,
but has passed from death to life." (Verse 24.)
The punishment of sin is often represented in the
New Testament under the figure of death. Death
is regarded as the most severe of human punishments, and commonly apprehended as the greatest
of the inevitable evils of our present state; except




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 263
when this apprehension is done away by the faith
and hopes of a Christian. To his view, indeed, it
changes its aspect.  To him it is a deliverance
from the thraldom of this life, and a rapid and
glorious advance in that course of progression and
blessedness on which he has entered.  It is no
interruption of that ETERNAL LIFE, which he has
commenced.  According to the common apprehension of death, "he shall never die."  But to
the sinner death appears under an opposite aspect.
The natural dread of it is not alleviated by any
rational hope of a happier life to follow it. On
the contrary, it is the commencement of that state
in which the tendencies of his evil dispositions will
be more fully developed, and their consequences
more bitterly felt. Now to the dispensations of
the future life Christ always refers as the great
sanctions of his religion. Death, then, being the
termination of all sinful gratifications, and the
commencement of future punishment, for this reason, in connection with those before mentioned, is
employed, by an obvious figure, to represent the
whole punishment of sin; and those who lie exposed to this punishment are, bj a figure equally
obvious, spoken of as already "dead"; as the good
are spoken of as already in possession of " eternal
life." Thus, too, we may perceive why death, presenting itself under such opposite aspects to the
one class and to the other, is represented, though
common to all, as the punishment of the wicked.
" Truly, truly I tell you, that the hour is coming,
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of
27




264  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
the Son of God, and those who hear it shall live."
(Verse 25.)  The discourse of our Saviour has
been misunderstood, from inattention to the causes
why sinners are metaphorically called by him
" dead."  It has been thought to be on account of
the deadness of their moral principles and affections. Hence some commentators'have supposed
that there is in this discourse a series of harsh
transitions, from the literally dead who are raised
to life by the Father, to the morally dead spoken
of in the words last quoted, and then again to the
proper dead "who are in their tombs."  Others
have explained the words just quoted as referring
to the literally dead who were raised to life by
our Saviour during his ministry, though no corresponding meaning can be put upon his language
immediately preceding, in which he speaks of
those who have "passed from death to life," and
the explanation is, at the same time, foreign from
the purpose and connection of the discourse, and
inconsistent with the antithetical opposition which
runs through it between the two general classes,
of the dead, and of those who have eternal life.
Others still, by a'far more extravagant interpretation, have understood Jesus, when he speaks of
those in their tombs who shall hear his voice and
live, to refer only to the morally dead, and consequently to describe only a moral resurrection. The
true meaning of the words we are considering I
conceive to be, that Christ had come to call sinners to reformation; that those who lay exposed to
death with all its fearful consequences, " the dead,"




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 265
as they are figuratively called, would hear his
voice; and that those who listened to it would be
delivered from death as an evil, and have only to
look forward to life and blessedness.
"The Father has intrusted him with authority
to pass condemnation  also, because he is the
Man."  (Verse 27.)  The rendering of the last
words needs explanation.  In the Oriental languages, the term " son of man" was used simply
as equivalent to "man."  Of this, as every one
knows, there are many examples in the Old and
New Testament.  In the Syriac version of the
New Testament, this periphrasis not unfrequently
occurs where only the word a'vOpowros, "man," is
used in the original. In this, which is, I conceive,
the only sense of the term, it was used by Christ
concerning himself.  " The Son of Man" means
nothing more than "the Man."  Why he so designated himself has not, I think, been satisfactorily
explained. It may be accounted for by the state
of things which has been already referred to.*
The coming of the Messiah was a dangerous topic
of discourse. He would, consequently, be designated by ambiguous titles; and such language
would naturally be used as, " When THE MAN [the
Son of Man] comes"; " THE MAN will deliver us."
Hence this term, I imagine, came to signify the
Messiah, but somewhat ambiguously.  The uncertainty of its application might be increased,
when our Saviour entered on his ministry; for he,
simply as an individual exciting such strong and
* See before, pp. 243 - 245.




266   EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
general interest and curiosity by his miracles and
doctrine, would, we may easily suppose, be designated as " the Man."*  A term which thus strongly
intimated, but did not directly express, his claim to
be that great minister of God whom the Jews had
been  expecting, was well suited to  the circumstances in which he was placed; and was, in consequence, adopted by him as a title appropriate to
himself.  With these views, I would not however
object to  the common  rendering, "the  Son of
Man," if it be so familiar as to make a change
unpleasant, except in passages like that before us,
in which, by giving a verbal instead of a true rendering, the sense is obscured.  "God," says our
Saviour in this passage, " has intrusted me with
authority to pass condemnation, because I am the
Man "; intending by this to express, in language
which somewhat veiled his meaning, that he was
that last minister of God  whom  the Jews had
hoped for under the name of " the Messiah," or
"the Anointed."  Messiah, or Anointed, it may be
observed, is a common name, as well as Man; and
the former term, equally with the latter, could become the designation  of a particular individual
only from the manner of its application.t
* We may observe an analogous use of language in the First Epistle of John, in which Christ is designated simply by the pronoun " He,"
without any previous mention of his name to which the pronoun can
refer. See 1 John ii. 12; iii. 5, 7, 16. [Compare Noyes's note on
Job v. 1.]
t [Mr. Norton, in his Translation of the Gospels, has given a very
different rendering of the 27th and 28th verses of this chapter, as follows: " And he has intrusted him with authority to pass condemna



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 267
"Be not astonished at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in their tombs shall hear
his voice, and  come forth; those who have done
good, to the resurrection of life, and those who
have done evil, to the resurrection of condemna-'tion."  (Verses 28,29.) The meaning of our Saviour
may be thus expressed: Be not astonished at what
I have told  you, that God  has appointed  me as
his minister, to announce whom he approves, and
whom  he condemns, and to afford to all the means
tion also; Because he is a son of man, marvel not at this; for the
hour is coming," &c.
His note on the passage is this:" The meaning is, Do not marvel that I, though only a man, claim
such connection with God, or that I claim to be charged with such a
ministry by him, and to be intrusted with such authority from him,for the character of my ministry may be announced in a manner still
more striking. All men are, as it were, to be called from their tombs
by my voice, and to rise to blessedness or to condemnation, as they
have obeyed or disobeyed those laws which I teach.
"In connecting the words in the manner shown in the translation
which I have given, their meaning is obvious, and suitable to the
whole tenor of the discourse. As regards the more common rendering,' He has given him authority to execute judgment also, because
he is the Son of Man,' or' because he is a son of man,' I know of
no satisfactory or probable explanation of the latter clause.  The
absence of the article in Greek before the words rendered' son of
man' forbids their being rendered'the Son of Man.'  The connection of the clauses which I have adopted is sanctioned by the
Syriac translator of the New Testament, by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus.
"John could not have inverted the order of the clauses without
producing ambiguity, on account of the recurrence of Sri, and its
common use after TOvTO as an explanatory particle."
The paragraph in the text has not been cancelled, it being desirable to retain the remarks on the meaning of the term " Son of Man,"
which are not affected by the rendering of this particular passage.]
27*




268  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
of passing from death to life; - Be not astonished
at this, for, in truth, the future condition of all will
be determined by their obedience or disobedience
to the laws of my religion, which are the laws of
God. They shall be judged by this standard, as
if they were called from their tombs by my voice
to be judged in person by me. This mode of understanding the passage will be still further illustrated by what follows.
IT is a common figure in the New Testament to
speak of Christ personally, when his religion, under
some one of its aspects, effects, or relations, is intended; and this is sometimes done when the expression is such as our use of language does not
allow. St. Paul addresses the Colossians, according to a verbal rendering, thus (ii. 6, 7): " As, then,
ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in
him, rooted and grounded in him."  He exhorts
them (iii. 13) to forgive each other, " as Christ had
forgiven them"; not referring to any forgiveness
from Christ in person, but to the forgiveness of
their past sins upon their becoming sincere Christians. He says to the churches addressed in the
Epistle to the Ephesians, churches to which Jesus
had never preached (iv. 20, 21): " You have not so
learned Christ, since you have heard him and been
taught by him as the truth is in Jesus."  He speaks
to the Romans of the "spirit of Christ," that is,
"the spirit of Christianity," dwelling in them; and
the expression, "that Christ may dwell in your
hearts," is elsewhere (Ephesians iii. 17) used by




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT. 269
him.  He writes to the Corinthians (1 Ep. xv. 18)
of those "who have fallen asleep in Christ," meaning, those who have died "being Christians"; for
" to be in Christ" is a common phrase in his Epistles for "being a Christian."  He tells the Philippians (i. 8), "God is my witness how earnestly I
love you all ev orX\ayXvotL XplrovI'Ivo-ov," words
which, from the difference in our modes of expression, do not admit of a verbal translation into our
language; but the meaning of which is "with
Christian tenderness."   Again he says to them
(i^ 21), "For to me life is Christ, and death is
gain"; that is, " My life is devoted to the cause of
Christ, to the promotion of his religion." In the
same Epistle (iii. 8) are these words: " I have suffered the loss of all these things, counting them
but as refuse, that I might win Christ"; where the
expression, " to win Christ," means " to secure the
blessings of Christianity." To the Galatians, he
writes (iii. 27, 28), " Whoever of you has been
baptized to Christ, has put on Christ"; that is,
as appears from the connection, " is entitled to all
the privileges of a Christian." The Apostle proceeds: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither
slave nor freeman, neither male nor female; but
you are, all one in Christ Jesus," -" you are all
on an equality.as Christians." So also the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of "Jesus
Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,"
intending by those words to express the unchangeableness of Christian truth.*
* [Hebrews xiii. 8; compare verse 9.]




270  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
I have perhaps brought together more examples
than are necessary, of a common form of expression.  Our Saviour himself uses language in a
similar manner. By a figure of speech, he refers
to himself personally the effects of his religion, the
divine power exerted in its establishment, and the
operation of those laws of God's moral government which it announces.  Thus he says (Matthew x. 34): " Think not that I came to bring
peace on earth. I came not to bring peace, but
a sword."  So also in Luke (xii. 49): " I came to
cast fire on the earth; and what would I, since
it has already been kindled? " In these passages,
every one understands that our Saviour speaks of
the effects of his religion, and not of anything to
be accomplished by his immediate agency.  In
like manner, when he declares that he has come
" to save the world," he refers to the power of his
religion in delivering men from ignorance, error,
sin, and their attendant evils. "For God," it is
said, " did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that through him the world
may be saved. He who has faith in him is not
condemned; but he who has not faith is already
under condemnation, for not having faith in the
only Son of God. And the ground of condemnation is this, that, the light having come into the
world, men preferred the darkness to the light; for
their deeds were evil."* This passage shows how
men are to be saved by Christ, namely, by their
own act in believing and obeying him; and is
* John iii. 17 -19.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 271
also one of those which explain what is meant by
his figurative language when he speaks of judging
and condemning men.
" I am the resurrection and the life."* In what
sense our Saviour used these sublime words may
appear from what immediately follows. " He who
has faith in me, though he die, will live; and whoever lives and has faith in me will never die."
Christ is the resurrection and the life, because
through faith in him, through a practical belief of
the truths which he taught, eternal life is to be
obtained. Thus he afterwards says (John xii. 49,
50): "For I have not spoken from myself; but
He who sent me, the Father himself, has given me
in charge what I should enjoin, and what I should
teach; and I know that WHAT HE HAS CHARGED
ME WITH is eternal life"; that is, it affords the
means of attaining eternal life.
He says to the Jews, in reference to those Gentiles who would embrace his religion (John x. 16):
" I have other sheep, which are not of this fold;
those too I must bring in, and they will hearken
to my voice, and there will be one flock and one
shepherd."  In these words he does not mean to
assert his own personal agency in the conversion
of the Gentiles; they were not literally to hear his
voice; but they were to be converted by the
preaching of his religion. There is a similar figure in the words (John xii. 32), " And I, when I
shall be raised up from the earth, shall draw all
men to me."
* John xi. 25.




272  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
In his most affecting conversation with his disciples, the evening before his crucifixion, he tells
them (John xiv. 18, 19), " I will not leave you
fatherless.  I am coming to you again. A little
while only, and the world will see me no more;
but you will see me. Inasmuch as I am blessed,
you will be blessed also." Here, as I have before
had occasion to explain, our Saviour refers, not to
any personal presence with his disciples, but to his
presence with them in the power of his religion,
his presence to their minds and hearts.
In other instances, Jesus uses what may be
technically called " an equivalent figure," by which
I mean figurative language not intended to correspond to the real state of things except so far as
to produce an effect upon the mind equivalent to
what that might produce if distinctly apprehended.
Thus he tells his disciples (John xiv. 2, 3), " There
are many rooms in my Father's house. Were it
not so, should I have told you that I am going
there to prepare a place for you?  And when I
have gone and prepared a place for you, I am
coming again, and will take you to myself, that
where I am, you may be also."  When Jesus thus
speaks of preparing a place for his disciples, and,
after preparation, returning to take them with him,
he uses figurative terms which do not admit of
being transformed into literal. The general effect
of the language, its aggregate significance, if I
may so speak, is alone to be regarded.  The
meaning is, Your future blessedness will be as
great, and is as certain, as if it were prepared for




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 273
you by me, your Master and friend, and you were
assured that I should return in person to conduct
you to it.
In a similar manner we are to understand another declaration of Jesus, already noticed, which
has been erroneously explained (Matthew xviii. 19,
20): " Again, I say to you, If two of you agree on
earth concerning everything which they ask, their
prayers will be granted by my Father in Heaven.
For where two or three come together as my
disciples, there am I among them." By this, as I
have said,* our Saviour intended that the prayers
of his followers for the promotion of his cause, for
the guidance and aid necessary to them as his ministers, would be granted as if they were his own,
as if he himself were praying with them.
In order to explain some other passages in which
our Saviour speaks figuratively of his personal
agency, it is necessary' to attend to a new consideration.  The Jews had been accustomed to
designate the dispensation which they expected
from their Messiah as " the kingdom of the Messiah," or' the kingdom of God," or " of Heaven."
This language, though the conceptions which they
had attached to it were erroneous, was such as,
taken in a figurative sense, might well describe the
Christian dispensation. It was adopted, therefore,
by our Saviour, and after him by his Apostles;
and to this leading metaphor of a kingdom much
of the figurative language throughout the New
* See before, pp. 223, 224.




274  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Testament is conformed.  The establishment of
Christianity in the world is spoken of by Christ as
the establishment of the kingdom or reign of the
Messiah, or of God. This event he describes, figuratively, as "his coming to reign," or simply as
" his coming," that is, his manifestation to men in
his true character.
Thus we find the following language (Matthew
xvi. 27, 28):" The Son of Man is coming in the
glory of his Father, with his angels; and then will
he render to every one according to his deeds. I
tell you in truth, There are some here present who
will not taste of death, before they see the Son of
Man entering on his reign." The literal meaning
of these words may be thus given: The kingdom
of Heaven, the Christian dispensation, will be established by a glorious display of the power of
God; and, being established, men will be rewarded or punished as their actions conform  to its
laws; every one will be judged by the laws of its
king, the Son of Man; and the establishment of
Christianity in the world will be made secure and
evident during the lifetime of some of those now
present.
He is coming "with his angels."  Angels were
conceived of by the Jews as ministers of God's
providence; and Christ, conforming his language
to their conceptions, repeatedly speaks of the ministry of angels, figuratively, to denote some manifestation of the power of God. Thus he tells Nathanael (John i. 51), " Ye will see heaven opened,
and the angels of God ascending and descending




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 275
to the Son of Man"; meaning, Ye will witness
manifest proof of the relation existing between
God and me, his minister. When our Saviour
speaks of his coming in the glory of God, with his
angels, he does not mean by these figures to express, that he himself will appear in person with
some visible and splendid display; his meaning is
as has been explained; corresponding to what he
elsewhere says (Luke xvii. 20, 21), " The kingdom
of God is not coming with any show that may be
watched for; nor will men say, Lo  it is here; or,
Lo! it is there; for lo! the kingdom of God is
within you."
IN relation to this subject, there are still other
facts to be attended to. With the establishment
of Christianity was connected the punishment of
the Jews for their rejection of Christ.  They, in
return, were rejected by God. The peculiar relation which they held toward him was publicly abrogated. As a nation they ceased to exist. Their
country was ravaged, they were destroyed, or
forced from it into slavery or exile; Jerusalem was
laid waste, and the temple burnt and thrown down.
How the establishment of Christianity was connected with these events, we shall perceive, if we
consider that the Jews had been separated by God
from other nations, to be the subjects of a special
dispensation, by which he was made known to
them and they were called to worship him. They
were, in an obvious sense of the words, his chosen
people.  But in rejecting Christ and refusing to
28




276  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
obey him, they had virtually renounced their allegiance to God. They had dissolved by their own
act the connection that had existed between Him
and them. They had, if one may so speak, put
the question at issue, whether they were still in
favor with God, still his peculiar people, and Christ
were a blasphemous impostor speaking falsely in
the name of God, as they had declared him to be;
or whether Christ spoke with divine authority, and
they consequently had refused to submit to the
authority of God. The peculiar relation that had
existed between God and them was recognized by
Christ himself; to them he was immediately sent;
his claims were in the first instance submitted to
them; and they had rejected him as a false Messiah. The question thus at issue must, it would
seem, receive a public and solemn decision, before
the evidence of Christianity could be considered as
complete; and this decision was made by God in
the rejection and punishment of the nation.
This punishment, it is further to be recollected,
had been announced by Christ. He had thus suspended the completion of the full evidence of his
divine mission till the accomplishment of his prophecy. When that took place, the series of proofs
might be considered as closed, and his religion as
established.
Nor is this all. The Jews were the bitter enemies of Christianity; and it was against persecution from them alone that the religion had first to
struggle. In their opposition to it they had a vantage-ground which none of its subsequent enemies




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT. 277
possessed.  They claimed to know the character
and purposes of God, and to be the proper judges
of a prophet pretending to be sent from him to
their nation.  In the view of many Gentiles, the
question at issue between the Jews and Christ
was, without doubt, regarded as "a question of
their own superstition,"  which it was for them to
decide.  Now  from  this opposition and persecution, of a nature to be so injurious to the growth
of the new religion, Christianity was relieved by
the destruction of the nation.  It no longer appeared as an offshoot from Judaism, but assumed
its independent character, not deriving  support
from  the preceding  dispensation, but throwing
back evidence upon it.
Thus it appears in  what manner the establishment of Christianity was connected with the
destruction of the Jewish nation; and why our
Saviour sometimes speaks of the events as simultaneous. This is the case throughout the prophecy in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, so
far as it relates to the calamities coming upon the
Jews.t  In this there are some passages that strikingly illustrate the modes of expression elsewhere
used by Christ.  He evidently speaks of his own
coming and presence, figuratively, in the Oriental
language of poetry and prophecy; and, in the same
use of language, refers to his own personal agency
* Acts xxv. 19; compare xviii. 15.
t [For an explanation of the latter part of this chapter (vv. 42 -51),
which relates to a different subject, see Mr. Norton's Notes on the
Gospels.]




278   EXPLANATIONS OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.
events which  were not to  be  effected  by it, but
were to be accomplished in his cause by God.
After warning his disciples against being deceived by those who would falsely claim the character of the Messiah, (his character, I conceive, as
a deliverer from the tyranny of the Romans,) he
says: " Should they say to you, Lo! he [the Messiah] is in some solitary place; go not forth: Lo!
he is in  some  private  chamber; believe  it not.
For the coming  of the  Son  of Man will be like
the lightning which flashes from the east to the
west,"  — as apparent and splendid.  The meaning is, For the evidence which God will afford for
the establishment of my religion will be the most
conspicuous and unequivocal.
In  what immediately  follows, after predicting
the extinction of the Jewish nation in language of
which we have abundant examples in the Hebrew
prophets, that is, in the strongest figures representing a day of utter darkness,t he proceeds: " And
* Matthew xxiv. 26, 27.
t " A day of darkness " is an obvious figure for a " day of distress."
Hence, in the Oriental style, a time of utter calamity, the destruction
of a nation, is described by the extinction of the sun and the other
lights of heaven. Thus Isaiah (ch. xiii. 9, 10), in speaking of the destruction of Babylon, says:" Behold, the day of Jehovah is coming, cruel with wrath and fierce
anger, to lay the land desolate and to destroy its sinners out of it.
"For the stars of heaven and its constellations shall not give their
light, the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall
not cause her light to shine."
So also Ezekiel, describing the fall of Egypt (ch. xxxii. 7, 8):"And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make
its stars dark. I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  279
then THE SIGN of the Son of Man will appear in
heaven; and then all the tribes of the land will
beat their breasts, when they shall see the Son of
Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory."   The Jews had repeatedly demanded of Christ a sign from  heaven; that is, a
miracle conspicuous in the heavens, or apparently
having its origin there. This, for some reason or
other, they pretended to regard as what might
afford clear proof of his being the Messiah, such
proof as his other works did not furnish. They
made the refusal of this sign one main pretext of
their unbelief.  "The Jews," says St. Paul, " demand signs."*  In St. John's Gospel the Jews are
represented as comparing Christ with Moses, and
asking, " What sign do you show us, that we may
give you credit?  What do you perform?   Our
fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread FROM HEAVEN to eat." t It
is in reference, I think, to this demand of the Jews,
that our Saviour says, " Then THE SIGN of the Son
of Man will appear in heaven "; intending by these
words, that the most conspicuous proof would then
be given of his divine mission. This proof, he expresses in what follows, would be a display of
God's providence in the establishment of his renot give her light; all the bright lights of heaven will I make dark
over thee, and spread darkness over thy land."
It is unnecessary to quote at length more examples of this figurative language. Others may be found, Isaiah xxxiv. 4; Jeremiah xv.
9; Joel ii. 30, 31; iii. 15; Amos viii. 9.
* 1 Corinthians i. 22.
t John vi. 30, 31.
28*




280  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
ligion, which would cause all the inhabitants of
the land to lament. It would be his triumph and
their desolation. He describes it under the figure
of his coming on the clouds of heaven with great
power and glory.
This is one of those passages which may teach
us how such figurative language is to be understood.  There was no visible appearance of our
Saviour at the destruction of Jerusalem, nor have
we reason to ascribe the punishment of the Jews
in any degree to his personal agency. No such
visible appearance took place before the generation
then living had passed away. Yet all the events
which it was his purpose to predict occurred during that period. After what has been quoted, he
says (verse 34): " I tell you in truth, that they will
all take place before this generation passes away."
It is, then, the power of God displayed in his
cause, which he speaks of figuratively as his own.
Thus, likewise, we are to understand his words
when he says, in his last charge to his disciples
(Matthew xxviii. 18), "All power is given me in
heaven and on earth"; where he ascribes to himself personally the power of God which would be
exerted in the support of Christianity.
After the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, our Saviour in the next chapter (Matthew
xxv.) represents the kingdom of Heaven, or Christianity, as established and in operation. All are
to be judged by its laws, the laws of God's moral
government.  Some will be rewarded, and some
punished, all according to their deeds. After his




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT. 281
enforcing this truth in two parables, follows that
most solemn and impressive description, in which
he represents himself personally as the Judge of
men.  It contains a most important truth enveloped in a most striking figure.  It is a scenical
representation, adapted powerfully to affect the
minds of his immediate hearers, and our own.
The naked truth here taught is the most important, the most practical truth of religion,-that
which concerns us the most deeply; it is, that our
happiness or misery is to be determined by ourselves, by the conformity of our conduct to the
will of God, which Christ has revealed. The solemn imagery in which this truth is presented is
but an expansion of the figure that our Saviour
had before used: " The Son of Man is coming in
the glory of his Father, with his angels; and then
will he render to every one according to his deeds."
What was predicted in these words was to take
place while some who heard him were still living:
" I tell you in truth, There are some here present
who will not taste of death, before they see the
Son of Man entering on his reign."  While the
generation then living  continued on  earth, the
kingdom  of Heaven was to be established, the
Messiah was to assume his reign, and men were
to be judged by his laws.* It may be observed,
that the figure which connects his judging in person with his assuming his reign, would be obvious
* [Compare the note on Matthew xxv. in Mr. Norton's Notes on
the Gospels; and in regard to the figurative use of language here
illustrated, see, further, his note on Matthew xiii. 36 - 43.]




282  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
to an Oriental; the ancient custom having been
for kings to sit in person as judges. Hence, both
in the Old and New Testament, the verb "to judge"
is not unfrequently used as equivalent to the verb
"to reign " or " to rule."
BUT this language is highly figurative; and why,
it may be asked, was such language used by our
Saviour, language of which the purport is liable to
be misunderstood?  The answer is, that, in the
first place, the ESSENTIAL meaning of the words,
that meaning which is of the deepest interest to
all, may be readily understood. It is clearly taught,
that every man will receive according to his deeds;
that our condition in the future life will be determined by our character in the present. To account
for the imagery in which this truth is presented, we
must look to the intellectual habits and culture of
those addressed. The contemporaries and countrymen of Christ clothed their conceptions in language
very different from that with which we are familiar.
To them, Oriental fashions of speech were vernacular. They were to be addressed through their feelings and imagination. The great body of the Jews,
unaccustomed to any exercise of the understanding,
had scarcely the power of apprehending a truth
presented to them as a philosophical abstraction,
in its naked and literal form. An array of figures
was required to command their attention. It was
necessary that the doctrine taught should be incorporated, as it were, in images obvious to sight, in
order to affect their minds. The ideas presented




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 283
were to be conveyed in a manner adapted to their
conceptions and associations, to their capacity of
comprehending and feeling.. A teacher, divine or
human, who should have explained the truths of
religion in the language of Locke or of Butler,
would have found no hearers on the shores of
Gennesaret or within the walls of Jerusalem. Our
Saviour, had he been addressing a small body of
philosophers, would undoubtedly have expressed
himself in a manner very different from that in
which he spoke to the Jewish multitudes, or even
to his own disciples.  I say in a very different
manner; for the essential truths of religion could
not have been more distinctly made known by him.
But his language, it may be said, is now liable
to be misunderstood by us.  Certainly it is so,
upon some points of minor importance, if we will
not exercise our reason upon the subject; and he
is in a great error who supposes that any rule
can be laid down for the study of the Scriptures,
which shall supersede the exercise of investigation,
thought, and judgment. Except in treating of the
exact sciences, the very nature of language renders impossible such a use of it as will preclude
all liability to be misunderstood. The impression
which it makes, the ideas which it excites, in him
who hears or reads it, depend upon the previous
state of his own mind. In proportion as one is
prepared to apprehend a subject as it was apprehended by him who spoke or wrote, he will be
more likely to receive the meaning designed. In
passing from one age to another, or from one na



284  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
tion to another, the significance of language varies
with the ever-varying conceptions of men. Our
Saviour often left his words to be explained by
subsequent events, or to be rightly apprehended as
the minds of his hearers acquired power to accommodate themselves to the truth. During his ministry, his Apostles often misunderstood him; and it
was not till many years after his ascension, that
they comprehended the purport of the simple direction, " Go and make disciples from all nations";
and then only in consequence of a new miracle.
THE language of Christ respecting his future
coming and his judgment of men was likewise, I
believe, misunderstood by his Apostles. Interpreting it literally, they anticipated a personal and
visible return of their Master to earth at no distant period, when he would appear as the Judge
of mankind. This is a subject necessary to be
explained in connection with the views that have
been given of the meaning of Christ, which would
be otherwise imperfect and unsatisfactory. At the
same time, it is a subject involving considerations
of great importance.  But its discussion in this
place would too much interrupt the train of the
present argument; and I shall, therefore, treat of it
in an Appendix to this volume.*
I MAY here take notice, however, of the argument
founded by Trinitarians upon the conceptions of
the Apostles respecting the judgment of mankind
* [See Appendix, Note B.]




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 285
by Christ. It has been contended by them, that
what the Apostles expected is still future; that
Christ is hereafter to judge all men in person;
that, in order to this, he must be acquainted with
every thought and action of every individual; that
such knowledge supposes omniscience; that omniscience is the attribute of God alone; and that
Christ, therefore, is God. Without examining any
of the other steps in this argument, one need only
remark upon the very limited notion which it implies of omniscience on the one hand, and of the
power of God on the other. The knowledge of all
thoughts and deeds which have taken place in this
world from its creation would be, compared with
OMNISCIENCE, less than the acquaintance that a
child may have with its nursery, compared with
the apprehensions of an archangel.  Would it,
then, be an act transcending the power of God to
communicate that knowledge? Could he not give
to one man a perfect acquaintance with one other?
And if this be possible, is his power still so bounded, that he could not give to one who had been
a man, a perfect knowledge of the thoughts and
deeds of all other men who have lived?
In urging such obvious arguments as these, there
is a humiliating consciousness of the weakness of
the cause we are opposing. One may feel as if he
were wasting reasoning upon a subject unworthy
of it; as if his remarks implied a want of common
intelligence in his readers; as if he were exposed
to the same ridicule, as he who should gravely and
earnestly labor the proof of an undeniable propo



286  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
sition. But the same is the case with all direct
reasoning against the doctrine of the Trinity; and
one can reconcile himself to the discussion of it
only by considering, not what that doctrine is in
itself, but how widely and how long it has prevailed, how obstinately it is still professed, and the
manifold mischiefs which have flowed and are still
flowing from it.
CLASS VI.
Passages misinterpreted through inattention to the
peculiar characteristics of the modes of expression
in the New Testament.
CORRESPONDING to what has been already said,
the modes of expression in the books of the New
Testament are often different from those which we
should use at the present day to express the same
essential meaning. All our habits of life, all the
habits of our minds, our conceptions, our modes of
apprehension, our associations of thought, are more
or less unlike those of their writers, or of the individuals for whom  the books were primarily
intended.  Our imaginations are familiar with
different objects; our feelings are excited by other
causes; our minds are occupied by other subjects.
While the essential truths of religion, as taught by
Christ and his Apostles, have remained unchanged




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 287
and unchangeable, the sphere of human knowledge has widened, and philosophy has made great
advances.  A gradual change has been taking
place in the character of men's ideas; they are
combined in different aggregates, they are embodied in other forms of language, they are better
defined, they stand in different relations to each
other.  Let any one recollect and bring together
what he may know of the half-civilized inhabitants
of Galilee, of the bigoted Jews of Jerusalem, or of
the Christian converts from heathenism at Corinth
or Ephesus; and he will perceive that they were
men, who, in their ways of thinking and feeling, in
their opinions and prejudices, in their degree of
information, in their power of comprehending truth,
in the influences to which they had been subject,
and in the circumstances in which they were placed,
were very unlike an intelligent reader of the New
Testament at the present day. The writers of the
New Testament partook of the character of their
age and nation.  Their circumstances, likewise,
were in the highest degree peculiar, and produced
corresponding feelings, which we cannot fully apprehend without an effort of thought and imagination. They were Jews, accustomed to strong Oriental modes of speech, and to figurative language
of a kind not familiar to us, and the force of which,
therefore, we are liable to misapprehend. All these
circumstances contributed to produce a style of expression in the New Testament which is not to be
judged of by the standard of our own. We may
satisfy ourselves that we have ascertained the true
29




288  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
meaning of a writer, even when his language varies
much from that which the habits of our time might
lead us to adopt in conveying the same ideas.
Of passages that bear the stamp of what, in a
wide sense of the term, one may call the Oriental
style of the New Testament, we have already had
many examples under the preceding heads, particularly under the last. I now propose to explain
a few passages in the Epistles to the Ephesians
and Colossians; two epistles written probably at
the same time, having a striking likeness, and serving to illustrate each other.  That which goes
under the name of the Epistle to the Ephesians
was probably a circular epistle sent to different
churches in Asia Minor. They were written from
Rome late in the life of the Apostle, just about
the termination of his-first imprisonment in that
city.  They were addressed to Christians who
were principally converts from heathenism. One
main object of the Apostle was to impress them
with a deep sense of the blessings they had received solely through the favor of God, of the
value of their religion, and of the relations in
which its teacher stood to God and to his followers; and thus to prevent them from confounding it
with any human doctrine, and modifying it, or
adding to it, from heathen philosophy or the super,
stitions of the Jews.  He was earnest to make
them  feel how  intimately they were connected
with Christ, and to direct their thoughts to hirr
as, under God, the only source of their knowledge,
blessings, and hopes.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 289
There was danger that, after the first excitement
produced by the promulgation of Christianity had
passed away, it would be regarded by many Gentile converts only as a new speculation upon topics
which had long engaged the attention of their philosophers, - a system of opinions having its origin
in a nation whom they regarded as barbarous (in
the ancient sense of the word), which they might
adopt in part only, reject, or modify, like other
speculations, in their view similar. It was with a
feeling of this danger, that St. Paul told the Corinthians that he was sent "to preach, not with
wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should
become of no account";* and that he was "determined to know nothing among them, but Jesus
Christ, and him crucified."t  In the two Epistles
we are considering, he teaches those addressed,
that it was through Christ alone that they who
were formerly Gentiles had attained to a knowledge of God, and of the truths and hopes of religion. To raise and strengthen their sense of the
value of Christianity, he describes its blessings,
especially in reference to themselves who had been
Gentiles, in the strongest terms; and, to fix their
attention on Christ as their great and sole Master,
he uses language equally strong in speaking of
his relation to God, of the importance and dignity
of his office, and of the dependence of all his followers upon him.
To the Colossians he says (i. 9 - 20):"So then we also, since we first heard of your
* 1 Cor. i. 17.           t 1 Cor. i. 2.




290  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
faith, cease not to pray for you, and to ask that
you may be made perfect in the knowledge of
God's will, having all spiritual wisdom and understanding; that you may walk worthily of the
Lord to all acceptance, being fruitful in every good
work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
being endued with all strength through his glorious
power, so as to bear all things patiently and joyfully; giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share the lot of the holy who are in the
light, rescuing us from the empire of darkness, and
transferring us into the kingdom of his beloved
Son; by whom we are delivered, our sins being
remitted; who is the image of the invisible God,
the first-born of the whole creation; for by him all
has been created, the heavenly and the earthly, the
seen and the unseen, whether thrones, or principalities, or governments, or powers, all has been
created through him and for him, and he is over
all, and all exists by him. And he is the head of
the body, the community of the holy,* he being the
beginning, the first-born from the dead, that he
might have pre-eminence in all things. For with
him it pleased God that whatever is perfect should
be united, and through him  to reconcile all to
himself, -making peace through the blood of his
cross, -all whether in heaven or on earth through
him."
In this passage there are some expressions that
require explanation.  God, says St. Paul, "has
* Or "the church ": I use the term given above as more comprehensive and expressive.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 291
transferred us from the empire of darkness into the
kingdom of his beloved Son."  To this metaphor
much of the following language corresponds. It
was this kingdom which had been newly created,
that is, had been newly formed; for it is thus that
the word rendered created is to be understood.
We find it, and its correlatives, repeatedly used in
a similar sense by St. Paul, namely, to denote the
moral renovation of men by Christianity. Thus
he says:"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.
The old things have passed away; behold, all things
have become new."  2 Cor. v. 17.
"For in Christ Jesus neither is circumcision
anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."
Gal. vi. 15.
" For we are God's workmanship, created through
Christ Jesus for good works." Ephes. ii. 10.
" Put on the new man, who is created in the
likeness of God with the righteousness and holiness of the true faith." Ephes. iv. 24.
The language from the Epistle to the Colossians
in which Christ is said to have created all things,
is to be explained in a corresponding manner. He
created all things in the new dispensation, in the
kingdom  of Heaven. It has been understood as
declaring, that the natural creation was the work of
Christ. But it is obvious, at first sight, that the
words used are not such as properly designate the
objects of the natural world; and not such, therefore, as we should expect to be employed, if these
were intended.  In speaking of the natural crea29*




292  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
tion, the same Apostle refers it to God in different
terms, - to "the living God who made heaven
and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in
them." *
But what is meant by the Apostle when he
speaks of Christ as creating things heavenly, and
unseen, thrones, principalities, governments, and
powers? I answer, that Christ is here spoken of
by him as the founder and monarch of the kingdom  of Heaven; and that this kingdom  is conceived of, not as confined to earth, but as extending to the blessed in heaven, to those who have
entered, or may enter, on their reward.  Christ
being represented under the figure of a king, and
his followers being those who constituted the subjects of his kingdom, their highest honors and
rewards are spoken of, in figurative language, as
thrones, principalities, governments, and powers.
He himself said to his Apostles: " In the regeneration," -that is, "in the new creation," for the terms
are equivalent, — " In the regeneration, when the
Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory,
you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel." t " To sit on my right
hand and on my left " - to hold the highest places
in my kingdom, to attain the highest rewards conferred on my followers - "is not mine to grant,
but it will be given to those for whom it has been
prepared by my Father." t  But the kingdom  of
Heaven including the seen as well as the unseen,
* Acts xiv. 15.   t Matthew xix. 28.   t Matthew xx. 23.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 293
the earthly as well as the heavenly, the terms in
question are to be understood, not merely as referring to the rewards of the blessed in heaven, but
as denoting likewise the highest offices and dignities of this kingdom on earth; the offices of those
who were ministers of Christ, its king, - his apostles and teachers. The purpose of St. Paul is to
declare, that Christ is the former and master of
the whole church on earth and in heaven, of the
whole community of the holy; that he is the author of all their blessings; that all authority among
them is from him; that all are ruled by his laws;
that the whole kingdom on earth and in heaven
exists through him, and, figuratively speaking, "for
him," as its monarch.
The same leading ideas are somewhat differently
expressed in the corresponding passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians (i. 15-23):" And therefore I, hearing of your faith in the
Lord Jesus, and of your love toward all the holy,
do not cease to give thanks for you, praying that
the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of
glory, may give you the spirit of wisdom and divine illumination, that you may become acquainted
with him, the eyes of your minds being enlightened,
that you may know what is the hope to which he
has summoned you, and how rich is that glorious
inheritance which he has given you among the
holy, and how exceedingly great is his power exerted for us believers, corresponding to the operation of his might displayed in raising Christ from
the dead; whom he hath seated at his own right




294  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
hand in heaven, over all rule, and authority, and
power, and dominion, and every title of honor in
this age or in that to come; putting all things
under his feet, and appointing him supreme head
of the community of the holy, which is his body,
the perfectness of him who is made completely
perfect in all things."
IN the passage first quoted from the Epistle to
the Colossians, there is a clause (verse 19) which
I have rendered, " For with him it pleased God,
that whatever is perfect should be united." The
rendering of the Common Version is, "For it
pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness
dwell."  The word here translated " fulness, 7rX?pwo/a, means "perfectness," "perfection," "completion," "fulness," or "that which perfects," " completes," "fills." In the Epistles to the Ephesians
and Colossians, it is used by St. Paul in a peculiar
manner; and from  the want of a corresponding
term which will readily suggest his meaning, there
is in some instances a difficulty in expressing it in
English.  The rendering of the passages where it
occurs must be varied according to the circumstances of the case.
The leading idea, I conceive, which St. Paul
intended to express by this word in these two
Epistles, is the Perfectness of Christianity, whether
considered as a perfect display of the character of
God, as a perfect system of religious truth, or as
making its disciples perfect, in the scriptural sense
of that word.  All perfection, in his view, was




EXPLANATIONS  OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  295
combined  in  it;  and  his meaning in  the  clause
just referred to is, that it pleased the Father that
this whole Perfectness, with all those who were
the subjects of it (rarv To'r7rXpwoua), should abide
with  Christ.   To him, as  their sole  master and
teacher, his followers were to look. Nothing, to
complete his religion, was to  be drawn  from  any
other source.   Whatever was perfect was in  him,
that is, in  his religion; to  him  every  " perfect"
man was united.
Thus he says in the Epistle to the Ephesians
(iii. 14 - 19):"For this, I bend my knees to the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, whose name is borne by every
family [of Christ's disciples] in heaven or on earth,
that, from his glorious abundance, he may grant
you  to  be  powerfully  strengthened, through  his
spirit, within;  that  Christ  may  dwell in  your
hearts  through  faith;  that you  may  have  your
root and  foundation  in  love; and thus that you
may be able to comprehend, with all the holy, the
breadth and the length, the depth and the height,
of his goodness,* and to know  that Christian lovef' I insert the words " of his goodness " to make what I conceive to
be the meaning of the Apostle clear in a translation. The reference
of the preceding terms descriptive of magnitude is, I suppose, to roV
7rXOVTrov r7s odr s avrov, verbally, " the richness of his glory," which
I have rendered, " his glorious abundance." These words, and others
equivalent, - as 6o TXoVros TrS XapLros avrov, 6 7r\OVTOSr TOV XptTroV, - occur often in these Epistles as descriptive of the goodness of
God to the Gentiles. With the passage in the text may be compared
Romans xi. 33,2Q 3a0 os 7rXou6OV Kal oTotlas Kal yvceaoEs Oeov!
t Tr)v (Tya7rTTv TOP Xptoroi, "that love which Christ has taught
and requires," of which the Apostle so often speaks in these Epistles,
that love which, he elsewhere teaches, is better than knowledge.




296  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
which is better than knowledge; so that your perfection may correspond to the whole perfect dispensation of God,"    verbally, that "you may be
perfected to the whole perfection of God," that is,
the whole perfection which has God for its author.
In another passage in the same Epistle (iv. 1113) he says, that God (to whom, and not to Christ,
the preceding verses relate) 
" —gave to some to be apostles, to some to be
public teachers, to some to be evangelists, to some
to be pastors and private teachers, that they might
perfect the holy, execute the work of the ministry,
form the body of Christ, till we all attain the same
faith, and the same knowledge of the Son of God,
becoming full-grown men, reaching the full stature
of Christian perfection."
The words of the last clause, verbally rendered,
would be, " the measure of the stature of the Perfectness [that is, of the perfect dispensation] of
Christ."
In a passage already quoted (Ephesians i. 23),
the community of the holy is called " the body of
Christ, the perfectness of him who is made completely perfect in all things."  The word 7rXrpro/a,
perfectness, is not here used in the extent of its
signification as I have explained it. It is limited
to the subjects of the perfect diepensation of Christ.
As it stands, it has a double reference; one figurative to the idea of the perfectness, produced by
uniting a body to its head, the church being the
* [See the Christian Examiner for January 1828, Vol. V. pp.
65-67.3




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 297
body and Christ the head; the other literal, the
church being called the perfectness of Christ, partly
because its members are considered as perfect, and
partly because its formation was the perfecting of
the great design of him, who, as a minister of God
and teacher of the truth, was " made completely
perfect in all things."
We will now turn to Colossians ii. 1-10:
" For I wish you to know what earnest care I
have for you, and for those of Laodicea, and for
all who have not known me in person; that being
knit together in love, their minds may be excited
to attain to all the riches of a complete understanding, to a full acquaintance with the new doctrine
of God, in which are stored all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge.  What I would is this,
that no one may impose upon you by specious
discourses. For I, though I am absent in body,
am present with you in spirit, rejoicing at the sight
of your well-ordered state, and the firmness of your
faith in Christ. As, therefore, you have received
Christ Jesus the Lord, so continue to walk in
his way, rooted in him, built upon him, and established in the faith as it has been taught you,
abounding in thanksgiving. Beware lest any man
make a prey of you by a vain and deceitful philosophy, conformed to the doctrines of men, the principles of the world, and not to Christ; for with
him abides, as his body, all that is divinely perfect; and you are made perfect through him, who
is the head of all rule and authority."
By the words rendered " all that is divinely per



298  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
fect," I understand the whole divine, perfect dispensation, with all who had become the subjects
of it.* In the light in which the passage has been
placed, it will be perceived that the leading ideas,
and the language in which they are expressed, are
both essentially the same with what we find in
other passages of these two  Epistles, which we
have before noticed. These thoughts dwelt upon
the mind of the Apostle while writing, and he reiterates them with a slight change of form. They
consist in exhortations to unwavering faith, to entire deference to the instructions of Christ alone,
and to constant progress in Christian knowledge
and love; exhortations founded upon the perfectness of the religion taught by Christ, upon his divine authority, and upon the most intimate connection subsisting between him and all his true followers, he being the head, as it were, and they the
body, all their blessings and all their knowledge, all
that was perfect in them, being derived from him.
THERE are two other passages which, perhaps,
it may be worth while to notice under the present
head.  In the twelfth  chapter of John's  Gospel
(verse 40), the Evangelist applies to the Jews of
his time words derived from Isaiah (vi. 10), which
he thus gives: "He has blinded their eyes, and
* In the original words, TO rrXrpoqxa TrS Oeorriros, the genitive may
denote the relation of an attribute to its subject, so that the words
may be equivalent to tr Oelov 1TrXo po'a; or the relation of a cause
to its effect, so that they may mean "the perfection which has divinity for its author." The ultimate meaning is in both cases the same.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 299
made their minds callous, so that they see not
with their eyes, nor understand with their minds,
nor turn from their ways, for me to heal them."
" These words," he continues, "said Isaiah, when
he saw  his glory, and spoke concerning him."
The primary reference of the passage was to the
indirect effects to be produced by the preaching of
the Prophet himself upon the Jews of his time.*
But the Evangelist regarded it as having a secondary reference to Christ; and supposed Isaiah
when uttering those words to have seen, that is, to
have foreseen, his glory; the verb to see having
here the same force as when used concerning Abraham: " Abraham saw my day and rejoiced." t
But the words found in Isaiah are represented
by the Prophet as having been addressed to himself by Jehovah, when he beheld a vision of him in
the temple; and the Trinitarian contends, that the
glory seen by Isaiah, to which St. John refers, was
this glory of Jehovah, and consequently that Jehovah and Christ are the same.  Unquestionably
this interpretation might be admitted, if it involved
no absurdity and no contradiction to what is elsewhere said by the Evangelist. But if it do, it is
equally unquestionable that it cannot be admitted.
AN argument has been founded by Trinitarians
upon the exclamation of the Apostle Thomas,
when convinced of the truth of his Master's resurrection: " And Thomas said to Jesus, My Master!
* [See on this passage Mr. Norton's Notes on the Gospels.]
t [John viii. 56.]
30




300  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
and  my God!" *   Both  titles, I believe, were applied  by  hirr  to  Jesus.   But the  name  " God"
was employed  by  him, not as the  proper  name
of the Deity, but as afn appellative, according to
a common  use of it in his day; or perhaps in  a
figurative sense, as it sometimes occurs in modern
writers, of which the passages before quoted  from
Young afford examples.t   I have already had occasion to remark upon the different significancy of
the term  " God" in  ancient and in modern  times,
a  difference  important to  be  well understood  in
order to ascertain the meaning of ancient authors.j
The name " God" is an appellative in the Old Testament;~  and  it is a characteristic  and  peculiar
* [John xx. 28.]                         t See p. 158.
t [See p. 120, note.]
~ [The Hebrew words commonly translated " God" in the Old
Testament are Elohin  and El.  The former is applied to Moses,
Exodus vii. 1 (comp. iv. 16);- to the apparition of Samuel, 1 Sam.
xxviii. 13 (comp. verse 14); —to Solomon, or some other king of
Israel, Psalm xlv. 6; - to judges, Exodus xxi. 6; xxii. 8, 9, 28;and to kings or magistrates, Psalm lxxxii. 1,6, and perhaps cxxxviii.
1 (comp. verse 4, and Psalm cxix. 46). See also Ezekiel xxviii. 1.
Many have supposed the word Elohim to denote angels in Genesis
iii. 5 (comp. verse 22), Psalm viii. 5, and some other passages, as
Psalm xcvii. 7, where the Septuagint version has a'yyeXot.  This
opinion was entertained by Milton, who accordingly, in his Paradise
Lost, very often denominates angels "gods."  The title "God of
gods" is repeatedly given to Jehovah in the Old Testament: see
Deuteronomy x. 17; Joshua xxii. 22; Psalm 1. 1 (Heb.); cxxxvi. 2;
Daniel xi. 36.
El is the Hebrew word which is translated " God" in Isaiah ix. 6,
where it is supposed by most Trinitarian commentators to be a name
of Christ. This passage has already been noticed. (See p. 182.)
The same word is applied to Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel xxxi. 11,
where it is rendered in the Common Version " the mighty one "; in




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 301
distinction of the writers of the New Testament,
when compared with those who preceded and followed them, that they used this name as it is used
by enlightened Christians at the present day.
But the argument deserves notice as illustrating
the Septuagint, apXow, "ruler."  In Ezekiel xxxii. 21, where it is
used in the plural, it is translated " the strong." In Isaiah ix. 6, the
Septuagint version, according to the Alexandrine manuscript, and
also the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, render the
word by lo-xvpo'e, "strong."
Our Saviour refers to this use of the word" God," in a lower sense,
in the Old Testament. " Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are
gods?  If those are called gods to whom  the word of God was addressed," &c. See John x. 34 -36, and compare Psalm lxxxii. 1, 6.
There is but one passage in the New Testament, besides that now
under consideration, in which there is any good reason for supposing
the name " God" to be given to Christ.  This is in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, i. 8, 9, quoted from Psalm xlv. 6, 7, —" Thy throne, 0
God, is for ever and ever," &c. But here the context proves that the
word " God " does not denote the Supreme Being, but is used in an
inferior sense.  This is admitted by some of the most respectable
Trinitarian critics.  Thus the Rev. Dr. Mayer remarks: "Here
[i. e. in Hebrews i. 8] the Son is addressed by the title God; but the
context shows that it is an official title, which designates him  as a
~ king: he has a kingdom, a throne, and a sceptre; and in ver. 9, he is
compared with other kings, who are called his fellows; but God can
have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings
of the earth, and his superiority over them consists in this, that he is
anointed with the oil of gladness above them; inasmuch as their
thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting." (Article on
"The Sonship of Christ," in the Biblical Repository for January
1840, p. 149.)  So Professor Stuart says: "As to the quotation of
Psalm xlv. it seems to me a clear case, that it does not fairly establish the truly divine nature of him to whom it is applied. Elohim
appears to be here applied as designating an official capacity, which
is high above that of all other kings." (Biblical Repository for
July 1835, pp. 105, 106; compare his Commentary on Hebrews,
p. 294, 2d ed.)  After these admissions, it is hardly worth while
to mention the fact, that such commentators as Calvin and Grotius




302  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
the very loose reasoning which has been resorted
to in bringing passages from the Old and the New
Testament in support of false doctrines. Supposing that Thomas had believed, and  asserted, that
his Master was God himself; in what way should
regard the Psalm in question as relating, in its primary sense, to
Solomon.
Such, then, being the use of the word " God" in the Old Testament, Thomas may have applied it to Christ as it is applied to the
subject of the forty-fifth Psalm, where it denotes "a divinely-anointed
king," regarded as the earthly representative of God. But, without
reference to this use of the word, there is no difficulty in conceiving
that Thomas, under the circumstances related by the Evangelist, may
have applied the term " God " to Christ, not as the Infinite and Unchangeable Being, but as one invested with the authority of God and
manifesting his perfections, -his Image and Vicegerent on earth.
He had listened to his words of eternal life; he had beheld the manifestations of that supernatural power which stilled the tempest, which
gave sight to the blind, which raised the dead; in his Master's resurrection he now recognized, with feelings which we can hardly realize,
the immediate interposition of the Almighty; the impression which
had been made on his mind and heart by all that was divine in Christ
was vivified anew; he felt the truth of the sublime words which but
a few days before he had heard from his lips, " He who has seen me
has seen the Father"; and, overwhelmed with wonder, reverence,
and awe, he exclaims, "My Master! and my God!"
But is it not marvellous that theologians have made of this exclamation aproof-text, construing language of the strongest emotion
as if it were the language of a creed?  A more rational view,
however, has been taken of the passage by such commentators as
Michaelis, Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, and Lucke,- and, apparently,
Neander and Tholuck, - who recognize the invalidity of the Trinitarian argument which has been founded upon it. Meyer, in the first
edition of his Commentary (1834), remarked, very judiciously, that
expressions uttered "in such ecstatic moments" are "entirely misused when applied to the proof of doctrinal propositions." But in
his second edition (1852) he does not seem quite willing to give up
the passage. He speaks of Thomas as expressing " his faith in the
divine nature [or essence, Wesen] of his Lord "; and, though he ob



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 303
this affect our faith?   WVe should  still know  the
fact on which his belief was founded, the fact of
the resurrection of his Master, and  could draw  our
own inferences from it, and judge whether his were
well founded.   Considering  into  how  great an erserves that the strong feeling under which the exclamation was uttered renders it less fitted for doctrinal use, he cites as important the
remark of Erasmus, that Christ accepted the acknowledgment of
Thomas, instead of rebuking him, as he would have done if he had
been falsely called God. The obvious reply to this is, that Christ
accepted the acknowledgment of Thomas as he meant it, not in the
irrational sense which modern theologians have put upon the words.
And as Greenwood has well remarked: 
" The answer of Jesus himself excludes the supposition that he was
addressed as the Supreme God.  For he said unto his disciple,'Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are
they that have not seen, and yet have believed.' Now this must
mean,'Because thou hast seen me here alive, after my crucifixion
and burial, thou hast believed that I am raised from the dead; and
it is well; but blessed are they who cannot have such evidence of the
senses, and yet shall believe in the glorious truth, from your evidence,
and that of your brethren.' He could not have meant, that they were
blessed who, though they had not seen him, yet had believed that he
was God; because there is no connection between the propositions;
because the fact of the resurrection of Jesus cannot, to the mind of
any one, be of itself a proof of his deity; and because no one thinks
of requiring to see God, in order to believe that he exists." (Lives
of the Twelve Apostles, 2d ed., p. 139.)
Nothing can be more thoroughly irreconcilable with the whole tenor
of the Gospel history, than the supposition that the disciples, during
their intercourse with their Master on earth, regarded him as the Supreme Being. (See before, p. 75, et seqq.) It is, accordingly, admitted by many Trinitarians, that the mystery of the hypostatic union
was not revealed to them before the effusion of the Spirit on the day
of Pentecost. See Wilson's " Unitarian Principles confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies," p. 351, et seqq.
What the Apostle John understood to be implied in this confession
of Thomas, may be inferred from the words with which he concludes
this chapter.]
30*




304  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
ror he had fallen in his previous obstinate incredulity, there would be little reason for relying upon
his opinion as infallible in the case supposed. I
make these remarks, not from any doubt about the
meaning of his words, but, as I have said, for the
purpose of pointing out one example of that incomplete and unsatisfactory mode of reasoning,
which appears in the use of many quotations
from the Old and the New  Testament.
CLASS  VII.
THE passages to which we have had occasion to
attend are of a character to excite an interest in
ascertaining their true meaning, without reference
to the general subject of this volume. Their explanation rests on facts and principles important
to be known and attended to in the study of the
New  Testament.  But there are others brought
forward by Trinitarians of which the same cannot
be said, and which require only a very brief and
general notice.
I have endeavored to show, that whenever a Trinitarian meaning is given to any passage, it is given
in violation of a fundamental rule of interpretation.
But there are passages adduced, in the senses assigned
to which, not merely this rule is violated, but the most
obvious and indisputable characteristics of language
are disregarded, and the reasoning proceeds upon the
assumption that they do not exist. Thus, for exam



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 305
pie, it is said in Isaiah (xliii. 11), according to the
Common  Version: " I, even I, am  the  LORD, and
beside me there is no saviour." But Christ, it is
argued, is our Saviour; and, as it is proved by
this  passage  that there  can  be  no  saviour but
God, it follows that Christ is God. The reasoning proceeds upon the assumption that the same
word is always used in the same sense, with the
same  reference, and  in  the  whole  extent of its
signification; and the monstrous conclusions that
would result from applying this argument to other
individuals beside Christ, to whom the name " Saviour " is or may be given, are put out of sight.*
* [See 2 Kings xiii. 5; Nehemiah ix. 27; Isaiah xix. 20; Obadiah 21.
Some Trinitarians have quoted in proof of the deity of Christ a
few passages in which they suppose the title " God our Saviour" to
be applied to him. The following are all the passages of the New
Testament in which this expression occurs: 1 Timothy i. 1; ii. 3;
Titus i. 3; ii. 10; iii. 4; and Jude 25. See also Luke i. 47; 1 Timothy iv. 10.
In some of these texts, as 1 Timothy i, 1, Titus iii. 4-6, the being
who is called "God our Saviour" is' expressly distinguished from
Christ; and one need only compare the others with these, and with
their context, to perceive that it is not only without evidence, but
against all evidence, that any of them are referred to Christ. A large
majority of Trinitarian commentators recognize this fact.
In Jude 25 the best ancient manuscripts and versions, and other
authorities for settling the text, read, " To the ONLY God our Saviour,
THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, be glory," &c. This reading
is adopted by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Vater, Scholz,
Lachmann, Hahn, Tischendorf, Theile, and nearly all modern critics.
There can be no reasonable doubt of its genuineness.
We may here notice also 2 Peter i. 1 and Titus ii. 13, in which it
has been maintained, on the ground of the omission of the Greek
article, that Christ is called " our God and Saviour," and " our great




306 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
On misinterpretations such as this it would be
useless to dwell.   No information can be given, no
thoughts can be suggested, which are not obvious
to  every reader who will exercise his own  understanding; and to him who will not, all assistance
must be in vain.
THUS, then, with  one exception, which  we will
immediately  consider, we  have  taken  a  general
view of the manner in which the passages adduced
by Trinitarians are to be explained.
God and Saviour." As to the argument founded on the omission of
the article, it is not necessary to add anything to what has already
been said. (See p. 199, note.) But it is urged by Professor Stuart
and others, in respect to Titus ii. 13, that the "appearing" of God
the Father is never foretold in the New Testament, and therefore
Ahat " the great God " here spoken of must be Christ. The answer
to this is, that, according to the literal and correct translation of the
original, it is not "the appearing," but " the appearing of the glory,
e7rLveavLav rTrs odtrls, of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus
Christ," of which the Apostle speaks; and that our Saviour did expressly declare that he should come "in the glory of his Father."
See Matthew xvi. 27; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26; and compare
1 Timothy vi. 14-16.  Professor Stuart admits that "the whole
argument,.....so far as the article is concerned, falls to the ground."
(Biblical Repository for April 1834, p. 323.)  The title "the great
God " in this passage is referred to the Father by Erasmus, Grotius,
Le Clerc, Wetstein, Doddridge, Macknight, Abp. Newcome, Rosenmuller, Heinrichs, Schott, Winer, Neander (Planting and Training,
I. 509, note, Bohn's ed.), De Wette, Meyer (on Romans ix. 5),
Huther, Conybeare and Howson, and others.]




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 307
CLASS  VIII.
The Introduction of St. John's Gospel.
WE will now attend to a passage that has been
misunderstood through ignorance or disregard of
the opinions and modes of conception which the
writer, St. John, had in mind. This is the introduction, or proem, as it has been called, of his
Gospel.
" In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."
There is no word in English answering to the
Greek word Logos, as here used. It was employed
to denote a mode of conception concerning the
Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote,
and intimately blended with the philosophy of his
age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from
our habits of thinking, that it is not easy for us
to conform our minds to its apprehension.  The
Greek word Logos, in one of its primary senses,
answered nearly to our word Reason. It denoted
that faculty by which the mind disposes its ideas
in their proper relations to each other; the Disposing Power, if I may so speak, of the mind. In
reference to this primary sense, it was applied to
the Deity, but in a wider significance. The Logos
of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as
merely the Reason of God; but, under certain
aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect
of God. To this the creation of all things was




308  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
especially ascribed. The conception may seem obvious in itself; but the cause why the creation
was primarily referred to the Logos or Intellect of
God, rather than to his goodness or omnipotence,
is to be found in the Platonic philosophy, as it existed about the time of Christ, and particularly as
taught by the eminent Jewish philosopher, Philo
of Alexandria.
According to this philosophy, there existed an
archetypal world of IDEAS, formed by God, the perfect model of the sensible universe; corresponding,
so far as what is divine may be compared with
what is human, to the plan of a building or city
which an architect forms in his own mind before
commencing its erection.  The faculty by which
God disposed and arranged the world of Ideas
was his Logos, Reason, or Intellect. This world,
according to  one representation, was supposed
to have its seat in the Logos or Mind of God;
according to another, it was identified with the
Logos.  The Platonic philosophy further taught,
that the Ideas of God were not merely the archetypes, but, in scholastic language, the essential
forms, of all created things.* In this philosophy,
matter in its primary state, primitive matter, if I
may so speak, was regarded merely as the substratum of attributes, being in itself devoid of all.
Attributes, it was conceived, were impressed upon
it by the Ideas of God, which Philo often speaks
* [For an account of Plato's doctrine of Ideas, see the author's
Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. III. Additional
Note A.]




EXPLANATIONS OF TIlE NEW TESTAMENT. 309
of under the figure of seals. These Ideas, indeed,
constituted those attributes, becoming connected
with primitive matter in an incomprehensible manner, and thus giving form and being to all things
sensible. But the seat of these Ideas, these formative principles, being the Logos or Intellect of
God, — or, according to the other representation
mentioned, these Ideas constituting the Logos, -
the Logos was, in consequence, represented as the
great agent in creation. This doctrine being settled, the meaning of the term gradually extended
itself by a natural process, and came at last to
comprehend all the attributes of God manifested in
the creation and government of the universe. These
attributes, abstractly from God himself, were made
an object of thought under the name of the Logos.
The Logos thus conceived of was necessarily personified or spoken of figuratively as a person. In
our own language, in describing its agency,agency in its nature personal and to be ultimately
referred to God,- we might indeed avoid attaching a personal character to the Logos considered
abstractly from God, by the use of the neuter pronoun it.  Thus we might say, All things were
made by it.  But the Greek language afforded
no such resource, the relative pronoun in concord
with Logos being necessarily masculine.  Thus
the Logos or Intellect of God came to be, figuratively or literally, conceived of as an intermediate being between God and his creatures, the
great agent in the creation and government of
the universe.




310  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Obsolete as this mode of conception has now
become, there is a foundation for it in the nature
of the being contemplated, and of the human
mind. The Deity conceived of as existing within
himself, removed from all distinct apprehension of
created intelligences, dwelling alone in his unapproachable and unimaginable infinity of perfections, presents a different object to the mind from
the Deity operating around us and within us, and
manifesting himself, as it were, even to our senses.
It is not strange, therefore, that these two conceptions of him have been regarded apart, and more
or less separated from each other. The notion of
the Logos, it is true, is obsolete; but we find
something analogous to it in the use of the term
Nature in modern times. Employed as this often
is, the mind seems to rest in some indistinct notion
of an agency inferior to the Supreme, or an agency,
to say the least, which is not referred directly to
God.
The conception and the name of the Logos
were familiar at the time when St. John wrote.
They occur in the Apocryphal book of the Wisdom
of Solomon. The writer, speaking of the destruction of the first-born of the Egyptians, says (ch.
xviii. 15): -
" Thine almighty Logos leaped down from heaven, from his royal throne, a fierce warrior, into the
midst of a land of destruction."
In another passage, likewise, in  the prayer
ascribed to Solomon, he is represented as thus
addressing God (ch. ix. 1, 2):



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 311
" God of our fathers, and Lord of mercy,
Who hast made all things by thy Logos,
And fashioned man by thy Wisdom."
The terms, the Logos of God, and the Wisdom of
God, are here used as nearly equivalent in signification. A certain distinction was sometimes made
between them; but they were often considered as
the same. In the book just quoted we find strong
personifications of Wisdom,* considered as an attribute of God, and described in such language
as was afterwards applied to the Logos. In the
Proverbs there are similar personifications of Wisdom,t which the Christian Fathers commonly understood of the Logos.
The use of the word " Logos," in the sense that
has been assigned to it, was derived from the Platonic philosophy. But we find among the Jews a
similar mode of conceiving and speaking of the
operations of God, unconnected with this philosophy, and appearing in the use of a different term,
the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit. By either
expression, in its primary theological sense, was
intended those attributes, or that power of God,
which operated among men to produce effects that
were believed to be conformable to his will, as
manifested in the laws of his moral government.
Thus the miracles of a teacher from  God, the
direct influences of God upon the minds of men,
and all causes tending to advance men in excellence, moral and intellectual, were referred to the
* Ch. vii., viii., x.
t Ch. viii. See also ch. i. 20, seqq.; ch. iii. 19.
31




312   EXPLANATIONS OF THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.
Holy Spirit. The idea of its invisible operation
was associated with it. To express what has been
said in different terms, it denoted the unseen Power
of God, acting upon the minds of men in the direct
or indirect production of moral goodness, or intellectual ability, in the communication of truth, and
in the conferring of supernatural powers. The conception is of the same class with that of the Logos;
and the Holy Spirit is in some instances strongly.
personified, as by our Saviour in his last discourse
with his Apostles.  The divine Power which was
manifested in Christ might be ascribed indifferently
to the Spirit, or to the Logos, of God, as the reader
or hearer was more conversant with the one term
or the other.   St. John, writing in  Asia  Minor,
where  many  for whom   he  intended  his Gospel
were familiar with the conception of the Logos,
has, probably for this reason, adopted the term
" Logos," in the proem  of his Gospel, to  express
that manifestation of God by Christ which is elsewhere referred to the Spirit of God.*
* It may be observed, that, amid the confusion and inconsistency
of those conceptions of the earlier Fathers which afterwards settled
into the doctrine of the Trinity, we often find the Holy Spirit and
the Logos spoken of as the same power of God. Thus Justin Martyr, in reference to the miraculous conception of Christ, says (Apologia Prima, c. 33. p. 54): " We must not understand by the Spirit
and the power from God anything different from the Logos, who is
the First-born of God." Theophilus of Antioch says (Ad Autolycum,
Lib. II. ~ 10), that " the Logos is the Spirit of God and his Wisdom ";
though he elsewhere (Ibid. ~ 15 et ~ 18) makes a Trinity of God, his
Logos, and his Wisdom. The Wisdom of God was commonly conceived of as the Logos of God, but Irenaeus, like Theophilus, gives
the former name to the Holy Spirit. (See Lib. IV. c. 20.) Ter



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  313
But to  return.  The conception  that has been
described having been formed of the Logos, anid
the Logos being, as I have said, necessarily personified, or spoken of figuratively as a person, it
soon followed, as a natural consequence, that the
Logos was by many hypostatized or conceived of
as a proper person.*   When the corrective of experience and actual knowledge cannot be applied,
what is strongly imagined is very likely to be regarded as having a real existence; and the philosophy of the ancients was composed in great part
of such imaginations. The Logos, it is to be recollected, was that power by which God disposed
in order the Ideas of the archetypal world. But
in particular reference to the creation of the material universe, the Logos came in time to be conceived of by many as hypostatized, as a proper
person going forth, as it were, from God in order
to execute the plan prepared, to dispose and arrange all things conformably to it, and to give
tullian says (Advers. Praxeam, c. 26): "The Spirit of God [the
Spirit spoken of in the account of the miraculous conception] is the
same as the Logos. For as, when John says, The Logos was made
flesh, we by the Logos understand the Spirit, so here we perceive the
Logos to be intended under the name of the Spirit. For as the Spirit
is the substance of the Logos, so the Logos is the operation of the
Spirit; and the two are one thing. What! when John said that
the Logos was made flesh, and the angel, that the Spirit was to be
made flesh, did they mean anything different?"  See also c. 14;
Advers. Marcion. Lib. V. c. 8, et alibi sxepe; Irenseus, Cont. Hares.
Lib. V. c. 1. ~ 2.
* It will be convenient in what follows to use the terms personify
and hypostatize, with their correlatives, as distinguished from each
other according to the senses assigned them in the text.




314  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
sensible forms to primitive matter, by impressing it
with the Ideas of the archetypal world. In many
cases in which the term  " Logos " occurs, if we
understand by it the Disposing Power of God in
a sense conformable to the notions explained, we
may have a clearer idea of its meaning, than if we
render it by the term " Reason," or " Wisdom," or
any other which our language offers.
In the writings of Philo, who was contemporary
with our Saviour, we find the Logos clearly and
frequently hypostatized.  According to him, considered  as a person, the Logos is a god.  In a
passage which has been closely imitated by Origen, he says: " Let us inquire if there are really
two Gods."  He answers: " The true God is one,
but there are many who, in a less strict use of language, are called gods." The true God, he says,
is denoted by that name with the article; others
have it without the article; and thus his most venerable Logos is called God without the article.*
" No one," he says, " can comprehend the nature of
God; it is well if we can comprehend his name,
that is, the Logos, his interpreter; for he may be
considered, perhaps, as the god of us imperfect
beings, but the Most High as the God  of the
wise and perfect."t He represents the Logos as
* De Somniis, Lib. I. c. 39. Opp. I. 655. Comp. Origen's Comment. in Joan. Tom. II. Opp. IV. 50, 51. Clement of Alexandria, remarking on Genesis iv. 25, says, Ov yap eEov a7rXtrcs Trpoo-Trev 5o r
Tro alpOpov 7rporaTe Trov 7TravroKparopa b8rlXCas.- Stromat. III.
~ 12. p. 548. [See before, p. 120, note.]
t Legg. Allegorr. Lib. III. c. 73. Opp. I. 128.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  315
the instrument (opeyavov) of God in the creation
of the universe; as the image of God, by whom
the universe was fashioned; as used by him, like
a helm, in directing the course of all things; as
he Who himself sits at the helm  and orders all
things; and as his first-born son, his vicegerent
in the government of the world.* " Those,'l says
Philo, "who have true knowledge [knowledge of
God] are rightly called sons of God..,... Let
him, then, who is not yet worthy to be called a
son of God, strive to fashion himself to the resemblance of God's first-born Logos, the most
ancient angel, being, as it were, an archangel with
many titles." —  A little after, he calls the Logos
"the  eternal image  of  God"; and  elsewhere
applies to him the epithet "eternal."   He represents the Logos as a mediator between God and
his creatures.  "To the archangel, the most ancient Logos, God freely granted the high distinction of standing between and separating the
creation from  its Creator.  With the immortal
being, he intercedes for what is mortal and perishing.  He announces the will of the Ruler to his
subjects.  Being neither unoriginated like God,
nor originated like man, but standing between
the two extremes, he is a hostage to both; being
a pledge to the Creator that the whole race of
* De Cherubim, c. 35. I. 162. De MonarchiA, Lib. II. c. 5. Opp.
II. 225. De Migrat. Abrahami, c. 1. I. 437. De Cherubim, c. 11.
I. 145. De Agricultura, c. 12.  I. 308.
t De Confusione Linguarum, c. 28. I. 426, 427. [See before,
pp. 220, 221.]
31 




316  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
men shall never fall away and revolt, preferring
disorder to order; and giving assurance to the
creature that the God of Mercy will never neglect
what he has made." *
Such conceptions are expressed by Philo concerning the Logos as a person.  If his representatiohs of him, so far as they have been quoted,
are not perfectly consistent, they do not imply that
he wavered much in the view  of his character;
and these representations were received by the
early Fathers as the groundwork of their doctrine
concerning the personal Logos. But upon further
examination, the opinions of Philo will appear
more unsettled and unsteady; and new conceptions will present themselves.  To these we shall
advert hereafter. It is only necessary here to observe, that in his opinions relating to this subject
there was little fixedness or consistency.  The
images which floated before his mind changed
their forms.  Throughout his writings, he often
speaks of the personal agency of the Deity in language as simple as that of the Old Testament.
In a large portion of the passages in which he
makes mention of the Logos, it may be doubted
whether he conceived of it, for the time, otherwise
than as an attribute or attributes of God. On the
other hand, it is also to be observed, that the influence of his Platonism, when it was ascendant in his
mind, did not terminate in hypostatizing the Logos
alone among the powers or attributes of God.
* Quis Rerum Divinarum Haeres, c. 42. I. 501, 502.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 317
FROM the explanations which have been given
of the conceptions concerning the Logos of God,
it will appear that this term properly denoted an
attribute or attributes of God; and that upon the
notion of an attribute or attributes the idea of personality was superinduced. Let us now consider
the probable meaning of the first words of St.
John's Gospel.
" In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."
These words admit, I think, only of two explanations. Either St. John used the word " Logos" simply to denote the conception of those
attributes of God which are manifested in the
creation and government of the universe; and in
the last clause intended to declare, that, in the
contemplation of them, no other being but God is
to be contemplated, and that all their operations
are to be referred directly to him; - or he meant
to speak of those attributes as hypostatized, and
to represent the Logos of God as a proper person
(such as he is described by Philo), the minister
and vicegerent of God, who, always acting by the
power, and conformably to the will, of God, might
rhetorically be called God, according to the figure
by which we transfer to an agent the name of his
principal.
It is contended, indeed, that his words admit of
a different meaning; that the Logos is here spoken
of as a proper person; but that this person is, at
the same time, declared to be, literally, God. But
if we so understand St. John, his words will express




318  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
a contradiction in terms. " The Logos," he says,
"was WITH God," which, if the Logos be a person, necessarily implies that he is a different person
from God. Whoever is WITH any being must be
diverse from that being with whom he is. As far,
then, as we may be assured that St. John did not
affirm an absurdity in terms, so far we may be
assured that he did not affirm that the Logos,
being a person with God, was also, literally, God.
Of the Evangelist we may here say, as Tertullian
says concerning another passage quoted from him:
" Secundum omnia [in suo evangelio] potius quam
adversus omnia, etiam adversus suos sensus interpretandus "; — " He is to be explained conformably to all, rather than in opposition to all that he
has elsewhere written, and in opposition, too, to
the sense of the words themselves."* Here, therefore, we dismiss the Trinitarian exposition, and
proceed to consider how the passage is to be understood.
We have now only to choose between the two
explanations first given. St. John has personified,
or he has hypostatized the Logos. He has spoken
of the Logos simply as of the attributes, or, as we
may say, the Power of God, manifested in his
works; or he has adopted the philosophy of some
of his contemporaries, and intended to represent
this Power as a person.
Whether St. John did or did not adopt this Platonic conception, is a question not important to be
settled in order to determine our own judgment
* [Tertullian. advers. Praxeam, c. 26.]




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 319
concerning its truth. But that he did not, is rendered probable by his not alluding to it elsewhere
in his Gospel, and by his never in any other place
introducing an intermediate agent between God
and his creation, or referring the Divine Power
manifested in Christ to any other being but God
himself. It is unlikely that he would receive a
doctrine of this kind, which had not been taught
by his Master; and neither he nor any other of the
Evangelists has recorded that this doctrine was
taught by Christ.  The nature of the doctrine
itself, which presents the strange conception of an
hypostatized attribute or attributes, would alone
forbid the supposition of its having such an origin.
It is clearly traced to a different source, to a philosophy which, considering St. John's intellectual
habits and his manner of life, was not likely to
have a strong influence over his mind.
But, setting aside these considerations, the passage itself affords, perhaps, sufficient reason for
believing that the Evangelist did not intend to
speak of an hypostatized Logos. "The Logos,"
he says, "was God," that is, the Supreme Being.
If we conceive of the Logos as a person, the agent
of God, those words considered in themselves admit, as I have said, of a figurative sense. But
they would express an assertion which is made by
no other writer who entertained this conception of
the Logos. Philo, or the earlier Christian Fathers,
would, equally, have shrunk from  asserting the
Logos to be God, as the word " God" is used by
us.  The earlier Fathers understood the term




320  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
"god," as here used by St. John, in an inferior
sense, regarding it as denoting what we might
express in English by saying, that the Logos was
a " divine being."  But this, unquestionably, is
not its true sense. St. John, having just used the
word Oedo, " God," to denote the Supreme Being,
would not in the next clause thus vary its signification; and corresponding likewise to what I have
before observed,* his general use of this term, like
that of the other Apostles and Evangelists, was
the same with our own use of the name " God."
Assuming, then, that the word 96ed', " God," in the
passage before us, denotes the Deity, what purpose
or inducement could St. John have had to assert,
in a figurative sense, that the Logos was the Deity,
upon the supposition that he believed the Logos
to be a distinct person, the agent of the Deity?
I think none can be conjectured.
Thus far, I have been arguing merely against
the supposition, that St. John adopted the Platonic
conception of an hypostatized Logos. But as to
the further supposition, that he believed his Master, Jesus Christ, to have been not a man, properly
speaking, but that Logos clothed in flesh, it is here
sufficient, after all that has been said, to remark its
inconsistency with the whole character of his narrative and those of the other Evangelists, and with
every other part of the New Testament. Had St.
John believed his Master to be an incarnation of a
great being, to whom the name Logos might be
applied, superior to all other beings except God,
* See before, pp. 300, 301.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 321
we could, with our present view of the character of
the Apostle, assign no other ground for this belief
than an assurance of the fact, resting upon miraculous evidence.  Had he, then, held this belief,
he would everywhere have spoken of his Master
conformably to it.  Christ would have appeared
throughout his Gospel and the other Gospels, not
as a man, which he was not, but as the incarnate
Logos, which he was. No reason can be assigned
why he should not have been usually denominated
by that name, his real character kept constantly in
view, and all his words, actions, and sufferings correctly represented as those of the agent intermediate between God and his universe.
Let us now examine whether the language of
the Apostle can be better explained, if we understand him as using the term "Logos" merely to
denote the attributes of God manifested in his
works. It was his purpose, in the introduction of
his Gospel, to declare that Christianity had the
same divine origin as the universe itself; that it
was to be considered as proceeding from the same
power of God. Writing in Asia Minor, for readers
by many of whom the term " Logos " was more
familiarly used than any other to express the attributes of God viewed in relation to his creatures,
he adopted this term to convey his meaning, because, from their associations with it, it was fitted
particularly to impress and affect their minds;
thus connecting the great truth which he taught
with their former modes of thinking and speaking.
But upon the idea primarily expressed by this




322  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
term, a new  conception, the conception of the
proper personality of those attributes, had been
superinduced. This doctrine, then, the doctrine of
an hypostatized Logos, it appears to have been his
purpose to set aside. He would guard himself, I
think, against being understood to countenance it.
The Logos, he teaches, was not the agent of God,
but God himself. Using the term merely to denote the attributes of God as manifested in his
works, he teaches that the operations of the Logos
are the operations of God; that all conceived of
under that name is to be referred immediately to
God; that in speaking of the Logos we speak of
God, " that the Logos is God."
The Platonic conception of a personal Logos,
distinct from' God, was the embryo form of the
Christian Trinity.  If, therefore, the view just
given of the purpose of St. John be correct, it is
a remarkable fact, that his language has been alleged as a main support of that very doctrine, the
rudiments of which it was intended to oppose.
Considering how prevalent was the conception
of the Logos as a distinct being from God, it is
difficult to suppose that St. John did not have it
in mind. But it is to be observed, that the preceding explanation of his words is independent of
this supposition, and that they are to be understood in the same manner, whether they are supposed to refer to that conception or not.
It is, then, of the attributes of God as displayed
in the creation and government of the world, that
St. John speaks under the name of "the Logos."




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 323
To this name we have none equivalent in English,
for we have not the conception which it was intended to express. In rendering the first eighteen
verses of St. John's Gospel, I shall adopt the term
" Power of God."  It is, perhaps, as nearly equivalent as any that we can conveniently use. But in
order to enter into the meaning of the passage, we
must associate with this term, not the meaning
alone which the English words might suggest according to their common use, but the whole notion
of the Logos as present to the mind of the Apostle.
Adopting this term, we may say that the Power
of God, personified, is the subject of the introductory verses of his Gospel.  It is first said to be
God, and afterwards declared to have become a
man. It is first regarded in its relation to God in
whom it resides, and afterwards in its relation to
Jesus through whom it was manifested. Viewed
in the former relation, what may be said of the
Power of God is true of God; the terms become
identical in their purport. Viewed in the latter relation, whatever is true of the Power of God is
true of Christ, considered as the minister of God.
His words were the words of God, his miracles
were performed by the power of God. In the use
of such figurative language, the leading term seldom preserves throughout the same determinate
significance; its meaning varies, assuming a new
aspect according to the relations in which it is presented. Thus, an attribute may be spoken of as
personified, then simply as an attribute, and then,
again, as identified with the subject in which it
32




324   EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
resides, or the agent through whom it is manifested
In regard to the personification of the Logos by St
John, which is a principal source of embarrassment
to a modern reader, it was, as I have said, inseparable from the terms in which the conception was
expressed, the actions ascribed to the Logos being
of a personal character, and the use of the neuter
pronoun  being  precluded  by  the  syntax  of the
Greek language.  St. John, then, says: -
" In the beginning was the Power of God, and
the Power of God was with God, and the Power
of God was God.  He was in the beginning with
God.  All things were made by him, and without
him  nothing was made which was made.  In him
was the source of blessedness;* and the source of
blessedness was the light for man. And the light
is shining in darkness; though the darkness was
not penetrated by it.
" There was a man sent from God, whose name
was John.  This man came as a witness, to bear
testimony concerning the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but he
came to bear testimony concerning the light. The
* Zoi, rendered in the Common Version life. It is here, however,
used in the sense of blessedness, as often in the New Testament. But
the blessedness spoken of is that which is communicated, not that which
is enjoyed, by the Logos. I do not perceive, therefore, that the sense
of the original can be expressed more concisely in English than by
the words which I have used. This blessedness is communicated
through the revelation of religious truth; the intellectual light; - not
" of men," but " for men." In other words, the revelation made by
the Power of God through Christ, which is the light of the moral
world, is the source of blessedness to men.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 325
true light,* which shines on every man, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and by
him the world was made, and the world acknowledged him  not.  He came to  his peculiar possession, and his peculiar people received him not.
But to as many as received him he gave a title to
be children of God, -to those who had faith in
him, - they being born not of any peculiar race,t
nor through the will of the flesh, nor through the
will of man, but being children of God.
" And the Power of God became a man,t and
dwelt among us, full of favor and truth; and we
beheld his glory, such as an only son receives from
a  father.   John  bore  testimony  concerning  him,
and  proclaimed, This is he of whom  I said, He
who was to come after me has gone before me, for
he was my  superior. —Of his inexhaustible  store
we all have received, even favor upon favor. For
* " The true light," that is, the Power of God, the Logos; so called
because he is the source of the light, the revealer of religious truth.
t OVK e aLtdiaTrv, literally, not of (particular) races, alqa being
here used in the sense of race, as in Acts xvii. 26, and by profane
writers. Blood in English is used in a similar sense; as in the expression, " They were of the same blood." The meaning of the whole
thirteenth verse is, that the blessings of the Gospel were not confined
to any particular race, as that of the Jews; and that none received
them on the ground of natural descent, as children of Abraham and
the other patriarchs.
M a2p$ Eyevero, rendered in the Common Version, "became flesh."
The word oap4, in its primitive meaning flesh, is often used to denote man. When it is said that the Logos, or the Power of God, became a man, the meaning is that the Power of God was manifested
in and exercised through a man. It is afterward, by a figurative use
of language, identified with Christ, in whom it is conceived of as residing.




326  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
the Law was given by Moses, the Favor and the
Truth* came by Jesus Christ. No man has ever
seen God; the ohly Son, who is on the bosom of
the Father, he has made him known."
In a note on this passage, I have explained the
words, " the Logos became flesh," or" the Power
of God became a man," as meaning that "the
power of God was manifested in a man," that " it
was exercised through him," "it resided in him."
To one familiar with the uses of figurative language, the interpretation  may appear obvious.
Some Trinitarians, however, may object to it as
forced. I would, therefore, ask him who believes
that by the Logos is meant the second person of
the Trinity, to consider the exposition which he
himself puts upon the words. According to this,
the second person of the Trinity, the Son, who is
himself God, became a man, or, to adopt the rendering of the Common Version, was made flesh.
God became a man, or was made flesh. By the
word rendered became or was made, the Trinitarian
understands to be meant, that he was hypostatically
united to a man, was so united to a man as to constitute with him but one person. It is a sense of the
Greek word everero not to be found elsewhere; to
say nothing of the meaning of the whole sentence,
if it may be called a meaning, which results from
giving e7EVero this unauthorized signification. The
Antitrinitarian, on the other hand, understands the
* "The Favor and the Truth," x Xapts KaL  aXXiOELa. These terms
are here used to denote the Christian dispensation, the religion of
mercy and truth.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 327
word as equivalent to " became," in that figurative
sense in which we say that one thing is, or becomes, another, when it manifests its properties
in that other thing so spoken of. He perceives
as little difficulty in the language, as in that with
which Thomson commences his Hymn on the
Seasons:
"These, as they change, Almighty Father, these
Are but the varied God."
As the Seasons are figuratively called God, because God in them displays his attributes, so the
Logos is figuratively called a man, because in
Christ were manifested the same Divine Power,
Wisdom, and Goodness by which the universe
was created.
It is by no means uncommon to find in the
same passage an  attribute or a quality, now
viewed in the abstract and personified, and then
presented to the imagination as embodied in an
individual or individuals.  Thus Thomson, on the
same page in the volume before me from which I
made the last quotation, says: —
"Heaven-born Truth
Wore the red marks of Superstition's scourge."
It is Truth considered in the abstract, which is
described as heaven-born, or revealed from heaven;
it is those who held the truth who were scourged
by Superstition.  Other similar examples might
be adduced.  I will give one expressly conformed
in its general character to the passage under consideration, in which no person accustomed to the
32*




328  EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
use of figurative language will suppose that its
proper limits are transgressed.
Goodness is seated on the throne of God, and
directs his omnipotence.  It is the blessedness of all
holy and happy beings to contemplate her, the Supreme Beauty, and become more and more conformed
to her image. It is by her that the universe is attuned, and filled with harmony. She descendedfrom
heaven, and in the person of Christ displayed her
loveliness; and called men to obey her laws, and
enter her kingdom of light and joy.  But she addressed those whom their vices and bigotry had made
blind and deaf.  She was rejected, despised, hated,
persecuted, crucified.
It may appear from what has been said, that the
figure by which St. John speaks of the Logos as
becoming a man, or, in other words, of Christ as
being the Logos, belongs to a class in common
use. But it might have been sufficient at once to
observe, that analogous modes of expression are
used even by Philo, though he regarded the Logos
as a proper person. Considering the Logos as the
agent of God in the creation and government of
all, the being through whom  God is manifested,
Philo applies that name to other beings, the agents
of God's will. In this use of the term, it may
seem  that, the Logos being viewed as the primal, universal manifestation of God, all particular
manifestations are referred to it by Philo, as parts
to a whole;- or the one Logos is supposed to act
in every particular Logos, using all as its ministers. However this may be, he familiarly calls the




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  329
angels "Logoi "  (in the plural), and applies the
term  also to men.  Thus he speaks of Moses as
"the lawgiving Logos," as "the divine Logos,"
and, when he interceded for the Israelites, as "the
supplicating  Logos of God."t   Aaron is called
" the sacred Logos." $  The same title is given to
Phinehas, upon occasion of his staying the plague
in the Jewish camp.~  And the high-priest is repeatedly called " Logos." 11 Such language being
common, the contemporaries of St. John would
readily understand him, when  he spoke of the
Logos becoming a man, or of Christ as being the
Logos.  When, afterwards, the Christian Fathers,
regarding the Logos as hypostatized, supposed it
to have become incarnate in Christ, they, of course,
put a new sense upon the words of the Apostle.
I MAY here take notice of a supposed analogy,
which I believe does not exist, between the introductory verses of St. John's Gospel and those with
which he commences his First Epistle.  In the
latter, by the expression rendered in the Common
Version "word of life" (Xdyo0 Tr~   r9s), he intends, I think, merely the Christian doctrine, " the
life-giving doctrine "; and has no reference to the
philosophical notion of the Logos of God.  This
* De Posteritate Caini, c. 26. I. 242. De Confusione Linguarum,
c. 8. I. 409, et alibi ssepe. [See Christian Examiner for May 1836,
Vol. XX. p. 229.]
t De Migrat. Abrahami, cc. 5, 15, 21. I. 440, 449, 455.
t Legg. Allegorr. Lib. I. c. 24. Opp. I. 59.
~ Quis Rerum divinarum Hseres, c. 42. I. 501.
1I De Gigantibus, c. 11. I. 269. De Migrat. Abrahami, c. 18. I. 452.




330   EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.
expression, and others similar, are used elsewhere
in the New  Testament in the same sense.*  The
commencement of the Epistle may be thus rendered: 
" What took  place from  the beginning,t what
we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes,
what we have beheld, and our hands have handled,
concerning the life-giving doctrine; -for Life has
been revealed, and we saw  and bear testimony,
and announce to you that Eternal Life which was
with the Father, and has been revealed to us;what we have seen and  heard, we announce to
you, so that you may share with us, whose lot is
with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."
Notwithstanding the coincidence of some words,
used in different senses, it is obvious that the purpose of St. John in the passage just quoted was
wholly different from that which appears in the
introduction of his Gospel.  In the latter he intended to affirm that the Christian revelation was
to be referred to the same Divine Wisdom, Good.
ness, and Power by which the world was created
and is governed. In the first verses of his Epistle
* See Philippians ii. 16; Acts v. 20; John vi. 63, 68; Romans
Tiii. 2, etc.
t That is, "from the beginning of the Christian dispensation."
The terms, ir' adpX~7, or se apxpXr, from the beginning, commonly
occur in St. John's writings in reference to the beginning of a period
determined only by the connection in which the words occur. Thus
in the second chapter of this Epistle, verse 7, he says: "Beloved, I
write you no new commandment, but an old commandment, which
you have had from the beginning [rather, from the first]." See also
Epistle, ii. 24; iii. 11; Gospel, vi. 64; xv. 27; xvi. 4, etc.




EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  331
he merely affirms that what he had taught concerning this revelation rested upon his own personal knowledge, upon the testimony of his senses.*
WTE will here conclude our examination of passages adduced by Trinitarians. I have remarked
upon those which will generally be considered as
most important, and it would be useless to proceed further. As to any of which I have omitted
to take notice, it will be easy to apply to them the
principles and facts which have been stated and
illustrated.
IN treating of the Proem of St. John's Gospel,
we have had occasion partially to consider the doctrine of the Platonic Logos, the germ of the Christian Trinity. In the next section I shall proceed
to give some further account of it, and of the conceptions connected with it; my purpose being to
bring into view  some particulars, not generally
attended to, concerning the origin, relations, and
character of the doctrine of the Trinity as it existed
during the first four centuries.
* There is a passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews (iv. 12,13), and
another in the Apocalypse (xix. 13), in which the conception of the
Logos as an attribute or attributes of God appears to be introduced,
as in the introduction of St. John's Gospel. But it would not be to
our present purpose to remark upon them further.




SECTION  X.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
IT is in the writings of Philo that we find the
doctrine of the Logos first.developed; and his conceptions concerning this, as well as other subjects
connected with theology, deserve to be attentively
studied.
Philo, it will be recollected, was of Alexandria,
a contemporary of Christ, a Jewish Platonist. No
individual, since the time of the Apostles, with the
exception, perhaps, of Augustine, has exercised so
considerable and lasting influence upon the opinions of the whole Christian world, as this learned
and eloquent Jew. His influence operated through
the early Christian Fathers, particularly those of
Alexandria.  To the distinction which he has thus
attained, he had no claim from  the clearness or
consistency of his speculations, or any power of
argument.  In his mind, imagination had seized
upon the whole domain of speculative reason. As
an interpreter, he melted down the literal meaning
of the Old Testament, and recast it in fanciful
allegories. In following him in his expositions,
which constitute far the greater part of his works,
the reader is bewildered by a constant succession




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.    333
of metamorphoses.  His unsubstantial conceptions
on other subjects retain no permanent form. But
he sometimes pours forth noble thoughts in a
stream of overflowing eloquence.* His morality
is, for the most part, correct; and, considering his
age and the circumstances under which he wrote,
wonderfully pure and elevated. He seems to have
been deeply penetrated by sentiments of true religion, and thus separated, like the early Christians,
from the world around him.  Though verging toward asceticism in his morality, and mysticism in
his religious feelings, he stopped short of the extravagances of both. His general conceptions of
the Divinity are those of an enlightened Christian;
and his imaginations concerning the powers and
operations of God, if untenable, are but seldom
offensive even to a modern reader. His visionary
speculations concerning him  seem  to have been
rebuked by the severe genius of the Jewish religion, and to float on the confines which separate
poetry and rhetoric from  philosophy.  For the
most part, he speaks of God, not only as the first
cause, but as the immediate agent in the production of beings and events, without superadding
anything in this respect to the representations of
the Old Testament.  There are many passages in
which he introduces the Logos, and other powers
or attributes of God, as instrumental agents of the
Deity, that might be explained as the language of
* [See, for example, a striking passage from Philo (De Opificio
Mundi, c. 23. I. 15, 16), translated and illustrated by Mr. Norton in
the Christian Examiner for September 1827, Vol. IV. p. 377.]




334        OF THE  DOCTRINE  OF THE  LOGOS.
bold personification, such as is applied to Wisdom
in  the Proverbs and  the Apocrypha.  But his imaginations occasionally, or permanently, passed
into opinions; and there are passages in his writ.
ings which prove that he sometimes, if not always,
conceived of the Logos and of other attributes of
God as proper persons.   Of those  relating  to  the
Logos I have already given examples.
From Philo the Catholic Fathers borrowed their
doctrine of the Logos, and the Gnostics, I may
add, much  of the  material  of their  systems  of
AEons.*   The  Fathers copied  his conceptions, his
* As I shall in this section occasionally refer to the Gnostics, I will
here give such a brief account of them as may be necessary to illustrate those references. The term " Gnostics " is a general name applied to various sects of Christians having much in common, who
early distinguished themselves from the great body of believers.
They existed principally during the first three centuries.  Their
most distinctive opinion was the belief that the material world was
created by an imperfect being, far inferior to God, - the Demiurgus
or Creator; from whom also they supposed the Jewish dispensation
to have proceeded. Christ was in their view the messenger of the
Supreme God to deliver men from the reign of the Creator.
But those opinions to which I shall have occasion to refer concerned the development of beings from the Supreme God. Respecting this subject, different sects had different schemes. Concerning
all, our information is imperfect; but that of the Valentinians, as reformed by Ptolemy, or the Ptolemseo-Valentinian theory, as it may
be called, is the best known, was the most prevalent, and may serve
as a specimen of their general character. According to this theory,
God was conceived of as having dwelt from eternity with Silence, or
Thought, or Benevolence, (for these different names are used,) who
appears dimly shadowed forth as the hypostatized spouse of God.
Silence becoming pregnant through his power, the first and greatest
emanation from God, Intellect (Nous), was produced, with Truth for
his spouse, and from Intellect and Truth were then emitted Reason




OF THE  DOCTRINE  OF THE  LOGOS.                  335
distinctions, his language, and his illustrations.
Our interest is consequently  excited  to  learn  all
that may  be  known  of his  opinions  concerning
this subject.   The inquiry  will show  us how  imperfect  and   changeable  was  his  notion  of  an
hypostatized  Logos, and  will at the  same  time
open  to  us  a  prospect  of  speculations  respecting  the   Divine  Nature, the  most foreign  from
our modes of thinking, but which  have very extensively prevailed.
In the last section, I have given that view of
Philo's opinions concerning an hypostatized Logos
(the Logos), with his spouse, Life; and Man, with his spouse, the
Church.
The Gnostics affected the reputation of superior wisdom and discernment; and in this arrangement of emanations, we may perceive,
I think, what they regarded as a more full development of ideas
which, in their view, were ignorantly confounded together by other
Christians. By these, generally, no distinction was made between
Intellect and Reason, the Nous and the Logos; the Gnostics, on the
contrary, separated them from each other, and regarded the latter as
comprehended in, and emanating from, the former. We find something analogous to their conception in Origen (Comment. in Joannem. Opp. IV. 20, 21, 22, 36, 47), who represents the Logos of God
as comprehended in his Wisdom, and referring to Proverbs viii. 22
(according to the Septuagint), The Lord created me, the Beginning, understands St. John as meaning, that the Logos was in Wisdom,
when he says, The Logos was in the Beginning. So also, I conceive, it
was another refinement of the Gnostics to separate the emanation
Man from the emanation Logos. The Logos was by Philo regarded
as that image of God after which man was created, the archetypal
man, the primal man. But the Gnostics chose to separate these two
characters, and made a distinct emanation of the Primal Man.
In order fully to explain what has been said, it is necessary to remark, that the female emanations are merely hypostatized attributes
or energies of the male, and that the line of derivation from  the
33




336         OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
which is most commonly presented. But there is
much more to be known.  We will first consider
how   he  speaks  of the  Logos  in  relation  to  the
Wisdom of God.
With the Wisdom  of God, the Logos is expressly identified by Philo.* He ascribes the same
titles, character, and  offices to  both.ft   "God," he
says, "separated  Wisdom   from   his other powers
as the  head  and  chief." t   He  speaks of the universe as formed by Divine Wisdom.~
But though he thus identifies the Wisdom with
the Logos or Reason of God, yet he elsewhere
Deity is thus to be regarded: first Intellect, then the Logos, then the
Primal Man.
After those which have been mentioned, follows in the system a
series of emanations, all, I conceive, hypostatized attributes or Ideas,
of which it is here unnecessary to give a further account. All these
emanations and the Deity himself were denominated JEons, that
is, "Immortals."   They constituted the Pleroma of the Gnostics,
by which seems to have been meant " the Perfect Manifestation of
the Deity."  The word was likewise used to denote the spiritual
world inhabited by them, as distinguished from the material universe.
[For further information respecting the Gnostics, see the author's
Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vols. II. and III. In
relation to the principal subject of this note, see particularly Vol. III.
p. 115, et seqq.]
* Legg. Allegorr. Lib. I. c. 19. Opp. I. 56. Quod Deterior Potiori insidiari solcat, c. 31. I. 213, 214.
t Legg. Allegorr. Lib. I. c. 14. Opp. I. 51, 52; comp. De Confusione Linguarum, c. 28. I. 427. - De Migrat. Abrahami, c. 8. I. 442;
comp. De Somniis, Lib. I. c. 15. I. 633.-De Congressu, c. 21.
I.536; comp. De Mundi Opificio, c. 6. I. 5.-De Profugis, c. 9.
I. 553.
t Legg. Allegorr. Lib. II. c. 21. Opp. I. 82.
4 Quis Rerum div. HIeres, c. 41. I. 501.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.    337
represents Wisdom  as the mother of the Logos;
" his Father being God, the Father of All, and his
Mother being Wisdom, through whom  all things
are produced."   In another place, the figure being
borrowed from a passage on which he is commenting, he says, that " to his Logos God has given his
Wisdom for a country where he may dwell as native to the soil." t
He repeatedly represents Wisdom as the Spouse
of God, and the Mother of all things; in the
same manner (to notice his coincidence with the
Gnostics) as, in the Ptolemaeo-Valentinian theory,
Silence, Thought, or Benevolence is assigned as
a spouse to the Divine Being.  "God," he says,
"we may rightly call the Father, and Wisdom  the
Mother, of this universe"; and the language which
he uses in reference to this conception is as abhorrent to our feelings of propriety, as that which
Irenaeus ascribes to the Valentinians.t Elsewhere
he calls "the Virtue and Wisdom  of God the
mother of all";~ and in another place he describes Wisdom  as the daughter of God, "always delighting, rejoicing, and exulting in God
her Father alone," where, immediately after, he
identifies her with the Logos.ll Again, he represents Wisdom, "the daughter of God," as properly
* De Profugis, c. 20. I. 562.
t Ibid., c. 14. I. 557.: De Ebrietate, c. 8. I. 361 (conf. Irenbeum cont. Hacreses, Lib. I.
c. 1). Quod Det. Pot. insid. soleat, c. 16. I. 201, 202. De Cherubim, c. 14. I. 148.
~ Legg. Allegorr. Lib. II. c. 14. Opp. I. 75.
I Ibid., Lib. I. c. 19. Opp. I. 56.




338     OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
to be called both male and female, both father and
mother.*
These varying accounts of the Wisdom of God
seem to be, in great part, rhetorical personifcations. But when we recollect that the Wisdom is
identified with the Logos of God by Philo, as by
the Christian Fathers, we perceive how in his mind
figures of speech were mixed up with opinions,
shadows with what he thought substantial beings.
The process by which his fancies indurated into
doctrines was left too incomplete for his scheme to
possess proper consistency. This will still further
appear from what follows.
THE hypostatized Logos, it is to be borne in
mind, is an hypostatized attribute or attributes of
God. But there are other attributes, or, as Philo
denominates them, Powers (8vvaxet9) of God, which
appear hypostatized in his writings as distinctly
and permanently as the Logos.  Of this I will
give some examples. From these it will be seen
how imperfectly Philo's theory was adjusted in his
own mind, and how far he was from having settled
the relation of the other Powers of God to the
Logos.  His conceptions have an analogy to the
Valentinian system of aEons, and his hypostatizing
these other Powers of God, if it did not give occasion to, at least countenanced, their speculations.
The six cities of refuge, appointed by the Jewish
Law, are, according to him, symbolical of Powers
* De Profugis, c. 9. I. 553.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.    339
of God, to whom  men may fly for refuge. The
most ancient, the strongest, the best, the metropolis, from which the others are, as it were, colonies,
is the Divine Logos, the Mind, Intellect, or Reason
of God. The other five are the Creative, by which
he made the universe, which Moses, according to
Philo, has called God; the Regal, by which he
governs it, and which bears the name of Lord;
the Merciful; the Legislative which commands
and rewards; and the Legislative which forbids
and punishes. " Over all these latter powers is the
Divine Logos, the most ancient (or.venerable) of
intelligible things, the nearest to God, nothing intervening between him and that Being on whom
he rests, Him who alone truly exists. He is the
charioteer of the Powers of God, to whom God
gives directions for the right guidance of the universe." *
After having given different allegorical explanations of the two Cherubim who guarded the gate
of Paradise, Philo says: " I have heard a yet higher
doctrine from my soul, accustomed to be divinely
inspired, and to utter oracles concerning things of
which itself is ignorant. This doctrine, if I am
able, I will give from memory. My soul then said
to me, that with the one God who possesses true
being, there are two highest and principal Powers,
Goodness and Authority; that by Goodness all
things are made, and by Authority the creation is
governed; and that a third, which connects both,
* De Profugis, cc. 18, 19. I. 560, 561. Respecting the Legislative
Powers, comp. De Sacrific. Abelis et Caini, c. 39. I. 189.
33 *




340      OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
being in the midst between them, is Reason (Logos), for by Reason (Logos) God both rules and
is good."'
These two Powers of God under various names,
sometimes called the Creative and the Regal, sometimes Goodness and Authority, sometimes the Beneficent and the Disciplinary, often appear in the
writings of Philo.   Sometimes they are  spoken
of, as in the passage last quoted, in connection
with the Logos; more frequently they are denominated as the two highest Powers of God, without
any mention of the Logos.  To the latter, Philo,
as we have seen, does not apply the name " God"
in its highest sense; but of these two Powers he
repeatedly says, that the proper name of the Creative, the name given it by Moses, is " God," and
the name of the Regal, " Lord." t
When these Powers are spoken of by Philo as
subjected to the Logos, if he regarded the Logos
as a person, it is clear that he regarded them as
persons also; for he would  not have subjected
them, considered merely as the attributes of God,
to the Logos, considered as a person distinct from
God.
But the idea of the conversion of an attribute or
* De Cherubim, c. 9. I. 143, 144.
t I refer to some other of the passages in which they are mentioned. De Sacrific. Abelis et Caini, c. 15. I. 173, 174. De Plantatione, c. 20. I. 342. De Confusione Linguarum, c. 27. I. 425.
De Migrat. Abrahami, c. 22. I. 464. Quis Rerum div. Haeres, c. 34.
1.496. De Nominum Mutatione, cc. 3,4. I. 581 - 583. De Somniis,
Lib. I. c. 26. Opp. I. 645. De Sacrificant. c. 9. II. 258. De Legatione ad Caium, c. 1. II. 546.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.        341
power of God into a person had acquired no such
fixedness and permanent form in the speculations
of Philo, as in the Catholic doctrine of the Logos,
or in Ptolemy's system of SEons. Accordingly the
two highest Powers of God, whose names are
"God" and " Lord," may seem often to be only
two aspects or characters under which he regarded
the Supreme Being. After having spoken of them,
by the names of the Creative and Regal, as symbolized by the two Cherubim overshadowing the
Mercy-seat, and entitled them, as usual, " God"
and " Lord," he defends his explanation by saying:
" For God, being indeed alone, is truly a Creator,
since he brought into being the things which were
not, and a King by nature, for none can more
justly rule what is made than he who made it."'
"It is customary," he says in another place, "to
use two appellations of the First Cause, that of'God' and that of' Lord."' f  Yet there is no
passage in his writings which seems more clearly
to resolve them into mere attributes or characters
of God, than one which is followed by such a description of their personal agency as necessarily
implies the conception of their being persons distinct from  God.  It is in his book concerning
Abraham; where he is allegorizing the appearance
of the three angels to Abraham in the plain of
Mamre. When the soul, he says, is circumfused
by divine light, it discerns three appearances of one
object, the appearance of One as properly exist* De Mose, Lib. III. c. 8. Opp. II. 150.
t Quis Rerum div. Haeres, c. 6. I. 476.




342      OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
ing, and of two others as shadows rayed forth from
Him, as we sometimes in the world of the senses
see two shadows of a material object. Of these
appearances, that in the midst is the Father of All,
He who Is; those on each side are his two most
venerable Powers, the nearest to himself, the Creative, God, and the Regal, Lord. Philo then adds,
that God thus attended presents sometimes one
and sometimes three images to the mental vision;
one, when the soul, thoroughly purified, rises above
all idea of plurality to that unmingled form  of
being which admits of no mixture, alone, and
wholly independent; three, before it is yet initiated
in the greater mysteries, and cannot contemplate
Him  who Is by himself alone, but needs the aid
of something beside, and views him through his
works as either creating or ruling.*
Philo would here seem to intend, that the language concerning the two principal Powers of
God, when they are spoken of as distinct persons,
is but a figurative mode of representing the operations of the Divine Being, accommodated to the
weakness of those who cannot comprehend him as
he is. But as he proceeds, in his earnestness to
prove that the account of the three angels who appeared to Abraham is to be allegorized as relating
to God and his two attendant Powers, he presents
an opposite view. In the narrative of the destruction of Sodom, which immediately follows, only
* De Abrahamo, c. 24. II. 18,19. Comp. De Sacrificiis Abelis et
Caini, c. 15. I. 173,174. [The latter passage is quoted in the Christian Examiner for May 1836, Vol. XX. pp. 231,'232.]




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.    343
two angels are mentioned.* This, in his opinion,
confirms his mode of interpreting the preceding account. He who had withdrawn himself was God,
the two who remained were his two Powers, God
judging it fit to bestow favors immediately from
himself, but to commit to the ministry of his Powers the infliction of punishment. The Beneficent
(another name, it will be recollected, for the Creative) and the Disciplinary (or Regal) were both
present, the former to preserve the city of Zoar,
which was saved, and the latter to destroy the four
other cities of the plain.t  To God thus using the
ministry of his Powers, Philo compares human
kings who bestow favors in person, but punish by
the ministry of others.:
By this and by other similar representations,
Philo shows that he did often, if not uniformly,
image to himself the Powers of God as agents
distinct from God. But how fluctuating were his
conceptions may appear, not only from the seeming discrepancy between the former and the latter
part of the passage I have quoted, but from the
absence of all mention of the Logos in this discussion concerning what he here and elsewhere calls
the two highest Powers of God.
WHEN, however, the light of his philosophy
shone full around him, Philo discerned not merely
those hypostatized Powers of God that have been
mentioned, but many others, far exceeding in num* Genesis xix. 1, seqq.   t Comp. Genesis xiv. 2, 3.
t De Abrahamo, c. 28. II. 21, 22.




344     OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
ber the Gnostic -Eons. To state a fact for which,
strange as it is, what precedes may afford some
preparation, Philo, as a Platonist, hypostatized,
generally, the Powers of God.  In commenting
upon the history of the tower of Babel, he inquires
whom God addressed, when he said, Come, let us
go down, and there confuse their language. " He
appears," he says, " to be addressing some as fellow-workers."  But God is the only Maker and
Father and Lord of the Universe.  How, then,
are the words to be explained? God, he answers,
being ONE, is surrounded by innumerable Powers,
all employed for the service and benefit of the
creation. On these Powers the angels are attendant ministers, and the whole army of each is under
the direction of God. " It is proper, then, that the
King should hold converse with his Powers, and
use their ministry in such acts as it is not fitting
that God should effect alone. "  Perceiving what
was suitable for himself and his creatures, he has
left some things to be wrought out by his subject
Powers; not granting them, however, independent
authority to complete anything by their own skill,
lest some error should be introduced into the works
of creation." *
After so clear an expression on the part of Philo
of his conception of the Powers of God as personal agents distinct from God, it is unnecessary
either to proceed with the passage which I have
quoted, in which this conception is further devel* De Confusione Linguarum, cc. 33, 34. J. 430- 433.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.              345
oped, or to produce at length others to the same
effect.*
WE  pass to other conceptions of Philo, conceptions which present new analogies to the Valentinian  system  of _Eons.  As he who is about to
build a city forms a plan of it in his own mind, so
God, according to Philo, before the work of creation, formed in his own Logos, or mind, a plan of
the Universe.   This was the Intelligible World,
the world of Platonic Ideas, the archetypal world,
the pattern of the visible. So far there is nothing
particularly unintelligible. But Philo immediately
converts the world of Ideas into the Divine Logos
itself; and the confusion becomes at first view inextricable.
After comparing  the archetypal world  to  the
plan which an architect forms of a city that he is
about to build, and representing its seat to be the
Divine  Logos  (or Intellect), Philo  presents the
other apparently  very  different conception  just
mentioned.   "To speak  plainly," he says, "the
intelligible world  [the world of Ideas] is nothing
else than the Logos of the Creator, as the intelligible city is only the process of thought in the architect, considering how  to form  a sensible city by
means of an intelligible. This is not my doctrine,
* The following passages may be consulted upon this subject. De
Mundi Opificio, c. 24. I. 16, 17. D-e Plantatione, c. 12. I. 336, 337.
De Confusione Linguarum, c. 27. I. 425. De Migrat. Abrahami,
c. 32. I. 464. De Profugis, c. 13. I. 556. De Legat. ad Caium,
c. 1. II. 546.




346      OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
but that of Moses.  For in describing the production of man, he declares expressly, that he was
formed after the Image of God [that is, after the
Logos, whom  Philo considers as the Image of
God].  But if a part be an image of that Image
[the Logos], it is clear that all of the same kind,
the whole sensible world, which is greater than
man, is a copy of the Divine Image.  And it is
manifest that the archetypal seal, which we say
was the intelligible world, must be the archetypal
exemplar, the Idea of Ideas, the Logos of God." *
" God," says Philo in another place, " gave form
to the formless substance of all things [primitive
matter], he stamped a character upon what bore
no character, he fashioned what was without qualities, and, bringing the world to perfection, put upon
it his SEAL, his Image, his Idea, his own Logos."t
Thus, according to one conception of Philo, the
Logos was the hypostatized Intellect of God, the
former and the seat of the archetypal world; according to another, he was himself the archetypal
world. The solution of this problem is to be found
in the fact, that Philo regarded the hypostatized
Powers (or attributes) of God as themselves constituting the Ideas of the archetypal world, and,
viewed in this aspect, as all contained in and embraced under the Logos, the most generic of Ideas.
He says, that, when Moses desired to see the
* De Mundi Opificio, c. 6. I. 5.
f De Somniis, Lib. II. c. 6. Opp. I. 665. On this subject see
also Legg. Allegorr. Lib. III. c. 31. Opp. I. 106. De Profugis, c. 2.
I. 547, 548.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.             347
glory of God, that is, the Powers encompassing
God, " God answered him, The Powers which you
desire to see are altogether invisible and intelligible
[that is, objects of intellect alone], I myself being
invisible and intelligible.  I call them  intelligible,
not as if they had as yet been comprehended by
intellect, but because, if it be possible they should
be comprehended, it cannot be by sense, but by
intellect in its highest state of purity. But though
their essence is thus incomprehensible, they give
forth to view impressions and images of their energy. For as the seals used by men stamp countless impressions upon wax or aly similar material,
without losing anything of their substance, so it is
to be understood that the Powers around me give
qualities to things without quality, and forms to
things without form, their eternal nature remaining unchanged and without loss.  Some afmong
men not improperly call them Ideas. They confer
upon each being its peculiar properties.* To the
disorderly, the boundless, the undefined, the formless, [that is, to primitive matter,] they give order
and bounds and limits and form, changing altogether the worse into the better." t
"It was not fit," according to Philo, " that God
himself should mould the boundless and chaotic
mass of matter; but by means of his incorporeal
* The original of this and the preceding sentence does not admit
of a literal translation. It is as follows:'OvoMacovo-t 8' arars OVK
a7ro cTKo0rro TrtS TWV 7rap' VLiv ieas, E7rEet8 EKacrov TOrV v O OVT
1loroLovao-L.
t De MonarchiA, Lib. I. c. 6. Opp. II. 218, 219.
34




348      OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
Powers, whose proper name is Ideas, he gave to
every kind of thing the form suitable to it." *
This doctrine concerning the Powers of God, as
the archetypal Ideas of all created things, was so
connected in the imagination of Philo, when he
wrote this passage, with his belief in God as the
creator of all things, that he represents it as an
impiety scarcely less than atheism to deny it.
The imaginations of Philo concerning the Powers of God, as Ideas of the archetypal world, were
not peculiar to himself. They appear in the speculations of others among the later disciples of
Plato, and seem to have extensively prevailed.
"Some of the Platonists and  Pythagoreans,"
says Cudworth, "declaring the second hypostasis
of their Trinity [Intellect, Nous, answering to the
Logos of Philo] to be the archetypal world, or, as
Philo calls it, the world that is compounded and
made up of Ideas, and contafneth in it all those
kinds of things intelligibly that are in this lower
world sensibly; and further concluding, that all
these several Ideas of this archetypal world are
really so many distinct substances, animals and
gods, have therefore made that second hypostasis
not to be one God, but a congeries and heap of
Gods." t  These Ideas were conceived of as existing in God, as Ideas of God. They are, in the
language of Philo, the Powers of God, causing all
things in the created universe to be what they are.
* De Sacrificantibus, c. 13. II. 261.
t Intellectual System, p. 553. [Ch. IV. ~ 36. Vol. I. p. 729,
Andover ed.]




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.           349
They are, as Cudworth says, " animals and gods,"
that is, in other terms, divine persons. For further
illustration of this subject, I refer to the chapter I
have quoted, the fourth of the " Intellectual System," without, however, intending to imply any
general assent to the remarks and inferences of
Cudworth.
HAVING long since passed the bounds of all
sober speculation, we may, perhaps, be prepared
for the strange chaos of opinions which has at last
opened upon us,"Congestaque eodem
Non bene junctarum discordia semina rerum."
The description of the poet may be still further
applied to these ancient doctrines:"Lucis egens aer: nulli sua forma manebat:
Obstabatque aliis aliud."*
The imagination of Philo with which we have
at present most concern, is that by which he converted the attributes of God into proper persons.
The same conception, if conception it may be
called, the same formless aggregate of antagonizing ideas, is one which has made its apparition in
various systems. It appears, as we have seen, in
the theories of the later Platonists. It was, as I
am  now about to show, the basis of the doctrine
of the Logos, as held by the Fathers of the first
four centuries. It is the key to the Gnostic sys* [Ovid. Metam. I. 8, 17.]




350     OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
tern of ]Eons, the derivative  Eons being attributes and Ideas hypostatized. It is the essential
principle of the speculations of the Jewish Cabalists concerning the Divinity; and through connections, which as yet have not been traced, it
presents itself broadly developed in the theology
of the Bramins.
Of the obscure system of the Gnostic IEons, it
would be out of place here to enter into any further explanation than has been incidentally given.
Between the speculations of the Cabalists and
those of Philo and the later Platonists there is
much coincidence, particularly as regards the topic
before us.  " The Cabalists," says Basnage, "regarding God as an infinite, incomprehensible essence, between which and created things there can
be no immediate communication, have imagined
that he has made himself known, and has operated,
by his perfections which have emanated from him."
" It is their style," he says, " to speak of the perfections of God as of persons different from his
essence." * The first and greatest of the emanations from him they denominate " Adam Kadmon."
It is in him  that the Powers of God are manifested; he is the source of all subsequent existence.
He corresponds to the Logos of Philo and the
Christian Fathers, and to the Nous or Intellect of
the later Platonists and Gnostics.  He was the
prototype of man, as the Logos is represented by
Philo.  Through him were developed ten attri* Histoire des Juifs, Liv. III. c. 14.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.       351
butes of the Divinity, denominated " Sephiroths "
or " Splendors," each having its appropriate name.
These emanations are the hypostatized Powers of
God, through which he is manifested.
In the chapter from which I have quoted, Basnage is disposed to regard the whole system of the
Cabalists as an allegory, and their language concerning the personal character of the Sephiroths as
figurative. But he says: " They push their allegories so far that it is difficult to follow them;
they so frequently speak of these perfections as of
so many different persons, that the greatest attention is necessary, not to be deceived." If, however, the Cabalists had not conceived of these
perfections as proper persons, they would not have
represented them as emanating. Basnage, indeed,
seems to have abandoned this view of their system in a subsequent volume;* in which he supposes the Cabalists to have viewed them as emanant condensations of that divine light, which,
according to them, was the substance of God,
" having a kind of existence separate from  him,
though always near him."  In the chapter from
which I have last quoted, he states that they believed in four modes of creation, or the production
of being. The first of these was emanation from
the substance of God. The Sephiroths were placed
by them in the World of Emanations, corresponding to the Pleroma of the Gnostics.  The Cabalists held that there was but one substance in
* Liv. IV. c. 8.
34*




352     OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
the universe, that of God; a fundamental doctrine
in the theology of the Hindoos. Hence they would
ascribe real personality to the Sephiroths, equally
as to other beings composed of this one substance.
It is the certainty that the Sephiroths were attributes of God, and the actual impossibility of an
attribute being a person, that has led to the ineffectual attempts to allegorize their system.  A
similar cause has operated in the same way in
regard to other systems of a like kind, especially
that of the Gnostics. But the truth is, that in all
these systems the attributes of God were regarded
both as attributes and as persons, or, to express
the imagination by a single term, as hypostatized
attributes.
In respect to the mythology of the Hindoos,
every one who has given attention to the subject
is aware, that one of its most distinguishing features is the hypostatizing of the attributes and
manifestations of the Deity.  One Supreme Being
is recognized, but no worship is paid him. He
manifests himself, it is supposed, under three
hypostases, as the Creator, Brahma; the Preserver, Vishnu; and the Destroyer, or Changer
of Forms, Siva; with their accompanying Energies, likewise hypostatized as females.  Either
Siva or Vishnu, alone, or both in connection, to
the exclusion of Brahma, are at the present day
worshipped as Supreme.  To all three, and to the
goddesses who are associated with them, are ascribed personal characters and personal actions,
and such too as are most abhorrent to our conceptions of the Divinity.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.         353
But these are not the only divine attributes
hypostatized by the Hindoos. " The Ved having,
in the first instance, personified all the attributes
and powers of the Deity, and also the celestial
bodies and natural elements, does, in conformity
to the idea of personification, treat of them in the
subsequent passages as if they were real beings,
ascribing to them  birth, animation, senses, and
accidents, as well as liability to annihilation."*
The author from whom  I have made the last
extract, one of the most enlightened men whom
India or the world has produced, in his labors to
reclaim his countrymen from idolatry, has shown
that the Vedas teach the existence and worship of
him who is alone God.  This, however, does not
prove that the writers might not conceive of his
attributes as proper persons; for Philo, and the
Cabalists, and the Gnostics, all affirmed the unity
of God.  The Hindoo theists represent all finite
spirits as portions of God's substance, as the flames
of separate candles are each a portion of elemental
fire; or as the numberless reflections of the sun's
rays are only modifications of his light.
IN  endeavoring to apprehend  the process of
thought that has thus led to the hypostatizing
of the powers and attributes of the Divinity, it
may perhaps assist us if we recollect the manner
in which the human mind has been decomposed,
and its faculties, affections, and relations personi* Rammohun Roy, Second Defence of the Monotheistical System of the Veds, p. 17, note.




354       OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
fled. The qualities, acts, and even sufferings, of
real persons are familiarly ascribed to them.  We
speak of being governed by Reason, and of Reason as bewildered; Hope cheers and leads us on;
Imagination pictures for us fairer scenes than reality presents; the voice of Duty is to be obeyed
without hesitation; and Conscience is the vicegerent of God within us.  All such expressions we
recognize at once as merely figurative; because
we are too well acquainted with the subject to
which they relate to understand them  otherwise.
We may regard reason as a faculty of the mind,
and, at the same time, image reason to ourselves as
a person, without difficulty or absurdity. Blut in
relation to subjects that present any considerable
degree of obscurity, as, for instance, the mind of
God, nothing is more common than for figurative
language to harden, if I may so speak, into literal.
An imagination is easily transformed into a supposed apprehension. There is a tendency in every
idea that dwells long in the mind to assume a-character of reality.* To the admission of metaphors
as literal truths is to be ascribed a great part of
the errors and follies, and consequently of the vices,
of men.  These errors, too, it is often difficult to
expel; for when  the imaginary conception  that
* [See before, pp. 313, 334, 338.-" Though vivid conception is
not, as it has been said to be, belief, yet we readily pass from it to the
opinion, that what presents itself to our apprehension in such welldefined lineaments and permanent colors must have a real existence." (Article by Mr. Norton on the Authorship of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, in the Christian Examiner for January 1828, Vol. Ve
p. 38.)]




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.    355
has intruded itself out of place is hardly pressed,
it may assume for the moment its proper character, and retreat into its own sphere, ready to return
and reassume its reign whenever the conflict is
over.
WE come now to the purpose for which I have
entered into the preceding explanations. We have
seen how extensively the doctrine has prevailed of
hypostatized attributes of God. This doctrine is
in itself so unintelligible, and is so foreign from
the philosophy of the present day, that it is not
strange that the fact of its prevalence, and even
of its existence, has been but imperfectly apprehended; and that modern inquirers, when they
perceived that some object of thought was regarded as an attribute of God, have supposed that
it could not also be regarded as a proper person.
But there is no doubt that these conceptions,
however incongruous, have been brought together.
It was in this mode of apprehending the Divine
Being that the doctrine of the Trinity had its origin. The Logos of the first four centuries was, in
the view of the Fathers, both an attribute or attributes of God, and a proper person. Their philosophy was, in general, that of the later Platonists,
and they transferred from it into Christianity this
mode of conception.
In treating of this fact, so strange, and one
which will be so new to many readers, I will first
quote a passage from Origen, the coincidence of
which with the conceptions of Philo and the later




356      OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
Platonists is apparent.  In commenting on the
introduction of St. John's Gospel, he makes, as I
have before said,* a distinction between the Wisdom  and the Logos of God, and supposes his
Logos to be comprehended in his Wisdom.  The
Son, or Christ, he represents as both the Logos
and Wisdom of God.  Of the Wisdom of God he
thus speaks: t " Nor must we omit that Christ [or
Jesus, for Origen uses the names indiscriminately]
is properly the Wisdom of God; and is, therefore,
so denominated.  For the Wisdom  of the God
and Father of All has not its being in bare conceptions, analogous to the conceptions in human
minds. But if any one be capable of forming an
idea of an incorporeal being of diverse forms of
thought, which comprehend the LOGOI [the archetypal
forms] of all things, a being- indued with life, and
having, as it were, a soul, he will know that the
Wisdom of God, who is above every creature, pronounced rightly concerning herself, The Lord created me, the beginning, his way to his works." t
In this passage, the proper wisdom of God is
hypostatized, and described as the Logos of Philo,
or the Nous (Intellect) of the later Platonists. A
little after, there is the following account of the
Logos and other Powers of God as hypostatized,
corresponding equally with the conceptions of Philo
and the Platonists. Having declared the Logos to
be comprehended in the Wisdom of God, he goes
* See before, p. 335, note.  t Opp. IV. 39, 40.
i Prov. viii. 22, according to some copy of the Septuagint, or other
Greek translation, used by Origen.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.          357
on to teach, that it has still "a proper distinct being
of its own, so as to possess life in itself." In order
to comprehend this, he says: " We must speak
not only of the Power, but of the Powers of God.
Thius says the Lord of the Powers,* is an expression
which often occurs, in which by' Powers' is meant
certain living beings, rational and divine, the highest and best of whom is Christ, who is called not
merely the Wisdom, but the Power of God. There
being, then, many Powers of God, each of whom
has his distinct being, and all of whom the Saviour
excels, Christ is to be regarded as the Logos [the
Supreme Reason over all the other rational Powers], having his personal existence in the Beginning, that is, in Wisdom; differing from that Reason which exists in us, and has no distinct being
out of us." t
Obscure as these passages may be to one not
familiar with the conceptions and language of the
philosophy to which they belong, they are still
sufficiently clear as to the main point which they
have been brought to establish. It is a fact, however, which has not been, under any of its aspects,
adverted to by a great majority of writers who
have treated of the doctrine of the Trinity. Of the'
notices relating to it, there is one by Clarke, in his
Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,$ which it may
be worth while to bring forward, before adducing
* Kvptos r-v avvdae/wv, LXX. The rendering of the Common
Version is "Lord of Hosts."
t Opp. IV. 47.
t Part II. ~ 18, Notes, 3d. ed.




358     OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
further quotations from the Fathers. I present it
in a somewhat abridged form.
" Among the writers," he says, " before the time
of the Council of Nice, Theophilus, Tatian, and
Athenagoras seem to have been of that opinion,
that the Word (the Logos) was the internal Reason or Wisdom  of the Father; and yet, at the
same time, they speak as if they supposed that
Word to be produced or generated into a real
Person; which is wholly unintelligible, and seems
to be a mixture of two opinions: the one, of the
generality of Christians, who believed the Word to
be a real Person; the other, of the Jews and Jewish Christians, who personated the internal Wisdom of God, or spake of it figuratively (according
to the genius of their language) as of a person.
" Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus speak sometimes with some ambiguity, but, upon the whole,
plainly enough understand the Word or Son of
God to be a real person.
" The other writers before the Council of Nice
do generally speak of him clearly and distinctly as
of a real person.
"About the time of the Council of Nice, they
spake with more uncertainty; sometimes arguing
that the Father, considered without the Son, would
be without Reason and without Wisdom; which
is directly supposing the Son to be nothing but an
attribute of the Father; and yet at other times
expressly maintaining, that he was truly and perfectly a Son. But the greater part agreed in this
latter notion, that he was a real person."




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.         359
In this passage there are two errors. The first
is the implication that the conception of the Logos
as an attribute was more prevalent about the time
of the Council of Nice than it had been before.
On the contrary, the fundamental idea of the Logos was as of an attribute of God. His attribute
it was conceived to be, equally as reason is an
attribute of man.  The other error is in the supposition that the Fathers who spoke of the Logos
as a person could not also have imagined him to
be an attribute. The Fathers of the first four centuries, generally, believed the Logos (if we may so
use the word believe) to be both an attribute and a
person.  I will quote a few examples of their language.
Justin Martyr, speaking of his " second god,"
whom  I have formerly mentioned,* declares that
" this god, produced from the Father of All, is the
reason (logos) and wisdom and power of him who
produced him," and immediately identifies him with
Wisdom  as personified in the Proverbs.t  Justin
was one of the first, perhaps the first, Christian
writer who gave a form to the Catholic doctrine
of the Logos.  His contemporary, Athenagoras,
says that " the Son is the intellect and the reason
(logos) of the Father."  " He is the first production of the Father, not with reference to any commencement of existence; for from the beginning,
God, being the eternal mind, always had reason
(logos) in himself, as being eternally rational; but
* [See before, pp. 204, 205.]
t Dial. cum Tryph. p. 267. [al. c. 61. p. 284, C.]
35




360      OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
with reference to his going forth [his emanation
from God], to be the Idea [the formative principle] and the energy of the formless nature of material things."  Theophilus of Antioch, another
contemporary, calls the Logos "the spirit, the wisdom, and the power of the Most High;..... the
wisdom of God which was in him before the world
was, and his holy reason (logos) which is always
with him." t  The Logos, he teaches, " existed always internally in the mind of God. Before anything was created, it was his counsellor, being his
intellect and thought; but when God was about
to form what he had determined on, he generated
it externally, as the First-born of the whole creation, not making himself void of reason (logos),
but generating reason, and always holding converse with his reason.":
On this subject Irenaeus has fallen, if it be
possible, into greater confusion and contradictions
than the other writers of his age. He often speaks
of the Logos or Son as of a person distinct from
God, and describes him  as a minister of God's
will.  He himself says, that St. John teaches his
"effectual" ~ generation, which, according to his
use of this language elsewhere, must mean  his
production from  the substance of God as in all
respects a proper person. But in his zeal against
* Legatio pro Christianis, ~ 10. p. 287, edit. Paris, 1742.
t Ad Autolycum, Lib. II. ~ 10. p. 355, edit. Paris, 1742.
t Ibid., ~ 22. p. 365.
~ Efficabilem, i. e. efficacem. Lib. III. c. 11. ~ 8; comp. Lib. II.
c. 17. ~ 2.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.         361
the Gnostic doctrine of emanation, he not only
uses such language as shows that he regarded the
Logos as an attribute, but such as is inconsistent
with the imagination of his being anything but an
attribute.  Referring to the first of the Gnostic
emanations, Intellect or Mind, and to the second,
Logos, Reason, he says: " The Father of All is
not a composite  being, something  else beside
Mind; but Mind is the Father, and the Father
is Mind."  Having thus identified Mind or Intellect with the Father, he immediately proceeds to
identify Intellect with Reason or the Logos.* In
another passage, he describes God as being "all
Mind and all Logos."  " His thought," he says, " is
his Logos, and his Logos his Mind, and the allembracing Mind is the Father himself." t  Speaking a little before of the Gnostic system as consisting in transferring to God conceptions of different affections and faculties of the human mind, he
considers it as irreverent to regard the Divinity as
thus affected and divided, "God being all mind,
all reason (ratio, i. e. Logos), one operating spirit,
all light, ever the same without change.":
From  many passages which might be quoted it
is my purpose only to produce a few, in order
clearly to illustrate the conceptions of the Fathers
upon this subject.  Clement of Alexandria says:
" The Logos of the Father of All is the wisdom
and goodness of God made most clearly manifest,
his almighty and truly divine power, his sovereign
* Lib. II. c. 17. ~ 7.       t Lib. II. c. 28. ~ 5.
t Lib. II. c. 28. ~ 4. See further on this subject, Lib. II. c. 13.




362     OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
will."*  His meaning is that the Logos denotes
the attributes of God as manifested in the creation
and government of the universe; but there is no
question that he also considered the Logos as a
person. By Tertullian, Christ is described as " the
power of God and the spirit of God, the dis
course (sermo), and wisdom, and reason, and Sor
of God."t  I have quoted passages from  Origen
in which he represents both the Wisdom of God,
and the Logos or Reason of God, as living beings.
In the following, the Logos fades away into a dim
Platonic Idea.  " We are reproached by Celsus,"
he says, " for avoiding evil deeds, and reverencing
and honoring Virtue as produced by God, and
being the Son of God..... If we speak of a
second god, let it be understood that we mean
nothing else than that Virtue which comprehends
all virtues [i. e. the most generic Idea of virtue]
and that Reason (Logos) which comprehends the
reasons of all things properly natural, and tending
to the good of the universe." t The Son, he expressly teaches elsewhere, is the Wisdom of God
existing substantially.~
Petavius, in one of the chapters of his " Theologica Dogmata," \ discusses the question, "Whether
the Son is the very wisdom by which the Father
is wise,"- An ipsa sapientia qua.Pater sapiens est
* Stromat. V. ~ 1. pp. 646, 647.  t Apologet. ~ 23.
t Contra Celsum, Lib. V. ~ 39. Opp. I. 608.
~ In his Commentary on John before quoted, and in his work De
Principiis, Lib. I. c. 2.
II De Trinitate, Lib VI. c. 9.




OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.                 363
sit Filius.   After showing  that this was the  comnmon doctrine of the Fathers (plerique sic existimasse videntur), he produces in favor of the opposite opinion, which he himself maintains, only the
vacillating authority of Augustine, who retracted
on this subject the common opinion, which he had
once asserted. The great argument of Athanasius
and his followers for the eternity of the Logos
was, that God, being  always rational, always had
Reason  (the  Logos) within  him.   " There  is  no
other wisdom,"  according  to  Athanasius, " in  the
Father than  the  Lord (Christ)."*   "The Son," he
says, "is the very wisdom, the very reason, the
very  pdwer of the  Father."       He  was  described
by others as the power, the omnipotence, and the
will of the Father. It is unnecessary in this connection to quote the passages at length,$ or to ad* Epistola Encyclica contra Arianos, ~ 14. Opp. I. 284, edit. Benedict.
t Contra Gentes, ~ 46. Opp. I. 46.
t Many passages to this effect may be found in the first volume of
the work of Petavius, Lib. V. c. 8. Respecting this whole topic, the
reader who wishes to pursue the inquiry may consult Petavius, as
already referred to, and likewise De Trinitate, Lib. I. cc. 3, 4, 5; and
Priestley's History of Early Opinions, Vol. II. pp. 44-144. There
are considerable errors in Priestley, but none such as essentially affect
his argument, or are likely, with one exception, much to embarrass
or mislead his reader. One is, that Philo regarded the personality of
the Logos as occasional only, a notion for which there is no foundation in his works. But the particular error to which I have referred
is the implication in several passages, that the Logos conceived of as
a person was not conceived of as being at the same time an attribute, - that he was only regarded as having been first an attribute,
and then a person.
It was indeed, as has been shown by Priestley and others, the ex35*




364        OF THE DOCTRINE  OF THE LOGOS.
duce additional proof of the general fact maintained. I will only further mention one conception, more  strange  than   those  already  noticed.
"Perhaps,"  says  Origen, "if we may venture  to
speculate still further, we may conceive of the
Only  Son  as the  soul of God.  For as the soul
placed within the body moves every part, and excites all its operations, so the Only Son of God,
who is his reason (Verbum, i. e. AJ7yo), and wisdom, being  placed  within  him, extends  to  and
reaches every power of God."* The extravagance
of this imagination becomes perhaps more striking,
when we compare it with the strong language of
Origen concerning the inferiority of the Son to the
Father.
IN all the systems before mentioned, in which
attributes of God have been hypostatized, with the
press doctrine of several of the Fathers, that the Logos, existing
primarily in God, was afterwards "generated," and put forth as the
Son, by the voluntary act of the Father, to be his agent in the creation of the world. The doctrine is thus expressed, for instance, by
Prudentius: 
"Ex ore quamlibet Patris
Sis ortus, et Verbo editus,
Tamen paterno in pectore
Sophia callebas prius."
[Cathemerin. XI. 17.]
The Fathers who held this doctrine are commonly supposed not to
have ascribed personality to the Logos before his generation and
emanation. But they nowhere, I think, expressly affirm that he was
then not a person; and still less is it to be thought, that, after his
generation, they ceased to regard him as an attribute.
* De Principiis, Lib. II. c. 10. ~ 5. Opp. I. 96.




OF THE DOCTRINE  OF THE  LOGOS.                  365
exception of the later form of Trinitarian Orthodoxy, these attributes, when conceived of as persons, have been regarded as far inferior to God.
The nature, indeed, and operations of the attribute
belong and are to be referred immediately to God.
It is indifferent whether we say that the universe
was created by the disposing power of the Supreme
Being, or created by the Supreme Being, if we use
the former term merely to denote an attribute. But
when a personal character is superadded to this attribute, then the new being becomes, as a person,
inferior to the Supreme. He is not God, but a god
only. Still, in regard to the Christian Logos, his
substance  being  conceived of as derived from  the
substance of the Deity, as generated out of it, - a
prolation or emanation from it, like a stream from a
fountain, a branch from a tree, or rays of light from
the sun,-he was under this aspect, as well as under
the relation of an attribute, to a certain extent identified with God * by the earlier Fathers. To a certain extent only, for, in reference to the totality of
* Thus it becomes not unfrequently difficult to determine, in passages in which the, name  eosk, or Deus, is applied by the earlier Fathers to the Logos, or Son, or Christ, whether we are to consider it
as an appellative, or as to be referred through the Logos to the Supreme Being, with whom the Logos is regarded as partially identified.
I am aware that the phrase "partially identified" is an absurdity in
terms; but the imagination of which I speak was absurd, and such
language alone can convey a just conception of it.
Hence the translation of the passages referred to becomes a matter
of investigation and judgment, and often, from the indistinct and
varying signification of the terms in question, and our different use
of the name " God," it is scarcely possible to explain their sense in
English by a mere translation. [See before, p. 120, note.]




366        OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.
each, he was regarded by them as a being far inferior
to God.*   The same inferiority was ascribed by the
Gnostics to the derivative   Eons; by the later Platonists, to the second person in their Trinity, Nous,
or Intellect, considered in reference to the first;
by the Cabalists, to their Sephiroths; and by the
Hindoos, to all their hypostatized attributes. As
respects the Logos, the imagination of a person predominating over that of an attribute, and this person being considered as far inferior to God, the way
was opened for the Arian doctrine, which, dropping
the  idea  of an  attribute, and  rejecting  the  belief
that the Logos was an emanation from the substance of the Divinity, regarded him only as a person, and reduced him to the rank of created beings.
But this produced a reaction on the part of their
Catholic opponents, who in consequence raised the
* [Thus Tertullian says: " The Father is the whole substance; the
Son, a derivation from the whole, and a portion of it; as he himself
declares, For the Father is greater than I."- "Pater tota substantia
est; Filius vero derivatio totius et portio; sicut ipse profitetur, Quia
Pater major me est."  (Advers. Praxeam, c. 9; comp. c. 26, and Apologet. c. 21.) Professor Stuart translates the first part of the sentence
here quoted as follows: " The Father is the whole substance; the
Son, the derivation and apportionment of the whole"!  (Biblical Repository for April 1835, p. 351, note.)
So Lactantius, speaking of the Father and the Son, to whom he
attributes " one mind, one spirit, one substance," goes on to remark:
" But the one [the Father] is, as it were, an exuberant fountain; the
other, as a stream flowing from it; the one is like the sun; the other,
like a ray proceeding from the sun; and since he is faithful to the
Supreme Father and dear to him, he is not separated from him, just
as the stream is not separated from the fountain, nor the ray from the
sun."  (Institut. Lib. IV. c. 29.)
" The Son," says Origen, "is in no respect to be compared with
the Father." (Comm. in Joan., Tom. xiii. c. 25. Opp. IV. 235.)]




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.    367
Logos or Son to what they called an equality with
God, or the Father, though they considered it as a
derived and subordinate equality.
THE illustrations which I have given are far
from presenting a full view of the confusion and
incoherence of thought that prevailed among the
Catholic Fathers. But they are, perhaps, sufficient
to establish the fact, that the Logos was regarded
by the Fathers both as an attribute of God and a
distinct person; corresponding to a mode of conception, or rather an imagination, that has spread
widely through different systems of theology; - an
imagination so incongruous, that those who have
treated of the history of opinions seem often to
have recoiled from the notice of it, or shrunk from
acknowledging its existence. The words in which
it is expressed, conveying in fact no meaning, are
apt to pass over the mind of a modern reader
without leaving the impression that what was
considered as a very important meaning was once
attached to them. The different aspect which it
gives to the theological doctrine of the Trinity,
from what that doctrine has assumed in modern
times, may alone perhaps sufficiently account for
the absence of all mention of it in the writings
of most of those who have adverted to the opinions of the Christian Fathers respecting the Logos.
That the conception of the same being as an attribute and a person was an object of what may
strictly be called belief, is not to be maintained;
for we cannot, properly speaking, believe a mani



368     OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
fest contradiction.  But the case was the same
with this as with many other doctrines that have
been zealously maintained.  One part of it was
believed at one time, and another at another. It
was assented to successively, not simultaneously.
When, of the two contrary propositions embraced
in the conception, one rose upon the mind, the other
set. In speaking of such doctrines as being believed, we intend, at most, what may be called an
alternating belief, ever vibrating between two opposite opinions, and attaching itself, as it is repelled
or attracted, first to the one and then to the other.
WE will now pass to another conception concerning the Logos.  In the creation of the universe, God was conceived of as having first manifested himself. But it was by his Disposing Power,
his Logos, that the universe was created. By the
same Power, as his vicegerent, God was regarded
as governing all things.  It was, then, in and by
his Logos, that God was manifested.  Hence the
Logos, considered as a person, the agent in the
creation and government of the universe, came
to be regarded as an hypostatized manifestation of
God.  Thus, also, the Gnostics conceived of their
AEons as hypostatized manifestations of God.  I
am aware that I use a term without meaning; but
there is no other which will better convey a notion
of the unformed imaginations that once prevailed
upon this subject.*
* See the ingenious and agreeable work of Souverain, Le Platonisme
devoilM, in which, however, the view of the author is too limited.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.    369
"The Logos," says Clement of Alexandria, " is
the face of God, by which he is illustrated and
made known."*  The Gnostics, with the same
meaning, called their ZEon, " Intellect," the face
of God.t  To the same conception of the Logos,
as the manifestation of God, must be referred
those numerous passages in which he is spoken
of as the " name of God," the "image of God,"
the "irradiation " (aTravryaoLa) of God, the "vision" (o`pats-) of God, the " visible god," in contradistinction to the Invisible, and as " the uttered
Logos," or Discourse of God.
THIS last-mentioned conception of the " uttered
Logos " appears particularly in the writings of the
Christian Fathers, and deserves further notice.
The term  " Logos," it will be recollected, in one
of its primary significations denotes reason, or that
power by which the mind arranges its ideas in
their proper relations to each other.  But when
thus arranged, they may  be communicated in
words; and to ideas thus uttered the term  "Logos " was also applied, being in this sense equivalent in signification to " discourse."  In the present
state of our language, we have no term which answers to "Logos" in this double meaning. But
in the old and now obsolete use of the word " discourse" we find the same singular union of the
two principal senses of Logos; that word having
* Paedagog. Lib. I. c. 7. p. 132.
t Doctrina Orient. ~ 10. [In Potter's edition of Clement of Alexandria, p. 970.]




370       OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
been formerly employed, not merely in its present
signification, but to denote the faculty of reason.
"The act of the mind," says Glanvill, " which connects propositions and deduceth conclusions from
them, the schools call Discourse, and we shall not
miscall it if we name it Reason."
To the Catholic Fathers, the double meaning of
the word " Logos" afforded a favorite illustration
of the going forth of the Divine Reason to the
work of creation. Considered as previously existing with  God, it was described  as "the  Logos
within the mind of God," "the internal Logos," 
analogous to reason, or thought, in man; considered as the instrument of God in the work of creation, it was spoken of as "the uttered Logos," 
analogous to words uttered by man.
The Latin Fathers, having no word in their own
language which, like Logos in the Greek, embraced
the two significations of Reason and Discourse,
were embarrassed in their translation of it; and
hesitated  between  Ratio, Reason; Sermo, Discourse; and  Verbum, Word.   The first was the
proper term,t but usage, from some cause which
we cannot discover, at last settled upon the term
* Aoyov evStaderos.              t Atoyos 7rpo(optKos.
" Rationern Greci Xoyov dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam sermonem appellamus. Ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum [i. e. Latinorum], per
simplicitatem interpretationis, sernmonem dicere in primordio apud Deum
fuisse, cum magis rationem competat antiquiorem haberi." Tertullian.
advers. Praxeam, c. 5. [Compare Lactantius: " Sed melius Groeci
Xooyov dicunt quam nos verbum sive sermonem; Xoyor enim et sermoner significat et rationem; quia ille est et vox et sapientia Dei."
(Institut. Lib. IV. c. 9.'




OF THE  DOCTRINE  OF THE  LOGOS.                  371
"Word";  and   this  has  in  consequence  been
adopted, in the theological dialect of modern
times, as the proper rendering of " Logos," when
used  concerning the Deity.   The term, however,
is wholly inappropriate and unmeaning; and has
served to confuse still further a subject in itself
abundantly perplexed.
This recurrence to the double meaning of the
word " Logos," this conception of the hypostatized
Logos, or the Son, as the uttered discourse or the
word of the Father, or God, is common throughout
the writings of the Fathers. It was an imagination of their own, not derived from Philo, who, in
speaking of the Logos of God, has reference only
to that signification of the term in which it answers to  " reason."   If, in  treating  this  subject,
there be any traces in his writings of a reference
to the other signification of the term, in which it
answers to " discourse," they are, to say the least,
few  and doubtful.  I think there are none.*   The
* The fact has been remarked by Le Clere: "Adi Philonem  ubicunque Aoyov et Creationis Mundi meminit, videbisque de Sermone
nusquam eum cogitasse, sed Rationis potestatem animo prasentemn
habuisse."  Nov. Test. Hammondi et Clerici. Ed. 2da. Tom. I. p. 398,
col. 2.
Neander, in the Introduction to his History of the Principal Gnostic Sects (Genetische Entwickelung der vornehmsten gnostischen
Systeme, p. 8), says that " Philo, in common with the Oriental theologians and the Gnostics, distinguishes between a hidden, incomprehensible God, retired within himself, not to be described or imagined,
and the Manifestation of this Divinity, as the commencement of the
work of creation, and of the development of life; between Jehovah
(6 7v, To Ov) and his Manifestation, or, in other words, the aggregate
of all the Powers hidden within the being of God." The meaning of
36




372        OF THE DOCTRINE  OF THE LOGOS.
incongruous junction of the idea of an uttered discourse or a word, and that of the hypostatized attribute of reason, in the conception of the Logos,
is to be found developed only in the writings of
the Fathers.
THE  confusion  of ideas produced by this confusion of the meanings of the word " Iogos " may
be easily  imagined.  Abundant illustrations of it
may be found in  most histories of the doctrine of
the  Trinity.   I will quote  only  one  passage, a
sufficient specimen perhaps, which I find adduced
as a satisfactory answer to an Arian objection, by
a writer once of some note, Dr. William  Sherlock.*
" As for Christ's receiving commands from the
Father, though this relates to the execution of his
mediatory office, and so concerns him as God Incarnate, as by the dispensation of the Gospel he is
the minister of God's will and pleasure, yet I grant
even as God he receives commands from  his Father, but it is no otherwise than as he receives his
nature from  him: by nature he is the Word, the
the last clause, I presume, is the aggregate display of all the Powers
before hidden within the being of God. But this seems to me not an
accurate account of the opinions of Philo; and still less can I assent
to what follows. "Philo has always before his eyes the opposition
between eltvat and XeyeTeoaL, the former denoting the existence of
God as retired within himself, and the latter, his being uttered, or
manifested." -"Philo immer vor Augen hat den Gegensatz zwischen
einem Jetat, in sich selbst seyn, und XeyeorOat, ausgesprochen, geoffenbart werden." I think it may be safely said, that Philo nowhere applies the word Xh'yeoraL to God in the sense supposed, or uses concerning him the image in question.
* See his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 154, 155.




OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.            373
Wisdom, the Command of the Father; his reflex
Image, whereby he produces all the designs of his
own wisdom  and counsel into act.  Thus St. Austin answered the Arian objection, that Christ was
but God's instrument, and made the world by
God's command.'Let them  consider with what
other words the Father commanded his only Word.
But they frame to themselves an imagination of
two [persons] near one another, but separated by
their distinct places, one  commanding, another
obeying.  Nor do they understand that the Father's command itself, that all things should be
made, is no other Word of the Father, but that
by which all things are made';* that is, the substantial Word, and Wisdom, and  Command of
the Father, his only-begotten Son."
IT was from  the shapeless, discordant, unintelligible speculations which have been described, ex
tanta colluvie r'erum, that the doctrine of the Trinity
drew its origin. These speculations it is now difficult to present under such an aspect as may enable a modern reader to apprehend their character.
But the doctrine to which they gave birth still
subsists, as the professed faith of the greater part
of the Christian world.  And when we look back
" * Cogitent quibus aliis verbis jusserit Pater unico verbo. Formant
enim sibi in phantasmate cordis sui, quasi duos aliquos, etsi juxta
invicem, in suis tamen locis constitutos, unum jubentem, alterum
obtemperantem. Nec intelligunt ipsarnr jussionem Patris ut fierent
omnia, non esse nisi verbum Patris, per quod facta sunt omnia. -
Aug. contr. Serm. Arianorum, Lib. III."




374       OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
through the long ages of its reign, and consider all
its relations, and all its direct and indirect effects,
we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced
more unmixed  evil.   For any benefits resulting
from its belief, it would be in vain to look, except
benefits of that kind which the providence of God
educes from the follies and errors of man.
It should be remarked, however, that little blame
or discredit attaches to those earlier Fathers by
whom  the doctrine was introduced.   They only
philosophized concerning the Logos after the fashion of their age. Their only reproach is, that they
were not wiser than their contemporaries. In proceeding from the same principles, they stopped far
short of the extravagances of the Gnostics. Their
speculations, likewise, till after the time of Origen,
were obviously considered by them more as a matter of philosophy than of faith. There is sufficient
evidence that, before and during his time, these
speculations took little hold on the minds of common Christians.  " The great body of those who
are considered as believers," says Origen, "knowing nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, thinking that the Logos made flesh is the whole of the
Logos, are acquainted with Christ only according
to the flesh." *'ErepoL 8e OL!x)8EV elSJ0reS EL ifU'Itr-orov XpLoTrov KaL ToVTov
eo-ravpw)Levov, 7TO yeVOlievov crapKa Xoyov TO 7rav volitoavres eival
TOV Xoyov, XpLO-Trv Kard crapKa apvov ylv&)OKOvo'L. Totovrov 8;
CoTTL rTO  7rT0os rTOv rTE7rCToTfVKCVaL  vOtlltopevo/v.  Origen. Comment. in Joannem. Opp. IV. 53.




SECTION XI.
CONCLUSION.
IN concluding this argument, I wish to make a
few remarks concerning those general views of religion that I have directly or indirectly expressed,
and which are usually connected with the opinions
I have maintained.  In doing so, I shall drop the
singular pronoun, and blend myself with those,
whoever they may be, whose sentiments correspond with my own. I speak in the name of no
party; I am responsible for no opinions which I
do not express, and no man is responsible for mine;
but it would be false modesty, or presumption, to
regard myself as standing alone.
We, then, who reject the whole system which
among Protestants has been denominated " Orthodoxy," as a system of the most pernicious errors,
are charged by its defenders with depriving Christianity of all its value, with contemning all its
peculiar doctrines, with rejecting all but its name.
What is it, then, that we believe? and what is it
that our opponents believe?
Christianity, WE BELIEVE,  has taught men to
know God, and has revealed him as the Father of
his creatures. It has made known his infinite perfections, his providence, and his moral government.
It has directed us to look up to Him as the Being
36*




376                CONCLUSION.
on whom we and all things are entirely dependent,
and to look up to Him with perfect confidence and
love.  It has made known to us that we are to live
for ever; it has brought life and immortality to
light.  Man was a creature of this earth, and it
has raised him to a far nobler rank, and taught
him  to regard himself as an immortal being, the
child of God.  It calls the sinner to reformation
and hope.  It affords to virtue the highest possible
sanctions.  It gives to sorrow its best, and often
its only consolation. It presents us, in the life of
our great Master, with an example of that moral
perfection which is to be the constant object of our
exertions. It has established the truths which it
teaches, upon evidence the most satisfactory. It
is a most glorious display of the benevolence of
the Deity, and of his care for the beings of this
earth. It has lifted the veil which separated God
from his creatures, and this life from eternity.
But all this, it seems, is NOTHING, unless it also
teach, that there are three persons who constitute
the one God; or at least that there is some threefold distinction, we know not what, in the Divinity; that one of these persons or distinctions was
united in a most incomprehensible manner to the
human nature of Christ, so that the sufferings of
the latter were the sufferings of the former; and
that it is only through these sufferings of the Son
of God that we may hope for the mercy of his
Father.  The religion of joy and consolation will,
it is contended, lose its value, unless it announce
to us, that we are created under the wrath and




CONCLUSION.               377
curse of God; that it is impossible for us to perform his will, unless our moral natures be created
anew; and that this is a favor denied to far the
greater part of men, who are required to perform
what he has made it morally impossible they
should perform, with the most unrelenting rigor,
and under penalty of the most terrible and everlasting torments.  Such doctrines as these are
represented as the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, those from which it derives its value; and our
opponents appear to think, that if nothing better
was to be effected than to make God known to
men, to reveal to them his paternal character, to
bring life and immortality to light, and to furnish
the highest motives to virtue, it was not worth
while for the Deity to interpose in a special manner to effect purposes so unimportant.
The doctrines which we believe to be established
by Christianity are doctrines of inestimable value.
The question of their truth is one which interests
us most deeply.  Our happiness and our virtue are
at stake on the decision. If they are not true, we
are miserable indeed.  The brute, satisfied with
the enjoyments of the present day, has a preferable
tenure of existence to that of man, if they are both
to perish together. But if these doctrines are true,
there is a prospect displayed before us inconceivably glorious and delightful.  They are truths
which it was worthy of God to teach.  Look
again at the doctrines which we are opposing.
Are these doctrines of any importance or value?
Is it important to our virtue and happiness, that




378               CONCLUSION.
there should be a threefold distinction in the Divine Nature; or that the mercy of God which is
extended toward us should have been PURCHASED
with the blood of his Son? Is it desirable for us
to be satisfied that our natures are so depraved,
that, till they are changed by the act of God, we
can do nothing to please him?  Examine the
creeds of what is called Orthodoxy; and read the
summary of obligations which these creeds teach
us that we lie under to God as our MAKER. What
obligations would be due from his creatures to a
being who had formed them under his " displeasure and curse," made them "bond-slaves to Satan,"
and" JUSTLY LIABLE "- the absurdity is as gross
as the impiety-"to all punishments in this world,
and in that which is to come."  With what feelings might such creatures JUSTLY regard their
Maker?  What is the character which they would
have a right to ascribe to him?  It would be
mockery to ask, if it be desirable that this doctrine
should be true; or if Christianity would lose its
value, should it appear that it taught no such doctrine.
It is because we have a strong conviction of the
inestimable importance of TRUE RELIGION to human virtue and happiness, and therefore desire to
promote its influence, that we wish men to know
and believe that these are not the doctrines of
Christianity. It is because God ought to be the
object of our perfect veneration and love, that we
revolt at doctrines which confound and darken our
ideas of his nature, which represent one person in




CONCLUSION.               379
the Deity as exacting, and another as submitting
to, the punishment of our offences; and at other
doctrines far worse than these, which, if it were
possible for them to have their full influence upon
the mind, would make God an object of utter
horror and detestation. We believe that the great
truths of religion taught by Christianity are the
foundation of public and private happiness, of the
good order of well-regulated society, of purity of
morals, of our domestic enjoyments, of all that is
most generous and most disinterested in the human character, of all those qualities which endear
man to man; that they make life cheerful, and reconcile us to death; and that it is on these that the
character must be formed which will fit us for
heaven; — and it is therefore that we wish them
to be presented to men such as they really are, free
from the gross errors which human folly and perversity have connected with them,- errors that have
prevented their reception, and essentially counteracted their influence.
Especially at the present time, when, through
the discredit and odium cast upon Christianity by
the false systems that have assumed its name, its
power has been annihilated through a great part
of the civilized world, and it has come to be regarded by a very large portion of the educated
classes of society as an obsolete superstition, the
call is most imperative upon those to whom the
welfare of their fellow-men is an object of concern,
to use all means at their command to re-establish
its true character. If they are indeed engaged in




380               CONCLUSION.
supporting the cause of TRUE RELIGION against
irreligion and superstition, then the hopes of mankind are staked upon their success. All efforts to
promote the influence of Christianity will be ineffectual, till its real character is understood and
acknowledged; for of all the opposition to which
it is exposed, that which substitutes in its place
any of those false systems that have assumed its
name is at the present day the most pernicious.
If the doctrines against which we contend are
false, then the worst enemy of Christianity is he
who asserts them to have been taught by Christ.
IN concluding this work, I should not speak of
myself personally, were it not for the desire which
every reader naturally feels to know the probable
motives of one who addresses him on any important topic of-practical interest.  Disconnected, in
a great degree, from the common pursuits of the
world, and independent of any party or of any
man's favor, there is, perhaps, scarcely an individual to whom it can be a matter of less private concern what opinions others may hold. No one will
suppose, that, if literary fame were my object, I
should have sought it by such a discussion as this
in which I have engaged. Even among those who
have no prejudices in favor of the errors opposed,
much indifference and much disgust to the subject
must be overcome, before I can expect this work
to find any considerable number of readers.  I
commenced it not long after one of the severest
deprivations of my life, the loss of a most valued,




CONCLUSION.               381
and most justly valued friend, and have continued
it with sickness and death around me.  I have
been writing, as it were, on the tombstones of
those who were most dear to me, with feelings
of the character, purposes, and duties of life which
my own death-bed will not strengthen. I may,
then, claim at least that share of unsuspicious attention to which every one is entitled who cannot
be supposed to have any other motive in maintaining his opinions, than a very serious, earnest,
and enduring conviction of their truth and importance.








APPENDIX.
37








APPENDIX.
NOTE A.
(See p. 251.)
EXPLANATION OF JOHN vi. 61, 62.*
" DOES this give you offence?  What, then, if
you should see the Son of Man ascending where
he was before? "
In these and the following words, Jesus is remarking upon, and in part explaining, what he has
before said.  The purport of the words is this:
Does- it offend you that I speak of my death'?
Would your offence continue, should you see me
after my death ascending to heaven?
It may be that Jesus here referred to his ascension from earth and disappearance from the view
of his disciples. But if he did so, that miracle
was, I conceive, present to his mind only as a
proof and visible emblem  of what he principally
intended in his words.  What he principally intended was his return to God from whom he came,
after passing through his sufferings and death.
* From Mr. Norton's Notes on the Gospels.




386                APPENDIX.
It is to be remarked, that, here and elsewhere,
the expressions "coming from" and "descending
from " heaven or God, which are founded on Jewish conceptions of heaven as the local habitation of
the Deity, are in their nature necessarily figurative,
and do not admit of being taken in a verbal sense.
God is in no one place rather than in another.
There is no portion of space that may be designated as heaven on account of its being his peculiar habitation.  " To be in heaven," or "to be
with God," does not denote existence in any particular place. " To descend from heaven," or " to
come from God," does not imply previous existence
in any particular place.  So to understand such
expressions is to take words necessarily figurative
in their literal meaning.
" Enoch walked with God"; —" Their cry went
up to God ";-"' The spirit shall return to God
who gave it ";-" Draw near to God";- " God
has departed from  me"; — "    God, be not far
from me";-" God will hear him from his holy
heaven";-" Look down from heaven, 0 Lord";"The Lord's throne is in heaven";-" Whom have
I in heaven but thee? "-    God sent me before
you ";   "I (the Lord) send thee to the children
of Israel"; — " Let us return to the Lord,.....
and he will come to us." In these passages, and
in numberless others of a similar kind, we perceive
how the imperfection of human conceptions and of
human language has led to the use of expressions
equally figurative with those of " descending from,"
and " ascending to," heaven and God.




NOTE A.                387
The expressions above quoted are from the Old
Testament, but they are such as are familiarly used
in popular language at the present day. We do
not find among them  those harsher figures and
ruder conceptions which elsewhere are not uncommon in the Jewish Scriptures.
In John's own writings, and particularly in his
reports of the discourses of our Lord, there is much
language of a similar kind. " There was a man
[John] sent from  God "; --  The only Son who
is on the bosom of the Father";-" Ye will see
heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending
and descending to the Son of Man";- -" The Son
of Man who is in heaven 7"; -" The Father has'not
left me alone ";- " I speak what I have seen with
my Father"; —   I speak to the world what I have
heard from Him ";  " There are many rooms in
my Father's house; I am going that I may prepare
a place for you"; -" He who has seen me has
seen the Father"; —" Whoever loves me will
obey my words; and my Father will love him,
and we will come to him, and make our abode with
him "; -" I came from the Father into the world;
now I am  leaving the world, and going to the
Father."
As the conceptions which we finite beings form
of the Infinite Being must be inadequate and imperfect, so a great part of our language concerning
him is necessarily inadequate and imperfect, and
naturally assumes a figurative character. Such, of
course, is particularly the case with popular language. This is full of modes of speech addressed
37*




388                 APPENDIX.
to the imagination and feelings, but of a different
character among  different nations.  It abounds
more with figures, and becomes more remote from
literal truth, in proportion as it expresses, or is
conformed to, the conceptions of unphilosophical
thinkers,   of such a people as the Jews.  A great
mistake will be committed, if from the multitude
of these figures we pick out one made remarkable,
perhaps, by being particularly remote from  our
modes of expression, and impose upon it, not the
literal meaning of the words, for this may be impossible, but some imaginary, mystical meaning,
which is too obscure to offend us by presenting an
obvious absurdity.
Our Lord, in the passage before us, and where
he speaks of descending from heaven, conforms his
language to the conception of the Jews, that heaven
was the peculiar abode of God. But we cannot
receive this conception as true, and therefore cannot understand the words in their literal sense.*
It may be thought, however, that his declaring
himself to have descended from  heaven was intended as an affirmation of his pre-existence, for
that by " heaven" is meant a portion of space
where beings of a higher order than man reside.
By " heaven " I conceive that, in the proper sense
of the word, we mean that future state of blessedness on which the good will enter after death, and
in which, as we have no reason to doubt, those
* [The remainder of this note is from an imperfect draught, which
had not been revised by the author.]




NOTE A.                389
who have been connected on earth may be near
each other. But there is no rational foundation
for the opinion, that those beings who are of a
higher order than man exist within the limits of
a certain definite portion of space which is to be
called heaven.
Nor would our Lord's supposed declaration of
his having been a pre-existent spirit, an angel, or
an archangel, or some being of a still higher order,
have anything to do with the occasion and purpose
of his discourse. It could have tended only to bewilder the minds of hearers who, without this new
difficulty put before them, were already confounded
by his actions.  The immediate occasion of the
discourse was the necessity of repressing and destroying, as far as might be, the worldly passions
and expectations of the Jews arising from their
false notions of the temporal reign of the Messiah.
Its purpose was to direct their thoughts to the true
grounds of his authority, not as a warrior and
earthly king, but as a teacher sent from God and
speaking in God's name;- to the character necessary in his followers, who were not to be bold
partisans of a temporal prince, but to do the works
which God required; — to the blessings which
would be conferred upon them, not such as might
be looked for from a triumphant leader, but eternal
life;- and to the means by which this blessedness
was to be procured for his followers, not by his
success as a conqueror, but by his sufferings and
bloody death.
Among these thoughts there could be no pro



390                APPENDIX.
priety in his introducing the supposed doctrine
that he himself was a pre-existent being. On the
contrary, here, as in his other discourses, he keeps
himself individually out of view.  He is to be
obeyed, not because he is a being in his own
nature far superior to man, but because he is the
minister of. God.  He speaks of no authority derived from what he was in himself, but of the
authority conferred on him by God.
Nor does it appear that even the Jews so mistook or perverted his meaning as to put a literal
sense upon his words.  When he told them  that
he was " the true bread from heaven," " the bread
of life," " the bread of God which was descending
from heaven and giving life to the world," it was
impossible for the Jews or any other hearers not to
recognize that all these expressions were figurative,
and especially, that by " descending from heaven,"
as used concerning the bread of God, could be
meant nothing more than " coming from  God."
The turns of expression here employed are metaphors borrowed from  the account given in the
Psalms of the manna, as bread rained from heaven
(the visible heavens) to preserve the lives of the
Israelites. (See Psalm lxxviii. 23-25.)  We cannot reasonably suppose that the Jews imagined
our Lord to affirm that he had descended from
the visible heavens in a bodily shape, or thought
of his claiming to be a pre-existent spirit, coming
from those abodes of the blessed which we call
heaven.
*       *       *       *       *




NOTE A.                391
As has already been remarked, the expressions
" to come from God " and " to descend from heaven" are synonymous. (See John iii. 2, 13, 31.)
They both denote the appearing among men as a
minister of God miraculously authorized by him.
"To go to heaven" and   to go to God" are at
the present day perfectly familiar expressions, but
equally figurative with those on which we are
remarking. They mean, to pass from this life to
a higher state of existence, in which God will confer new happiness on the good.
In speaking of himself as having descended from
heaven, the meaning of our Lord is the same as
when in this discourse he repeatedly designates
himself as " him whom God has sent."  " I have
descended from heaven, not to do my own will, but
the will of Him who sent me."  (Verse 38; compare vv. 29, 39, 40, 44, 46, 57.)
Thus far, in explaining the metaphor by which
Jesus represents himself as the bread descending
from heaven, we find nothing which is not analogous to our own forms of expression. But in the
words particularly under consideration a figure occurs, which, though it is used by writers of the
Old and New Testament, and other ancient writers, Christian and Jewish, has not found a place
among our modes of speech. It is connected with
less philosophical conceptions of God than those
which Christianity has taught us to entertain. In
the use of this figure, events and persons and states




392                APPENDIX.
of being, which it is intended to refer in the strongest manner to the appointment of God, and to represent him  as having especially predestined, are
spoken of as having a proper existence while yet
existing only in his foreknowledge and purpose. I
have elsewhere explained the design of this figure,
and given many examples of it. See the notes on
John xvii. 5 and viii. 58.' It is one which occurs
repeatedly in the language of our Lord, as his
language is reported by John; as when he says,
" And now, Father! glorify me with thyself, giving me that glory which I had with thee before the
world was."  "Thou didst love me before the foundation of the world."  (Ch. xvii. 5, 24.)  In like
manner, his being and office being predetermined
by God before the world was, he here speaks of
himself as having existed with God before his appearance on earth.
* [See before, pp. 235- 246.1




NOTE B.
(See p. 284.)
ON THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE APOSTLES CONCERNING THE VISIBLE RETURN OF THEIR MASTER TO EARTH.
THE language of our Saviour respecting his future coming was, I believe, more or less misunderstood by some or all of the Apostles, during a part
or the whole of their ministry. They looked forward, with more or less confidence, to a personal
and visible return of Christ to earth at no distant
period. The first coming of the Messiah had been
so wholly unlike what their countrymen had universally anticipated, that, when he spoke of a future
coming while the existing generation was still living, they transferred to this some of the expectations which had been long entertained respecting
his appearance and kingdom. It is necessary to
attend to this fact in connection with the explanation which has been given of the language of
Christ. The evidence of it may appear from what
follows.
In the last chapter of John's Gospel we have the
following narrative:* "Peter, turning round, cast
* John xxi. 20 - 23.




394                APPENDIX.
his eyes on the disciple whom Jesus loved, who
was in the company, - the same who at the supper was lying at the breast of Jesus, and said to
him, Master, who is he that will betray you?Peter, seeing this disciple, said to Jesus, Master,
and how will it be with himl?  Jesus answered
him, If it be my will that he remain till I come,
what does it concern you?  Be you my follower.
Hence spread that report among the brothers, that
this disciple was not to die; though Jesus did not
say to him that he would not die; but, If it be my
will that he remain till I come, what does it concern you? 
It was a belief among the Jews, as we have good
reason to suppose, that the lives of those saints
who might be on earth when the Messiah should
appear would be prolonged through his reign to
the termination of all things.* This expectation, it
would seem  from  the passage quoted, was now
entertained by the disciples concerning the future
coming of Christ.
One of the most cherished hopes of the Jews
was, that the Messiah would restore the kingdom
to Israel; that he would raise the nation to even
far greater power and splendor than they believed
it to have enjoyed during the days of David and
Solomon.  Similar expectations were entertained
by the disciples of Christ till after his death. The
two who journeyed with him to Emmaus after his
resurrection said, " We were hoping that it was he
* See Pocock's Notre Miscellaneas in Maimon. Portam Mosis.
Works, I. 177, 178.




NOTE B.                    395
who was to be the deliverer of Israel."* The last
question which his Apostles proposed to him was,
"Lord, wilt thou  now  restore the  kingdom  to
Israel? "   The false expectation implied in these
words, it is to be observed, was not corrected by
our Saviour.  He only answered, "It is not for
you to know the times and the seasons which are
at the disposal of the Father alone." t The question of the Apostles shows that they had at the
time no correct understanding of his prophecy concerning the destruction of the Jewish nation; and
that their minds still dwelt on the ancient hopes
of their countrymen.
The later Jews have supposed, that at the coming of the Messiah the saints who are dead will be
raised from their graves to partake the glories of
his kingdom.t  It is probable that this is a traditionary belief, and that a similar supposition was
entertained by the Jews in the time of Christ. If
so, it may have served in part as a foundation for
the following striking and eloquent passage, in
which St. Paul expresses to the Thessalonians his
expectation of the near return of our Saviour to
earth.~
"I would have you understand, brothers, concerning those who have fallen asleep, that you may
not sorrow like other men who have no hope. For
* Luke xxiv. 21.                t Acts i. 6, 7.
t See Pocock's dissertation, "In quo varie Judaeorum de resurrectione mortuorum sentential expenduntur," one of his Notse Miscellaneae upon the Porta Mosis. Works, I. 159, seqq.
~ 1 Thess. iv. 13-18.
38




396                  APPENDIX.
as we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so
also will God, through Jesus, bring again with him
those who have fallen asleep.  For this we say to
you, brothers, as teachers from God, that we who
are living, we who are left till the coming of the
Lord,* shall not anticipate those who have fallen
asleep.  For the Lord himself will descend from
heaven, with a summons given by an archangel
sounding the trump of God; and they who have
died in Christ will arise first. Then we who are
living, we who are left, shall be borne up with them
into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so
shall we be ever with the Lord. So then comfort
one another with these words."
The Thessalonians, it is evident from both of the
Epistles addressed to them, were looking for the
second coming of Christ as an event not distant.
This expectation they would  hardly have entertained so strongly as they appear to have done,
had it not been countenanced by St. Paul, through
whom they had just been converted to Christianity.
Anticipating that our Saviour was about to come
in person to establish his kingdom and reward his
followers, they feared, it seens, that their friends
who had died might not share in the glories and
blessings to be then enjoyed by those Christians
who might be living.  It was the purpose of the
Apostle to remove this apprehension.
* It is thus that the words, utsiEt  ol wvresv, ol 7repLXt\etL7rO'LVO
ELZs rqv 7rapovOr-av TOV KvpLov, should be rendered. St. Paul speaks
of those who are alive, those who are left till the coming of the Lord,
in contradistinction from those who have fallen asleep.




NOTE B.                    397
But if we rightly understand the passage, the
conceptions of the Apostle respecting our Lord's
future coming were erroneous. Undoubtedly it appears that they were so.  But to what does the
error amount?  Does it affect any important doctrine of religion? What is the essential fact here
expressed, concerning the circumstances of which
St. Paul had fallen into a mistake, in consequence
of the previous opinions of his countrymen?  The
essential doctrine - all that can properly be called
a truth of religion -  is this, that, whether the followers of Christ live a longer or a shorter time on
earth, their future happiness is equally secure. The
dead and the living are equally the care of God;
and the time is coming when they will all meet
together where their Master has gone before.
That St. Paul had in view that figurative language in which our Saviour was, as I believe, supposed to have predicted his future personal coming,
appears from the words immediately following those
just quoted. The Apostle adopts the thoughts and
expressions which the Evangelists represent Christ
as having used.
"But concerning the times and the seasons,
brothers, there is no need that I should write to
you.  For you yourselves know well, that the day
of the Lord is coming as a thief in the night.* For
* Compare Matthew xxiv. 43, 44. " But this you know, that if
the master of a house is aware at what hour a thief is coming, he is
awake, and suffers not his house to be broken into. So then be you
always ready; for in an hour in which you do not expect him, the
Son of Man will come."




398                APPENDIX.
when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden
destruction will come upon them,* as the pangs of
a woman with child; and they will not escape.
But you, brothers, are not in darkness, that that
day should come upon you as a thief. You are
all children of the light, and children of the day;
we are not of the night nor of darkness.  Let
us not sleep, then, as others, but watch and be
sober." -
With their expectations of the Messiah's kingdom, the Jews had connected the belief of the overthrow and destruction of his enemies. A similar
belief we find expressed by St. Paul in his Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians, (written shortly after
the First,) in which he encourages them with the
hope that Christ was coming to deliver them from
persecution by the destruction of their persecutors.
" We glory in you, telling the churches of God
of your constancy and faithfulness in all your persecutions, and the afflictions that you endure;
which afford a pledge of that just judgment of
God, by which you will be declared worthy of
the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering.
Since it will be just for God to make them suffer
in return who are afflicting you, and to give you
who are afflicted rest with us, when the Lord Jesus
shall be manifested from heaven, with the angels
of his might, in flaming fire, punishing those who'know not God, and those who refuse obedience to
the gospel of our Lord Jesus; who will suffer the
* Compare Matthew xxiv. 37-39; Luke xxi. 34, 35.
t Compare Matthew xxiv. 42- 51.




NOTE B.                 399
penalty of everlasting destruction, inflicted by the
glorious power of the Lord himself, when he shall
come in that day to be glorified in his saints, and
honored in all believers." *
But the Thessalonians, it appears, had been
strongly excited by the expectation of the coming
of the Lord. They were regarding it as an event
close at hand. St. Paul, in consequence, though
he himself anticipated it as not very distant, reminds them, in order to allay the feverish state of
feeling in which they seem to have been, that he
had in a previous conversation with them pointed
out a certain event by which it was to be preceded,
and which had not yet taken place. This event I
suppose to have been the rebellion of the Jews
against the Romans; but it is not necessary to
our present purpose to enter into a full explanation
of the obscure passage to which I refer.t
We have seen that St. Paul, at the time when
he wrote his First Epistle to the Thessalonians,
was looking forward to a resurrection of those
Christians who had died, which should take place
at the coming of Christ; and that he regarded
himself and those whom he addressed as individuals who might be living at the time of that event.
The same anticipations appear in his First Epistle
to the Corinthians. He says: —
" Through the Messiah all will be made alive.
But each in his proper order; Christ the first fruits;
next, they who are Christ's, at his coming.
* 2 Thess. i. 4-10.       t 2 Thess. ch. ii.
38*




400                APPENDIX.
" Brothers, I tell you a new truth. We shall not
indeed all sleep, but we shall all be changed; in a
moment, in the glance of an eye, at the last trump;
— for the trump will sound, and the dead will be
raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."*
St. Paul elsewhere in his Epistles refers, I think,
to the expected personal appearance of his Master;
as, when addressing the Corinthians, some of whom
were disposed to an unfriendly judgment concerning him, he says: "Judge nothing before the time,
till the Lord come, who will bring to light what is
hidden in darkness, and make manifest the purposes of men's hearts; and then every one's praise
will be from God." t
Thus also he exhorts the Romans to obey the
precepts he had given them, "understanding the
time; for the hour," he says, " has come for us to
awake from sleep; for now is our deliverance nearer
than when we became believers. The night is far
spent, the day is at hand." t
To the Philippians (iv. 5) he says, " The Lord is
at hand," apparently in the same sense in which in
the Epistle of James (v. 8) it is said, " The coming
of the Lord is at hand."
He tells the Corinthians: " I ever thank my God
for you, on account of the favor of God bestowed
upon you through Christ Jesus; for you have been
enriched by him with all instruction and all knowledge, the doctrine of Christ having been firmly established among you, so that you are poor in no
* Ch. xv. 23, 24, 51, 52.  t 1 Cor. iv. 5.
t Romans xiii. 11, 12.




NOTE B.                 401
blessing, whilst waiting for the manifestation of
our Lord Jesus Christ; and God also will preserve
you steadfast to the end, so that you may be without blame in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."*
To the Philippians (i. 6) he expresses his confidence, that "he among them who has begun a good
work will go on to perfect it till the day of Jesus
Christ."
We will now take notice of a single passage in
the First Epistle of St. John. It has been expected
by the later Jews that the coming of the Antichrist,
or of the Anti-Messiah, would precede that of the
Messiah.  The same notion seems to have prevailed among the Jews in the time of Christ, and
to be referred to by St. John in the following passage: -
" Children, it is the last hour; and as you have
heard that the Antichrist is coming, so there are
now many antichrists, whence we know that it is
the last hour." t
There is so little reason to suppose that the Second Epistle ascribed to St. Peter was written by
him, that it is not to be quoted as evidence of his
opinions. But in his First Epistle (as it is called),
that is, probably, in the only writing of his which
remains, he says: " The end of all things draws
near. Be sober, therefore, and watch and pray." t
" Encourage one another," says the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, " and so much the more,
because you see the day is approaching." ~
* 1 Cor. i. 4-8.            t 1 John ii. 18.
i Ch. iv. 7.                ~ Ch. x. 25.




402                APPENDIX.
I do not refer to the Apocalypse as the work of
St. John, for I do not believe it to be so. But as it
was written during the latter part of the first, or the
early part of the second century, it affords evidence
of the opinions of those who were disciples of the
Apostles. I regard it as the production of some
early Jewish Christian, whose imagination was
highly excited by the expected coming of Christ.
It does not, I think, appear that he himself intended
to assume the character of the Apostle John, or that
there is ground for charging him with any fraudulent design. His work, notwithstanding the imperfection of its language, is in a high strain of poetry.
The mind of the writer was borne away by his subject. He intended, as I conceive, that his visions
should be understood as imaginary only, like those
of another work of about the same age, the Shepherd of Hermas, or, to take a more familiar example, like those of Bunyan.  The conviction was
strong upon him, that the second coming of Christ
was near at hand; and the object of his work,
which in modern times has been so ill understood,
was, I believe, to describe the events by which, according to the belief of his age, or his own particular belief, it was to be preceded, accompanied, and
followed. In the very commencement of his work,
he professes that it relates to events soon to occur;
exhorting his readers to attend to what is written,
" because the time'is near."  His words are thus
rendered in the Common Version: 
" The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God
gave unto him, to show unto his servants things




NOTE B.                 403
which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and
signified it by his angel to his servant John......
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear, the
words of this prophecy, and keep those things
which are written therein; for the time'is at hand."
The words, as thus translated, show, I think, that
those expositions of the book are erroneous, which
suppose it to contain a prophecy of events concerning the Christian Church, extending to our own
time and beyond, some of the most important not
having yet taken place. Whatever the writer anticipated was, as he believed, shortly to come to
pass.  But I suppose that the words contain a
much clearer indication of his subject, and that
the first verse should be thus rendered: 
" The Manifestation of Jesus Christ, which God
has granted him to show forth to his servants,what must shortly come to pass; which he has signified, sending by his angel to his servant John."
The near coming of the Lord is several times
referred to in the work in express terms. In the
seventh verse of the first chapter, the language
which our Saviour used when he figuratively spoke
of his coming to the destruction of the Jewish
nation, is quoted by the writer: " Lo! he is coming in clouds, and every eye will see him, and they
who pierced him; and all the tribes of the land
will lament."*  There are elsewhere similar references to the words of Christ. And the book concludes, as it began, with a declaration, that the
* Compare Matthew xxiv. 30.




404                APPENDIX.
events anticipated in it were near at hand; and an
explicit indication that the main event expected
was the coming of Christ. "And the angel said
to me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of
this book; for the time is near...... Lo! I am
coming quickly to bring retribution with me, to
give to every man according to his works......
He who testifies these things says, Surely I am
coming quickly.  Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!"
The principal source of illustration for this book
is to be found in the language and conceptions of
the later Jews, especially their conceptions of events
connected with the coming of the Messiah. It is
from -the neglect of this means of illustration, and
from the erroneous notions respecting the character
of the work as, properly speaking, prophetical, that
the imaginations of most modern expositors have
been so bewildered in its study. The coincidence
between many of the conceptions of the later Jews,
and those expressed by the author of the Apocalypse, leaves little doubt that the former are traditionary, and existed in the time of Christ.
Though the Second Epistle ascribed to Peter
cannot be quoted in evidence of the opinions of
that Apostle, it affords proof of a state of opinion
and feeling existing among Christians at some
period during the first two centuries. The writer
says (iii. 3-13):" Be aware of this, that in the
last days scoffers will arise, following their own
lusts, and saying, Where is his promised coming?
For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue
as they were since the beginning of the creation.




NOTE B.                405
But they wilfully forget, that of old by the word
of God there were heavens, and an earth rising out
of the water, and surrounded by water, which
things being so, the world then existing was destroyed, being inundated by water; but the present heavens and the present earth are by his word
reserved for fire, being kept for a day when the
impious will be judged and destroyed. Forget not
this one thing, beloved, that a day with the LORD
is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a
day. The LORD is not tardy in performing his
promise (as some think him tardy), but is patient
toward us, not willing that any should perish, but
that all should attain reformation. But the day of
the LORD will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roaring sound, and the
elements will melt with fervent heat, and the earth
and all its works will be burnt up. Seeing, then,
that all present things are to be dissolved, what
ought you to be in all holy conduct and pious dispositions, expecting and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, in which the heavens will
be dissolved by fire, and the elements melt with
fervent heat. But we, according to his promise,
expect new heavens and a new earth, in which
righteousness will dwell."
Though the author does not in this passage explicitly speak of the coming of Christ, - for by the
title " LORD " God is here intended, -yet I suppose there is no controversy that he connected in
his imagination the consummation of all present
things, which he describes, with that event.  It




406                APPENDIX.
appears, then, from what he says, that there had
been so much expectation among Christians of the
speedy return of Christ, as to afford occasion for
the ridicule of scoffers. The writer, it seems, conceived that it would be attended with the renovation of all things by fire; a conception which is not
to be confounded with that of the consummation
of all things by fire at the termination of the Messiah's reign. The former seems to have been peculiar, and borrowed, not from the notions of the Jews
concerning the coming of the Messiah, but from
Gentile philosophy, particularly the Stoic. There
is nothing answering to it elsewhere in the New
Testament, nor, I think, in the Jewish traditions.
It is quite different from the notions entertained by
the earliest Christian Fathers, which correspond to
those held by the Jews, and expressed in the Apocalypse; though they comprised much which had
nowhere been taught by any Apostle.  The earlier
Fathers believed, to quote the description of Justin
Martyr, who appeals to the Apocalypse as his authority, that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt, adorned,
and enlarged; that there was to be a resurrection,
in which the followers of Christ who were dead,
together with the patriarchs and prophets and other
pious Jews, were to return to life; that these, with
the body of Christians, were to inhabit that city
with Christ, rejoicing, for a thousand years, at the
end of which would follow the general resurrection
and judgment of all. This is the doctrine of the
Millennium, of the visible reign of Christ in person
upon earth; a doctrine which the earlier Christians




NOTE B.                407
would be disposed to receive the more eagerly in
consequence of the oppression, persecution, and
deprivation they were suffering. It was, however,
rejected and opposed by Origen.  When Christianity became the religion of the state, and worldly
prosperity shone on its professors, the doctrine gradually faded out of notice; but it has existed to our
own age, transmitted or revived, being held at different periods by some one or other more enthusiastic sect, in connection with the belief that the
expected kingdom of Christ is at hand.
We will now confine our attention to the opinions of the Apostles, which are to be carefully distinguished from all the additions made to them by
others.  I have quoted the writings of different
Apostles. Probably there were differences of opinion among them  concerning the circumstances
which would attend the coming of our Lord; but
they all appear to have expected his personal and
visible return to earth as an event not distant; and
to have believed that he would come to exercise
judgment, to reward his faithful followers, to punish the disobedient, and to destroy his foes. St.
Paul, likewise, expected that " the dead who were
Christ's" would be raised at his coming. He further tells the Thessalonians, that the followers of
Christ then living would be borne up in the air to
meet the Lord and continue ever with him;words which imply, that he believed that the end
of all present things was to be connected with the
coming of Christ. To the Corinthians, after speaking of the resurrection of the followers of Christ at
39




408                APPENDIX.
his coming, he says: " Then will be the end, when
he will deliver up the kingdom to God, even the
Father; after destroying all dominion and all authority and power. For he must reign till He has
put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy,
Death, shall be destroyed...... And when all
things are put under him, then will the Son himself be subject to Him who put all things under
him, that God may be all in all.".  We are likewise led to the conclusion that St. Paul connected
the eld of the world with the coming of Christ, by
the strong language that he uses concerning the
general judgment of men, which was then to take
place. Thus he says to Timothy: " I charge thee
before God, and before Jesus Christ, who will
judge the living and the dead when he shall appear
in his kingdom ";t and the conception, that we
must "all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ
to receive according to what we have done in the
body, either good or evil," is one which he repeatedly expresses.t That he looked for the end of the
world as following the coming of Christ, may be
inferred also from his describing those who should
then rise as passing from mortality to immortality,
and as clothed with spiritual bodies. " Flesh and
blood," he says, "cannot inherit the kingdom  of
God." ~ St. Peter and St. John likewise speak of
" its being the last time "; and of " the end of all
things being at hand." It is to be particularly ob* 1 Cor. xv. 24- 28.         t 2 Timothy iv. 1.
X Romans xiv. 10; 2 Corinthians v. 10.
i 1 Corinthians xv. 50.




NOTE B.                409
served, that there is no intimation given by any
Apostle of a millennial reign of Christ; a circumstance which, among many others, serves to show
that the Apocalypse, in which this doctrine is
clearly taught, was not the work of St. John.
SUCH, then, appear to have been the opinions of
the Apostles respecting the second coming of their
Master. I have been led to speak of this subject,
so important in many of its relations, from its special bearing upon the explanations which I have
given of the language of our Saviour. I have endeavored to show, that his language concerning his
future coming, the establishment of his kingdom
on earth, and his passing judgment upon all men,
presents no difficulty when compared with subsequent events; that his expressions are figurative,
and that their explanation is to be found in analogous metaphors, the meaning of which is obvious;
and that, however bold some of them may appear,
they do not transcend the genius of the Oriental
style. But we find, on the other hand, that his
Apostles, through causes which I have endeavored
partly to explain, instead of a figurative coming,
expected a literal return of their Master to earth,
before the generation then living should pass away;
that, instead of a figurative judgment, they believed
that on his return he would judge all men in person; and that, in connection with these events,
they anticipated the end of all things. These expectations were erroneous; and before the explanation which has been given of the words of Christ




410                APPENDIX.
can be fully admitted, this error must be understood. We must not read over the passages in
which it is expressed with a confused misapprehension of their sense, as if they related to events still
future, and were at the same time coincident in
meaning with the language of Christ.
NOTHING more need be said to illustrate the difference which I suppose to exist between his meaning and the conceptions of the Apostles respecting
his future coming. But there are questions and
considerations suggested by the facts brought forward, which, though not immediately connected
with the subject of this work, are too important
to be passed over in silence.  Why, it may be
asked, did not our Saviour prevent his Apostles
from  falling into the error we have remarked?
The answer to this question will open to us views
of much importance to be attended to in the study
of the New Testament.
On many subjects our Saviour refrained from
entering into a full explanation, and correcting the
errors of his hearers. They were errors not intimately connected with the essential truths of religion. The course of events, the advance of human reason, and the progress of knowledge, would
afford sufficient correctives; and he was not sent
to deliver men from all false opinions, and to furnish a digest of truth upon every subject. An
error not important may be so interwoven with an
essential truth, that it can be separated only by the
hazardous experiment of unravelling the whole web.




NOTE B.               411
A misapprehension of facts may be strongly associated with feelings practically true. Their roots
may be so twisted round it, that there is danger of
eradicating them in the attempt to remove it. Nor
does the communication of truth depend upon the
instructor alone. No instructor can give a child
the knowledge of a man. He to whom God had
opened the treasure-house of wisdom  could not
make all his most willing hearers as wise as himself. Putting out of view all miraculous influence
upon the mind, men can be advanced in intellectual
improvement only in proportion to the progress
which they have already made.  A truth, however clearly presented, must be in some accordance
with the previous habits of thinking of him to
whom it is addressed, in order to be clearly apprehended; and a truth ill apprehended, detached
from the relations in which it ought to be viewed,
may be more mischievous than the error which it
is intended to supplant. Men must be taught, as
our Saviour taught them, as " they are able to bear
it."  To have enabled his hearers fully to comprehend all facts and truths connected with Christianity, and to have freed their minds from all false
conceptions concerning the Messiah and his kingdom, and every topic which has, or may be supposed to have, a bearing upon religion, could have
been effected only by a miracle which would almost
have changed their identity. Supposing that in the
particular case of the Apostles such a miracle had
been wrought, still their hearers would have been
as dull of apprehension as were those whom Christ
39*




412               APPENDIX.
taught.  Had the Apostles been placed in all respects on an equality with their Master; had they
been guided throughout by the same perfect judgment, which implies not merely the highest intellectual, but the highest moral excellence; had they
each been qualified to supply his place, and entitled
to every name of honor which belongs to him, -
their disciples would have held.the same place which
they themselves now do as disciples of Christ. They
must have taught their followers as their Master
had taught them; and whenever this miraculous
regeneration of intellect ceased, and men's minds
were left to their natural action, and the current of their opinions was suffered to pursue its
ordinary course, —whenever infallibility was no
longer secured by the power of God, —errors of
some kind would necessarily mingle with men's
religious faith. As regards the Apostles, we believe that their minds were enlightened by the
Spirit of God, and by direct miraculous communications from him, in regard to the essential truths
of Christianity. But we have no warrant to believe, nor is there any probable argument to
show, that this divine illumination was further
extended.
Our Saviour came to teach the essential truths
of religion.  Even these truths were but imperfectly apprehended by most of those who heard
him, and, I may add, have been but imperfectly
apprehended by most of those who, from his time
to our own, have professed themselves to be his
disciples. When we find, that on the last night




NOTE S.                 413
of his ministry one of his Apostles said to him,
" Master, show us the Father, and we shall be
satisfied,"* it may be perceived that there were
difficulties enough to be overcome in communicating to them  a full apprehension of those elementary truths.  Their attention was not to be
withdrawn from them by discussions, doubts, questions, and explanations respecting subjects of comparatively little importance, concerning which they
might have adopted the errors of their age. When,
referring to the doctrine of the pre-existence of
souls, a doctrine at that time generally connected
with the belief of their immortality, they asked,
" Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that
he was born blind? " t our Saviour. in his answer
did not explain to them  the mistake implied in
those words. When, under the belief common to
their countrymen, that the sufferings of this life
were punishments from  God, certain individuals
came to tell him of the " Galilaans, whose blood
Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices,"t there
was nothing in his reply to correct their false conceptions. The relative importance of different doctrines, the wide separation which divides what is
essential in true religion from all the accessory
notions that men have made a part of their religion, is very little understood at the present day,
and was not better understood by the Jews eighteen centuries ago. In most minds, those opinions
which they believe or fancy to have anything of a
* John xiv. 8.  t John ix. 2.  t Luke xiii. 1.




414                APPENDIX.
religious character are disposed without regard to
perspective. They all stand forward equal in magnitude. It is one of the most striking characteristics of the teaching of Christ, that the distinction
between the essential truths of religion and all
other doctrines, true or false, was never confounded
by him. He fixed the attention of his hearers only
upon what it most concerned them to know as religious beings, that is, as creatures of God and
heirs of immortality. In order to effect this purpose, it was necessary for him to confine his teaching to the essential truths of religion. If he had
done otherwise, if he had labored to correct the
errors of his hearers upon subjects of minor importance, and to place the truth distinctly before them
in all those new relations which it might present,
his hearers would unavoidably have confounded
the doctrines thus taught them  upon divine authority with those essential principles which alone
it was the purpose of God to announce.  Their
imaginations and feelings might perhaps have been
more occupied about what it was of little consequence for them to know, than about truths which
it was of the highest concern that they should understand themselves, and be qualified to teach to
others.
But there is another aspect under which the subject is to be viewed. We must consider, not merely the disciples, but the enemies of Christ; we must
regard the character of the ignorant, prejudiced, unstable multitudes whom  he addressed, and whom
his Apostles were to address; and we must recol



NOTE B.                415
lect, that whatever he taught to his Apostles was
in effect taught to all; that it was their proper
office to publish his whole doctrine. Now in communicating to men the essential truths of religion,
and in confining his attention to these alone, he
had to encounter prejudices and passions the most
obstinate and violent.  Superstition, fanaticism,
and hypocrisy, all that is in most direct opposition
to the love of God and man, constituted the religion of a great part of the Jews. It was vital to
the selfish purposes and to the authority of those
who were leaders among the people, that the errors
which prevailed should retain their power over
men's minds. The bigotry of false religion was at
the same time inflamed by national pride.  This
opposition Christ had to encounter, and hence he
was assailed throughout his ministry with continual
cavil, reproach, and persecution; and he saw from
its commencement, that he should soon become
their victim. The circumstances in which he was
placed required the utmost circumspection, judgment, and self-command. No new prejudice was
to be needlessly excited. No unnecessary occasion
of cavil was to be presented. No opportunity for
perverting or contradicting his words was to be
given, that could be avoided consistently with the
purpose of his mission. It was not for him to
waste the numbered days of his ministry, in which
so much was to be accomplished, to perplex his
hearers, and to exasperate his foes, by entering into
controversy or explanations respecting topics of
minor concern. The hold which a prejudice has




416                 APPENDIX.
upon the mind is often out of all proportion to any
show of proof that may be brought in its support.
Questions, the discussion of which we should now
regard only as an object of ridicule, have in other
ages been the occasion of rancorous contention.
In the fourteenth century, a dispute raged in the
Greek empire  concerning the question, whether
the light which shone round Christ at his transfiguration was created or uncreated. Four councils were assembled, and those who affirmed it to
be created, and held the consequences which were
supposed to be connected with this doctrine, were
anathematized as worse than all other heretics.*
If a new teacher of TRUE RELIGION had been sent
from God to the men of that age, we may easily
comprehend, that few mistakes would have tended
more to render his mission fruitless, than for him
to have entered into any explanation, or to have
passed any judgment, upon this controversy.  In
the defence of what we now  consider as gross
errors, a blind and deaf bigotry has been displayed,
the strength of which it is hard to estimate since
the delusion has passed away. It is not yet two
centuries since the denial of the then common
belief of witchcraft was regarded as implying the
denial of the agency of any spiritual being, of the
existence of the invisible world, and consequently
* See Petavii Dogmata Theologica. De Deo Deique Proprietatibus, Lib. I. c. 12. Compare Mosheim's Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Cent. XIV. P. II. Ch. V. ~~ 1, 2; Gieseler, Bd. II.
Abth. III. ~ 129, 2te Aufl., or Vol. III.~ 127, Cunningham's Translation.]




NOTE B.                        417
as virtual atheism.* In the time of Christ, and for
a long period before, the doctrine of demoniacal
possession  prevailed  among  the Jews, and  many
diseases were ascribed to this cause. Our Saviour
never taught that this was a false doctrine. He
occasionally used language conformed to the conceptions of those who believed it to be true. Why
was he silent on this subject?   Why did he leave
some, if not all, of his Apostles in error concerning
it, as appears from  the common  belief being expressed in the first three Gospels, though not in
that of St. John?   Let us consider, that, if he
had taught the truth, he would immediately have
been denounced by his enemies as an  unbeliever
in the invisible world, as a Sadducee teaching that
"there was neither angel nor spirit"; —that the
error in question was intimately connected with
many  others, concerning  the  existence  of Satan,
the origin of evil, the rules of God's government
of the world, the mental and physical constitution
of man, and  the  power of magic  and  incantations;-that it would have been  idle to  declare
* "For my part," says Sir Thomas Browne, "I have ever believed, and do now know, that there are witches. They that doubt
of them do not only deny them, but spirits; and are obliquely'and
of consequence a sort, not of infidels, but atheists." (Religio Medici,
Part I.) Glanvill's " SADDUCISMUS Triumphatus" is a work in defence of the common superstition, by one of the able men of his age,
in which he represents, as may be supposed from the title, all disbelievers in witchcraft as destitute of religion. A great part of Dr.
Henry More's " Antidote to Atheism " consists of stories of supposed
supernatural events, apparitions, witchcraft, and pretended miraculous operations of God's providence.




418               APPENDIX.
himself against one of these errors, unless he had
opposed them all;- that he was surrounded by
ignorant and prejudiced hearers, wholly unaccustomed to exercise their minds upon any general
truth;- and that, had it been possible to instruct
them thoroughly upon any one of the subjects I
have mentioned, he must, in order to effect this,
have turned aside from the great purpose of his
ministry, and have withdrawn their attention from
it. It would have been the labor of a long life to
enlighten the minds of any considerable number of
Jews upon topics such as these.
Let us consider another case. The Jews had
adopted what is called the allegorical mode of interpreting their sacred books; and had found many
supposed predictions and types of their expected
Messiah in factitious senses which they ascribed to
particular passages. This mode of interpretation
was adopted by some of the Apostles. We find
examples of it as used by them in the Gospels of
both Matthew and John, and in the Acts of the
Apostles. One is surprised, perhaps, that this mistake was not corrected by Christ. Nothing may
seem more simple, than that he should have indicated that this whole system of interpretation, and
this method of proof, so far as the supposed prophecies were applied to himself, were erroneous.
But would you have had him at the same time
teach the whole art of interpretation? If he had
not done so, errors as great might have been committed from some other cause. If he had corrected
some wrong conceptions only, and left others, the




NOTE B.                419
latter from that very circumstance would have acquired new authority. But to have taught the art
of interpretation only would not have been sufficient to enable his hearers to become skilful expositors of the Old Testament; he must have
settled the yet disputed questions concerning the
age, the authorship, the authority, and what has
been called the inspiration, of the different writings
that compose it; and whoever has studied these
subjects with an unbiassed and inquiring mind
may, I think, be satisfied that the truth concerning
them is such as no Jew was prepared to listen to,
and few indeed would have listened to without astonishment and wrath.
But let us suppose that he had attempted only
to correct the single error which consisted in the
false application of many passages to the Messiah;
what would have been the consequence?  His
enemies would undoubtedly have contended, that
it was idle to suppose him to be the Messiah. He
does not even pretend, they would have triumphantly said, to be the object of the prophecies by
which, according to all those learned in the Law
and in our traditions, the Messiah is foretold. Perhaps he would have us believe, that no Messiah
has been promised; but that he has as good a
claim as any other to that title. Has he not come
from Beelzebub, to teach that the prophecies are
false and our hopes vain, that God has ceased to
care for his people, and thus to seduce us from our
faith and allegiance?
40




420               APPENDIX.
BUT in connection with this subject there is another fact to be attended to. In teaching or enforcing truth, the language of error may be used in
order powerfully to affect the feelings; because it
has associations with it which no other language
will suggest. Such use of it implies no assent to
the error on which it is founded. He who employs
the epithets "diabolical," or "fiendish," affords from
that circumstance alone no reason to suppose that
he believes in the existence of devils or fiends.
There is much language of the same character.
We still borrow many expressions from imaginary
beings of ideal beauty and grace, from fairies and
sylphs, beings whose real existence was once believed. We have no reluctance to use words derived from the false opinions concerning witchcraft,
possession, and magic. We use those which have
been mentioned, and many terms of a similar kind,
because they furnish, or seem to furnish, expressions more forcible than we could otherwise command. But this fact has been disregarded in reasoning from the language of Christ. Expressions
founded upon the conceptions of the Jews, and
used by him because no other modes of speech
would have so powerfully affected their minds,
have been misunderstood as intended to convey a
doctrine taught by himself. This remark is applicable to those few passages in his discourses in
which he speaks, according to the belief of the
Jews, of Satan as if he were a real being, such as
the following: "I saw Satan falling from heaven
like lightning"; -" Your father is the Devil, and




NOTE B.                421
you are ready to execute his evil purposes"; —
" The enemy who sowed the tares is the Devil";and particularly to the figurative and parabolic
narrative in which he represented himself as having been tempted by Satan.  I say in which
he represented himself, for it is evident that the
narrative of the Evangelists could have been derived from Christ alone. Satan was regarded by
the Jews as the great adversary of God and man,
the Tempter, the Accuser, the source of moral and
physical evil. No words could so forcibly impress
them with a conception of the odiousness and depravity of any act or character, as by resembling
it to him, or referring it to him as its suggester
or author. They were familiar with the imagination of such a being, and through this imagination their minds were most powerfully to be affected. The abstract idea of moral evil, if, indeed,
they could have apprehended it, would have been
to them a shadowy phantom, compared with it as
hypostatized and vivified in its supposed malignant author. Under circumstances in which it is
impossible to explain the whole truth, or in which
it is certain that the whole truth cannot be understood and felt, in addressing men who are unaccustomed to exercise their understandings, and who
from childhood have incorporated false conceptions
with right principles of action, we may use their
errors for their reformation; we may appeal to
their feelings or their fears through their mistaken
imaginations; we may employ one wrong opinion
to counteract others more pernicious; and in rea



422               APPENDIX.
soning, exhortation, or reproof, we may thus avail
ourselves of their more innocent prejudices in opposition to their passions and vices. But in doing
this, we are precluded from directly assailing those
prejudices; though we may at the same time be
establishing truths which will effect their gradual
abolition. Such was, I believe, in some particulars, the mode of teaching adopted by Christ.
IN regard to some of the errors of his disciples, it
may be a question whether the plainest language
would in itself alone have been sufficient to remove
them. I may rather say, it evidently would not
have been sufficient. The very subject of this volume shows, if the opinions maintained in it be true,
that the plainest language has not been sufficient
to preserve men from the grossest errors. Yet the
words of Christ have not less authority as recorded
in the Gospels, than when uttered by his own lips.
But we are not obliged to reason thus indirectly.
We may see in the accounts of his ministry, how
often our Saviour was not understood by his disciples. As he was approaching Jerusalem  for the
last time, he called the Twelve together and said:
" Lo! we are going up to Jerusalem," and the Son
of Man' will be delivered into the hands of the
Gentiles, and mocked, and insulted, and spit upon;
and having scourged him, they will put him to
death; and on the third day he will return to life."
No language can be more simple and explicit than
this. But the Evangelist goes on to relate, that
the Apostles "understood this not at all; the mean



NOTE B.                423
ing of his words was hidden from them, and they
did not comprehend what he said."* How little
they understood this and other declarations of
Christ may appear from  the fact, that the next
event recorded by the Evangelists is the application
on the part of James and John for the highest
places, under Christ, in that temporal kingdom on
which their hopes were still fixed. The prediction
of his resurrection, though repeatedly made by him,
was, we know, so little comprehended by them, that
no hope, and apparently no thought, of that event
was entertained by them after his death. It is not
strange, therefore, that they expected a visible return of our Saviour from heaven, to establish his
kingdom, though he himself had declared, " The
kingdom of God is not coming with any show that
may be watched for; nor will men say, Lo! it is
here; or, Lo! it is there; for lo! the kingdom of
God is within you"; and though in the clearest
manner, and under circumstances the most solemn,
he had affirmed, " My kingdom is not of this world."
WE are apt to fall into a great mistake, from
not distinguishing between the feelings and conceptions, the whole state of character, of an enlightened Christian at the present day, and those
of the Jews to whom  Christ preached. It may
seem to us as if a few words of his would have
been sufficient to do away any error, however inveterate, because we think their effect would be
* Luke xviii. 31-34.
40*




424               APPENDIX.
such upon our own minds. We may wonder that
those words were not uttered. We may almost be
tempted to ask, Why was a teacher from God so
sparing of his knowledge, so limited in his instructions? Why did he not deliver his Apostles at
least from all their mistaken apprehensions having
any connection with the facts or truths of religion?
How could he leave the world with so many false
and pernicious opinions existing around him in full
vigor, against which he had not declared himself?
And why, with the same feelings, we might go on
to ask, do the great truths of religion appear, as
disclosed by him, in such naked, monumental, severe grandeur?  Why do they stand alone, separated from all truths not essential to our faith?
Why were not the many questions answered, the
many doubts solved, which we might be disposed
to lay before Christ, or which his disciples, if we
imagine them as inquiring and as teachable as
ourselves, might have proposed?
To inquiries such as these it has been my purpose to afford some answer in what has been suggested. As a teacher from God, it was the proper
and sole office of Christ to make known to men,
on the authority of God, the fundamental truths
of religion. To inculcate these alone was a task
which demanded all his efforts, his own undivided
attention, and that of his most willing hearers.
They were to be kept distinct from all other truths.
The minds of men were not to be withdrawn from
them by bringing any other subject into discussion.
When we ask why Christ did not proceed further




NOTE B.                425
to enlighten his hearers, we forget how unprepared
they were for such instruction, what prejudices
must have been overcome, what wrong associations
broken, how much of inquiry on their part, and of
explanation on his, would have been necessary,
how liable his language was to be misunderstood,
and how fatal it would have been to the purpose
of his mission thus to occupy their thoughts upon
topics unconnected with it.  We forget what opposition he had to encounter, how all his words
and actions were watched with malignant eyes,
how often his enemies came proposing questions
to try what he would say, that they might find
opportunity to injure him.* We do not remember,
that no error could be touched without affording
some new occasion or pretence of hatred; and that
whatever he spoke would be misunderstood, perverted, misrepresented, and made a ground for false
inferences. We do not keep in mind the imperfect
apprehensions of his disciples, of which we find
continual notices in the Gospels, and the utter indocility of the great body of the Jews, which is
equally apparent. We forget, that, after a ministry of unintermitted effort, he fell a sacrifice to
the truths which he did teach. In asking why his
instructions did not extend to other truths, and to
the correction of errors not essential, we forget how
difficult was his proper office, we forget by whom
he was surrounded, we forget the reproach that
was forced from his lips: " 0 unbelieving and per* The Common Version says, " to tempt him."




426               APPENDIX.
verse race  how long shall I be with you? How
long must I bear with you? " It was not to men
so little ready to receive his essential doctrines that
any unnecessary instruction was to be addressed.
We mistake altogether the state of the case, when,
in reading the Gospels, we conceive of Christ as
teaching with the same freedom of explanation,
and with the same use of language, with which
we may perhaps reasonably suppose that he would
have taught a body of enlightened men, receiving
his words with the entire deference with which we
now regard them.
The wisdom and the self-restraint, for so it is
to be considered, of our Saviour, in confining his
teaching to the essential truths of religion, and the
broad distinction which he thus made between
these and all other doctrines, appear to me among
the most striking proofs of the divinity of his mission.  I cannot believe, that a merely human
teacher would have conducted himself with such
perfect wisdom; that he would never have attempted to Use his authority, or have displayed
his superior knowledge, in maintaining other truths
than those which essentially concern the virtue and
happiness of mankind; that he would have refrained from exposing or contradicting the errors
of his opponents on any other subjects; that he
would have succeeded in communicating to his
disciples those principles which are the foundation
of all religion and morality, without perplexing
their minds by the discussion of any topics less
important; and, at last, have left his doctrine a




NOTE B.                427
monument for all future time, - not like the works
of some enlightened men, which perish with the
errors they destroy, but remaining a universal code
of instruction for mankind.
BUT there is another very different point of view,
under which the subject we have been examining
affords, I think, proof of the divine origin of Christianity. If the Gospels are an authentic account
of what was done and said by Christ, no question
can remain whether Christ were a teacher from
God. But that they are so, we have evidence in
the facts which have been'brought to view.
When we compare the language of Christ respecting his future coming with the expectations
expressed by his Apostles, we perceive that his
language was misunderstood by them.  He did
not predict his visible return to earth to be the
judge of men.  There is nothing in his words
which requires or justifies such an interpretation
of them. It has appeared, I trust, that the figurative language which he used is to be understood in
a very different sense.
But the Apostles, from various causes, were expecting such a return of their Master. Their words
admit of no probable explanation except as referring to this anticipated event.  What, then, follows as a correct inference from this comparison?
It follows, that the words relating to this subject,
which are ascribed to Christ in the Gospels, were
truly his words. They were not falsely ascribed
to him. They were not imagined for him. They




428                APPENDIX.
were not conformed to the apprehensions of his
followers.  Had his followers fabricated or intentionally modified the words, they would have made
their Master say what they themselves have said,
in language as explicit as their own.
Here, then, we have evidence of the most unsuspicious kind, for it is clearly evidence which it was
the purpose of no individual to furnish, that certain words recorded in the Gospels were uttered
by Christ. The writers of these books did not in
this case fabricate language expressive of their own
opinions, and ascribe it to him. And if they did
not in this case, concerning a subject on which
they taught what he did not teach, we have no
reason to suspect them of having, in any other
case, intentionally ascribed to him words which he
did not utter.
The words, then, ascribed to Christ in the Gospels are words of Christ. They have been reported
by well-informed individuals, who had no intention
of deceiving, and who did not even conform them
to their own apprehension of their meaning. I will
not pursue the inferences from these truths. I will
only observe, that the proof of them, as we have
seen, is, through the providence of God, bound up
in the New Testament itself.  An error of the
Apostles proves the reality of their faith. In seeking to solve a difficulty, we discover unexpected
evidence of the truth of Christianity. And I am
persuaded, that, as the New Testament is better
understood, as the false notions that have prevailed
concerning it pass away, and it is made a sub



NOTE B.                429
ject of enlightened investigation and philosophical
study, new and irresistible proofs will appear of
that fact, of which we can hardly estimate the full
magnitude and interest, that Christ was a teacher
from God.
IN reference, indeed, to the very subject we have
been examining, there is another consideration well
deserving attention. We have seen what were the
anticipations of the Apostles concerning the personal return of their Master to earth, and the
approaching termination of the world.  But in
connection with these expectations, a remarkable
phenomenon presents itself. We might have supposed, that the imaginations and feelings of the
Apostles would have been seized upon and inflamed by the prospect of such events; that they
would have continually placed them  before the
eyes of those whom  they addressed, and have
urged them upon the thoughts of men; that their
exhortations and warnings would always have
borne the impress of anticipations so extraordinary
and so exciting. But this is not the case.   Ve
may read far the greater part of what they have
left us in writing, without discovering an intimation that they held such opinions. It is clear, that
they did not insist upon the facts in question as of
any considerable moment.  They introduce the
mention of them as accessory ideas in connection
with the doctrine of immortality and retribution.
Imagine any other body of individuals laboring
with like earnestness and devotion for the reforma



430               APPENDIX.
tion of their fellow-men, under a similar belief of
the approaching end of the world;- imagine what
would be the feelings and language of such individuals, and contrast them with those of the Apostles, and you may perceive what a singular phenomenon is presented in the New Testament.
In what manner is this phenomenon to be explained?  How is the problem to be solved, that
men, anticipating the end of the world and the
final judgment of mankind as at hand, should have
insisted so little upon these events for the purpose
of exciting the terrors or the hopes of those whom
they addressed? It can be explained, I think, bat
in one way. The feelings which those expected
events would naturally have produced were absorbed in the deeper, the intenser feeling, produced
by a thorough conviction of the essential truths of
religion. To them, who knew themselves the creatures, the care, the special ministers, of the God of
Love; to them, the disciples of his Son, the witnesses, nay, themselves the very agents, of that
divine power by which the laws of nature were
suspended; to them, before whose view the clouds
resting upon eternity had been rolled away, - the
consummation of this world was of little more concern than the revolution of an empire. Assured of
immortality, and with everything to give strength
to the feeling which this assurance is adapted to
produce, it was of small moment to them or to
their disciples whether with the dead they should
be raised incorruptible, or whether with the living
they should be changed. One all-penetrating sen



NOTE B.               431
timent of the truth of their religion annihilated the
power of smaller excitements. Their feelings were
calmed by the contemplation of one absorbing interest, which no changes could affect.
How, then, was this conviction of the truth oI
their religion produced, - this conviction which so
wrought upon their minds that the anticipated
consummation and judgment of the world had no
power strongly to move them? There is one an
swer to this question which a Christian will give
I know of no other.




NOTE C.
BY THE EDITOR.
(See pp. 183 -191.)
VARIOUS READINGS OF CERTAIN PASSAGES SUPPOSED TO HAVE A BEARING ON THE DOCTRINE
OF THE TRINITY.
BESIDE the three celebrated passages which have been
remarked upon by Mr. Norton,-Acts xx. 28, 1 Timothy iii. 16, and 1 John v. 7, 8,- there are others, of more
or less importance, whose supposed bearing on the doctrine
of the Trinity is affected by various readings of the original
text. It is the object of the present note to exhibit all the
passages of this class that can be regarded as of any consequence, where a reading different from that followed in the
Common Version has been adopted in any of the leading
critical editions of the Greek Testament which have been
published in the present century. In some instances, the
reading thus adopted may be thought more favorable to
the Trinitarian theory than that which before stood in
the text; in others, the reverse is the case.
The examples which are about to be given of various
readings of the Greek text of the New Testament, in connection with those which have already been noticed, might
perhaps lead one imperfectly acquainted with the subject to
suppose the differences in the original manuscripts to be
more important than they really are. The number of these
differences, or various readings, is very large; but an examination of them tends only to confirm our confidence in




NOTE C.                      433
the essential correctness with which the text of the New
Testament has been transmitted to us.  At least nineteen
twentieths of them, as Mir. Norton has remarked,* may be
dismissed at once from consideration, as being so obviously
errors of transcribers, or found in so few authorities, that
no critic would regard them  as having any claim  to be
received as genuine.  Setting these aside, we shall find
that about the same proportion of those which remain are
of no sort of consequence as affecting the sense. A small
number, however, are of a nature to excite some interest;
there are a few  passages of considerable length in the
Received Text whose genuineness is doubtful or more than
doubtful, as the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, the last
twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark, and the story of the
woman taken in adultery.  See also, in the critical editions,
Matthew xxiii. 14; xxvii. 35; Mark vi. 11; Luke ix. 55,
56; xvii. 36; John v. 3, 4; Acts viii. 37; ix. 5, 6; and xxiv.
6-8.  But it may be safely said, that the various readings do not appreciably affect the evidence of any theological doctrine except the doctrine of the Trinity; and
with respect to this, their importance has often been exaggerated.  Still, in studying the Scriptures to ascertain what
they teach, the first thing to be settled is, what is Scripture.
If words which purport to be a part of Scripture, in the
copies which are in common use, are spurious, or doubtful,
the lover of truth will wish to know it; and the greater his
reverence for Scripture, the more desirous will he be not to
confound the mistakes of transcribers with the words of
Evangelists and Apostles.
The place of true reverence for Scripture has, however,
* Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I., Additional Note A, Sect. III., " On the Character and Importance of the
Various Readings of the New Testament," p. xxxviii. The substance of this Section is reprinted in Mr. Norton's Notes on the Gospels, Preliminary Note I.




434                    APPENDIX.
too often been usurped by a blind and superstitious reverence for what has been called the " Received Text."  It
will be proper, therefore, before entering on the principal
subject of this note, to state some facts in regard to the history of the printed Greek text of the New Testament.
THE earliest printed edition of the Greek Testament was
that contained in the fifth volume of the Complutensian
Polyglot.  The printing of this volume, it appears, was
completed in 1514; but it was not published till 1522.
The manuscripts which were used for it have never been
identified, though the story of their having been sold to a
rocket-maker is now exploded; * and there has been much
controversy respecting their value. The editors speak of
them as "very ancient and correct"; but there is reason
for questioning their competency to determine the fact.
The art of criticism was then in its infancy; such works as
MIontfaucon's Palaeographia Greeca did not exist; and, as
Bentley says, "it is not everybody knows the age of a
manuscript."  It is remarked by Bishop Marsh, that the
text which they have given almost invariably agrees with
that of the modern Greek manuscripts, - such as were
written in the thirteenth century or later,- where these
differ from the most ancient, and from the quotations of the
early Greek Fathers.  "There cannot be a doubt, therefore," he says, "that the Complutensian text was formed
from modern manuscripts alone." t  Wetstein had before
come to the same conclusion.+
The first published edition of the Greek Testament was
* See an article by Dr. James Thomson, first published in the
Biblical Review for March 1847, and afterwards reprinted in Tregelles's " Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament,"
pp. 12-18.
t Lectures, &c., p. 96.
t Nov. Test. Graec. (Prolegom.), Tom. I. p. 118.




NOTE c.                     435
printed at Basle in 1516, under the editorial care of Erasmus. The Greek text was accompanied by a revised Latin
version, and a large body of annotations. Though some
preparation had been made for the work, much of it was unfinished when the printing was commenced; * Erasmus was
carrying through the press at the same time an edition of
the works of St. Jerome, and a new edition of his Adagia;
yet the whole volume, containing nearly one thousand folio
pages, was printed in less than six months! Prcvcipitatum
fuit verius quamn editun, " it was driven headlong through
the press rather than edited," as Erasmus himself says in
one of his letters.t The cause of this excessive haste was
the fear of the publisher, Froben, that his edition would be
anticipated by the Complutensian. Only four or five manuscripts were used, all of them modern, and, with one exception, of very little value. A second and more correct
edition was published by Erasmus in 1519, and a third in
1522. According to Mill, the second edition differs from
the first in about four hundred places, and the third from
the second in one hundred and eighteen. The text of Erasmus was worst in the Apocalypse, of which he had but a
single manuscript, and that mutilated, wanting the last six
verses of the book. This deficiency he supplied as well as
he could by retranslating from  the Latin Vulgate into
Greek. In his fourth edition, which appeared in 1527, he
altered the text of the Apocalypse in about ninety places
on the authority-of the Complutensian Polyglot, but made
few other changes.  His fifth edition, published in 1535,
varies scarcely at all from the fourth. Compared with the
first, its text would seem, according to the account of Mill,
to have been altered in about six hundred places. Of these
* "Conficiebatur [Conficiebantur is a misprint] simul et excudebatur opus." - Erasmi Epist. CCLI. (Budaeo.) Opp. III. col. 250.
t Epist. CCLXXIV. (Pirckheimero.) Opp. III. col. 268.
41 *




436                   APPENDIX.
changes, in the judgment of the same critic, more than one
hundred were not improvements.
The principal editions of the Greek Testament published
in the sixteenth century subsequently to the fifth of Eras.
mus, were those of Robert Stephens and Beza. Among
the various editions of Stephens, the third, printed at Paris
in 1550, is the most celebrated, and the most important in
its influence on others which succeeded it. Fifteen manuscripts and the Complutensian edition were collated for it,
the various readings being noted in the margin. It was
the first edition which contained a critical apparatus of this
kind. The manuscripts collated, however, were used very
little, if at all, for the improvement of the text. As Tregelles remarks, "the various readings seem rather to be
appended as an ornament," the text, in reality, differing but
slightly from the fifth edition of Erasmus, except in the
Apocalypse, where the Complutensian was chiefly followed.
The splendor of its typography, and the display of various
readings, appear, however, to have given this edition a reputation to which it had no title from intrinsic merit. Its
credit among Protestants was also doubtless enhanced by
the fact that Stephens, who had been much harassed by the
bigoted doctors of the Sorbonne, withdrew to Geneva soon
after its publication, and announced himself a convert to the
doctrines of the Reformation.
Beza, who published five editions of the Greek Testament, accompanied with a Latin version and notes, in 1565,
1576, 1582, 1589, and 1598, had some highly valuable
manuscripts.  But he made very little use of them.  He
mostly followed the text of Stephens's third edition, and
where he differed from it often altered it for the worse,
sometimes introducing readings on mere conjecture, and
frequently on very slight authority. In his version and
notes he has in many instances followed readings different
from those which he has retained in the Greek text.




NOTE C.                      437
The common English version of the Bible, made by
order of King James, was first published in 1611.  The
Greek text followed by the translators seems to accord
more nearly with that of Beza's fifth edition (1598) than
with any other. It agrees with Beza in opposition to the
third edition of Robert Stephens in about eighty places;
with Stephens in opposition to Beza, in about half that
number; and in about a dozen instances it differs from
both.* Most of these variations are very trivial.
We come now to the edition of the Greek Testament
published by the Elzevirs at Leyden in 1624.  This was
based on the third edition of Stephens, a few readings,
however, being derived from  other sources, particularly
from  Beza.  It differs from  Stephens in only about one
hundred and seventy places, the variations being, for the
most part, quite insignificant, many of them, indeed, such as
cannot be expressed in a translation.  Meeting with favor
on account of its neatness, its convenient form, and the high
reputation of the Elzevir press for typographical accuracy,
it was reprinted in 1633 with a preface in which the publishers assure the reader that he has " a text which is now
received by all," - " Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus
receptum." This assertion, if not strictly true when it was
made, soon became so, substantially; and the Elzevir text,
formed by an unknown editor in the infancy of biblical criticism, was in almost universal use on the continent of Europe till near the beginning of the present century. It is
this which is generally referred to as the " Textus Receptus" or "Received Text."  It does not differ materially
from the text followed in the common English version of
the New Testament.
* Many of these passages are referred to in the lists given by
Scrivener, in his "Supplement to the Authorised English Version
of the New Testament," Vol. I. pp. 7, 8; but his enumeration is far
from complete.




438                   APPENDIX.
In Great Britain the current text has varied a little
from the Elzevir, being essentially that of the third edition
of Robert Stephens,- "the Vulgate of the Protestant
Pope Stephens," as Bentley called it, his text having become a sort of standard among Protestants, like the Clementine edition of the Vulgate among Roman Catholics. Stephens's text was adopted in Walton's Polyglot, 1657, and
was reprinted by Mill in 1707, with a few slight, unintentional variations, as the basis of his laborious collection of
various readings from manuscripts, ancient versions, and
Fathers, designed to serve as materials for a critical edition
of the Greek Testament.  Mill expresses his opinion of
many of the various readings in his Prolegomena and
Notes, and frequently condemns those adopted by Stephens;
but he did not pretend to give a recension of the text. His
reprint of Stephens, however, which has generally been
copied in the editions of the Greek Testament published in
England, has often been termed " Mill's text," as if it had
the sanction of his critical judgment. This is the text which,
now in the middle of the nineteenth century, the American Bible Union has adopted as the basis of its proposed
revision of King James's version of the New Testament.
From the statements which have been made, it will be
seen that the Received Text resolves itself, substantially,
into that of the fifth edition of Erasmus; a scholar indeed,
worthy of the highest respect and admiration, but who
edited the Greek Testament, to use the language of Griesbach, "as he could, from a very few manuscripts and those
quite modern, with no other helps except the Latin Vulgate
in an interpolated state, and the writings of a few inaccurately edited Fathers." *
SINCE the time when the Received Text was formed, a
* Prolegom. in N. T., Sect. I. p. xxxvii., ed. Schulz.




NOTE C.                     439
vast amount of critical materials has been made available
for its improvement. The great collection of various readings by Mill, published near the beginning of the last century, - the work of thirty years, - has already been referred to. This collection was much enlarged by Bengel
and Wetstein. Toward the close of the last century it was
again more than doubled in amount by the labors of Griesbach, Matthaei, Alter, and Birch. In the present century,
Scholz, in his Biblisch-kritische Reise, or " Travels for the
Purpose of Biblical Criticism," and in his edition of the
Greek Testament, has given an account of more than three
hundred manuscripts never before examined for critical
purposes; but a great majority of them are comparatively
recent, and his collations were very cursory and inaccurate.
The indefatigable and far better directed labors of Tischendorf and Tregelles have afforded us, for the first time, an
exact knowledge of many very ancient and important documents, which had before been but imperfectly collated. I
pass over numerous minor contributions to our stock of
critical materials.  The result of the whole is, that the
most ancient manuscripts- those written in uncial or capital letters - have now been thoroughly collated, and all
the more important of them accurately transcribed and published, with the exception of the celebrated Vatican manuscript; and more than eight hundred of the later manuscripts containing the whole or parts of the New Testament
have been examined in a greater or less degree, some of
them thoroughly, but most of them very cursorily. The
ancient versions, and numerous quotations from the New
Testament in the writings of the Christian Fathers, have also
been compared with the common text.  There is still room
for useful labor in the collation of the more important cursive manuscripts; there is need of more accurate editions and
of a more careful examination of several of the ancient ver



440                   APPENDIX.
sions; and much remains to be done in enlarging, correcting, and sifting the critical materials which have been collected from the writings of the Fathers. But it is safe to
say, that the means which we have at our command for
accurately editing the Greek New  Testament very far
exceed those which we possess in the case of any ancient
heathen writer whose works have come down to us.
Though important materials for the correction of the
Received Text had been long accumulating, it was not till
near the close of the last century that they were much
used. The first who turned them to proper account was
Griesbach, whose edition of the Greek Testament, published in 1775 -77, marks an era in biblical criticism.
His second and principal edition, in which the critical apparatus was greatly enlarged, was published at Halle and
London in 1796-1806; a manual edition appeared at
Leipsic in 1805. Though the second volume of his larger
edition bears the date 1806, it was mostly printed several
years before, so that the manual edition generally represents his later judgment.
The leading editions of the Greek Testament which have
been published in the present century are those of Griesbach, Matthsei, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, to
which may perhaps be added that of Alford, though the
last has not, like the others which haye been named, added
anything to our critical materials. Griesbach's has already
been noticed; Matthsei's was published at Wittenberg, Hof,
and Ronneburg, in 1803 -7, 3 vols. 8vo; Scholz's at
Leipsic, in 1830 -36, 2 vols. 4to; and Lachmann's larger
edition at Berlin, in 1842- 50, 2 vols. 8vo. Tischendorf's
second Leipsic edition appeared in 1849, 8vo, and the
second edition of Alford's Greek Testament, Vols. I. and
II. (ending with the Second Epistle to the Corinthians),
was published at London in 1854-55.  (First edition,
1849 - 52.)  The third volume has not yet been issued.




NOTE C.                     441
To give a comparative estimate of the value of these
editions, and to point out in detail their distinguishing
characteristics, cannot here be attempted. The eminent
merits of Griesbach are too well known to need particular
remark.  Of the other editions which have been mentioned, Lachmann's and Tischendorf's have at present the
highest reputation, among those qualified to pronounce on
such matters, both on the Continent and in Great Britain;
while the critical judgment of Matthxei and of Scholz is
little esteemed. -Matthaei's edition of 1803-7, and his
earlier one published at Riga in 1782 - 88, 12 vols. 8vo,
contain some useful materials; but his violent prejudices
unfitted him  for the office of a critic. -The value of
Scholz's labors is greatly diminished by his want of accuracy as well as of judgment. -  Lachmann's edition is
founded on very ancient authorities, but too limited in
number, and, in the case of some important manuscripts,
not thoroughly collated. Discarding internal and collateral evidence, he adopts the reading best supported by his
few select authorities, even when he does not regard it as
genuine.  His text is followed in the recent works of Stanley and Jowett on the Epistles of St. Paul. - The second
Leipsic edition of Tischendorf, taken as a whole, is unquestionably the most important and valuable critical edition of
the Greek Testament which has appeared since the time of
Griesbach.  Less cautious than Griesbach, he is sometimes liable to the charge of adopting readings unsupported
by sufficient authority; but Alford pronounces his text
"very far superior to any which have preceded it."* —
* Greek Testament, Vol. I. Prolegomena, p. 77, 2d ed. —Some
account of Tischendorf and his labors may be found in the Bibliotheca Sacra for July 1852, Vol. IX. pp. 623 - 628. The first fasciculus of a new and apparently much enlarged edition of Tischendorf's Greek Testament has very lately been published at Leipsic.




442                   APPENDIX.
Alford, in the first edition of the first volume of his Greek
Testament, containing the Gospels, professedly gave only
"a provisional text," one, he says, " which may be regarded
as an experiment how far the public mind in England may
be disposed to receive even the first and plainest results of
the now advanced state of textual criticism." *  The success of the experiment seems to have been encouraging;
for in the second volume of his work, and in a new edition of the first, he has ventured to give the text according
to his judgment of the evidence. He does not appear to
be a critic of the highest order, but his judgment is better
than might be supposed from the manner in which he commenced his editorial labors. There is no hazard in saying,
that, so far as the criticism of the text is concerned, his edition is much the best which has yet been published in England. - Meyer has given a critical discussion of the various
readings, in his Commentary on the New Testament, extending to the First Epistle to the Thessalonians (not inclusive), the notes on the remaining books, excepting the
Epistle to Philemon and the Apocalypse, being prepared by
his coadjutors Liinemann and Huther. Many of his remarks are acute and valuable. His " Kommentar," so far as
it goes, is one of the best helps which we possess in the critieal study of the text of the New Testament, to say nothing
of its exegetical merits. - The long-delayed edition of Dr.
S. P. Tregelles promises, when published, to be a work of
great interest and value. In his " Book of Revelation in
Greek, edited from Ancient Authorities; with a new English Version," &c. (London, 1844), and his "Account of
the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament" (London,
1854), as well as in various articles in Kitto's Journal of
Sacred Literature, Dr. Tregelles has shown himself to be
a truly conscientious, independent, and intelligent critic.
* Prolegomena, p. 70, 1st ed.




NOTE C.                     443
His untiring zeal and industry in the accurate collation of
the most important ancient manuscripts of the New Testament entitle him to the gratitude of all who desire to possess a pure text of the records of our religion. But this is
not the place to give even a slight sketch of his arduous
and disinterested labors.
Other editions of the Greek Testament of secondary importance which have been examined for the purposes of
this note, it may be sufficient, with one exception, simply
to mention; as Knapp's, 4th ed., Halle, 1829 (first ed.
1797); Schott's, 3d ed., Leipsic, 1825 (first ed. 1805);
Tittmann's, 2d stereotype ed., Leipsic, 1828  (first ed.
1820); Vater's, Halle, 1824; Hahn's, Leipsic, 1840, —
American ed. by Dr. Robinson, New York, 1842; and
Theile's, stereotype ed., Leipsic, 1844 (4th ed. 1852).
None of these calls for special remark, except that of
Hahn, which, having been reprinted in this country under
the superintendence of so distinguished a scholar as Dr.
Robinson, and introduced to the American public with
high commendation by Professor Stuart,* requires a notice
which its intrinsic importance would not justify.
Hahn professes to give, in his notes, a view of all the
readings approved by Griesbach, Knapp, and Scholz,t
with a selection from those adopted by Lachmaun in his
first edition, published in 1831. Now it will hardly be
pretended that a critical editor "approves" those readings
which he has marked as probably spurious.  Griesbach has
so marked words of the Received Text in about four hundred and ninety instances.  But Hahn takes no notice of
this, leaving his readers to suppose that Griesbach, in all
* See the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1843, p. 274, et seqq.
t "Ita ut, qui nostra editione usuri essent, sine ulla difficultate
omnes lectiones cognoscere possent, quas editores illi suo judicio probarunt."-Prefat., pp. viii., ix., ed. Amer.
42




444                   APPENDIX.
these cases, received the words as genuine. - Again, there
are many readings which Griesbach and Knapp have
marked as equal in point of authority with those retained
in the text. Knapp, for example, has so marked the reading Kvplov in Acts xx. 28, and os in 1 Timothy iii. 16. Such
readings are to be regarded as "approved" by these critics, as much as those which they have allowed to remain
in the text in their stead.  But Hahn affords those who
use his edition no intimation of their judgment respecting
them.  His edition, therefore, to say the least, very imperfectly represents the opinions of Griesbach and Knapp
concerning the various readings. —But, passing over the
defects which have been referred to, we shall find that his
work often gives erroneously what it professes to exhibit.
I have noted more than one hundred and thirty instances in
which the critical judgment of Knapp alone is incorrectly
represented.  Taking the Gospel of Matthew, for example,
in twenty-two instances Knapp is said to regard a reading as doubtful merely,* when, by inclosing it in double
brackets, he has marked it as unquestionably spurious; t in
two instances the double brackets of Knapp are disregarded; + and in three other places in this Gospel, the single
brackets of Knapp, indicating that he considered certain
words as doubtful, are passed over without remark. ~  In
Matthew viii. 29 the word'Ilro-o, which stands in the Received Text, is omitted without mention of the fact in the
notes. The different opinions of Griesbach, Knapp, Lachmann, and Scholz respecting it are of course not stated. In
* Matthew iv. 18; v. 27; vi. 13, 18; viii. 25, 32; ix. 13, 35; xii.
35; xiv. 22, bis, 25; xvi. 8; xx. 6, 22, 23; xxiii. 8; xxv. 13, 31;
xxvi. 9; xxvii. 35, 64.
" His [uncis duplicatis] ea notantur, quas sine dubio spuria esse
censebam." - Knapp, Comment. Isagog. p. xxviii.
t Matthew xviii. 35; xxviii. 20.
~ Matthew iv. 12; viii. 29; xxi. 12.




NOTE C.                      445
Matthew xxviii. 20, Hahn leaves his readers to suppose,
erroneously, that'Ajjv is retained as genuine by Griesbach
and Knapp, as it is by Scholz. In further illustration of
the character of Hahn's edition, I will only refer to his
treatment of the passage relating to the woman taken in
adultery, John vii. 53- viii. 11.  To this Griesbach prefixes a peculiar mark, indicating that its spuriousness is in
the highest degree probable; Knapp has bracketed it, and
in the Introduction to his Greek Testament (p. xxix.) expresses his belief that it does not belong to the Gospel of
John; and Lachmann has rejected it from the text. Hahn
not only retains it, but gives no hint that any of the editors
who have been named had a doubt of its genuineness.
One general remark should here be made respecting the
editions of Tittmann, Hahn, and Theile.  These critics
professedly retain the readings of the Received Text, unless
the evidence against them, in their judgment, greatly preponderates. It is only when the case is very clear, that
they venture to make a change.*  Their authority, therefore, whatever it may be, is obviously of much less weight
when they support the readings of the Received Text, than
when they reject them.
WE may now proceed to the examination of the passages
which form the principal subject of this note. It is to be
understood that the editions which have been mentioned
as published within the present century retain the reading of the Received Text unless the contrary is expressly
stated.
(1.) Matthew xix. 17.  "Why callest thou me good?
* See, for instance, Theile's Preface, p. vii.: - " Ubi vero in utramque partem disputari posset, si vel argumenta mutationem suadentia
prcevalerent, lectionem intactam relinquere maluimus."




446                    APPENDIX.
There is none good but one, that is, God."  Ti /e, XyeL
ayaOov; Ov6Elsd ayaOos, el pil els) 6 eto's.
Here the following reading is adopted by Griesbach,
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, and Tregelles, as
also by De Wette, Porter, and Davidson, and is marked by
Knapp and Vater as equal in point of authority to that of
the Received Text: — TI /e eporTav repL TOV ayaOov; Et
o-riT  o aya8os.  "Why askest thou me concerning what is
good?  One only is good."  Most of the critics who receive this reading as genuine omit the word "good" as an
epithet of "teacher" in the preceding verse.
In the parallel passages (Mark x. 17, 18, Luke xviii.
18, 19) which correspond with the Received Text in Matthew, there are no various readings of any consequence;
but this fact favors the supposition that transcribers altered
(as they thought, corrected) the text of Matthew to make
it conform to that of Mark and Luke.
(2.) Luke xxii. 43, 44.  " And there appeared an angel
unto him from heaven, strengthening him," &c.
These two verses are bracketed by Lachmann as doubtful, and are rejected by Granville Penn in his "Book of
the New  Covenant."  But they are retained by all the
other critical editors. Mr. Norton has given his reasons
for, regarding them as spurious in his Evidences of the
Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I., Additional Note A,
Section V. vi. pp. lxxxvii. - xci.
(3.) Luke xxiv. 52.  "And they worshipped him, and
returned to Jerusalem with great joy."  Kai avrol, TrpOo-KVw.ravrTe avro', vrreo-Tpeaav, K. 7. X. Here the words 7rpoO-KVvo-avres avrdv, corresponding to "worshipped him  and" in'
the translation, are rejected by Tischendorf. But his authorities seem altogether insufficient. The omission of the




NOTE C.                      447
words in the Cambridge manuscript (D), the only Greek
manuscript in which they are known to be wanting, and in
the manuscript or manuscripts from which the Old Latin
version was made, was very probably accidental, the transcriber, as Alford suggests, passing over them in consequence of the resemblance of AYTON to the preceding
AYTOI.
This passage has been quoted by Trinitarians as a proof
that Christ was worshipped by his disciples as the Supreme
Being.  But, as every one acquainted with the original
language knows, the word here translated "worshipped"
simply denotes " to pay reverence or homage by kneeling
or prostration," without defining the kind of reverence. It
is perpetually used in the Septuagint as the translation of
the Hebrew word rendered in the Common Version by " to
bow down before," " to do obeisance to," and the like. See,
for example, Genesis xxvii. 29; xxxvii. 7, 9, 10; xlix. 8:
Exodus xviii. 7, &c.  See also its use in Matthew xviii.
26; Rev. iii. 9. Dr. Robinson, in his excellent Lexicon of
the New  Testament, art. r-poo-Kvveo, no. 1, explains it in
this general sense, and not as denoting divine worship, in
all the passages in which it occurs in the Gospels in reference to Christ, including the present.* Here, the words
rTpocTKvvo-ravTre  avrov probably express the fact that the
disciples, as they beheld our Lord taken up from them
into heaven, knelt down, or prostrated themselves on the
ground before him, in reverence.t Mr. Norton, however,
* These passages are the following:- Matthew ii. 2, 8, 11; viii. 2;
ix. 18; xiv. 33; xv. 25; xx. 20; xxviii. 9, 17; Mark v. 6; xv. 19;
Luke xxiv. 52; John ix. 38. The only other passage in the New
Testament in which the word occurs in reference to Christ is in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (i. 6), where it is used of the reverence and
homage which the angels are commanded by God to pay to his Son,
as their superior.
t "'Having worshipped him,' 7rpoo-Kvvro1avres av'rov that is,' hav42*




448                    APPENDIX.
so far as can be judged from his translation,* seems to have
understood them as denoting merely the feeling of reverence
which filled the hearts of the disciples as they returned to
Jerusalem  after witnessing the ascension of their Master.
But is not the use of the aorist participle an objection to
this view?
It may be remarked that the word worship, both as a
noun and a verb, was used in a much wider sense at the
time when King James's version of the Bible was made,
than it is at the present day. Examples are abundant in
Shakespeare and other writers of that period. So in the
marriage service of the English Episcopal Church: "With
my body I thee worship."  In Luke xiv. 10, "Then shalt
thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat
with thee," the noun "worship" is a translation of the
Greek word 80aa, glory, honor.
(4.) John i. 18.  " No man hath seen God at any time;
the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him."  eeov OV8Els EwpaKe 7rC7TOTre'    iovoyerv1S vldo,  &v         70s TOv KOXTOVo TOy'arpoS, eteKos eLVo"aTo.
Here, instead of 6 ~,ovoyevqs viLo, "the only-begotten Son,"
we find in some important authorities the reading 5o,ovoyeedQost, "the only-begotten God."  This strange reading
(for so it will seem to most Trinitarians as well as to others) has not yet been adopted in any edition of the Greek
Testament; but it deserves notice, since it is defended by
a critic so worthy of respect as Dr. Tregelles. Michaelis
also appears disposed to regard it as the original reading; t
ing thrown themselves prostrate before him,' as the words strictly
interpreted imply." - Campbell in loc. See also Meyer's note.
* "And they, worshipping him, returned to Jerusalem with great
joy."
t Introduction to the New Testament, Chap. X. Sect. 2. Vol. II.
p. 393, 2d ed.




NOTE C.                     449
and Lachmann, as Dr. Tregelles assures us, would undoubtedly have received it into his text, had he known all
the authorities by which it is supported.
The evidence of manuscripts and versions for and against
the reading in question may first be stated. The testimony
of the Fathers will require a particular discussion.  It
should be premised that the words vlos (Son) and  eo's
(God), in the abbreviated form in which they are written
in the most ancient manuscripts (YC, 0-), differ in but a
single letter, so that one might easily be substituted for the
other through the inadvertence of a transcriber.
The reading eose, then, is found in the manuscripts B
C* L, 33; that is, in the Vatican manuscript, of about the
middle of the fourth century, in the Ephrem  manuscript
(a prima manu), probably written before the middle of the
fifth, in another highly valuable manuscript of the eighth
century, remarkable for its,general agreement with the
Vatican, and in a manuscript of the eleventh century, written in cursive letters, but preserving a very ancient text.
As to versions, it is supported by the Peshito Syriac, as
hitherto edited, the Coptic, the ZEthiopic, and the margin
of the Philoxenian or Harclean Syriac.
On the other hand, the reading vlos is that of the Alexandrine manuscript (A), probably written not long after
the middle of the fifth century, and of the manuscripts
X and A, written in the ninth century, but often agreeing
with the most ancient documents, in opposition to the later.
It is also found in the other uncial manuscripts E F G
H  K  NM  S U  V, ranging from the middle of the eighth
century to the tenth, and in several hundred manuscripts
in cursive letters, mostly later than the tenth century, but
some of them of much value from their usual accordance
with the best authorities. The ancient versions which exhibit it are the Old Latin or Italic, the Vulgate, the Cure



450                    APPENDIX.
tonian Syriac,* the Philoxenian Syriac (in the text), the
Jerusalem Syriac, and the Armenian.
So far as the evidence has yet been stated, it will probably be admitted that the common reading is best supported.
But it is on the testimony of the Fathers that the advocates
for the reading oeos appear chiefly to rely. The following
is the account given by Dr. Tregelles of this branch of the
evidence.
" As to fathers," he says, "the reading [eCos] may almost
be called general, for it is that of Clement of Alexandria,
Irenmus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Lucian, Basil,
Gregory of Nazianzum, Gregory of Nussa, Didymus, Basil
of Seleucia, Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Alexandria, Titus
of Bostra; as also of Theodotus (in the second century),
Arius, Marcellus, Eunomius, etc.; and amongst the Latins,
Hilary, Fulgentius, Gaudentius, Ferrandus, Phcebadius,
Vigilius, Alcuin, etc."  The reading vos' "is found twice
in Origen, in Eusebius, Basil, and Irenmeus (though all
these writers have also the other reading, and in general
they so speak of eeos in the passage, that vios must have
proceeded from the copyists):- the Latin writers in general agree with the Latin versions in reading jilius......
eeod, as the more difficult reading, is entitled to especial
attention; and, confirmed as it is by MSSS. of the highest
character, by good versions, and by the general consent of
early Greek writers (even when, like Arius, they were
opposed to the dogma taught), it is necessary, on grounds
* This name has been given to a very ancient and valuable Syriac
copy of part of the Gospels, - one of the Nitrian manuscripts recently added to the British Museum,- which is soon to be published
(if it has not been already) by the Rev. William Cureton. It is
"a version," as Tregelles remarks, " far more worthy the epithet of'venerable' than that which is called the Peshito as it has come down
to us." ("Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament," p. 137; comp. pp. 160, 161.)




NOTE C.                      451
of combined evidence, to receive it in preference to the
easier and more natural reading vdos." *
This array of authorities is certainly imposing; and the
argument would be forcible, perhaps conclusive, were it
not that the facts in the case have been greatly misapprehended.  Tregelles appears, like Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, and Alford, to have relied on Wetstein, whose general accuracy might well inspire confidence. But Wetstein,
in his note on this passage, has fallen into extraordinary
errors, many of which have been copied, without investigation, by the critics who have just been named.  One
who should take the statements in Wetstein's note to be
correct, would suppose that not less than forty-four Greek
and Latin writers, in the first eight centuries, have quoted
the passage in question with the reading fiovoyev^is eo'e or
unigenitus Deus; and that the number of distinct quotations of this kind in their writings, taken together, is not far
from one hundred and thirty. I have examined, with some
care, all the passages specifically referred to by Wetstein,
and the whole work, or collection of works cited, when his
reference is general, - as " Epiphanius duodecies," " Hilarius de Trinit. passim," "Fulgentius plusquam vicies,"not confining my attention, however, to these particular
passages or works.  The following is the result of this
examination.  Of the forty-four writers cited by Wetstein
in support of the reading uovoyevs Qeos, there are but four
who quote or refer to the passage with this reading only; t
four quote it with both readings;  nine quote it with the
reading vios or filius only, except that in one of the quo* "Account of the Printed Text," &c., pp. 234, 235.
t It is thus quoted in the "Excerpta Theodoti," and also by
Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius. It appears to be once
referred to in the Epistle of the second Synod of Ancyra.
$ Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, and Cyril of Alexandria.




452                      APPENDIX.
tations of Titus of Bostra vLto  eEo occurs;* two repeatedly allude to it, —sometimes using the phrase "onlybegotten God," and sometimes "only-begotten Son," in connection with the words "who is in the bosom  of the Father," -but do not distinctly quote it; t and twenty-fve do
not quote or allude to it at all. 1  Of the particular passages referred to by Wetstein, a great majority have no
bearing whatever on the subject, but merely contain the
expression uiovoyev7s  eose or unigenitus Deus, with no trace
of an allusion to the text in question, -  an expression often
occurring, as will hereafter appear, in writers who abundantly and unequivocally quote John i. 18 with the reading
vo  or filius.  Indeed, in some of these passages we do not
find even this expression, but only the term y7v7TOSv Eeo, or
genitus Deus, applied to Christ. ~ Sufficient evidence that
these assertions are not made at random will be given in
what follows, though the mistakes of Wetstein cannot here
be all pointed out in detail.
We may now examine the witnesses brought forward by
Dr. Tregelles.  Very few of these will stand cross-questioning. Of the twenty-five writers whom he has adduced
in support of the reading,ovoyevis eEo, but four, I believe, can be relied on with much confidence, and even
their testimony is far from  unexceptionable; three may be
regarded as doubtful; eight really support the common
* Eusebius, Athanasius, Julian, Gregory Nazianzen, Titus of Bostra, Maximinus the Arian bishop, Hilary, Vigilius of Tapsa, Alcuin.
t Gregory of Nyssa and Fulgentius.
t That is, all the remaining authorities cited by Wetstein, for
which see his note.
~ As in the following:-" Origenes in Psalm i. ap. Epiphanium,"
see Epiphan. Hoeres. LXIV. c. 7, Opp. I. 531, B, or Origen. Opp. II.
526, E; - " Eusebius D. IV. 2," i. e. Dem. Evang. Lib. IV. c. 2;" Prudentius in Apotheosi," viz. line 895;- " Claudianus Maamert. de
statu animse 1. 2," where Lib. I. c. 2 must be the place intended.




NOTE C.                      453
reading; two merely allude to the passage; and eight have
neither quoted nor alluded to it.
These statements of course require proof.  This will
now  be presented, so far as it can be within reasonable
limits.  Though few passages can be quoted at length,
pains will be taken to give very full and precise references
to the authorities relied on. In producing the testimony of
the Fathers, the time at which they flourished is indicated
in marks of parenthesis after their names. In assigning
these dates, either Cave or Lardner has generally been
followed.
Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 194) has once quoted
John i. 18 with the reading eeo;* but this evidence is
somewhat weakened by the fact that in another place, in
alluding to this text, he has the words Iovoyevqs vios  Oes.t
Another authority for this reading is the work which bears
the title "Extracts from Theodotus, and Heads of the Oriental Doctrine, so called, as it existed in the Time of Valentinus." It is sometimes quoted under the name of Doctrina
Orientalis. This compilation is supposed by many to have
been made by Clement of Alexandria, with whose works it
is generally printed.  "Theodotus" is several times cited
in it, but more frequently "the followers of Valentinus," a
famous Gnostic who flourished about A. D. 140.  The
passage which contains the quotation of John i. 18 with the
reading 5 j.ovoyevqs Oeos is introduced by the words "the
Valentinians say." t Didymus of Alexandria (A. D. 370)
has this reading twice; ~ and it occurs twice in the writings
* Stromat. Lib. V. c. 12. p. 695, ed. Potter.
t Tore eTro7TEVCToEL TOy KXO\7rV O 70   rarpo)o, v 0V  Looyevqs vlos
Geos!oOs vet'yvCIaro. - Quis dives salvetur, c. 38. p. 956.
t Doctrina Orient. c. 6, apud Clem. Alex. Opp. p. 968, ed. Pott.;
also in Fabricii Bibl. Grnec. Vol. V. p. 136, and in Bunsen's Analecta Ante-Nicaena, Vol. I. p. 211.
~ De Trinitate, Lib. I. p. 69, and Lib. II. p. 140, ed. Mingarel. Not




454                       APPENDIX.
of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in, Cyprus (A. D. 368).*
In another place, Epiphanius speaks of John as "calling
Christ only-begotten God."t  The reading  eoes also receives some support from a passage in the Epistle of the
second Synod of Ancyra (A. D. 358), in which it is said.
that John "calls the Logos of God only-begotten God." 
But one who has observed the inaccuracy of such references to Scripture in the writings of the Fathers, will not
attach much weight to this.
Among the numerous witnesses adduced by Wetstein and
Tregelles, these are all, as I believe, which really support
the reading esOs; and their testimony, as has already been
intimated, is far from  unexceptionable.  Didymus, as we
having been able to procure this volume, I take these references
at second hand from the work of Guericke, " De Schola que Alexandrinse floruit Catechetica," Pars II. p. 36. There is no quotation
of John i. 18 in the other extant writings of Didymus, most of which
exist only in a Latin translation.
* Haeres. LXV. c. 5. Opp. I. 612, C, ed. Petav. Here, in the remark which follows the quotation, Qeos and vlos are so interchanged
as to excite some suspicion of a corruption in the text. - lHeres.
LXX. c. 7. Opp. I. 817, 818. To 8e E.vayyeXtov E r' ~   OeVW ov8eLs
7J)7TrOTe ewpaKeV,  o lovoyevqs OeoSg avro efyVE  17caTo.
t MovoyEiv  eovy aVTov aCo'KO V.......  epl 7raTpos yeyparTral,
aXrqLOtov  eov'  7repL vLoOV 3, t7L OT  ovoyevrs OEo'. (Ancorat. c. 3.
Opp. II. 8, C, D.) A little before, however, the passage in question
is quoted thus: o /Iovoyev{s., 6 Cv elS TOV KOXrTOV TOO 7raTpos, a'TS tqyy,7o-aro. (Cap. 2. p. 7, C.) But so far as can be judged from
the confused and apparently corrupt text which precedes and follows,
it seems probable that the word ekos has here been omitted by the
mistake of a transcriber.
t'0 6 TOOV eEov TOtv Aoyov iovoyevQ  eeOv.... ~n, [. (Apud
Epiphan. Hasres. LXXIII. c. 8. Opp. I. 854, C.)  Supposing the
authors of this Epistle to have read vias in John i. 18, they might
still have thought themselves justified in making this statement by a
comparison of that verse with John i. 1, and by the fact that they
regarded the term Son, applied to Christ, as necessarily implying
his divinity. A little after the passage just cited (c. 9. p. 855, B)




NOTE  c.                         455
are informed by his pupils Palladius and Jerome, became
blind at four or five years of age. He has consequently
quoted  from  memory, and often inaccurately, repeatedly
assigning to one Epistle of Paul passages which belong to
another. In his first quotation of the present passage, as
given by Guericke, he has substituted ev rT  K'XO\7r  for dsl
roV KO XrOV, and  avros for  KEKLvos; in  the  second, which
extends only to the word 7rarpoc, he has ev Tro0   KOTX7OLS.
Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius are also notorious
for the carelessness of their quotations from Scripture.
Semisch, in his valuable work on the Apostolical Memoirs
used by Justin Martyr, after observing that many of the
Fathers have cited the New Testament from memory, says
they say: " The Son is God because he is Son of God, just as he
is man because he is Son of Man," - vlos OeoS.E'V, Ka0o vlos
Oeov, us aY'pco7ros, KaOo vios advOprrov.  So Eusebius says that
Christ is "the only-begotten Son of God, and therefore God," or
"a divine being," roi Oeo  /LovoyevlfsJ VLO, al Ka   aa Too VT eos
(Dem. Evang. Lib. V. c. 4. p. 227, B), and that "what is begotten of God must be God," or " divine," TO yEeyeV rI)Vov c K Tro Oeov
Oeos v E'lq (De Eccles. Theol. Lib. II. c. 14. p. 123, C, cf. p. 124,
C, and Lib. I. c. 12. p. 72, D). Eusebius applies the term eose
to Christ in an inferior sense. In quoting Eusebius here and elsewhere, I use Gaisford's edition, but refer to the pages of Viger's edition (Paris, 1628), which are noted in the margin of the former.
I will give a single illustration from  Gregory Nyssen of the want
of accuracy among the Fathers in such references to Scripture as
that which we are considering. This writer, in mentioning the names
which the Apostle Paul has given to Christ, says, among other
things, " He has called him.... a propitiation for souls,..... and
first-born of the new creation,.....and only-begotten Son, crowned
with glory and honor," &c. - avro v EKcaXae oE..... LXaor7plov
V X. V,..... Kal TS  K a L v   S KrTTEOCO   ITporoTo,.....
KaL vlov  iovoyEq e,                  V AO KaL TLA L, eOrEc/Iavo/Evov,  K. T.X. -
De Perf. Christ. Forma, Opp. III. 276, 277.  Compare De VitA
Mosis, Opp. I. 225, D: 00os [o a1rororo-Xo]  qLVo tv.   8t   I rpo'ero 6 EeoS  LXa(rrTptov T  v     v X i   v X' ILe i  v.  (See Romans
iii. 25.)                43




456                       APPENDIX.
that "next to Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,
Epiphanius, and Ephrem  the Syrian have quoted  most
loosely. Verbal citations'in their writings, as in those of
Justin, are only to be reckoned as exceptions." *  It is further to be observed in respect to Epiphanius, that his text
is well known to be very corrupt,t and that he is probably
the most careless, confused, and blundering writer to be
found among the Fathers.  Petavius, though possessing in
some respects eminent qualifications for an editor, appears
to have given but little attention to the criticism of the
text. In many instances gross corruptions, the correction of
which seems obvious, are left without any suggestion of
emendation.
The three authorities adduced by Dr. Tregelles which
may be regarded as doubtful, are Origen, Basil the Great,
and Cyril of Alexandria. Origen (A. D. 230), according
to the text of his Benedictine editors, has the reading EosE
* Die apostol. Denkwflrdigkeiten des Martyrers Justinus, (Hamb.
1848,) p. 209; comp. p. 218, et seqq. See also Whitby's Examen
Millii, Lib. I. Cap. I. Sect. 2 ct 3.-I will give one or two specimens of Epiphanius's professed citations from Scripture. Just before
his first quotation of John i. 18 with the reading OEo', he adduces
the following as the words of Christ: -Zc  eya), KaMl C  6v eto; 6
(L7roorTX as  e 7rarap, "I live, and the Father who sent me lives
in me"; comp. John vi. 57 and Gal. ii. 20. (Haeres. LXV. c. 5.
Opp. I. 612, C.) —Again, to select a passage introduced like his
second quotation of John i. 18, compare the following:-*H 7raXlv,
uDs Xeyet Tr Evay-yeXlov  Kal avrX\J v E(is TOV obpavov, Kal eKa0iLrEV
eV 8eta  roV 7ra7rpos, Kat c'pxEra  KpivatL acras Kaa VeKpovS, "Or
again, as the Gospel says,'And he ascended into heaven, and sat
down at the right hand of the Father, and is coming to judge the
living and the dead'"; comp. Mark xvi. 19. (Hoeres. LXII. c. 5.
Opp. I. 517, D.) See also Opp. I. 36, B, C; 145, C; 161, A; 486,
D; 519, C, D, for a few of the numerous illustrations that might be
given. Equally striking examples might be cited from Clement of
Alexandria.
t See Wetstein, Nov. Test. Graec. (Prolegom.), Tom. I. p. 72.




NOTE  C.                         457
twice; but, on the other hand, he has vl0O once, and once
vIs  rov OeoO, " Son of God."  In a work preserved only in
the Latin translation of Rufinus, he also quotes the passage
with  the reading  unigenitus Dei filius.*   Basil (A. D.
370) has QeoS once, and in another passage he mentions
" True Son, Only-begotten God, Power of God, and Logos,"
as names given  to  Christ in  Scripture, or expressions
which, to use his phrase, " the Scripture knows "; but he
twice quotes the text in question with the reading vilo.t
In Cyril of Alexandria (A. D. 412), as edited by Aubert,
I have found oeos four times; but he has vlo' three times.:
I have not thoroughly examined all of his works.
* Origen reads   e o s, In Joan. Tom. ii. c. 29, and Tom. xxxii.
c. 13. Opp. IV. 89, B, and 438, D. - Y i O, Contra Cels., Lib. II.
c. 71. Opp. I. 440, F. (So De la Rue, from two manuscripts; but
the previous edition of Hceschel, followed by Spencer, instead of
6o  ovoyevis  vioo, reads KaL ILovoyev's ye wv 0eos, which has all the
appearance of a marginal gloss.) - Y L O s r oV 0    o v, In Joan.
Tom. vi. c. 2. Opp. IV. 102, D.  (So De la Rue, following the
Bodleian manuscript, which appears to be a very excellent one; the
earlier edition of Huet, which was founded on a single manuscript,
reads vios  edos.)  A little after, in two allusions to the passage,
6o Lovoyevs is used alone, without viLO or Oe6s. Opp. IV. 102, E,
and 114, C. — Unigenitus Dei filius, In Cant. Lib. IV. Opp. III.
91, E.
t Basil reads Oe e o, De Spiritu Sancto, c. 6, Opp. III. 12, B, ed.
Benedict., where earlier editions have vios, contrary to the best manuscripts. Compare c. 8, p. 14, C.- On the other hand, Basil has
v 1 o, De Spiritu Sancto, c. 11, Opp. III. 23, A, where the six manuscripts of Ganier appear to agree in this reading, though one of
Matthei's Moscow manuscripts has Qeos.  (See Matthis's Nov.
Test. Graec. I. 780.)  Basil also reads vlos, Epist. 234 (al. 400), c. 3.
Opp. III. 358, B.
t In the text prefixed to Cyril's commentary on the passage in
question, Opp. IV. 103, C, we find the reading vlos; the commentary itself, however, as printed, has 0E6s. (See p. 107, B, and comp.
p. 105, B.) Cyril's remarks on this place are cited in the scholia of
two Moscow manuscripts given by Matthaei (Nov. Test. Graec. et




458                        APPENDIX.
The eight writers cited by  Dr. Tregelles who  really
favor the common reading  will be mentioned  hereafter,
when the evidence for that reading is stated.
Two others, Gregory of Nyssa (A. D. 370) and Fulgentius (A. D. 507), as has before been mentioned, have only
alluded to the passage in question, and not in such a way
as to enable us to determine with confidence how they
read it.*
Lat. IV. 24). One who compares these with his text as published by
Aubert, will hardly feel much confidence in the latter. - Cyril also
reads e e O s in his Thesaurus, Assert. xiii. and xxv. Opp. Tom. V.
P. i. p. 137, B, and 237, A; and in the Dialogue "Quod Unus sit
Christus," ibid. p. 786, E. — He has the reading v I   s, Thesaur.,
Assert. xxxv. p. 365, C; and Advers. Nestorium, Lib. III. c. 5.
Opp. VI. 90, B. This reading is also found twice in an extract
which he gives from Julian in his work against that emperor. (Contra Julian., Lib. X. Opp. VI. (P. ii.) p. 333, C.) - In an allusion to
John i. 18 we find 6 pLovoyevs r TOV e eov Ao'yo, 6 ev K6TXroLS
iiv Tro 7rarpos. (Apol. adv. Orient. Opp. VI. 187, C.)  This is
worth noting, as showing how little can be safely inferred from such
allusions in regard to the reading of a passage.
* Gregory of Nyssa alludes to John i. 18, introducing the words
"who is in the bosom of the Father " in connection with the expression' only-begotten  God" eight times; in  connection with the
phrase "only-begotten Son," twice.  I will quote one example of
each kind, and refer to the others. —In the treatise De Vitf Mosis,
Opp. I. 192, B, we find, 6 Lovoyevls    e  O s-, 6 Av ev Ko'7TOtS TOo 7raTpOS, O TOS ecrTLv)  eLa T roV v+loTrov.  See also In Cantic. Homil.
xiii. Opp. I. 663, A.- Contra Eunom. Orat. II. Opp. II. 432, B;
447, A; and 478, D.- Orat. III. p. 506, C. -Orat. VI. p. 595
[properly 605], A. - Orat. X. p. 681, A. - - On the other hand,
Epist. ad Flavian., Opp. III. 648, A, we find, 6  ovooyevjS v o s, 6
c)v iv TroT KO7rTOS TOV 7rTarpoS, 06  v apxf &v,, K. T..  See also
Contra Eunom., Orat. II. Opp. II. 466, C.- Once we have 5o  v
V' i(r  r T 0OL, CSXV Iv  oitS KOdX7roS TOV 7rraTpo, K. T. X.  In
Cantic. Homil. xv. Opp. I. 697, A.
It is to be observed that 6 F/ovoyevs Oeos, "the only-begotten
God," is a favorite designation of Christ in the writings of this Fa



NOTE  C.                        459
The eight remaining witnesses produced by Dr. Tregelles -Lucian, Basil of Seleucia, Isidore of Pelusium,
Arius, Marcellus, Eunomius, Gaudentius, and Ferrandus
-  have, as I believe, nowhere quoted or alluded to the text
in question. The passages in their writings appealed to
by Wetstein have merely the expression /Lovoyevrs oeos or
ther. There are one hundred and twenty-five examples of its use in
the treatise against Eunomius alone. It occurs fifteen times in the
"Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarem," first published in Zacagni's
"Collectanea," etc. (Rome, 1698); but, notwithstanding the references of Wetstein, no allusion will be found in that treatise to John
i. 18.
In one place Gregory says, " The Scripture declares concerning
the Logos who was in the beginning, that he is the only-begotten
God, the first-born of the whole creation." (De Perf. Christ. Formal.
Opp. III. 291, A.) But the imprudence of concluding from this that
he actually had the reading eeo' in the passage in question, has
already been illustrated. See before, p. 445, note.
Fulgentius has alluded to John i. 18 six times. I will quote briefly
all the examples, as, taken together, they clearly show how little is to
be inferred from such allusions.
1. In connection with the phrase unigenitus Dens. -"  Ut ille unigenitus Deus, qui est in sinu Patris, non solum in muliere, sed etiam
ex muliere fieret homo." Epist. xvii. c. 3, in Migne's Patrologive
Cursus Completus, Vol. LXV. col. 272, B. -" De Deo unigenito,
qui est in sinu Patris, ut dixi, omnia heec personaliter accipe." De
Fide, c. 20. col. 681, B.
2. With unigenitus filius. -" Quis enim natus est Deus verus de
Deo vero, nisi unigenitus filius, qui est in sinu Patris  "  Ad Trasimund., Lib. III. c. 4. col. 272, B.- "Si vero unigenitus filius, qui
est in sinu Patris, post aeternam nativitatem," etc. Epist. xvii. c. 15.
col. 459, C. -" Dei ergo filius unigenitus, qui est in sinu Patris, ut
carnem hominis animamque mundaret," etc. De Fide, c. 17. col.
679, C.
3. With unigenitus alone. -" Quia unigenitus, qui est in sinu Patris,
secundum quod caro est, plenus est gratise," etc. De Incarnatione,
c. 18. col. 583, C.
The expression "unigenitus Dens " occurs in the writings of Fulgentius about ninety times.
43 *




460                        APPENDIX.
unigenitus Deus.  I have not read through the Epistles of
Isidore of Pelusium; but with  respect to all the other
authors named, I think it may be safely said, that no trace
of the reading oeos or Deus occurs in their works.  An
examination of Wetstein's references to them will be found
in the note below.* Tregelles makes no citations.
* Lucian (A. D. 290) is thus referred to by Wetstein: "Lucianus martyr in Confess. ap. Socrat. H. E. II. 10."  The Confession of
Faith here intended is the second Formula of the Synod of Antioch
(A. D. 341), which, according to Sozomen (Hist. Eccles. Lib. III.
c. 5), " they said was found in the handwriting of Lucian the Martyr."
It may be seen in Socrates, as above referred to, and also in Athanasius de Synodis, c. 23. Opp. I. P. ii. p. 735, et seq. Learned men
have not generally regarded it as the work of Lucian, who died about
thirty years before it was first heard of; but the question is unimportant to our purpose. It simply says, " We believe..... in one God,
the Father almighty, the creator and maker of the universe; and in
one Lord Jesus Christ his Son, the only-begotten God, through whom
all things were made," &c.
In the case of the other authors mentioned above, it may be sufficient to refer to the places in their writings cited by Wetstein, but
which will be found, on examination, to contain merely the phrase
"only-begotten God."
Basil of Seleucia (A. D. 448).  See Orat. I. Opp. p. 5. Paris.
1622.
Isidore of Pelusium (A. D. 412). See Epist. III. 95. Opp. p. 200,
ed. Rittershus.
Arius (A. D. 316). See Athanas. de Synod. c. 15. Opp. Tom. I.
P. ii. p. 728, E, ed. Benedict. In a letter of Arius given by Epiphanius, we find the words, 7rX;7prS OeSos IovoyevIs, dvaXXo1o0os, K. T. X.
(Heres. LXIX. c. 6. Opp. I. 731, D.)  But here a comma should
probably be placed after the word eoss.
Marcellus (A. D. 320). See Euseb. contra Marcel. Lib. I. c. 4.
p. 19, C.
Eunomius (A. D. 360). See his Expositio Fidei, c. 3, apud Fabricii Bibl. Groec. Tom. VIII. pp. 255, 256; and his Apologeticus, cc.
15, 21, 26, ibid. pp. 281, 290, 298. These treatises of Eunomius may
also be found in Rettberg's Marcelliana, and in Thilo's Bibliotheca
Patrum Graecorum Dogmatica, Vol. II.




NOTE  Co                         461
Such is the evidence of the Fathers in favor of the reading eeO9.. I know of nothing to be added to what has been
mentioned.   We may now  consider the testimony which
supports the common reading. Only a small part of this,
so far as I am aware, has ever been adduced.
The following Greek authors quote John i. 18 with the
reading vlo': -  Irenaus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul (A. D.
178), as preserved in a very early Latin translation;*
Hippolytus (A. D. 220);t the third Synod at Antioch (A. D.
269), in their Epistle to Paul of Samosata; + the author of
the "Acta Disputationis Archelai cum  Manete" (about
A. D. 300?), as preserved in the Latin version; ~ Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria (A. D. 313);; Eusebius of Cmesarea (A. D. 315), five or six times; ~ Eustathius, Bishop
Gaudentius (A. D. 387). See Serm. XIX. in the Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum  Patrum, Tom. V. p. 975, D, or in Migne's Patrol.
Tom. XX. col. 990, B.
Ferrandus (A. D. 533) has the expression " unigenitus Deus " eight
times, viz. Epist. iii. (ad Anatol.) cc. 2, 7, 9, 10, 11; v. (ad Severum
Scholast.) cc. 2, 5; vii. (ad Reginum Comitem Paraenet.) c. 12; in
Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXVII., or in the Max. Bibl. Patr. Tom. IX.
* Contra Hsres. Lib. IV. c. 20. (c. 37, ed. Grab.) ~ 6. Opp. I.
627, ed. Stieren. Irenaeus has also once the reading unigenitus filius
Dei (Lib. III. c. 11. ~ 6. p. 466), and once unigenitus Deus (Lib. IV.
c. 20. ~ 11. p. 630). The readingfilius Dei obviously supports filius
rather than Deus.
t Contra NoCtum, c. 5. Opp. II. 10, ed. Fabric.; also in Routh's
Scriptorum Eccles. Opuscula, I. 58, ed. alt.
t Concilia, ed. Coleti, I. 869, B; also in Routh, Reliq. Sacr. II.
473 (III. 297, ed. alt.), and in Dionysii Alexandrini Opp. (Rom.
1796), p. 287.
~ Cap. 32. In Zacagnii Collectan. Monum. Vett., p. 54; also in
Hippolyti Opp. ed. Fabric. II. 170, and Routh, Reliq. Sacr. IV. 213
(V. 121, ed. alt.). — On the date of this work see Lardner, "Credibility," etc. Part. II. Chap. LXV.
II Epist. ad Alexandrum Constantinop., apud Theodoreti Hist.
Eccl. Lib. I. c. 4. (al. 3.) p. 12, ed. Reading.'I De Eccles.-Theol. Lib. I. c. 9. p. 67, D;- c. 20. ~~ 4, 5. p. 86,




462                        APPENDIX.
of Antioch (A. D. 320);*  Athanasius (A. D. 326, died
A. D. 373), four times, and Pseud-Athanasius onoe;t the
Emperor Julian  (A. D. 362) twice;    Titus of Bostra
A, B;-ibid. ~ 7, sub fin. p. 92, D; —Lib. I. c. 23, ad fin. p. 142,
C;-and Comm. in Psalm. lxxiii. 11, in Montfaucon's Collectio
Nova, etc. I. 440, A.
The first passage of Eusebius which has been referred to is peculiar,
reading as follows: Toa  re eivayyeXLCro'v 8apparsv avrov' viv JLovoyev     L elvat aoKOvTo  a' V      e' ov oVsEL fpaKE r7rorE, e.Lovoyevqs VtdO, 1  /.ovoyev1jS 0eoS, o CO els TOV KXT7rOV TOZ 7raTpCS,
EKeivos er7y7ro-aro; that is, "The Evangelist expressly teaches that
he is the only-begotten Son, when he says,' No man hath seen God at
any time; the only-begotten Son, or only-begotten God, who is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.'"  But here it is evident,
as Montagu remarks in his note on the place, that the words  /,uovoyevS  e6os, "or only-begotten God," form  no part of the quotation.
They appear to be a marginal gloss which has crept into the text.
- The only passage which I have found in Eusebius that seems to
countenance the reading   eo's is the following.  After using the
strongest language respecting the supremacy of the Father over all
other beings, and quoting Ephesians iv. 5, 6, he proceeds: "And
He alone may be called (XPr77zarTgo& av) the one God, and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ; but the Son [may be called] only-begotten
God, who is in the bosom of the Father (o6 a  vlos /Lovoyevr)s Qos6,
o    el ELS TO  KoXrov TOV 7rarpos); and the Paraclete, Spirit, but
neither God nor Son."  (De Eccles. Theol. Lib. III. c. 7. pp. 174,
175.) Here it will be observed that Eusebius does not assert that
the Son is called " only-begotten God " in Scripture, but only that it
is proper to give him that name. This passage, therefore, does not
weaken the force of his express quotations of John i. 18 with the
reading vils.
* De Engastrimytho, as printed (from the edition of Leo Allatius)
in Tom. II. p. 1150, med. of the Critici Sacri, ed. Amst. 1698; in
Tom. VIII. col. 443, 1. 34, of the London edition.
t Athanasius de Decret. Nic. Synod. c. 13. Opp. I. 219, E, ed.
Benedict.- Ibid. c. 21. p. 227, D. - Orat. I. contra Arian. c. 62.
p. 530, D. - Orat. IV. contra Arian. c. 26. p. 638, A. —PseudAthanasius contra Sabellian. c. 2. Opp. II. 38, D.
t Apud Cyril. Alex. Lib. X. contra Julian.  Opp. VI. (ii.) 333,
also in " Defense du Paganisme par l'Empereur Julien en Grec et en




NOTE  C.                         463
A. D. 362); * Gregory Nazianzen (A. D. 370);t the author
of a Homily published with the works of Basil; ~ Rufinus
Syrus or Palaestinensis (about A. D. 390), as preserved in
a very early Latin translation; ~ Chrysostom (A. D. 398),
at least eight times; l  Theodoret (A. D. 423), at least
four times; ~  and  Proclus, Patriarch  of Constantinople
(A. D. 434).**   To these may be added several Greek
writers of less weight, being later, and some of them  of
quite uncertain  date; as Pseudo-Cyril, tt Pseudo-CaesaFranqais, avec des Notes par Mr. le Marquis d'Argens," 3e Ed., II.
120, 122.
* Contra Manichmos, Lib. III., apud Basnage, Thesaur. Monum.
Eccles. et Hist. sive Canisii Lectiones Antiq., I. 144, 145. -But ibid.
p. 153, we have the reading 6o IovoyeV)S9 vlos EoE; compare the interpolation on the same page in the quotation of Matthew iii. 17 or
xvii. 5, as follows: Kalt!aprvpeL f!iev 7 roT  KVpLOV  eova. Ovros
EOTAv 0 vlor Lov o  Fovoy Ev s  Ka\  aya7TrTOS', ev y   Ey7) EV8oK?7ra.
t Orat. XXXV. c. 17. Opp. I. 573, C, ed. Bill.
t Pseudo-Basil. Homil. in Psalm. xxviii. c. 3.. Opp. I. 359, F.
~ De Fide, Lib. I. c. 16, in Sirmondi Opera Varia, Tom. I. (Venet.
1728) col. 166, A. - Garnier supposes the Latin translation to have
been made by Julian of Eclanum (A. D. 420), the famois Pelagian
bishop.
II De Incomprehensibili Dei Natura, Hom. IV. c. 3, bis. Opp. I.
475, A, E, ed. Montf. - Ibid. c. 4. p. 476, B.- Ibid. Hom. V. c. 1.
p. 481, A. - Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, c. 3. Opp. III. 470, B. - In
Isaiam, cap. vi. ~ 1. Opp. VI. 64, A.- In illud, Filius ex se nihil,
etc. c. 6. Opp. VI. 264, D. - In Joan. Hom. XV. (al. XIV.) Opp.
VIII. 84, B (text). - Ibid. c. 2. p. 86, C, compared with p. 87, B.
I Interp. in Psalm. cix. 1. Opp. I. 850, A, ed. Sirmond. - Eranist
Dial. I. Opp. IV. 14, B. - Heret. Fab. Lib. V. c. 1. Opp. IV. 251,
B.-lbid. c. 2. p. 253, D. 
** Orat. XV. Analect. p. 440, ed. Riccard.
tt I refer to the "Capitula de Trinitate," published as a work of
Cyril of Alexandria by Angelo Mai in his " Script. Vet. Nova Collectio," Tom. VII. P. II. In this work, cap. 6. p. 31, John i. 18 is
quoted with the reading vlos; but Dr. Tregelles ("Account of the




464                       APPENDIX.
rius,* Andreas Cretensis (A. D. 635  Cave,  680  Saxe,
850 Oudin),t Joannes Damascenus (A. D. 730), three
times, + Theophylact (A. D. 1070), ~ and Euthymius Zigabenus (A. D. 1110). I
The testimony of the Latin Fathers may now  be produced.  The most important part of this was long  ago
exhibited by Sabatier with his usual diligence and accuracy.  A  careful examination of his citations might have
saved Dr. Tregelles from some errors.
The  following  Latin writers  quote  John  i. 18 with
the  reading flius: -Tertullian  (A. D. 200); T  Hilary
(A. D. 354'), at least seven times;** Phoebadius (A. D.
Printed Text of the Greek N. T.," p. 232, note I) is probably correct
in regarding it as the production of a later writer than Cyril.
* John i. 18 is quoted with the reading vtos in a work entitled
"Qumestiones et Responsiones," or "Dialogi IV.," which appears
to be as late as the seventh century, but which has been attributed to
Caesarius, the brother of Gregory Nazianzen. It passed current under
his name in the time of Photius (A. D. 858), who has described it.
The quotation of John i. 18 may be found in Dial. I. of the work, as
published, in a Latin version, in the Max. Bibl. Vet. Patr., V. 753,
G. The Greek, which is contained in Vol. VI. of Galland's Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, I have not been able to consult.
t Orat. in Transfigurat. Opp. p. 44, ed. Combefis.
t De Fide Orthodox&, Lib. I. c. 1. Opp. I. 123, C, ed. Le Quien.
- Advers. Nestorianos, c. 32, bis. Opp. I. 562, E.
~ Comment. in loc.
II Comment. in loc.
~ Advers. Praxeam, c. 15.
** Tract. in Psalm. cxxxviii. c. 35. Opp. col. 520, ed. Benedict. -
De Trinitate, Lib. II. c. 23. col. 799, E.-Lib. IV. c. 8. col. 831, C.
- Ibid. c. 42. col. 852, C. - Lib. V. c. 33. col. 873, D. - Ibid. c. 34.
col. 874, A. - Lib. VI. c. 39. col. 905, E. Hilary's comment on
this passage shows conclusively that he read ilius.
Wetstein quotes in favor of the reading eeo's "Hilarius de Trinit.
passim," and Hilary is also one of Dr. Tregelles's witnesses. The
expression "unigenitus Deus" occurs in the treatise "De Trinitate"
about one hundred and four times; but the only quotations of John i. 18




NOTE  c.                         465
859);* Victorinus Afer (A. D. 360), six times;t Ambrose (A. D. 374), at least seven times; + Faustinus
(A. D. 384);~ Augustine  (A. D. 396), three times;l
Adimantus the Manichaean  (A. D. 396); ~5 Maximinus,
the Arian bishop  (A. D. 428), twice;**  the author of,
to be found in it have been referred to above, and they all (six in number) have the reading filius. The only passage in this work, and, so
far as I know, in Hilary's writings, which can be imagined to support
the reading Deus is in Lib. XII. c. 24, Opp. col. 1125, A, where we
find the words " cum unigenitus Dens in sinu Patris est." It will be
seen, on examining the context, that est is the emphatic word in this
sentence, and that there is no more reason for regarding the expression " unigenitus Deus" as a citation from the Apostle John, than
there is for supposing it to be quoted from the Apostle Paul in c. 26
of the same book, where Hilary says, "cum  secundum Apostolum
ante tempora eterna sit unigenitus Deus "; compare 2 Tim. i. 9.
* Contra Arianos, c. 12, in Migne's Patrol. Tom. XX. col. 21, D,
or in Max. Bibl. Patr. IV. 302, F. - Phebadius (or Phcebadius) is
another of Dr. Tregelles's witnesses; but even the expression "unigenitus Deus " does not occur in his writings.
t De Generat. Verbi Divini, ad Candidum, c. 16 (unigenitus Dei
filius) -Ibid. c. 20.- Advers. Arium, Lib. I. cc. 2, 4. —bid. c. 15
(" unigenitus " alone). - Lib. IV. c.. - Ibid. c. 33 (unigenitus solus
filius). In Migne's Patrol. Tom. VIII. col. 1029, 1030, 1041, 1042,
1050, 1119, 1137, or Max. Bibl. Patr. IV. 167, 169, 254, 255, 257,
282, 289.
t De Joseph. c. 14, al. 84. Opp. I. 510, D, ed. Benedict. —De
Bened. Patriarch. c. 11, al. 51. col. 527, F. - In Luc. Lib. I. c. 25,
col. 1274, D.- Ibid. Lib. II. c. 12. col. 1286, B. -De Fide, Lib. III.
c. 3, al. 24. Opp. II. 501, C.-De Spir. Sanct. c. 1, al. 26. col. 605,
F. —Epist. xxii. c. 5. col. 875, E.
~ De Trinitate, Lib. I, c. 2. ~ 5, in Migne's Patrol. Tom. XIII.
col. 54, A, B, or Max. Bibl. Patr. V. 642, F, G.
II In Joan. Tract. xxxi. c. 3. - Tract. xxxv. c. 5. - Tract. xlvii.
c. 3.- Opp. Tom. III. P. II. col. 1638, 1660, 1734, ed. Migne.
I' Apud Augustinum contra Adimant. c. 9. ~ 1. Opp. Tom. VIII.
col. 139, ed. Migne.
*" Apud Augustini Collat. cum Maximin. cc. 13, 18. Opp. Tom.
VIII. col. 719 et 728, ed. Migne.




466                     APPENDIX.
the work against Virimadus ascribed to Idacius Clarus
(A. D. 385), three times; * Vigilius of Tapsa (A. D. 484),
or the author, whoever he was, of Libri XII. de Trinitate; t Junilius (A. D.'550); + and Alcuin (A. D. 780). ~
SUCH is the external evidence respecting the reading of
the passage in question. It does not seem worth while.to
give a formal summary of it. The preceding examination
of the testimony of the Fathers does not profess to be
exhaustive. But it has been pursued so far that there is
no probability that subsequent investigation will add many
important facts, or affect the general conclusion to which
we are led by those which have been produced.
It will be observed that a great majority of the witnesses
for the reading ecos, whose locality can be determined, are
Alexandrian, or belong to places under Alexandrian influence; though the Alexandrian authorities are far from being unanimous in support of it.ll The witnesses on the other
side are not only much more numerous, but are far more
widely diffused, representing almost every important part
of the whole Christian worW.  In respect to antiquity, we
have in favor of the reading vios, before the middle of the
* Advers. Virimadum, in Max. Bibl. Patr. V. 731, E, and 740, B,
E. Montfaucon ascribes this work, and also the first eight books of
the one next mentioned, to Idatius the Chronicler (A. D. 445).
See his edition of Athanasius, Tom. II. pp. 602, 603.
t De Trinitate, Lib. IV. in Max. Bibl. Patr. VIII. 783, A, or in
Athanasii Opp. II. 615, A, ed. Montf.
t De Part. Div. Legis, Lib; I. c. 16, in Max. Bibl. Patr. X. 342, H,
or Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXVIII. col. 22, C.
~ Comm. super Joan. in loc. Opp. I. 472, 473, ed. Froben. -
The passage referred to by Wetstein, De Fide S. Trin. Lib. I. c. 12 (al.
13, al. 14), has only the expression "unigenitus Deus."  Opp. I. 712.
II Thus the Philoxenian or Harclean Syriac, revised and collated
with two Greek manuscripts at Alexandria, A. D. 616, has the reading " God" in the margin, but not in the text.




NOTE C.                     467
fourth century, —the date assigned by Tischendorf to our
oldest Greek manuscript of the New  Testament, -the
evidence of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac versions,
both belonging probably to the second century, and that of
Hippolytus, the third Synod of Antioch, Alexander of
Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eustathius of Antioch, besides Irenxus, Tertullian, and the author of the
" Discussion between Archelaus and Manes," to whose testimony exception may perhaps be taken.  During the
same period we have on the other side only Clement of
Alexandria, the Doctrina Orientalis, and the Coptic version, with the Peshito Syriac as commonly edited, if that
form  of the Syriac text is of so early a date.  In the
period that follows, though the four manuscripts which
support the reading 0Eos are of the highest character, yet
the weight of the whole evidence of manuscripts, versions,
and Fathers must certainly be regarded as greatly preponderating against it.
LET us now see what view is to be taken of the internca
evidence.  In respect to this Dr. Tregelles says: "In
forming a judgment between these two readings, it must
be remembered that Lovoyevi. would naturally suggest vi's
as the word which should follow it, whereas oeos strikes
the ear as something peculiar, and not elsewhere occurring
in Scripture; the change, being but of one letter (Yc for
-C), might be most inadvertently made; and though the
evidence of the Latin versions and the Curetonian Syriac
is not of small weight, yet the same chance of a change
would, in a case of this kind, affect the copyists of a version
(or indeed the translators) [?] just as much as the transcribers of Greek MSS.  eeos, as the more difficult reading, is entitled to special attention," &c.*
* Account of the Printed Text of the Greek N. T., p. 235.
44




468                    APPENDIX.
There is some force in these remarks; but not so much
as may at first be thought.  Though fovoycvr   eeosv is a
harsh expression and an unusual combination to us, it was
not so to copyists of the fourth century and later.  "The
only-begotten God" was, as we have seen, an exceedingly
common appellation of Christ in the writings of that period,
the Father being distinguished from him as ayeivv?7ro, a'vapXos, dvaL'rLos, "unbegotten, unoriginated, uncaused." It is
strange that Dr. Tregelles should regard it as an expression to which the Arians of those days would object. The
Arians did not hesitate to apply the term eoes or Deus to
Christ, using it, as the Ante-Nicene Fathers had done
before them, in an inferior sense; * and though no example
of a quotation of John i. 18 with the reading egos has been
produced from  any Arian writer, we find the expression
/povoyev)vs QEos in the so-called Apostolical Constitutions
(seven times), in the larger Epistle of the Pseudo-Ignatius
to the Philadelphians, and in the fragments which remain
to us of the writings of Arius and his followers, Asterius,
Eunomius, and others, referred to by Wetstein.  Being a
phrase, then, so frequently used both by the Catholic Fathers and their opponents, transcribers must have been
very familiar with it. In the passage in question OeOv had
just preceded, bringing Oeos before the mind of the copyist. The word eos occurs in the New Testament three
times as often as vlos.  Is it strange, then, that one or
more transcribers, under such circumstances, should in.
advertently substitute the more common for the less frequent word, the one differing from the other, in the abbreviated form, only in a single letter? And might not this
mistake have been easily propagated, so as to extend to
the comparatively few authorities which exhibit the reading
eSob?
* See before, p. 120, note.




NOTE C.                     469
But there is another aspect of the internal evidence, as
important as that to which we have just attended. "No
man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten God,
who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
Does not every one perceive that the introduction of the
phrase "only-begotten God," after the use of the word
"God," alone and absolutely, immediately before it, is a
harshness which we can hardly suppose in any writer?
Does not the word " Father," in a sentence like this, almost
necessarily imply that the correlative "Son" has just preceded?  And is there anything analogous to this expression, " the only-begotten God," in the writings of John, or
in any other part of the New Testament?
ONE can hardly believe that so fair-minded and impartial
a critic as Dr. Tregelles, after a careful re-examination of
the whole evidence, will regard himself as justified in
introducing the reading povoyev'vs eoe into the text. But
supposing this to be the true reading, it is obvious that the
being so designated is here distinguished in the clearest
manner from Him to whom the name " God " is emphatically and absolutely applied; and that the word  Eos, in
this expression, must therefore be used in aninferior sense,
unless John taught the existence of two Supreme Beings.
It will also strike every one, that the title " only-begotten
God" is not suitable to a being who possesses the attribute
of self-existence.
In respect to the meaning of the appellation "onlybegotten Son," or'" only Son," repeatedly given to Christ
in the writings of St. John, it may be sufficient to refer to
the remarks of Mr. Norton in the former part of this
volume.*  The corresponding Hebrew word is repeatedly
rendered in the Septuagint by aya7MiroSr or aya7rroevos,
"beloved."
* See before, p. 220.




470                    APPENDIX.
(5.) John iii. 34.  "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for God giveth not the Spirit by
measure unto him," ov yap EK fLEpov  8oow(rl 6 eO   TO 7 rrveva.
Here o eeos, answering to the word " God" in the last
clause, is bracketed by Lachmann, and omitted by Tischendorf, Meyer, and Alford, as also by Mr. Norton; Griesbach
marks it as probably spurious.  De Wette, Meyer, and
Alford suppose that o ee&o  (understood) is the subject of
8a8o0C-, so that the omission would make no difference in the
sense.  Mr. Norton, however, regards " He whom God has
sent," the Messiah, as the subject, and translates, " He gives
not the spirit by measure."' See his note.
(6.) Acts xvi. 7.  "After they were come to Mysia,
they essayed to go into Bithynia; but the Spirit suffered
them not."
Here, instead of Tr irveiva, "the Spirit," the best manuscripts and versions, with other authorities, read ro 7rvevipa'Irqoovo, "the spirit of Jesus."  This reading is adopted by
Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Vater, Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn, Theile, Tischendorf, and Alford; also by De
Wette, Meyer, Mr. Norton, and many others.  See before,
p. 225, et seqq.
(7.) Romans ix. 5.  "Whose are the fathers, and of
whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all,
God blessed for ever.  Amen."  The Greek is as follows:
Iv ol 7TaTEpEs, Kai I$ $v o XpL-YrTo TO Kara trapKa * o Xv rI 7ravewV  oe, evXoyqTO els ITOSo alivas.'Apitv.
If the remarks which have been before made (pp. 207 -
212, note) on this much controverted text are correct, the
original is grammatically ambiguous, admitting of at least
three  different constructions;-  1. that of the Common
Version, according to which the last clause, 6o cv E'rl ravrcov,




NOTE C.                    471
etc., refers to Christ;    2. that of Mr. Norton, according
to which it relates to God, the Apostle, in enumerating the
privileges of the Jews, mentioning as their last great distinction the fact that God himself had presided over all
their concerns in a particular manner; (the literal rendering of the words being, " He who was over all [was] God,
blessed for ever";)- and 3. that of many eminent German critics, who regard the clause as a doxology, translating, " God, who is over all, be blessed for ever."
This passage cannot, with strict propriety, be introduced
here, as there are no various readings of any consequence;
but as involving a question of punctuation, it is not wholly
unconnected with the subject of this note. It has already
been mentioned, that the punctuation adopted by Mr. Norton
and many other interpreters, as well as by Lachmann and
Tischendorf among the critical editors, is found not only in
some manuscripts in cursive letters, but also in the celebrated Ephrem manuscript.  I have since observed that a
stop is also placed after o-apKa in the Alexandrine manuscript, as edited by Woide. The Alexandrine and Ephrem
manuscripts are the two oldest Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament in which there is any kind of punctuation,
the Vatican having no stops a prima manu. The single
point, or very short line, used in the earliest manuscripts
where any marks of this kind appear, denotes a pause
sometimes answering in length only to our comma, but
usually equivalent to a colon or a period.  Manuscript
authority in a case of this kind is really of no importance; but some writers have laid stress on the supposed
want of it as an objection to the punctuation adopted by
Mr. Norton.
The orthodox Fathers who have quoted the passage, and
the authors of the ancient versions, refer the clause to
Christ; but it is not strange that they should give to am44*




472                   APPENDIX.
biguous language the interpretation most favorable to their
theological opinions.
It may be worth while to mention, that Mr. Jowett, now
Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford, in
his recent work on the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, adopts the punctuation of
Lachmann and Tischendorf, and translates, " God, who is
over all, is blessed for ever. Amen."
But supposing it to have been shown that the last part
of this verse may grammatically refer to God as well as to
Christ, is there any philological reason, it may be asked,
for preferring the former construction to the latter? In
respect to this point, one who has any doubt on the subject
may examine the use of the word e&os, " God," first in this
Epistle, and then in the other Epistles of St. Paul; noting
the examples, if he can discover any, in which it is applied
to Christ, and also those in which it is applied to a being
clearly distinguished from Christ, as in 1 Corinthians iii. 23;
viii. 6; xi. 3; xv. 24, 28; 1 Timothy ii. 5, &c. He will
find in the Epistles of Paul, not including the Epistle to the
Hebrews, more than five hundred instances of the use of
the word in question; and he will also find, I believe, that
there is not among them all a single clear and unequivocal
example of its application to Christ. But if this be the
case, the presumption is very strong that it is not so applied
here.  The argument rests, it will be perceived, not on the
inconsistency of the Trinitarian construction with the theology of St. Paul as gathered from his other writings, -
that is another weighty consideration, - but on its inconsistency with his habitual or.uniform use of language.
(8.) Romans xiv. 10. "For we shall all stand before
the judgment-seat of Christ."
Here, instead of XplaTroV, "Christ," the reading ecov,




NOTE C.                     473
"God," is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and
Tregelles, as also by Meyer and others. It is to be observed, that the Vatican and Ephrem manuscripts agree
with the other leading uncial manuscripts in the latter
reading, though this fact was not known to Griesbach and
Scholz.
Supposing the common reading to be correct, some Trinitarians have inferred the deity of Christ from a comparison
of this verse with the two following. In respect to this
point, it may be sufficient to refer to Acts xvii. 31; Romans ii. 16. See also before, p. 68, note, and p. 285.
(9.) Romans xv. 29. "And I am sure that, when I
come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing
of the gospel of Christ."
The words -ro evayyEXlov roV, corresponding to "of the
gospel," are bracketed by Vater as doubtful, and are omitted by Griesbach, Schott, Scholz, Lachmann, Theile, Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles, and Meyer. De Wette regards
them as probably spurious.
(10.) Romans xv. 32. "That I may come to you with
joy by the will of God," aiL OEX;Aaros 0eov.
Lachmann reads A&a OEXtLparos Kvplov'Iro-ov, "by the will
of the Lord Jesus." This reading is supported by only one
manuscript, the Vatican; though a few authorities have
the words XpL-rov'Io7-oiv, " Christ Jesus," instead of Oeov,
God."
(11.) 1 Corinthians x. 9. "Neither let us tempt Christ,
as some of them also tempted," &c.
Here, for vov XplaoryV, " Christ," or " the Anointed One,"
the reading rov KVptOV, "the Lord," is adopted by Lachmann, Meyer, and Alford, as also by Wetstein, Archbishop




474                   APPENDIX.
Newcome, Riickert, Norton, and others.  Griesbach (in
his manual edition) and Knapp mark it as of equal authority with XpLo-rTv. Compare Griesbach's Symbolae Criticae,
II. 114.
"As some of them also tempted," KaOso Katl Trve avrcov
eTrepao-av. Kai, "also," is omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, and Alford, is marked by Griesbach as probably spurious, and bracketed by Vater.
Archbishop Newcome observes, "If we read XpLo-rv, the
sense is,'Nor let us tempt, try, prove, provoke Christ
now, as some of them  did God at that time.'"  The passage is thus understood by many Trinitarian commentators; but others, supplying the word "him" instead of
"God" after "tempted," suppose that Paul represents
Christ as the being described in Numbers xxi. 5, 6, as
tempted by the Israelites in the wilderness.
(12.) 1 Corinthians xv. 47.  "The second man is the
Lord from heaven."
t0 KvpLO.S, "the Lord," is here marked by Griesbach as
probably spurious, bracketed by Vater, and omitted by
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, and Alford, as also by
Rickert, De Wette, Mr. Norton, and others.
(13.) 2 Corinthians iv. 14.  "Knowing that he which
raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus."
Instead of aL'IuovD, "by Jesus," the reading nbv'Iqo-ov,
"with Jesus," is adopted by Lachmann, Theile, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Riickert, and De Wettie.
(14.) Ephesians iii. 9. "God, who created all things
by Jesus Christ."
The words ata'Iqrovo  Xplo-rov,  "by Jesus Christ," are
marked by Knapp and Vater as doubtful, and are rejected




NOTE C.                     475
by Griesbach, Schott, Tittmann, Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn,
Theile, Tischendorf, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, Mr.
Norton, and others.
(15.) Ephesians v. 21.  "Submitting yourselves one to
another in the fear of God," ev jogjy eovo.
The reading ev poga3? Xpt-rov, "in the fear of Christ," is
adopted by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Vater,
Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn, Theile, Tischendorf, Meyer,
and De Wette.
(16.) Philippians iii. 3.  "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit," of 7rveviaTrL QE)
XaTpevovTrs.
Matthaei, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischerldorf, Meyer, and
Wiesinger read eeov for ee6.  So also Wetstein.  Supposing this reading to be genuine, the literal translation
will be, "who worship (or pay religious service) in (or
through) the Spirit of God."  The words also grammatically admit of the rendering, "who worship the Spirit of
God"; and so Granville Sharp translates.*   But this
interpretation introduces an idea so foreign from the context, to mention no other objection, that Mr. Sharp has had
few, if any, followers.
(17.) Philippians iv. 13. "I can do all things through
Christ which strengtheneth me."
The word Xplo-r,, " Christ," is bracketed as doubtful by
Knapp and Vater, and omitted by Griesbach, Schott,
Scholz, Lachmann, Theile, Tischendorf, Meyer, Conybeare
and Howson, and others. If it is omitted, the translation
will be, " I can do (or bear) all things through Him who
strengthens me."
* Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, &c., pp. 33, 34, 3d ed.




476                    APPENDIX.
(18.) Colossians ii. 2, 3.  "To the acknowledgment of
the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; in
whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,"
els Ef7ryvoXTv TOv fivo-TrplOV rTOV  eov KaL 7rarpos Kal Tro XPLt-roV,
ev O ( EL 7ravres ol Oijoravpol TriE  oo)lca Kal TS-rE myVoseEOs awroKpVPoL.
The words Kal 7rarpos KaL rov Xpl-roV, " and of the Father,
and of Christ," are marked as doubtful by Knapp, and
omitted by Griesbach, Schott, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Olshausen, De Wette, Conybeare and Howson, Professor Eadie, Mr. Norton (see p. 297),.and others.
Lachmann, Meyer, Steiger, Huther, and Granville Penn
adopt the reading roV  vOTrr7PLov rov Oeov Xptlrov, which admits, grammatically, of different interpretations.  It may
mean, 1. "of the. mystery of the God of Christ" (comp.
Ephes. i. 17); so Huther and Meyer; or, 2. " of the mystery of God, namely, Christ," the word " Christ" being in
apposition with "mystery" (comp. Col. i. 27).  Steiger
understands XpLwrov to be in apposition with eeoG, but, to
justify his interpretation, the Greek, as De Wette and
Olshausen remark, should be rov XpLr-Tov eoov, and not rov
eEov XplEorov.
Theile reads, rTOV vorripliov TroV eeov 7rarpos Tro XpL-Trov,
"of the mystery of God, the Father of Christ."
Whichever of these readings is genuine, ev c, " in whom,"
or "in which," in the last clause, should probably be understood as referring to pvwarOplov.  So Grotius, Hammond,
Bengel, Schleusner, De Wette, Meyer, and others explain
the words, and Professor Eadie translates,-  "to the full
knowledge of the mystery of God, in which all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are laid up."
The meaning of the word translated "mystery" in the
Common Version would be better conveyed to most readers by the term "new doctrine," or " new religion."




NOTE C.                     477
(19.) Colossians iii. 13. "Even as Christ forgave you,
so also do ye."
Here, instead of o Xpto-Ts, " Christ," the reading 6 KvpIos,
"the Lord," is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Olshausen, and Meyer.
(20.) Colossians iii. 15. "And let the peace of God
rule in your hearts."
"The peace of Christ" is the reading adopted by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Vater, Scholz, Lachmann,
Hahn, Theile, Tischendorf, Meyer, and De Wette.
(21.) 2 Thessalonians ii. 8.  "Whom the Lord shall
consume with the breath of his mouth."
For 6 KvpLos, " the Lord," Griesbach, Knapp, Tittmann,
Schott (in his 3d ed., 1825), Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn,
Theile, and Liinemann read o KVpLos'Ior-oi, "the Lord
Jesus."  But Matthaei, Pelt, Schott (in his Commentary,
1834), Tischendorf, De Wette, and others, retain the common reading, regarding'Ir]ovs as a gloss.
(22.) 1 Peter iii. 15. "But sanctify the Lord God in
your hearts."
Here, instead of oeev, "God," the reading  XplaroT,
"Christ," is adopted by Lachmann, Theile, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, and Huther. Tregelles argues from this reading
as compared with Isaiah viii. 12, 13, that " the expression'Jehovah of Hosts himself' in the prophet finds its New
Testament exposition as an equivalent in Kvptov rTO XpLTo-v,'the Lord Christ,' thus marking the divine glory of our
Lord in the most emphatic manner."*  But nothing is
more common than for the writers of the New Testament
to borrow the language of the Old to express their own
* Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament,
p. 235.




478                   APPENDIX.
thoughts, and thus to apply it to very different subjects
from those to which it relates in its original connection.
See, for example, 1 Peter ii. 9, comp. Exodus xix. 6;Romans x. 6-8, comp. Deut. xxx. 12- 14;-  Romans
x. 18, comp. Psalm  xix. 4.
(23.) 1 John iii. 16. " Hereby perceive we the love of
God, because he laid down his life for us."
Here the words rov Ocov, "of God," are rejected as spurious by all modern editors. They are found, so far as is
known, only in one Greek manuscript, and in the Latin
Vulgate version. In most editions of the Common Version
they are now printed in Italics; but they are not so distinguished in the original edition of 1611. Our translators
followed Beza and the Complutensian Polyglot in reading
Toev 9eo.
(24.) Jude 4. "Denying the only Lord God, and our
Lord Jesus Christ," rov flovov 3ear7rroTv Oeov Kai KVplov iCOYv'Djo'o-vv XptLCo'r  apYvotLevoL.
Supposing the common text to be correct, Granville
Sharp would render, "Denying our only Master, God, and
Lord, Jesus Christ." (See before, p. 199, note.) But the
word eEov, "God," is omitted by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott,
Tittmann, Vater, Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn, Theile, Tischendorf, Huther, De Wette, and others.  We may then
translate, "Denying the only Sovereign Lord, and our
Lord Jesus Christ."  Compare Norton's Evidences of the
Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. II. p. 166.
(25.) Jude 5. "The Lord, having saved the people out
of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not."
For 6 Kvplos, " the Lord," the reading 5'IqroovS, " Jesus,"
is adopted by Lachmann, and favored by Huther.




NOTE C.                     479
(26.) Jude 25.  "To the only wise God our Savlour,
be glory and majesty, dominion and power," &c.
Here the word o-o0., " wise," is omitted, and the words
&LA'I/o-oDr Xpto-'rov TO KvpLov ift&v are inserted after /ov? OecS
croTwrpL,/i&v, by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Vater,
Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn, Theile, Tischendorf, Huther,
De Wette, and others. The passage may then be translated, " To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ
our Lord, be glory and majesty, dominion and power," &c.
See before, p. 305, note.
(27.) Revelation i. 8.  "I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the ending, saith the Lord," &c.
Instead of 6 KVpos, " the Lord," KvpCos o  eosE   " the Lord
God," is adopted by all the modern critical editors who
have been mentioned in this note, and even by Bloomfield,
who also remarks, "By most recent commentators these
words are understood of God the Father."   He himself,
however, explains them as referring to Christ. Professor
Stuart observes, in his note on the passage, that "the
weight of external testimony is greatly in favor of KVpWlo
O eos," and that, admitting this reading, "it is more facile
to regard God as the speaker."
The words, " I am Alpha and Omega," are explained in
ch. xxi. 6 and xxii. 13 by "the beginning and the end,'
"the First and the Last."  (The words translated "the
beginning and the ending" in the present passage are an
interpolation.) Compare Isaiah xli. 4; xliv. 6; xlviii. 12.
These expressions have been variously interpreted; by some,
as denoting eternity, or unchangeableness; - but " the beginning and the end" can hardly mean " without beginning
and without end";- by others, as signifying completeness,
or perfection.  Here, and in ch. xxi. 6, where they are
also applied to God, they seem rather used to denote tho
45




480                    APPENDIX.
certain accomplishment of his purposes; that what he has
begun he will carry on to its consummation. Thus Hengstenberg remarks: " The emphasis is to be laid upon the
Omega.  It is as much as: I am as the Alpha, therefore
also the Omega.  The beginning is surety for the end." *
The words in question may be understood in a similar
manner when applied to Christ, as in ch. xxii. 13; comp.
i. 17, ii. 8. Thus Erasmus remarks in his note on John
viii. 25, as cited by Wilson in his Concessions of Trinitarians: " Christ is called the beginning and the end, because
he is the beginning and the consummation of the Church,
which was founded by his first, and will be completed by
his second appearance."t  So one of the Latin Fathers,
Fulgentius, says, though he gives other meanings to the
words: " Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perficienda; finis Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata"; that is,
" Christ is the beginning, because he himself commenced
the work to be accomplished; Christ is the end, because
he accomplishes the work begun." +  It is, perhaps, in a
omnewhat similar sense that he is called by the author of
The Epistle to the Hebrews "the Author and Finisher of
the faith," o rTS rlrTTlcTs apXc]yos KaL TrEXELt)T. ~
(28.) Revelation i. 11.  "I am Alpha and Omega, the
First and the Last; and, What thou seest, write in a
book," &c.
Here, the words which precede " What thou seest" are
rejected as spurious by all the modern critical editors.
* "The Revelation of St. John, expounded," &c., Vol. I. p. 107,
Amer. ed. of the Engl. translation.
t Opp. Tom. VI. col. 376, E.
t Ad Trasimundum, Lib. II. c. 5; in Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXV,
col. 250, C.
~ Hebrews xii. 2.




NOTE C.                     481
Dr. Doddridge observes, in his note on this verse: " That
these titles [" Alpha and Omega," &c.] should be repeated
so soon, in a connection which demonstrates that they are
given to Christ, will appear very remarkable, whatever
sense be given to the eighth verse. The argument drawn in
the preceding note upon it would have been strong, wherever such a passage as this had been found; but its immediate connection with this greatly strengthens it. And I
cannot forbear recording it, that this text has done more
than any other in the Bible toward preventing me from
giving in to that scheme, which would make our Lord Jesus
Christ no more than a deified creature."
It is a pity that this excellent man did not take a little
more pains to distinguish the genuine text of Scripture
from the corruptions introduced by transcribers.
(29.) Revelation ii. 7. "To him that overcometh will I
give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the
paradise of God."
Instead of ro Oeov, " of God," the reading rov  eoiv!ov,
"of my God," is marked by Vater as probable, and is
adopted by Matthaei, Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann,
Scholz, and Tischendorf.
(30.) Revelation iii. 2. "I have not found thy works
perfect before God," vcrrtov rTO 0eov.
Here the reading E'vrrcov roV eeov uov, " before my God,"
is marked by Vater (in his note on ch. ii. 7) as probable,
and is received into the text as genuine by all the other
critical editors of the present century who have been mentioned in this note.
THIS completes the view proposed of passages whose
supposed bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity is affected




482                   APPENDIX.
by various readings of the original text. I refer, it will be
understood, to readings which have been adopted in any
of the leading critical editions published within the present
century. In a large majority of these passages, the variation of reading seems to me to be of little or no consequence, so far as the doctrine in question is concerned;
but I wished to include all where it had been, or might
be, thought of any importance. I have certainly endeavored to omit nothing which a Trinitarian might regard as
favoring his belief.




I N D E X
INDEX
TO
PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED OR RE.
FERRED TO.
GENESIS.       Page                 2 KINGS.        Page
iii. 5, 22....... 300, n. xiii. 5........   305, n.
iv. 25.... 314, n.
xi. 7....      344               1 CHRONICLES.
xiv. 2, 3....... 343               xvii. 13....... 219, n.
xvii. 4, 5.......238          xxviii. 6......  219, n.
xviii., xix... 341-343        xxix.20.....  218 n.
xxvii. 29...           211, n.
NEIEMIAII.
EXODUS.
EODUS.          Ix. 27........ 305, n.
iv. 16........ 300, n.
iv. 22.......    219, n.
vii. 1........   300, n.                          PSALMS.
xiv. 31.......   218, n. viii. 5......... 300, n.
xv. 13, 17......237          xix. 4........ 478
xix. 6.......  478                xxxvii. 11....  180
xxi. 6.......  300, n. xlv. 1..                                 92
xxii. 8, 9, 28..       300, n. xlv. 6, 7.   300, n. 301, n. 302, n..1.........  300, n.
NUMBERS.               lxviii. 19 (lxvii. 20, Sept.). 21G, i,.
xxi. 5, 6......     474     lxxii. 18, 19.. 217, n.
lxxviii. 23 - 25.... 390
DEUTERONOMIY.             lxxxii. 1, 6...  300,. 301, n.
vi. 4.......            182     lxxxii. 6..                  221, n.
x. 17.....       300, n. cii. 25.......           214
xi. 13-15..... 255, n. cv. 4....    217, rn.
xxix. 2, 5, 6..... 255, n. cxix. 46....  300, n.
xxx. 12-14,.....478             cxxxvi. 2...... 300,1n.
xxi. 22 23.... 256, n. cxxxviii. 1, 4....    300, n.
cxxxix. 16...... 237
JOSHUA.
xxii. 22.......   300, n.                      PROVERBS.
1 SAMUEL                i. 20......    311
xii. 18...         218,   iii. 19.....    311
xv. 28.  237              viii. 22.      311, 335, n. 356
ix. 1.... 92
xxv. 32,33...... 217,n.... 218,
xxviii. 13, 14...  300, n    i. 2, n.
2 SAMUEL.                         ECCLESIASTES.
vii. 14....... 219, n. iv. 12.......  91
45 *




484         INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.
ISAIAH.        Page                  MATTHEW.    Page
vi. 3......    182      i. 23.....255
vi. 10.....      298, 299     ii. 2, 8, 11...... 447
vii. 14......    255      iii. 3........ 253
viii. 12, 13... 477      iii. 11.          217, n.
ix. 6.... 182, 300, n. 301, n. iv. 17....     176
xiii. 9, 10...           278, n. v. 3....163, n. 177-179
xix. 20....     305, n. v. 4, 5....  179, 180
xxxiv. 4....... 279, n. v. 45...  220
xl. 3......    253      viii. 2.......    447
xli. 4....... 49       iK. 18......                 447
xliii. 11.......  305                 x. 34......  270
xliv. 6....... 479                xi. 10........ 253
xlviii. 12....... 479               xi. 18........ 143
xlix. 1.......             237      xi. 27........    209
xiii. 39...                421
JEREMIAH.                 xiv. 33...                447
i. 5......... 246                    xv. 25........ 447
xv. 9....... 279, n. xvi. 19.......145
xvi. 27.......  306, a.
EZEKIEL.'        xvi. 27, 28...  274, 281
xxxi. II....... 300, n. xvii. 17.....   425, 426
xxxii. 7, 8...... 278, n. xviii. 18....... 145
xxxii. 21.......   301, n. xviii. 19, 20... 223, 224, 273
xviii. 26....      447
DANIEL.                 xix. 16, 17....  445, 446
xi. 36.... 300, n. xix. 28...                     292
xx. 20..... 447
HOSEA.                  xx. 23...                  292
iii. 5........ 217, n. xx. 28.....    145, 193
xi. 1....           219, n. xxiii. 14....... 433
xxiv. 5....... 243
JOEL.                  xxiv. 26, 27..... 278
ii. 30, 31...         279, n. xxiv. 30....... 403, D.
iii. 15......   279, n. xxiv. 34....... 280
xxiv. 37- 39.....  398, n.
AMTOS.                 xxiv. 42-51..  277, n. 398, n.
viii. 9........ 279, n. xziv. 43, 44.... 397, n.
xxv.......  280, 281
OBADIAHI.                xxvii. 35......  433
21.........   305, n. xxviii. 9, 17.....447
xxviii. 18.... 69, n. 280
MALACHII.                xxviii. 19.     215 - 218, 284
iii......... 253
IMARK.
1.2,3........     253
TOBIT.                 iv. 33... 411
xi. 13....                217, n. v. 6........447
vi. 3.......75,248
WISDOM OF SCLOMON.              vi. 11........ 433
vii., viii., x...... 311            viii. 38....... 306, n.
ix. 1,2.....   310,311              x. 17, 18.......          446
xviii. 15....... 310                 x. 44......    193
xiii. 6....... 243
ECCLESIASTICUS.             xiii. 32.......  61
xxiv. 21..                  250  xv.19....... 447
xvi. 19... 456, n.




INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.    485
LUKE.         Page                JOHN (continued). Page
i. 16,17......    254        vi. 30, 31......  279
i. 32, 35......   221, n. vi. 31-33, 35,38..  247,248
i. 47........ 305, n. vi. 38.......391
i. 76........ 253                     vi. 41, 42......  248
iii. 4......    253          vi. 46........ 207, n.
vi. 20..... 162, n. 178        vi. 47- 51......249
vi. 35........ 220, n. vi. 51-53...  182, 250
vii. 27........ 253                   vi. 53...   151, 159, 181
ix. 26.....  218, n. 306, n. vi. 57......71, 456, n.
ix. 55, 56...... 433                 vi. 59- 62...... 251
x. 18.......420          vi. 61, 62......385
xii. 49....... 270                   vi. 62......    248
xiii. 1          I.. 413               vi. 63......  252, 330, n.
xiv. 10....... 448                   vi. 64, 68.... 330, n.
xiv. 26....... 144                    vii. 27........  72, n.
xvii. 20 21....         275, 423       vii. 53 -viii. 11....445
xvii. 36....... 433                 viii. 24.......  244
xviii. 18, 19.....  446        viii. 24, 28...... 243
xviii. 31-34...  422, 423        viii. 28, 29......  71
xxi. 8........ 243                      viii. 44.....   420, 421
xxi. 34, 35...... 398, n. viii. 47....... 207, n.
xxii. 43, 44...... 446                viii. 52, 53...... 242
xxiv. 21.......   395                  viii. 54.......  70
xxiv. 52.....    446, 447              viii. 56....... 299
viii. 56- 58... 242-246
JOHN.                   ix. 2........ 413
i. 1... 66, 120, n. 307, etc.      ix. 28, 29....    235
317, etc. 385     ix. 38....4...             447
i. 1-18.... 324-326           x.16......  237, 271
i. 14......  220,313, n. x. 30....  92, n. 144
i. 18...... 448-469                  x.34 -36...... 301, n.
1. 23......    253      x.36........ 221, n.
i. 51'(al. 52)......  74              x. 37........  71
iii. 2......    391             xi. 25, 26...... 271
iii. 12, 13....   246, 391        xi. 26.....   151, 263
iii. 16- 21...... 220, n. xii. 17....... 207, n.
iii. 17- 19...  270, 271      xii. 27.......  73
iii. 28........ 243, n. xii. 32........  271
iii. 31..... 207, n. 391       xii. 40, 41....  298,299
iii. 34.......   470                 xii. 47, 48...... 262
iii. 35.......    69, n. xii. 49, 50.....71271
iv. 26........ 243, n. xiii. 19....... 243,,
v. 3, 4........    433       xiv. 2, 3.....  272, 273
v. 16 - 30..  256, 258-268        xiv.8........413
v. 17........ 260                     xiv. 9.......245
v.19.......  71                    xiv. 10......    71
v.21........ 261                      xiv. 18, 19...      272
v. 22... 66, 69, n. 261, 262       xiv. 24.......  71
v.24.......  262, 263         xiv. 28.......  61
v. 25......  264, 265                xv. 27........ 330, n.
v.26........  70                     xvi. 4........ 330, n.
v. 27..... 69, n. 265      xvi. 17 -19.....77, 230, n.
v. 28,29....   267,268          xvi. 23....... 230
v. 30........  61                     xvi. 30.......  78
v. 36........  71          xvii........  61
v. 45......  261, 262          xvii. 1.......88
vi. 15.....  245, n. 247          xvii. 1- 5...... 240




486    INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.
JOHN (continued). Page              ROMANS (continued). Page
xvii. 3.... 198     viii. 29, 30......  236
xvii. 5.......65, 392        viii. 33, 34...... 207, n.
xvii. 11.......  93, n. ix. 3........ 208, n.
xvii. 21-23...           93, n. ix. 4, 5.......206
xvii. 22....... 240            ix. 5     68, 203- 214, 470- 472
xvii. 23....... 241                  ix. 8........ 208, n.
xvii. 24....240, 241, 392      x. 6-8......  478
xviii. 36....... 423                x. 9........  209, n.
xx. 28...... 299-304         x. 12........ 207,.
xx. 29.....       303, n. x. 18......    478
xx. 31........ 303, n. xi. 33.......  295, n.
xxi. 20 -23.. 393, 394   xiii. 11, 12...... 400
xiv. 10.....   408, 472
ACTS.                 xv. 29........ 473
i. 6, 7......    395     xv. 2...473
ii.22-24....         79
ii. 36........  69, n.                        1 CORINTHIANS.
iv. 32........    93, n. i. 2........2228
v.20........  330, n. i. 4-8...    400, 401
vii. 59......              224     i. 10......                 146
viii. 37....    433     i. 13........ 217, n.
ix. 5......    433  i. 17......  289
ix. 14, 21....    228  i. 22........ 279, n.
x. 42........  69, n. i. 26........ 207, n.
xiii. 25....... 243 n. ii. 2.    289
xiii. 30-37...... 209, n. iii.8........    93, n.
xiv. 15....... 292          iii. 23......    472
xv. 28........ 218, n. iv. 5......    400
xvi. 6-10....  226, 227, n. vi. 14........  209, n.
xvi. 7......    470     vi. 17......                 122
xvii. 26....... 325, n. viii. 6.......472
xvii. 31. 68, 69, n. 209, n. 473   x. 2........ 217, n.
xviii. 15...  277                   x. 9........ 473
xix. 9, 10... 225, n. x. 18.......  208, n.
xx. 28,.... 159, 184, 201, n. xi. 3......    472
xx. 32........ 217, n. xii. 13........ 217, n.
xxii. 16....... 228           xv. 15........   209, n.
xxii. 17, seqq...... 225        xv. 18........ 268
xxiii. 8... 417              xv. 23, 24...... 399
xxiv. 6-8.... 433     xv. 24-28... 69,408,472
xxiv. 11..... 225, n. xv. 47....... 474
xxv. 19......   277     xv. 47, 48... 207, n.
xv. 50.....408
ROMANS.                 xv. 51, 52... 400
i. 1 - 4......  209, n.
ii. 16...... 69, n. 473                       2 CORINTHIANS.
iii. 25........   455, n. i. 21........ 209, n.
iv. 5......               159     iii. 14......        207, n.
iv. 16, 17......239       iii. 17........    27
iv. 18-20... 239,n. iv. 14....  209, n. 474
iv. 24........ 209, n. v. 5.....  207, n. 209, n.
vi. 3........   217, n. v. 10........408
vi. 4........ 209, n. v.17........    291
viii. 2........    330, n. vi. 12......    146
viii. 5, 8....... 207, n. vii. 15......                          143
viii. 9-11....   268         viii. 9.......    193
viii. 11....... 209, n. xi. 31.....   213, 214




INDEX  TO  PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE.                     48?
2 COR. (continued). Page         I1 THESSALONIANS.  Page
xii. 8......  224,225             i. 10........ 209, r
xiii.4........   209, n. iii.ll, 11, 12.....   226
iv. 13-18....  395, 396
GALATIANS.               v. 1-6.     397, 398
i. 1....   209, n. 225, n.
i. 11, 12..... 225, n.           2 THESSALONIANS.
i. 15......                237     i. 4 - 10.....    398, 399
iii. 27, 28......269               i. 12........ 201, n,
iv. 23, 29..           208, n. ii.......    399
vi. 15......        291     ii. 8........ 477
ii. 12......        201, n
EPHESIANS.               ii. 16, 17.              226, 227
1. 3, 4......    236
i. 15-23......293,294                     1 TIMOTHY.
i. 17........     476     i. 1........      305, ni. 17-23.......  69, n. ii.3........ 305,n.
i. 19, 20......   209,n. ii. 5.......                472
i.23......296,297         iii. 14-16.... 188-139
ii.7....195                  iii. 16..    184, 185-191
ii. 10......    291      iv. 10........ 305, n.
iii. 9........ 474                  v. 21......201, n. 218, n.
iii. 11........   195              vi. 14-16...... 306, n.
iii. 14-19....  295, 296
iii. 17........   268                           2,TIMOTHY.
iv. 4, 5....... 207, n  i.  8,9......  236, 237
iv. 11-13...... 296              iv..... 201, n. 408
iv. 20, 21...... 268
iv. 24...              291                     TITUS.
v. 5.....   199, n. 201, n. i. 1, 2.......    237
v. 21.......               475     i. 3........ 305,n.
vi. 10........   217, n. ii. 10.......   305, n.
ii. 13   201, n. 203,n. 305,n. 306, n.
PHILIPPIAKS.              iii. 4- 6....... 305, n.
i. 6........401
i. 8, 21....... 269                             HEBREWS.
ii. 5-8... 61, 66, 191-193       i. 1-5....  67, 195, 196
ii. 9........   74                 i. 5........219
ii. 9-11.......              69, n. i. 6........ 447, n.
ii. 12........   143                i. 8, 9,...... 61,301, n
ii. 16....         330, n. i. 10-12..... 68,214
iii. 3......    475      ii. 14........ 203, n,.
iii. 8........               269     ii. 16........ 203, n.
iv. 5........ 400                   iii. 4........ 209, n.
iv. 13........475                   iv. 12, 13...... 331, n.
x.25.......   401
COLOSSIANS.              xi. 3......  194, 195, n.
i. 9 - 20....   289 - 293      xi. 19....... 239,.
i. 15-17... 61,66,291-293          xii.2........    74
i. 19........   294                 xiii. 8, 9...... 269
i.27........   476
ii. 1 - 10......    297                    JAMES.
ii. 2,3.....            476      v. 8........   400
ii. 6, 7.......268
ii. 12........ 209, n.                           1 PETER.
ii. 17........ 207, n. ii. 9......    478
iii. 13....,.   268, 477     iii. 15.......477
iii. 15......    477      iv. 7........ 401




488    INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.
2 PETER.       Page                    JUDE.          Page
i....... 201, n. 305, n. 4.... 201, n. 203, n. 478
iii. 3-13.....404,405           5........                  478
25..... 305, n. 479
1 JOHN.
i. 1-3....... 330                          REVELATION.
ii. 7........ 330, n. i.1, 3......402,403
ii. 12....... 266, n. i. 4, 5....... 218, n.
li. 18.......401                  i. 7....... 403
ii.20........ 139                    i. 8.....479, 480
ii. 24...... 330, n. i. 11........ 480
iii. 5,7...      266, n. i. 17...... 480
iii. 11.... 330, n. ii. 8.......                48
iii. 16..... 266, n. 478   iii. 2.......              481
v. 7, 8.... 63, 184, 185        iii. 9.......              447. 11........ 197, n. xix. 13......    331, n.
v. 18-21..           196 - 198     xxi.6.......    479
xxii. 10, 12.....    404
2 JoN.                  xxii. 13...... 479, 480.......... 197, l. xxii. 20......   404




GENERAL INDEX.
ACTA Disputationis Archelai cum  Antioch, Third  Synod at (A. D.
Manete, on John i. 18; 461, 467.    269), 461. Fifth Synod at (A,.
Adam Kadmon of the Cabalists, 350.   341), 460, n.
Addison, on Milton, 150.             Apocalypse, an early work, but not
Adimantus the Manichoean, on John    written by St. John, 402, 409.
i. 18; 465.                         Its character and purpose, 402 -
_Eons of the Gnostics, 336, n. 350,   404. Speaks of the second com368, 369.                           ing of Chris' as near at hand,
Aikin, Dr. John, on Milton, 150.      ibsd.
Alcuin, on John i. 18; 450, 452, n. Apollinaris, 111, 117, 123, 128.
466.                              Apostles, the, miraculous  interAlexander of Alexandria, 93, n. 461,   course of o:.r Saviour with, after
467.                                his removal from the earth, 225Alford, his edition of the Greek Tes-   227. Their expectations concerntqment, 440-442.  Referred to,   ing his visible return, 284, 393 -
446, 447, 451, 470, etc.            410.  Divinely  enlightened  re-' All things," restricted meaning of   specting the essential truths of
the term, 140.                       Christianity, 412; comp.  198.
Allegorical interpretation of the Old    Why this iliEmination was not
Testament, 418, 419.                further extended, 410- 427.
Alter, his critical labors, 439.    Apostolical Constitutions, 468.
Ambrose, on John i. 18; 465.        Aquila, his version of Is. ix. 5; 301,
America, state of theology and re-   n.
ligion in, 17, 18.                Archelaus, on John i. 18; 461, 467.
American Bible Union, 438.          Arians, 111, 123, 366, 468.
American Tract Society, 69, n.      Aristotle, 161, n. 176.
Ammon, C. F., on Rom. ix. 5; 212, Arius, 450, 459, 460, n.
n.                                Article, the Greek, Middleton's DocAncyra, Second Synod of (A. D.   trine of, examined, 199-203, n.
358), on John i. 18; 451, n. Quot- "Ascending to heaven," figurative
ed, 454.                            meaning of the expression, 246,
Andreas Cretensis, on John i. 18;   386.
464.                              Asterius, 468.
"Angel of Jehovah," 183, n.         Athanasian cred, 171, 172.
Angels, Jewish conceptions concern- Athanasius, 43, 91, 122, 126, 171.
ing, 274, 275.                      Quoted, 363. On John i. 18, 452,
Animal soul (anima) distinguished    n. 462.  Pscud-Athanasius, 462.
by some from  the intellect or Athenagoras, or the Logos, 358,359,
spirit, 110, 111, n.; but not by    360. 
Tertullian, 115.                  Attributes of God hypostatized, or
Antichrist, 401.                       conceived of as proper persons,
Antinomians, 159.                      by Philo, 31? - 316, 336- 349; by




490                      GENERAL INDEX.
the Gnostics, 334 -336, n. 350; by    meaning of th( expression, 228,
the Cabalists, 350-352; by the    229.
Hindoos, 352, 353; and by the  Calvin, 92. 301, n.  On John x. 30;
Christian Fathers, 355 - 367. As    92, n.
persons regarded as far inferior to  Campbell, Dr. George, on  Luke
God, 365, 366.                      xxiv. 52; 447, 448, n.
Augustine, 332, 363, 465.  Quoted, Cave, Dr. William, 453.
97, 373.                          Chalcedon, Council of (A. D. 451),
129.
BACON, Lord, on the Incarnation, Chalcidius, 101, n.
130.                              Chalmers, Dr. Thomas, criticised,
Barnes, Albert, on Acts xx. 28;   147, 160-163, n.
184, n.                            Christian Disciple, referred to, 3.
Basil of Seleucia, 450, 459, 460, n.   Christian Examiner, referred to, 18,
Basil the Great, 450, 451, n.          n. 43, n. 183, n. 189, n. 194, n.
Basnage, quoted, 98, 99, 100, 350,   296, n. 329, n. 333, n. 342, n. 354,
351.                                 n,
Baumgarten, on Acts xx. 28; 184, Christianity, present stsle of otir.
n.                                   ion and feeling respecting, 5 - 15.
Baumgarten-Crusius, on Rom. ix.   Importance of correct opinions
5; 212, n.                           concerning, 20 - 29, 378 - 380.
Beausobre, quoted, 101, 102.           Obstacles to the spread of the
Belief of a manifest contradiction    truth, 36-38. Blended with for.
impossible, 367; comp. 61, 62, 85,   eign opinions even by the ear86, 171.                             liest Christian Fathers, 119, 120.
Bengel, 439, 476.                      What it teaches, 375, 376.  Its
Benson, George, on 1 Tim. iii. 16;   inestimable value, 377- 379. But
189, n.                              its authority and value are goryBentley on the identity of the Chris-   when it is not regarded as a detian and Platonic Trinity, 103,   vine revelation, 16, 17.
104; quoted, 150, 434, 438.        CHRIST.  See JESUS CHRIST.
Berriman, John, on I Tim. iii. 16; Chrysostom, 267, n. 463.
189, n.                            Church of England, service of, 172.
Beza, his editions of the Greek Tes- Cicero, quoted, 12, 13, 160, n.
tament, 436, 437, 478.             Clarke, Adam, on Acts xx. 28; 184,
Biblical Repository.  See Mayer,   n.
Stuart.                           Clarke, Dr. Samuel, 43, n. Quoted,
Birch, A., his critical labors, 439.   357 - 359.
Birch, T., his Life of Tillotson, 172, Claudianus Mamertus, 452, n.
n.                                 Clement of Alexandria, 358, 450,
Blackwood's Magazine, quoted, 11.   451, n. 453, 467.  Quoted, 96, 97,
Bloomfield, on Rev. i. 8; 479.         113, 237, 361, 453, n. Looseness
Bohme, C. F., on Rom. ix. 5; 210,   of his citations from  Scripture,
n.                                   455, 456. On the incarnation of
Brahma, 352.                           the Logos, 112 - 114.
Browne, Sir Thomas, on witchcraft, Clement of Rome, quoted, 208, n.
417, n.                            Clementine Homilies, quoted, 221, n.
Bull, Bishop, quoted, 44 - 46.       Colossians, Epistle to the, 288.
Bunyan, 402.                         "Coming from  heaven" or from
Burke, Edmund, 32, n.  Quoted,   God, figurative meaning of the
141, 142, 157, 158.                  expression, 386, 391.
Byron, Lord, 11.                     "Coming " of Christ, not literal and
personal, but figurative, 230,:E.
CABALISTS, speculations of the, 350    272, 274- 282, 423.  Our Sav- 352.                              iour's  language  concerning  it
Caesarius, or Pseudo-Cesarius, 463    misunderstood by his Apostla,
464.                                 284, 393 - 410.
"Calling on the name of Christ,"  Common English Version of thc




GENERAL INDEX.                            491
New Testament, 437. Mistrans- Drummond, Sir William, 13.
lations in, 146, 191, etc., 203, n.,
and elsewhere.                     EADIE, Professor John, on Col. ii. 2,
Communication of Properties, doc-   3; 476.
trine of the, 124.                 Eclectic Review, 187, n. 189, n.
Complutensian Polyglot, 434 - 436,   190, n.
478.                               Education, moral and religious, 22 -
Constantine, the Emperor, 97.          25.
Constantinople, Council of (A. D. Eichhorn, 188, n.
381), 43, 123.                     El, use of the word, 300, n.
Conybeare and llowson, 207, n. 306, Eleazar, or Eliezer, Rabbi, 238, n.
n. 475, 476.         -             flohim, use of the word, 300, n.
Cosri, the book, quoted, 238, n.     Elzevir editions of the Greek TesCouncils.  See Ancvya. Antioch,   tament, 437.
Chalcedon, Constanrtinople, Ephe- Emanations, Cabalistic doctrine of,
sus, Lateran, Nice.                  350- 352.
" Create," use of the word to denote Emlyn, on Heb. i. 10 - 12; 214, n.
a moral renovation, 291.          England, state of theology in, 15.
Cudworth, quoted, 98, 99, 105, 348, Ephesians, Epistle to the, 288.
349. Study of his work on the Ephesus, General Council of (A. D.
Intellectual System  recommend-   431), 127.- Another Council at
ed, 99, n.                           (A. D. 449), the  "Council of
Curetonian Syriac version, 450, n.     Banditti," 128.
Cyril of Alexandria, 126- 128, 450, Ephrem the Syrian, 456.
451, n. 456, 457. Quoted, 458, n. Epiphanius, 450, 451, 452, n. QuotPseudo-Cyril, 463.                   ed, 454.  Looseness of his citations from Scripture, 455, 456.
DzEMONIACAL possession, 417.         Erasmus, 93, n. 189, n. 197, n. 210,
Damascenus.  See Joannes Dama-   n. 303, n. 306, n. His editions of
scenus.                              the Greek Testament, 434, 435.
Darkness. Figures representing a    Quoted, 480.
day of utter darkness used to de- Error, language of, how far it may
scribe great national calamities,   be used, 420 -422.
278, 279.                         Errors of the Apostles, why not all
Davidson, Dr. Samuel, 184, n. 189,   corrected by our Saviour, 410, etc.
n. 446.                           Eunomius, 450, 459, 460, n.
Davy, Sir Humphry, 14.              Eusebius of Cxesarea, 93, n. 450,
"Dead," the, metaphorical use of   452, n. 455, n. 461, 467.  Quoted,
the term, 264.                       97, 213. 454, n. 462, n.
Death, Christian view of, 263. Use Eustathius of Antioch, 461, 462,
of the term to denote the punish-   467.
ment of sin, 262, 263.            Euthymius Zigabenus, 267, n. 464.
"Descendingc from heaven," figura- Eutyches, 128.
tive meaning of the expression, Excerpta Theodoti, 451, n.
246, 247, 386, 391.
Devil.  See Satan.' FATHERS, the earlier, regarded the
De Wette.  See Wette.                  Father alone as the  Supreme
Didymus of Alexandria, 450, 453,   God, and the Son and Spirit as
454, n. 455.                        far inferior, 42, 43, 45, 208-213,
Dioscurus, 128.                       365, 366; comp. 93, n. 113, 116,
"Discourse," use of the word in the    120, n. 204, 205, 232, 233. Blendsense of " reason," 369, 370.       ed their philosophy with ChrisDocetse, 114.                         tianity, 94, 95, 119, 120, 355, 374.
Doctrina Orientalis, 369, 453.         Borrowed their doctrine of the
Doddridge, 306, n. On Rev. i. 11;   Logos from  Philo, 94, 316, 334,
481.                                338, 355.  Opinions of the FaDouble Nature" of Christ. See   thers concerning the Logos, 358 -
Hypostatic Union.                    373; on the Incarnation, 10846




492                       GENERAL INDEX.
123.  Strange arguments of some    cipal editions of, published in this
of them  for the Trinity, 91, 92.   century, 440-445.
Use of their quotations from the  Green, T. S., his Grammar of the
New Testament in textual criti-   New  Testament Dialect referred
cism, 439, 440.  Their reading of   to, 203, n.
John i. 18; 450-467.  Date of Greenwood, on John xx. 28; 303, n.
the principal, 453-466.            Gregory Nazianzen, or of NazianFaustinus, on John i. 18; 465.          zum, 450, 452, n. 463.  On the
"Favor of Christ," the, 226.            deity of the Holy Spirit, 43, 44.
Ferrandus, 450, 459, 461, n.            On the polytheism  of the "too
Flatt, J. F. von, on RoMn. ix. 5;   orthodox," 54.
207, n.                            Gregory NVssen, or of Nyssa, 450,
Flavian, 128.                           452, n. Quoted, 455, n. 458, 459,
Fleury, referred to, 106.               n.
Food, metaphors derived from  tak- Griesbach, his critical labors, 439ing, 249, 250.                        441.  On  the  Received  Text,
Foster, John, quoted, 158.              438.  Referred to, 184, n. 185,
France, lesson taught by its relig-   189, 213, n. 305, n. 443, 444, 445,
ious history, 29.                     451, 470, etc.
Fritzsche, C. F. A., on Rom. ix. 5; Grotius, 93, n. 184, n. 189, n. 197, n.
210, n.                               301, n. 306, n. 476.
Fulgentius, 450, 451, 452, n. 458. Guericke, or Guerike, 454, n. 455.
Quoted, 459, n.  On "the beginning and the end," as a title of HACKETT, Professor H. B., on Acts
Christ, 480.                         xx. 28; 184, n.
Hahn, 305, n.  Untrustworthiness
GALE, Theophilus, on the Plato-    of his edition of the Greek Testanism  of the Fathers, 101.           ment, 443-445.
Gaudentius, 450, 459, 461, n.        Haldane, Robert, on Rom. ix. 5;
General Repository and Review, re-    212, n.
ferred to, 105, n.                 Hammond, on Col. ii. 2, 3; 476.
German philosophy, 14.               "He," use of the pronoun without
German theology, 16, 252.              an antecedent, 266, n.
Gesenius, on Isa. ix. 5; 183, n.     "Heaven," proper meaning of the
Gibbon, quoted, 95, 96, 129.           word, as we use it, 388, 389.
Gieseler, referred to, 416, n.         "To ascend to heaven," "to be
Gill, Dr. John, quoted, 66.            in heaven,"  " to descend from
Glanvill, quoted, 370.  His "Sad-   heaven," "to come from heaven,"
ducismus  Triumphatus,"  417,   figurative meaning of the expresn.                                   sions, 246-248, 386, 391.  See
Glckler, on Rom. ix. 5; 210, n.       Kingdom of Heaven.
Gnostics, 112, 117, 334, n. 337, 361, Hebrews, Epistle to the, not written
368.                                 by St. Paul, 194, n.
GOD, revealed by  Christianity in  Heinrichs, 184, n. 189, n.
his paternal character, 375, 376. Henderson, Dr. Ebenezer, on 1 Tim.
Figurative language used to de-   iii. 16, 187, n.; his.errors, 189, n.
scribe the operations of, 254, 255, Hengstenberg, 183, n.  On Rev. i.
386-388. Use of the word " God "    8; 480.
as a  common name, 120, 121, Heraclitus, 113.
300, 301, 314, 319, 320, 365, n. Hermas, Shepherd of, 402. Quoted,
468.                                  238, n.
Goethe, 11 -13.                      Hezekiah, Rabbi, 238, n.
Government, civil, its legitimate  Hilary, on John i. 18; 450, 451,
purpose and best form, 25.           452, n. 464, 465, n.
Gray, quoted, on Milton, 150.        Hillel, Rabbi, 250.
Greek New Testament, various read- Hindoos, the divine attributes hyings of, 432, 433, etc. History of   postatized in their theology, 352,
the printed text, 434 - 445. Prin-    353.




GENERAL INDEX.                            493
Hippolytus, 93, n. 461, 467.  On JACKSON'S edition of Novatian reRom. ix. 5, 208 - 210.               ferred to, 43, n. 93, n. 112, n.
Hofmann, J. C. K., on 1 John v. 20; Jaspis, on 1 John v. 20; 197, n.
197, n.                            Jerome, 455.
Holy Spirit, personality and divini- Jerusalem, destruction of, and exty of the, 43, 64. Use and mean-   tinction of the Jewish  nation,
ing of the term, 311, 312. The    how  connected with the estabconception analogous to that of   lishment of Christianity or the
the Logos, 312. The Holy Spirit  figurative "coming" of Christ,
often confounded with the Logos   275 - 277.
by the earlier Fathers, 312, n.    JESUS CHRIST. The doctrine that
Hope, Thomas, 13, 14.                  he is both God and man a conHorsley, Bishop, quoted, 91, 103.   tradiction in terms, 57, 58, 169; it
Recommends the study of Cud-   turns the Scriptures into a book
worth, 99.                           of enigmas, 60, 61. The proposiHowe, John, on the Trinity, 54.        tion, that he is God, proved to be
Huet, his " Origeniana" referred to,   false from the Scriptures, 65 - 89;
43, n.                               it cannot even be understood in
Hug, J. L., 187, n.                    any sense which is not obviously
Hume, David, quoted, 33, 34.           false, 85-89.  Taught his folHurd, Bishop, quoted, 82.              lowers to pray, not to himself,
Huther, J. E., 189, n. 197, n. 306,   but to God, 223, 229, 230. His
n. 442, 476, 477, 478, 479.          miraculous intercourse with his
Hypostatic Union, 57- 62. History    Apostles and first followers, 225 -
of the doctrine, 107 - 135, 303, n.   228.  The question of his preLanguage of Bacon, South, Watts,   existence, 234-253. Often spokand others, 129 - 134. Not a mys-   en of personally, when his religion
tery, but an absurdity, 169.         is intended, 247-250, 268 -284.
Confined his teaching to the esIDACIUS CLARUS, 466.                   sential truths of religion, 412, 414
Idatius the Chronicler, 466, n.        - 427. Employed terms familiar
Ideas, archetypal world of, in the    to his hearers in new senses, leavPlatonic  philosophy, 308, 309,   ing their meaning to be gradually
345-349.                             unfolded, 176, 177; comp. 284.
Ignatius (Pseudo-Ignatius), 468.       His divine authority, 17, 429. See
Immanuel, meaning of the name,   Apostles, " Coming," Hypostatic
255.                                 Union, Judgment, Logos, Messiah.
Inadequate ideas, 166, 387,          Jewish nation.  See Jerusalem.
Incarnation of the Logos, opinions Jewish opinions respecting the comof the Fathers concerning, 108,   ing of the Messiah  and events
etc.                                 connected with it, 243, 250, 251,
Incomprehensible propositions not   389 - 406.
objects of belief, 165 -169.       Jewish  prejudices against ChrisIncomprehensible truths, 164.          tianity, 80, 235, 257, 258.
Infinity, our idea of, 165 -167.     Joannes Damascenus, on John i.
Inquisition, the, 106.                 18; 464.
Inspiration of the Apostles, 412.    John, the Apostle, his purpose in
Interpretation of language, its prin-   the Introduction of his Gospel,
ciples, 138 -155.  Fundamental   321, 330; in the commencement
principle of interpretation  vio-   of his First Epistle, 329 - 331.
lated by Trinitarian expositors,   His style, 257; comp. 198, 266, n.
156, 170.                            Not the author of the Apocalypse,
Irenaeus, 312, n. 313, n. 358, 450,   402, 409.
451, n. Quoted, 111, n. 112, n. Johnson, Dr. Samuel, on Milton, 149.
360, 361. On the incarnation of Jowett, Professor Benjamin, 441.
the Logos, 110-112. Quotations    On Rom. ix. 5; 472.
of John i. 18; 461.                "Judge," use of the verb, 282.
Isidore of Pelusium, 450, 459, 460.   Judgment of men by Christ, 68,




494                      GENERAL INDEX.
261, 262, 270, 271, 280 -282, 284,   which shone round Christ at his
285.                                 transfiguration, controversy  reJulian of Eclanum, 463, n.             specting, 416.
Julian, the Emperor, 452, n. 458, n. Literature of the day, absence of
462.                                 religious principle in the, 9 - 15.
Junilius, on Johni i. 18; 466.       Locke  32, 132, 200, n. 207, n.
Justi, L. J. C., on Rom. ix. 5;   212, n.
212, n.                            Logos, meaning of the term, 307,
Justin Martyr, on the incarnation    369 -372. Its use in the later Plaof the Logos, 108-110.  Quot-   tonic philosophy, 308, 309. Pered, 108, n. 109, 204, 205, 312, n.   sonified in the Wisdom  of Solo359.                                 mon, 310, 311. Naturalness of the
conception, 310. The Logos, at
"KINTGDOM of Heaven," or of God,   first personified, afterwards hyposor of the Messiah, meaning of the    tatized, or conceived of as a proper
term, 176, 177; figurative lan-   person, 313.  Opinions of Philo,
guage connected with it in the    314 - 316. St. John's use of the
New  Testament, 273, 274, 280,   term, 317 - 331.  Regarded  by
281.                                 the Fathers of the first four cenKnapp, 93, n. 305, n. 443, 444, 445,   turies both as an attribute and a
446, 470, etc.                       person, 355 - 364.  Often identiKollner, on Rom. ix. 5; 210, n.   fled with the Holy  Spirit, and
211, n.                              with the Wisdom of God, 312, n.;
Koppe, on Rom. ix. 5; 211, n.          comp. 362, 363.  Origen quoted
Krehl, A. L. G., on Rom. ix. 5;   on the relation of the Logos to
210, n.                              the Wisdom  of God, 356, 357.
Kuinoel, or Kiihnol, 93, n. 184, n.   The Logos partially  identified
302, n.                              with God by the earlier Fathers,
365, 366. Conceived of as a manLACHMANN, 184, n. 189, n. 210, n.   ifestation of God, 368, 369. The
300, n. 445, 449, 470, etc. His   uttered Logos, 369 - 372. Confueditions of the Greek Testament,   sion of ideas produced by con440, 441, 443.                       founding the different meanings
Lactantius, quoted, 366, n. 370, n.    of the word, 372, 373.  See FaLamson, Dr. Alvan, referred  to,   thers, Philo.
43, n.                             Lowth, Dr. William, on Isa. vi. 3;
Language, principles of its interpre-   182.
tation, 138 - 155. Intrinsic am- Lucian the martyr, 450, 459, 460, n.
biguity of, 138, 283, 284; causes, Liicke, 197, n. 302, n.
141-147.  Considerations to be Lfinemann, G. C. G., 442, 477.
attended to by an interpreter of, Luther, on Isa. ix. 5; 183, n.
148, 149.  Its literal meaning
often absurd, or false, 156 - 160. MACKNIGHT, on Titus ii. 13; 306.
So far as it has a meaning, it Mai, Angelo, 463, n.
must be intelligible; it cannot ex- Manuscripts, Greek, of the New
press incomprehensible mysteries,   Testament, 188, n. 439, 449.
161-169.                             Punctuation in, 205, 206, 471.
Lardner, 453, 461, n.                Marcellus, 213, 450, 459, 460, n.
Lateran Council (A. D. 1215), 105. Marsh, Bishop, 184, n. Quoted, 434.
Laurence, Archbishop, on 1 Tim. Martini, referred to, 43, n.
iii. 16; 185, n.                   Matthaei's editions of the Greek TesLeClerc, 306, n.  Quoted, 125, 127,   tament, 439 - 441.  Referred to,
128, 371.                            457, n. 475, 477, 481.
Leo I., Pope, 128.                   Maurer, on Isa. ix. 5; 183, n.
Liberty, civil, true religion its only  Maximinus the Arian bishop, 452,
safeguard, 25- 29.                   n. 465.
Light the substance of God, accord- Mayer, Dr. Lewis, on Heb. i. 8, 9;
ing to the Cabalists, 351. Light   301, n.




GENERAL INDEX.                            495
Messiah, the, Jewish expectations Noves, Dr. George R., referred to,
and feelings respecting, 243 -245,   182, n. 183, n. 189, n. 250, n.
250, 251, 389 - 406. _ See Old Testament.                            OERTEL, on Rom. ix. 5; 212, n.
Meyer, H. A. W., 184, n. 189, n. Old Testament, affords no proof of
197, n. 210, n. 302, n. 303, n.   the doctrine of the Trinity, 181,
306, n. 446, 448, n. 470, etc. His   182; or of the deity of the MesCommentary on the New Testa-   siah, 183, n.  Allegorical interment, 442.                           pretation of the, 418, 419.
Michaelis, J. D., 184, n. 197, n. 302, Olshausen, 184, n. 189, n. 476, 477.
n. 448.                              Quoted, 211, n.
Middleton, Bishop, 93, n. 185. His Omniscience, our idea of, 167 - 169.
"Doctrine of the Greek Article   " Only Son,"  or  "only-begotten
examined, 199-203, n.                Son," meaning of the term  as
Mill, Dr. John, 435. His edition of   applied to Christ, 220, 469, n.
the Greek Testament, 438, 439.   Oriental style, 143, 236, 241, 249,
Millennium, doctrine of the, 406,   277, 278, 282, 287, 288, 409.
407, 409.                          Origen, 93, n. 109, n. 314, 450, 451,
Milton, hyperbolical language used    n. 452, n.  Quoted, 120, n. 121,
concerning, by Johnson, Addison,   362, 364, 366, n. On the incarBentley, and  others, 149, 150.   nation of the Logos, 120-122.
Calls angels "gods," 300, n.         On the relation of the Logos to
Monk's Life of Bentley, 103, 104.      the Wisdom  of God, 356, 357,
Monophysite heresy, 128, 129.          comp. 335, n. 362.  On Prayer,
Montagu, Richard, 462, n.              231- 234. Denies that Christ is
Montfaucon, 434, 466, n.' the God over all," 213. On the
More, Henry, his " Antidote  to    Unitarianism of the great body of
Atheism," 417, n.                    believers, 374.  Quotations  of
Morus, on 1 John v. 20; 197, n.        John i. 18; 456, 457.
Moses, remarkable language con- Orthodoxy, so called, 376 - 378.
cerning, 255, n.                   Oudin, 464.
Mosheim, quoted, 94, 95, 96, n. 126, Ovid, quoted, 349.
129. Referred to, 416, n.
Miinscher, his "Dogmengeschichte"  PALEY   has misrepresented  the
referred to, 43, n. 112, n. Errors,   character of Christian morality,
111, n. 120, n. Quoted, 122.        178.
Miinter, quoted, 117, 118.           Palladius, 455.
Mysteries, 161.                      Patrick, Bishop, on Deut. vi. 4;
182.
"NAME," pleonastic use of the Patripassians, 110.
word, 215, 216, 228.              Paul, the Apostle, his miraculous
"Nature," use of the word, 310.       intercourse with Christ, 225, 226.
Nature of Christ.  See Hypostatic    Not the author of the Epistle to
Union.                               the Hebrews, 194, n.
Neander, quoted, 111, n. 371, n. Paulus, on Rom. ix. 5; 210, n.
Referred to, 118, 197, n. 302, n. Pearce, Bishop, on John x. 30; 93,
306, n.                              n.
Nestorius, 126 - 128.                Penn, Granville, 446, 476.
Newcome, Archbishop, 93, n. 197, " Person," meaning of the word, in
n. 306, n. On 1 Cor. x. 9; 474.      reference to the Trinity, 40 - 42,
Newton, Sir Isaac, on 1 Tim. iii. 16;   47 - 54.
189, n.                           Petavius, or Petau, his " Dogmata
New York, State of, religious fanat-   Theologica" referred to, 43, n.
icism in, 18, n.                     125, 416.  Quoted, 100, 101, 362,
Nice, Council of (A. D. 325), 42, 54,   363.
122, 358, 359.                    Peter, the Apostle, probably not the
Noesselt, on Rom. ix. 5; 207, n.       author of the  Second  Epistle
Novatian, 93, n. 210.                  ascribed to him, 401.
46*




496                      GENERAL INDEX.
Phoebadius, or Phcebadius, 450, 464,   104 n.  Errors, 111, n. 112, n.
465.                                 232, n. 363, n.
Philentolos, Daniel, Arabic version  Proclus of Constantinople, 463.
of the New Testament by, 186, n. Prudentius, 452, n. Quoted, 364.
Philo, the Jewish philosopher, 94, n. Ptolemy, the Gnostic, 334, n.
220, 221, 308, 363, 371, 372, n. Punctuation of the Greek New TesHis character and influence, 332,   tament of no authority, 205, 206,
333. His conceptions respecting    471.
the Logos, 314 - 316. Applies the
term   Logos to  angels, Moses, RARMMIOHUJN ROY, 353.
Aaron, &c., 328, 329. His specu- " Ransom," use of the word, 155.
lations concerning  the Wisdom  Ratio as the rendering of Logos, 370,
of God, 336- 338. Hypostatizes    371.
other attributes or Powers of God, Received Text, so called, of the
338- 343, and even the Powers of   Greek New Testament, 432-434,
God generally, 343-345, which    437, 438.
he identifies with the Ideas of the Reiche, on Rom. ix. 5; 210, n.
archetypal world, 345 -348. His Religion, as a science, defined, 26.
speculations similar to those of   What it teaches, 375, 376.
the Gnostics, Cabalists, and Hin- Resurrection of Christ effected by
doos, 334- 353. Explanation of   the power of God, the Father,
the process of thought which led    209, n.
to them, 353 - 355. See Fathers.  Revelation of St. John.  See ApocPhiloxenian Syriac version, 466, n.    alypse.
Photius, 464, n.                     Robinson, Dr. Edward, 93, n. 443.
Plato, 175. Nothing resembling the    On the word 7rpoocKVVwV, 447.
doctrine of the Trinityto be found  Rosenmiller, J. G., 93, n. 184, n.
in his writings, 96. Epistles as-   189, n. 197, n. 302, n. 306, n.
cribed to him spurious, 96, n.    Riickert, L. I., 210, n. 211, n. 474.
Platonic philosophy, the later, the  Rufinus of Aquileia, 457.
source of the doctrine of the Trin- Rufinus Svrus, or Palastinensis,
ity, 94-104, 322. Its archetypal   463.
world of Ideas, and doctrine of
the Logos, 308, 309, 348.          SABATIER, on John i. 18; 464.
Pleroma of the Gnostics, 336, 351.   Sabellians, the, 212.
Pliny's Letter to Trajan, quoted, Sabellius, 213.
231.                               Sceculum, meaning of the word, 194.
Plutarch, quoted, 32.                Salvation. How men are "saved"
Pocock, Dr. Edward, 394, n. 395, n.   by Christ, 270.
Pope, quoted, 150.                   Sandius, referred to, 114.
Porter, Professor J. Scott, 189, n. Satan, Jewish conception of, 198.
446.                                 Language of our Saviour respectPotter, Archbishop, quoted, 114.       ing, 420, 421.
Powers of God hypostatized  by  Saxe or Saxius, C., 464.
Philo, 338-345.  Regarded  by  Schleusner, 93, n. 476.
him as constituting the Ideas of Schoettgen, 238, n.
the archetypal world, 346 - 348. Scholz, his critical researches, and
So by others among the later   edition of the Greek Testament,
Platonists, 348, 349.                439-441.  Referred to, 189, n.
Prayer to Christ, remarks on, 221-    305, n. 451, 470, etc.
234.                               Schott, H. A., 184, n. 189, n. 197, n.
Pre-existence of Christ, remarks on    305, n. 306, n. 443, 470, etc.
the, 234- 253.                     Schrader, Karl, on Rom. ix. 5; 210,
Pre-existence of souls, doctrine of,   n.
prevalent in the time of Christ, Scrivener, F. H., 437, n.
413.                               Semisch, quoted, 455, 456.
Priestley, his  History  of Early  Semler, on Rom. ix. 5; 207, n. 210,
Opinions, referred  to, 43, n.   n.




GENERAL INDEX.                            497
Sephiroth of the Cabalists, 351, 352, Synods.  See Ancyra, Antioch.
366.
Sermo as the rendering of Logos, TALMUD, quoted, 238, n. 250.
370, 371.                          Tatian, on the Logos, 358.
Shakespeare, quoted, 194,195. Re- Taylor, Dr. John, of Norwich, 207,
ferred to, 448.                       n.
Sharp, Granville, on the Greek ar- Tertullian, quoted, 116, 210-212,
tide, 199, n. 478.  On Philip. iii.   313, n. 318, 362, 366, n. 370, n.
3; 475.                               Referred to, 93, n. 115, 117.  On
Sherlock, Dr. William, quoted, 53,   the incarnation of the Logos, 115
372, 373.                            - 117. Looseness of his citations
"Sign from heaven," 279.                from Scripture, 456.
Simpson, Rev. John, 251, n.           Testament.  See Greek New TestaSiva, 352.                              ment, Old Testament.
Smith, Dr. John Pye, 184, n.         "Textus Receptus," 437.
Socinus, regarded Christ as an ob- Theile, his edition of the Greek Tesject of praver, 222.                  tament, 443, 445.  Referred to,
Socrates, the philosopher, 32.          305, n. 470, 473, etc.
Socrates Scholasticus, 460, n.       Theodoret, 112, n.  On the Platonic
" Son of God," use and meaning of   Trinity, 97, 98.  On John i. 18;
the term, 68, 218 - 221.              463.
" Son of Man,"  meaning of the  Theodosius, the Emperor, 127.
term, 265, 266.                   T'heodotion, version of, 301, n.
South, Dr. Robert, on the Incarna- Theodotus, 450, 453.
tion, 130-132.                     Theology, state of, in England, 15;
Souverain, his Le Platonisme devoile,   in Germany, 16; in America, 17,
368, n.                               18. Inveterate errors in, 36.
Sozomen, quoted, 460, n.             Theophilus of Antioch, 358.  QuotSpenser, quoted, 32.                    ed, 312, n. 360.
Spirit of God.  See Holy Spirit.     Theophylact, 267, n. 464.
Stanley, A. P., adopts Lachmann's  Tholuck, on John xx. 28; 302, n.
text, 441.                         Thomson, Charles, 207, n.
Steiger, on Col. ii. 2; 476.         Thomson, James, the poet, quoted,
Stephen, his address to Christ at   227.
his martyrdom, 224.                Thomson, Dr. James, on the manuStephens, Robert, his third edition    scripts used for the Complutenof the Greek Testament, 436, 437,   sian Polyglot, 434.
438.                               Tillotson, Archbishop, on the AthaStoic doctrine of the renovation of   nasian creed, 172.
all things by fire, 406.           Tischendorf, 184, n. 189, n. 210, n.
Stolz, on Rom. ix. 4, 5; 207, n.   305, n. 439.  His editions of the
212, n.                               Greek Testament, 440, 441. ReStuart, Professor Moses, his Letters   ferred to, 446, 451, 470, etc.
to Dr. Channing, 3, n. 41, 58, 66, Tittmann, 305, n. 443, 445, 470, etc.
83.  On John x. 30; 93, n.  On  Titus of Bostra, 450, 452, 462.
the absence of the doctrine of the    Quoted, 463, n.
Trinity from  the Old Testament, Transubstantiation, 105, 151, 159.
181, n.  On Acts xx. 28; 184, n. Tregelles, Dr. S. P., 184, n. 187, n.
On 1 Tim. iii. 16; 189, n. 190.   188, n. 189, n. 434, n. 436, 439,
On Rom. ix. 5; 210, n. On Heb.   446, 473, etc.  His critical labors,
i. 8; 301, n.  On Titus ii. 13;   442, 443. His arguments in favor
306, n. Mistranslation of Tertul-    of the  reading  " only-begotten
lian, 366, n.  On Rev. i. 8; 479.    God," in John i. 18, examined,
Referred to, 203, n. 443.            448- 469.  On I Peter iii. 15;
Sufferings of this life regarded by    477.
the Jews as punishments from  Trinity, doctrine of the, contradicGod, 413.                            tory in terms to that of the unity
Symmachus, version of, 301, n.         of God, 40, 41.  Opinions con



498                       GENERAL INDEX.
cerning it before the Council of Watts, Dr. Isaac, quoted, 73, n. 132,
Nice very different from the mod-   133, 192, n.
ern doctrine, 42, 43. (See Fathers.) Westminster  Assembly's  Shorter
Various modifications of the, 44 -    Catechism, quoted, 63.
57.  Established  in its present Wetstein, 145, n. 178, 184, n. 189,
form by the fourth general Late-   n. 197, n. 212, n. 213, n. 250, n.
ran Council (A. D. 1215), 105.   306, n. 434, 439, 456, n. 475. ErNo pretence that it is expressly   rors in his note on John i. 18; 451,
taught in the Scriptures, 63, 90.   452, 459, 460, 464, n. 466, n.
Changes in the mode of its de- Wette, De, 183, n. 189, n. 197, n.
fence, 91 - 93. Its origin in the    212, n. 306, n. 446, 470, etc.
later Platonic  philosophy, 94-  Whiston's Primitive Christianityre106; nothing  resembling  it in   ferred to, 43, n. 112, n. 114, n.
Plato himself; 96. (See Fathers,   210, n.
Logos.)  Evidence of Ecclesias- Whitby, referred to, 43, n. 91, 92,
tical History against it, 104. Not    178, 213, n. 456, n.
a mystery, but an absurdity, 169, White, Dr. Joseph, 186, n. 187, n.
170.  Present state  of opinion  Wiesinger, 189, n. 475.
concerning it, 4 - 6. An unpleas- Wilson, John, his " Scripture Proofs
ant subject to discuss, 31- 35,   of Unitarianism,"  89, n.; his
285, 286.  See JESUS CHRIST,   "Concessions of  Trinitarians,"
Holy Spirit.                          93, n. 480; his "Unitarian PrinTruth, religious, its vital impor-   ciples confirmed," &c. 303, n.
tance, 20-29, 378, 379.            Winer, on 1 John v. 20; 197, n.
On Titus ii. 13 and Jude 4; 203,
VALENTINIANS, the, 334, n. 337.         n. 306, n. On Rom. ix. 5; 211, n.
Valentinus, 453.                      Winstanley, Rev. Calvin, on  the
Various readings.  See Greek New        Greek article, 202, n.
Testament.                         Winzer, on Rom. ix. 5; 210, n.
Vater, 189, n. 305, n. 443, 446, 470, Wisdom of God, the, personifications
etc.                                 of, 311. Often identified with the
Vedas, the, monotheistic, 353.          Logos, 312, n. 358-363.  Philo's
Verbal translations often false, 146,   conceptions of, 336-338. Origen
147.                                 on its relation to the Logos, 356,
Verbum as the rendering of Logos,    357; comp. 335, n.
370, 371.                          Witchcraft, prevalence of the belief
Versions of the New Testament, an-   in, 416, 417.
cient, reading of 1 Timothy iii. 16  Wood, Anthony i, 32.
in, 185 - 187, n.; their date, 186.   "Word," the, as the rendering of
Victorinus Afer, on John i. 18; 465.    Logos, 370, 371.  See Logos.
Vigilius of Tapsa, 450, 452, n. 466.  Words can  express only human
Vishnu, 352.                           ideas, 162-164.
Voltaire, 11, 12.                     "Worship," use of the word in the
Common Version of the Bible,
WAHL, on John x. 30; 93, n.             447, 448.
Wakefield, Gilbert, 207, n.
Walton's Polyglot, 438.               YATES, Rev. James, 208, n.
Waterland, on the wordperson, 41, Young, Dr. Edward, 158, 159, 300.
42.




GENERAL INDEX.                       499
GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.
atua, " race," 325, n.           Ka\Xo-Oat, 221, n.
alrv, 194.                      Xoyoo, 307, 369.  Xoyos ev8oLaapx) Kat TrXov, 479, 480. ac7'   OeroS, 7rpOpOpLKOS', 370.
apXs,;e apclpx, 330, n.      /iovoyeVs OecoS, 448-469.
Sto, 221, n.                    orTOS, referring to a remoter
Eyco ECLI, 243- 245.               antecedent, 197, n.
T7rLKaXLco-at, 228, 229.         r-X'prqoa, 294 - 298.
^y, 71.                         7rpoo'Kvveiv, 447.
C7o, 261, 324, n.              o-ap~, 325, n.  KarTa aapKa, 208,
eos', 113, 114, 120, n. 314,   n.
365, n. 468.                  +vXy, 111, n.
THE END.