« AnteriorContinuar »
us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only- Written at begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Gad, all were to receive grace upon grace: that is, all, of every
kind and degree, who believe in Chris are called in this life,
to be partakers of his grace, and to the hope of his glory.-
Consequently that error of the Gnostics was to be rejected,
which taught that the adherents of their sect only, who had
been initiated in the mysteries of their philosophy, could aspire
to the highest happiness of the first inlness of the Divinity;
and allotting an inferior degree of happiness to the souls of all
In addition to the Jews, and the beretics of his day, the third
class of persons to whom St. John addressed bis Gospel, were
his cotemporaries among the primitive Christians. The word
Logos has been supposed by many to have been used in the same
sense as in this passage of St. John, in several passages in the
New Testament. Luke i. 2. Acts xx. 32. Heb. iv. 12. Apoc.'
xix. 13. are particularly adduced (ee). If from the writers of
the New Testament we turn to the Apostolic Fathers, we shall
find, though their testimony is express in favour of the divinity
of Christ, their evidence is not deduced from the doctrine of the
Logos. The reason of this might be, that St. John had in their
opinion so completely decided the question, that the necessity
of their resuming the argument had been superseded. The
Fathers wbo succeeded to the Apostolic age, however, lived at
a time when the discussions respecting the identity of the Mes-
siah and the Logos, required further attention; and we accord-
ingly find that from the time of Justin Martyr to Athanasius,
the works of the Fathers abound with arguments in proof of
this fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The greater part of
these authorities aro contained in the works of Bishop Bull (ff).
I bave selected some few of these to complete the list of evi-
dences in support of the doctrine, that the Logos of St. John
was the angel Jehovah of the Jewish, as certainly as it was the
Messiah of the Christian Church.
“ He who appeared to Abraham under the tree in Mamre,”
says Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho,“ was Christ.
He was the Lord, who rained down from the Lord fire and
brimstone out of heaven. He it was who appeared to Jacob in
his sleep, who wrestled with him in the form of a man, who ap-
peared to Moses in the burning busb.”
Irenæus also has laid down the same doctrine as Justin, concerning Him who appeared to Moses and to Abraham. He, says Irenæus, who was worshipped by the prophets as the living God, He is the Logos of God wbo conversed with Moses, and of late reproved the Sadducees. Man had already learned, in the example of Abraham, to follow the Word of God; for this Patriarch foHowed the command of the Word, freely offering his dear Son a sacrifice to God.
Theophilus of Antioch, declares that it was the Son of God who appeared to Adam immediately after his fall, taking upon him the form of the Father, even the Lord of all (99).
Clemens Alexandrinus repeats the same things as Justin; and from that time till the present, the same opinion has prcvailed. The Chaldee paraphrases have asserted of the Word, the same things which the Old Testament declares of the Angel Jehovah, and the Christian Fathers declare of Christ. The Word of God was the term by which both the Jews and the Christians recognized this divine personage, and many others
. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This Written at
could be quoted to prove the same point if accumulative evi.
dence, were essential to conviction.
In addition to the argument derived from this source, we
might mention the manner in which the writers of the New Tes-
tament allude to those passages in the Old Testament which
refer to the Jehovah Angel (hh). Thus Isaiah saw in a vision
the glory of Jehovah in the temple. In John xii. 41. John de.
clares that the glory which tho prophet saw, was the glory of
Christ, plainly affirming thereby that the Jehovah of the old
Testament, the Christ of the New, was the common God
of both dispensations (ii). St. Paul alludes to this doctrine
also, when be refers to Christ the expression of David (Ps.
Ixxviii, 56.) they tempted and provoked the most high God.
Neither let us tempt Christ, says St. Paul, as some of them also
tempted (kk). On such passages as these, and on the application
by our Lord to himself of many of those phrases by which both
Philo and the Chaldee paraphrases were accustomed to de-
signate the Word of God, or the Angel Jehovah, the primitive
Christians founded this opinion. Their principal reasons per-
baps, in addition to these, were derived from the manner in
which St. Paul still more decidedly applies to Christ, such ex-
pressions as the image of God, the glory of God, the image of
the invisible God, God manifest in the flesh. Reasoning from
these and similar expressions, the primitive Christians justly
concluded that the Logos of the Targumists and Philo, and the
Christ of the New Testament, were the same Angel Jehovah of
the Jewish Scriptures.
The fourth class of persons whom St. John may be supposed to have addressed, were the unconverted heathen. Of these the more ignorant were familiar with the doctrine of the incarnations (ů), and the Evangelist might desire, when any of them should become converts to the Christian religion, that they should have correct ideas of the only available incarnation ; that of God manifest in the flesh. The more educated of the Heathen were of course well acquainted with the popular philosophy of their day (mm), and would learn also, should they ever be brought to a knowledge of the truth, that the only real doctrine of the Logos was that which was maintained by the Cbristian Church, and is so satisfactorily set down by St. Jobn in the commencement of his invaluable Gospel.
Thus does it appear, from a careful investigation of the principal authorities that can be now collected, that the preface to St. John's
Gospel is the most important passage in the whole of the New Testament. It is the passage which is the foundation of the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ-the point where the Jewish and Christian Churches meet and divide-the record which identifies the faith of the Mosaic Church with that of the Christian (nn). As the preface to a book is generally the last part written, this passage may be considered as the last of the inspired writings, and as a sacred seal placed on the whole of the Old and New Testament. The government of the Jewish Church was consigned by the Supreme Being, the Father, to that manifested Being who assumed the titles and exerted the powers, and doclared himself possessed of the attributes of the most High God. Without the consent of this Being, the Jewish Church could not have been overthrown. He was accustomed repeatedly to appear. He called himself the captain of the Lord's host (Josh. v. 14, 15. and vi. 2.) the angel in whom the name of God was (Exod. xxiii. 21.) and to this angel, or Jeho.
was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is pre- Written at ferred before me : for he was before me.
vah, are attributed all the great actions recorded of God in the
Old Testament. We do not read any where in the Old or New
Testament, that this Being ceased at any time to protect the
Jewish nation, and its Church. The prophet Malachi, in a
passage (Malach. iii. 1-6. iv. 26.) which has been uniformly
considered by the Jewish as well as Christian commentators to
refer to the Messiah, declares that this Angel Jehovah, the Je-
hovah whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple-to the
temple which had been rebuilt after the return from the cap-
tivity, and wbich was destroyed by the Roman soldiers. But
we have no account whatever, neither bave we any allusion in
any author whatever, that the ancient manifested God of the
Jews, appeared in the usual manner in the second temple be-
tween the time of Malachi and the death of Herod the Great.
The Christian Fathers, therefore, were unanimous in their opi-
nion, that this prophecy was accomplished in the person of
Jesus, and in him only. They believed that Christ, even Jesus
of Nazareth, was the Angel of the Covenant, that be and be
only was Jehovah, the Angel Jehovah, the Logos of St. John,
the Memra Jah of the Targumists, the expected and predicted
Messiah of the Jewish and Christian Chörches. This is the
doctrine rejected by the Unitarian as irrational, by the Dcist as
incomprehensible, by the Jew as unscriptural--but it is the
doctrine which has ever been received by the Christian Church
in general with humility and faith, as its only hope, and conso-
lation, and glory.
(a) Lightfoot, vol. i. p: 391. (b) Dr. Lardner's Works, 4to. vol.iii.
p. 229. (c) Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. p. 321. (d) Horne's
Crit. Introd, 2d edit. vol. iv. p. 329, and Jones on the Canon, Svo
1726, p. 139. (e) Vide Schætgenius-Pref: Hor. Talm. et Heb. p. 2,
when replying to the objections proposed by some agaiost the course
of study he was adopting--duo sequentia mihi a Lect. ben.concedi peto.
1. Christum et omnes N. T. Scriptores Judecos fuisse, et cum Judæis
conversatos, et locutos esse. II. Eos cum Judæis illo sermone, illis-
que loquendi formulis locutos esse, quæ tunc temporis, ab omnibus
intellectæ sunt. c) A learned and laborious friend has collected much
valuable information on the subject of the controversies which prevailed
among the Jews at the time of our Lord and his Apostles. Though he
has withheld his MSS. from the world, I trust they will be given to
the Christian student at an early day. They will not detract from the
well-earned fame of their respecied author. (9) Vide Dr. Pye Smith's
valuable work on the Scripture Testimony to the Messiah. Dr. Smith
prefers translating the phrase 017. gxbo, by the latter epithet. Mr.
Faber, too,' in his Horæ Mosaicæ, vol. ii. p. 48. (one of the most use-
ful books published by this eminent writer) translates it in the same
Both these authorities, however, strenaously defend the divinity of the Being who was thus manifested to mankind as a messenger from ope Jehovah, who himself bore also that incommunicable name. The term the Angel Jehovah, or the Jehovah Angel, seems to express more acourately the meaning of the phrase : though this interpretation cannot be established by such evidence as approaches to certainty. Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. i. p. 333. Faber's Hora Mosaicæ, vol. ii. p. 48. 2d edit. 1818. See also Bishop Horsley's Notes on Hosea-Biblical Criticisms, vol. iv. (h) Knowledge of Jewish Tradition essential to an Interpreter of the New Testament, p. 6. (i) Pearson on the Creed, vol. ii. p. 123. Oxf. edit. note. (i) Vide Archdeacon Blomfield's Knowledge of Jewish Tradition essential, &c. &c. p. 9, 10. (k) Smith's Messiah, vol. i. p. 400. (1) Archbishop Lawrence. (m) Smith's Testimony, vol. i. p. 409, 410. (n) 'They are selected from the Abridgment of Bryant's Work on the Logos, by Dr. Adam Clarke, in his pote on 1 Jobů i. 15. Both Lightfoot, and Dr.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace Written at
Pye Smith have given copious extracts from Philo; each has added
also a summary of Philo's peculiar opinions. (0) See Vitringa de
Synag. veteri p. 634. I have extracted this account of the opinion of the
German critics, on the twofold nature of the Logos from Dr. Pye
Smith's Testimony to the Messiah, vol.i.p. 452. (p) The propriety of the
term *7879 used by the Targumists, of the term in 9 Psalm xxxiii.
6. (rendered by the Septuagint as in other places by the term o óyos,
used by St. John in his preface,) and of Logos by St. John and the Plato-
nists-(Obs. Ps. xxxiii.of the Hebrew, corresponds with Ps. xxxii. in the
Sept.) appears from the connection, or the analogy,orrelation which speech
bears to an act of the mind. As language may be called an embodied
thought, or the manifester of the acts of the anderstanding, so may the
divine Personage, which bears the above names, le considered as the
manifester of the designs of Deity. Language, in another sense, may
be said to be the same, the self, the same very self as thougbt, or any
act of the mind. So may the Logos be called by the fike analogy, what
it is represented in Scripture, the same, the self, the same very self, as
God. It must in all these cases be remembered that we cannot com-
prehend God : we cannot by searching, find Him out. But he is re-
vealed to finite beings, through the mediam of language, which is sel-
dom able to express adequately the efforts of the human mind, when it
would endeavour to understand, in this stage of being, snbjects so much
beyond us ; to this imperfection of language may be principally
ascribed much of the varieties of metaphysical opinions, both in ancient
and modern times. (9) Tillemont, Mein. Ec. Tom. ii. ap. Lardner,
vol. iv. 4to. p. 567. (r) Introd. Evang. Joan. vol. i. p. 67. (5) Mi-
chaelis, vol. iii. part i. p. 280. (t) Mosheim's Commentaries, vol. i.
p. 337–347. Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ix. p. 325—327. 4to. vol.
iv. p. 567—569. Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 285–302. Apad Horne’s Cri-
tical Introduction, vol. ii. 1st edit. p. 466-468. (u) Lardner's Works,
4to. vol. v. p. 375. (*). Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestley, 3rd
Supplemental Disquisition, p. 495. (y) Vidal's Translation of Mosheim,
cent. i. $ 60. (2) Mosheim, vol. i.p.310. (aa) Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 211.
(bb) Lardner, vol. iv. p. 534. (cc)
Vitringæ observationes sacræ, vol. ii.
p. 152. (dd) De occasione et scopo Prologi Evang. Joannis Apost.
Tee) Witsius comes to the same general conclusions as those adopted
in this note. He mentions also the opinion entertained by the venerable
Archdeacon Nares, that Luke i. 2. refers to the Logos, as well as Acts
XX. 32. and Heb. 4. 12. After enumerating the arguments in defence
of, and against this opinion, he besitates to decide in favour of either.
Si mea mihi hio quoque dicenda est sententia, equidem fateor tam spe-
ciosa in utramque partem argumenta videri, ut utra eligenda foret animo
hæsitaverim. See the treatise of Witsius IIepi Tă Abyn, in his Miscel-
lanea Sacra, vol. ii. p. 87. (18) The Defensio fidei Nicenæ of BishopBull,
and the other works of the same great writer, edited in one volume folio,
by Dr. Grabe, are a complete collection, from which Bishop Horsley
and others, have drawn many of their irrefragable arguments. There is
little or nothing in the improved version of the New Testament, Lant
Carpenter's Unitarianism, the Doctrine of the Gospel, or in the Raco-
vian Catechism, which has not been either answered, or anticipated, by
this profoundly learned writer. The following is the title of the thesis
which he lays down and defends in his first section, the section to which
I am now alluding. Jesum Christum, hoc est, eum qui postea Jesus
Christus dictus est, ante suam év avoput nouv, sive ex beatissimâ vir-
gine secundum carnem nativitatem, in natura alterà, humanâ longe ex-
cellentiori, extitisse ; sanctis viris, velut in præludium incarnationis
suæ, apparaisse ; Ecclesiæ, quam olim sanguine suo redempturus esset,
semper præfuisse, ac prospexisse ; adeoque a primordio omnem ordi-
nem divinæ dispositionis (út Tertullianus loquitur) per ipsum decucur-
risse : quin et ante jacta mandi fundamenta Deo Patri suo adfuisse,
perque ipsum condita fuisse hæc universa, Catholici doctores trium
primorum sæculorum uno omnes ore docuerunt. Defen. fid. Nic. p. 7.
(99) So I translate το πρόσωπον τ8 πατρός και κυρία των όλων,
on Granville Sharp's rule. When two or more personal nouns of the
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and Written at truth came by Jesus Christ.
same gender, mumber, and case, are connected by the copulative kal,
if the first, has the detinitive article, and the second, third, &c.
have not, they both relate to the same person. (hh) See particularly on
this subject Scott's Christian Lifema treatise on the Angel Jehovah, at
the end of his second book-works-folio edition--and Faber's Horæ,
Mosaicæ, vol, ii. sect. i. cap. 2. The whole chapter is admirable.
(ü) I have not thought it advisable to enter into the criticisms of the
Unitarian writers on this and many other passages which I have refer-
red to. We are told that in some few manuscripts the reading is deóv,
in other few kúpov. Yet the greater proportion has the usual reading
xpusov. I have been rather anxious to exhibit the ancient, universal,
and, as it appears to me the undoubted faith of the Christian and Jewish
Churches, without needlessly entering into verbal criticisms, or the
wilful misinterpretations of the enemies of the Divinity of Christ. I do
not undervalue the minutest verbal or other criticisms. On the con-
trary, we are under infinite obligations to the laborious writers who have
attended to this part of theological literature ; but after perusing with
some attention mach of the Unitarian controversy, I cannot but repeat
my conviction that the oppugners of the Divinity of Christ have been
guilty of wilful misrepresentation, both of the arguments of their oppo-
nents, and of the plain text of the Christian Scriptures. (kk) For the
manner in which the original ideas concerning an incarnation became
perverted among the ancient nations into the vulgar and foolish
stories related in the Metamorphoses of Ovid, and in the silly
legends of the later Pagans, vide Faber's Origin of Pagan Idolatry.
So prevalent were these notions among the Heathen, that
Dr. Townson ingeniously supposes that St. Luke, who wrote his
Gospel for the converted Gentiles, bas avoided a word which was
adopted without hesitation by the two other Evangelists. In his rela-
tion of the transfiguration, St. Matthew, who wrote for the Jews, bas
used the term (Matt. xvii. 2.) kai petejoppúon čut poolev avrov,
&c. St. Mark, who wrote for the Proselytes of the Gate, who had em-
braced Christianity, and who were well acquainted therefore with the
opinions of the Jews, and were not likely to be misled, has used the
same phrase. But St. Luke, in describing the same event, has used a
word which seems to have been cautiously selected-το είδος τα προ-
un' durõv črepov. Townson on the Gospels, vol. i. (U) Though
the once celebrated and highly esteemed “ the Court of the Gentiles,"
4 vols. 4to. by Gale, whom the author of the Pursuits of Literature,
calls the most learned writer on record, is now neglected ; I have
nevet met with any arguments which militate against the opinion I have
elsewhere espoused, chiefly on his authority; that Pytbagoras, during
his travels into Chaldæa, Syria, Egypt, and Palestine, conversed with
the Jews then partly in captivity at Babylon, partly dispersed in Egypt,
and partly remaining in their own land. That he learned from them
much of his discipline, and many of those opinions which gave rise in
their different variations to the principal schools of philosophy in
Greece. Gale traces the original idea of a Logos to the times of Pytha-
goras. Plato, the Stoics, and others, derived their notion of a Logos,
which however in the lapse of ages had become perverted and cor-
rupted, from this primary source. Plato acknowledges that he received
many mysteries from the ancients, which he did not understand, but
expected some interpreter to unfold them. The reader, who would
engage in the study of the ancient metaphysicians, or speculators, or
philosophers, by whatever name they are called, may derive ample en-
Tertainment in Cudworth's Intellectual System. Gale's Court of the Gen-
tiles, and Philosophia Generalis, Enfield's History of Philosophy, and
their original authorities, where he may rove at will, and “ find no end
in wandering mazes lost.” (mm) It would be an easy, useful, and
pleasant task to any student who has leisure, and is interested in theo-
logical studies, to convince himself of this concurrent testimony to the
divinity of Christ, as the Logos of St. John ; by the Targumists, the Old
Testament, the Septuagint, the primitive Christian writers, and the