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.”
“But to return: the conception that has been described having been
formed of the Logos, and 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 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.” * * *
“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.”
* * *
“It was his (St. John’s) 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 truths which he taught with their former modes of
thinking and speaking. But upon the idea primarily expressed by this
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.”—_Norton on the Trinity._
I shall now give a paraphrase of the Introduction of St. John’s Gospel
in harmony with the Conception that the Logos is described first as
dwelling in God—and afterwards as manifested through Christ—the Logos
made flesh—“God manifest in the flesh,” an expression which is so far
from implying Trinitarianism, that it exactly expresses the Unitarian
idea of Christianity as a revelation of God—of Deity _imaged_ perfectly
on the human scale—of the light of the knowledge of the glory of God on
the face of Jesus Christ.
_Proem of St. John’s Gospel._
“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the
Logos was God. It was in the beginning with God. By it all things were
made, and without it was not any thing made, that was made. It was life
(the source of life)—and the source of life or blessedness was the light
of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended
it not. There was a man sent from God. This man came as a witness to
bear testimony concerning the light; that all men through him might
believe. He was not the Light, but he was sent to bear testimony
concerning the Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man
that cometh into the world. It was in the world, and the world was made
by it, and the world knew it not. It came unto its own, and its own
received it not. But to as many as received it, it gave power to become
the Sons of God (LOGOI)—being born, not of favoured races, nor through
the will of the flesh, nor through the will of man, but being children
of God. And the Logos became flesh (was manifested through a man, the
Mind or Spirit[150] of God shown on the human Image), and dwelt amongst
us, and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full
of grace and truth.”
---------------------
Romans. ix. 5, page 32.
“Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came;
God who is over all be blessed for ever.” Amen.
Ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς
εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.
The objections made to our rendering of this passage are these:—
1. That ὁ ὠν coming first in the sentence must refer to the nominative
(χριστὸς). But there is no grammatical rule to prevent ὁ ὠν _commencing_
a sentence and referring to a _subsequent_ nominative; so that to say it
_must_ refer to the preceding χριστὸς is only to take the desired
interpretation for granted.
2. That another article is required before θεος, and the position of the
words to be Ὁ δε θεος ὁ ὠν ἐπὶ πάντων, κ. τ. λ. If θεος had been placed
first in the sentence the article would have been used, but the
qualifying expression ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων more than supplies its place. A
passage from Philo exactly parallel is cited by the Rev. W. Hincks in
his very able Review of Dr. J. P. Smith’s Scripture Testimony to the
Messiah του προς ἀληθειαν οντος θεου. Ed. 1610, (apud Middleton,) p.
860. Also Clem. Rom. ad Cor. cap. xxxii. ὁ παντοκρατωρ θεος, where
παντοκρατωρ is equivalent to ὁ ὠν ἐπὶ πάντων. Eusebius has this passage,
τὸ τῆς φυχῆς ὄμμα πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν καθαρῶς τείναντες. See
Jortin. Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. 235.
3. That εὐλογητὸς ought to come first in the sentence. But the words
“for ever,” εἰς τοὺς αιῶνας, whenever used, are placed at the end of the
sentence, and this naturally draws εὐλογητος to the same position, to
avoid awkwardness or ambiguity. In the cases where θεος has dependent
words, then ευλογητος comes first, that the words connected by
construction may not be awkwardly separated: in the case of ευλογητος
having dependent words, as here, then θεος would naturally come first.
In the only three cases in which εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας occur in the
New Testament they follow one another in this fixed order.
In the Septuagint, contrary to the statement of Whitby, there is one
clear instance of a similar construction: Κυριος ὁ θεος ευλογητος, Ps.
lxviii. 19.
Finally, ευλογητος is nowhere in the New Testament applied to Jesus.
4. That our rendering requires another substantive verb. Of such
ellipsis examples might be given without number. See Rom. x. 12. 2 Cor.
v. 5. Ephes. iv. 6, a case exactly in point. Rev. xiv. 13.
5. That there is an antithesis intended by St. Paul between “as
concerning the flesh,” and “God over all”. But the sentence is not an
antithesis but a climax closed by Christ, as the consummation: and at
the close of a climax of blessings and privileges, acknowledgment almost
spontaneously bursts out to God.
------------------------------------
_Comments on the Rev. Mr. Byrth’s Lecture entitled “The Unitarian
Interpretation of the New Testament based upon defective Scholarship,
or on dishonest or uncandid Criticism.”_
Page 108.—“It does appear to me extraordinary, that my opponents should
appear to complain of the introduction of critical and scholastic
considerations into this discussion.” We make no such complaint. We
complain that the _essence_ of Christianity should be derived from the
Criticism and Interpretation of _controverted_ passages. Will my
reverend opponent state a single argument for Trinitarianism, or adduce
a single scriptural evidence, not _fairly_ open to hostile Criticism or
Interpretation? To _us_ the Revelation is not derived from any thing
doubtful; it is derived from those impressions of Jesus the Christ which
Trinitarianism itself receives. To us the Revelation is the Person, (in
which we include his Life, Character, Destinies,) of the man Christ
Jesus. We know our God when we know that he who was as full of grace as
of truth was the Image of our Father’s Mind: we know God’s will for man
when we look upon him who was perfected human nature: we know the
connections of Heaven with Duty when we see the crucified made the
glorified, and taken to the bosom of his Father.
---------------------
Page 115.—“It does not, however, follow that, because the Unitarian
interpretation of the New Testament bears this character, all Unitarians
are defective Scholars, or uncandid or dishonest Critics. Many of them
may have received their opinions through the channel of traditional
education; and may never have deemed it obligatory upon them to examine
the matter for themselves.” So, we have the choice of any one of three
characters, _viz._, BAD SCHOLARS, DISHONEST CRITICS, or _So-called
Christians, who know nothing and care nothing about the matter_. Does
Mr. Byrth really think that this last refuge removes the insult of his
Title, or softens its indictment? Some of _us_, confined to a choice
among these three descriptions, _preach_ Christianity, and are therefore
certainly bound to “examine the matter” for ourselves; nor is it to us
that the suspicion usually attaches of receiving our “opinions through
the channels of a traditional education.”
“The dogmata are too few, too general, too unimportant, to elicit
inquiry, or to excite anxiety as to their truth.” There is some truth in
this, though not exactly of the kind the author contemplated. The
interest of Trinitarianism depends greatly on the number of its dogmata,
their intricacy, their supposed necessity to salvation, the exactness of
their right mutual positions. There is much in a saving _Theology_,
having an intricate scheme, and whose main principles and evidences are
external to the mind of the believer, and therefore constantly agitating
him with apprehension as to whether he has disposed them according to
the precise conditions of orthodoxy, to occupy and sometimes oppress
minds that have little affinities with a saving _Religion_, a simple
spirit of Worship, Duty, and Trust immortal. _But is it true_ that these
Unitarian doctrines are “unimportant”—The Fatherhood of God—the
Brotherhood of Man—the relations of Jesus to God as His Image, and to
Man as his Model—the retributions of Eternity—the Heaven of Duty?
---------------------
Page 119.—See the Note.—Surely Mr. Byrth will perceive the unfairness of
concluding a Book to be _our_ Standard, merely because some _other_
parties, very unfavourably disposed towards us, choose to represent it
as such.
---------------------
Page 124.—See the Note.—“I have been charged with almost or altogether
suppressing, in the delivery of this Discourse, the word
‘controversially.’” I eagerly assure Mr. Byrth that no such charge was
ever made, nor could be made with truth, and I am much grieved that any
rumour has conveyed to him the pain of such an impression. Though using
hard words to his opponents, and giving them the choice of _any one_ of
three _bad_ characters, I believe him perfectly incapable of
“dishonesty.” Believing me to have made such a charge, whilst I do not
excuse him for so believing upon hearsay, I feel obliged by his
forbearance, and for a courtesy in denying the charge, which if made I
should not have deserved. I complained that the “controversial”
attitudes of Unitarianism were confounded with _its own peaceful and
positive ones_, two things that were most carefully separated in the
speeches from which Mr. Byrth took extracts; and that he represented as
a description _of Unitarianism_, what was distinctly stated to be
Unitarianism, “controversially” described. Mr. Byrth, though giving the
_word_ “controversially,” overlooked its _meaning_.
---------------------
Page 132.—“Epiphanius asserts that the Ebionites,” &c.: also the note
marked †.
As it is exceedingly inconvenient to repeat subjects and answers, and so
never to get rid of a topic, I refer Mr. Byrth and my readers to note B,
on the Ebionites and their Gospel, in the Appendix to the Second Lecture
of our Course.
---------------------
Page 140.—See the Note.—“I cannot but express my satisfaction that in
the _very place_ where this book was thus regarded as an authority, and
thus earnestly recommended, it is now renounced and disclaimed.”
I do not know what Mr. Byrth includes in “renouncing” and “disclaiming.”
If these words mean “rejecting as a standard authority,” then in the
place alluded to was the Improved Version _always_ renounced and
disclaimed.
The praise quoted in the note certainly requires much qualification.
Nevertheless the Improved Version is neither renounced nor disclaimed.
We have no predilection for the rude principle of taking things in the
mass, or leaving them in the mass, without discrimination. And I fancy
that if our opponents were in these matters _as much at liberty_ as
ourselves, there are some of their _standards_ which would soon be
thoroughly sifted.
---------------------
Page 143.—“For even they would scarcely think highly of the scholarship
of Bishop Pearce.”
I have quoted Bishop Pearce, not for his learning, though unquestionably
that was respectable, but for the sake of stating that the acceptance by
a Bishop of the English Church of a certain interpretation ought to have
screened “a reputed heretic” from the charge of accepting the same
interpretation solely for the sake of an _a priori_ meaning.
---------------------
Page 146.—“Epiphanius has little authority with any one else.” Mr. Byrth
is quite right in his estimate of Epiphanius. But it is hardly wise for
those who, like Mr. Byrth, rest their faith upon external testimonies,
to look too closely into the characters of the witnesses, or raise
doubts respecting them in the public mind. We know how much of the
weight of these testimonies rests upon Eusebius—and I doubt not Mr.
Byrth knows very well that he is clearly convicted of having
interpolated one passage in Josephus, and corrupted another. How can we
tell how far this process of reconciliation was carried? Why is it that
we have not the works of the Heretics, of whose _names_ ecclesiastical
History is so full?
---------------------
Page 147.—See the Note.—Mr. Byrth seems to think it impossible to have
worded the Title of his Lecture so as not to have insulted _some one_.
Will he allow me to suggest what the Title might have been without
offence, though not with exact truth of description—“Some of the
interpretations of the Improved Version of the New Testament based upon
defective Scholarship.” To attribute “dishonesty” and want of “candour,”
Mr. Byrth will I am sure feel to be too vulgar to be altogether worthy
of his character as a Critic and a Scholar. In the text of his Lecture
(p. 122), he indeed states his belief that Unitarian Interpretation, _of
every kind_, wants scholarship, or wants honesty—and it was to the proof
of this statement that he ought to have applied himself, or else to have
altered the Title of his Lecture.
---------------------
Page 148.—Luke iii. 23.—“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty
years of age, being (_as was supposed_) the son of Joseph.”
This passage was not introduced into the first part of Mr. Byrth’s
Lecture as originally delivered. I state this only to excuse myself for
having taken no notice of it in the body of my Lecture. This is the case
also with some other passages. There were also expressions and
sentiments of Mr. Byrth spoken, but not printed. I would not state this
were it not necessary to justify some passages in my own Lecture. I
refer especially to an oratorical use that was made of a most
objectionable and irreverent sentiment of Coleridge’s, full of the very
spirit of dogmatism and presumption. P. 161.
With regard to Luke iii. 23. The rendering of the Improved Version is
that of Bishop Pearce, who I suppose had no heretical reason for
preferring it. I confess it does not seem natural. Dr. Carpenter thinks
the words “as he was supposed,” put in to guard against some Gnostic or
Platonic error, and for the purpose of stating distinctly that he _was_
the son of Joseph, as he was supposed to be. The same writer acutely
remarks that it is most improbable, indeed next to impossible, that any
writer should trace our Lord’s descent from David _through Joseph_, and
then declare that Joseph was only _supposed_ to be his father, thus
nullifying his own genealogy. Kuinoel gives a suggestion of Boltenius,
to which he evidently inclines that ὡς ἐνομίζετο applies not to the
supposed descent of Jesus from Joseph but to the _whole_ genealogy. I
annex his note.
“_Boltenius_ ad h. l. suspicatus est, verba ὡς ἐνομίζετο, non tantum eo
referenda esse, quod Judæi falso putaverint, Josephum esse Christi
parentem, sed spectari quoque his verbis genealogiam ipsam h. l.
exhibitam, eaque reddenda esse: _hanc putabant esse Jesu genealogiam,
erat pater ejus Josephus, hujus pater Eli_, etc., ut adeo Lucas
professus sit, se inseruisse genealogiam, prouti ea in manus ipsius
venisset, seque authentiam illius acrius defendere nolle. Hac ratione
admissa, explicari forte etiam posset, quî factum sit, ut Lucas
genealogiam ipsi suspectam, in Evangelio infantiæ Jesu propositam, ad
calcem illius fortasse adjectam, h. l. inseruerit, quod nempe aliquamdiu
dubius hæsisset, an eam reciperet. Alii opinati sunt, hanc genealogiam,
cum diversa sit ab ea quæ in Matthæi commentariis reperitur, cum laxiori
vinculo superioribus annexa sit, non a Luca ipso, sed serius additam
esse.”
---------------------
Page 149.—See the Note.—“Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary: of
whom (Mary) was born (or was begotten) Jesus who is called the Christ.”
“Now is it possible to declare, in plainer terms, that, though Jesus was
born of Mary, who was married to Joseph, yet that Joseph _did not beget
him_.”—_Magee._ Great is the ingenuity here, wonderfully misapplied. Is
it not clear that St. Matthew was tracing the descent of Jesus from
David, and that he brings down the chain to the very last link, namely
Joseph, that is, the very Joseph necessary to be included, the husband
of the mother of Jesus? _That_ Joseph, the very husband of Mary, from
whom Christ was born, being thus shown to be a lineal descendant of
David, the Evangelist stops. What could he do more? His object being to
trace the descent of Jesus from David, what could be more natural than,
when he arrived at Joseph, to say—here is the unbroken succession, for
this is the very man who was the husband of that Mary from whom Jesus
was born. Of course the writer could not alter the form of expression
until he arrived at the very man whom he wished to identify as the
husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus—and the reason for altering it then
is very obvious.
If Joseph was not the father of Jesus, the genealogy is vitiated, for it
is _through Joseph_ that the descent is traced.
---------------------
Pages 157, 158.—“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and
the world knew him not.” “He was in the world, and the world was
enlightened by him, and yet the world knew him not.”—I. V. This
interpretation cannot, I think, be defended. I am sorry it was ever
given. Yet Mr. Byrth’s sarcasm is quite powerless against it, “what kind
of light is that which blinds the eyes which it was intended to
illuminate?” in the face of the text—“the light shineth in darkness, and
the darkness _comprehendeth_ it not;” unless he adopts the
interpretation of some of the Fathers,—“And the darkness did not
insinuate itself into the light, interpenetrate and quench it.”
---------------------
Page 161.—The liberality of ROBERT HALL. We desire to speak with respect
of this great and good man. But perhaps it would be impossible to name a
man more illiberal as a controversialist, and who allowed himself such
an unmeasured use of uncharitable language. It was only the other day I
learned an anecdote of him from the person to whom the words were
spoken, descriptive at once of his vigour and his rancour: speaking of
the Unitarians he said—“they are inspired from _beneath_,”—with a look,
said my informant, never to be forgotten. Many passages might be brought
from his writings, especially his Reviews, demonstrative of this
temper,—but the passage given by Mr. Byrth himself, in which he is
satisfied to rest conclusions so momentous and fearful upon reasonings
so arbitrary and vague, is quite enough. When any man acquainted with
the state of Theological opinion in the world, and with the
impossibility of uniformity, can fix upon his own opinions as essential,
and run a doctrinal line between Heaven and Hell, we require no further
tests of his “liberality,” unless indeed he is, what Mr. Hall was not,
only a traditional believer.
------------------------------------
I have already remarked that some of my observations apply more to the
spoken than to the printed lecture. Were it possible to efface the
impressions made by the speaker, and which required to be counteracted,
gladly would I efface every word of personal reference from my pages.
Even now, with the recollection fresh upon my mind, of the unsparing
contempt, both literary and moral, expressed by words and tones, not
conveyed by the printed page, when the speaker, feeling that the
sympathies of his audience were with him to the full, and that their
knowledge of the subject required from him _the broadest statements_, to
render it intelligible, gave himself to the excitement of the moment,—I
have more than doubted whether it would not have been better to have
avoided every personal allusion. I believe that I have in no case
overstated or misrepresented what was _said_. I deeply grieve to fix
upon my pages the suggestions, perhaps, of momentary excitement, which
Mr. Byrth’s better feeling has, in some instances, refused to record—and
that the obligation I was under to remove an impression actually made,
does not permit me to give full effect to this working of a kinder
spirit, the manifestations of which, in other ways, I have respectfully
to acknowledge.
------------------------------------
Footnotes for Lecture III.
Footnote 133:
“Heresy and Orthodoxy,” by Rev. J. B. White, pp. 8, 9.
Footnote 134:
Scholz retains θεος.
Footnote 135:
See Griesbach. Chrysostom omits “_who is God over all_.” Clement, in a
passage evidently imitated from this, omits the doxology, which he is
not likely to have done if he understood it as referring to Christ. In
addition to other authorities for pointing the passage in consistency
with the Unitarian Interpretation, Griesbach quotes “Many Fathers who
denied that Christ could be called ‘the God over all.’ Multi patres,
qui Christum τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν appellari posse negant.” In an
edition of Griesbach, printed by Taylor and Walton in 1837, this
punctuation is given, and is stated also to be the pointing of Scholz.
Footnote 136:
John xiv. 6, 7.
Footnote 137:
John v. 19.
Footnote 138:
Acts x. 34-43.
Footnote 139:
Matt. xxiv. 3, 34.
Footnote 140: