Proem, is this: that the Apostle is not the originator of the conception
respecting the Logos, but simply adopted it in the shape, towards which
it had been organizing itself for centuries. Three successive states of
the idea can be traced; in the Old Testament, it appears (in Prov.
viii.) as a mere transient personification of Divine Wisdom; in the
Apocryphal Books of Ecclesiasticus and of Wisdom, it presents itself in
a more permanent and mythical character; and, in the writings of Philo,
it assumes so embodied and hypostatized a form, as to perplex the
simplicity of his Monotheism. _From his writings, the whole Proem of his
contemporary John (except where the Baptist and Jesus are mentioned by
name) might be constructed._ This coincidence in phraseology so
remarkable, cannot be considered as accidental. Is it thought impossible
that John should say of an attribute of God, that it was with him from
the first? We reply, Philo _does_ say so; calling _Goodness_ the most
ancient of God’s qualities; _Wisdom_ older than the universe; Logos, the
Assessor (πάρεδρος and ὀπαδὸς) of God prior to all creations, a needful
companion of Deity, as the joint originator with him of all things.[279]
And the Son of Sirach says, in his personification of Wisdom: “I am come
out of the mouth of the most High, first-born before all creatures:” “He
created me from the beginning, and before the world.”[280] Is it said
that such a statement is unworthy of Revelation? We reply, it occurs in
the writings of Solomon: “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his
way, before his works of old;” “then I was by him as one brought up with
him:”[281] where the feminine form (vv. 2, 3) totally excludes the idea
of Wisdom being anything more than a personification. Is it thought
impossible that an attribute of God should be called the only-begotten
Son of God? We turn to Philo, and find this same Logos entitled the most
Ancient Son of God (ὁ πρεσβύτατος υἱὸς θεοῦ), the First-begotten (ὁ
πρωτόγονος). Is it inconceivable that, through this transforming energy
of God, those who received it should be said to become Sons of God?
Philo says, “If you are not yet worthy to be denominated a Son of God,
be earnest to put on the graces of his First-begotten Logos,—the most
ancient angel, and, we may say, an archangel of various titles:” “for if
we are not prepared to be esteemed children of God, we may at all events
be thus related to the most Holy Logos, his eternal Image; for the most
Ancient Logos is the Image of God.”[282]
As all Theological considerations, suggested by heretics, are apt to be
dismissed with mere expressions of surprise and contempt, I am happy to
refer, in confirmation of the foregoing views, in the most essential
particulars, to an Orthodox Writer, whose accurate and various learning,
and sound and grave judgment, have given him a merited pre-eminence
among the Commentators on the Gospel of John. I allude to Professor
Lücke, whose “Commentar über das Evangelium des Johannes” I have had the
opportunity, since the delivery of this Lecture, of consulting. I wish
that I could lay before my readers the whole of his admirable history of
the rise and progress of the idea of the Logos; but I must content
myself with translating a few brief extracts.[283]
“The origin and germ,” he says, “of the theological Formula of the
Logos, are furnished in the Canonical Hebrew Books (alluding to certain
passages, especially Prov. viii. which he has been showing to be mere
poetical personifications of Divine Attributes). It obtained its full
development in the Jewish Theology, in the writings of the Alexandrine
Philo. And, in an intermediate state of formation, we find it in the
Greek Apocryphal books of the Old Testament.”
Lücke examines the conception in all these stages; and, from his
analysis of Philo’s mode of thought, I extract the following:
“According to Philo, God, in his interior Essence, is inconceivable,
occult, solitary (das absolute), self-comprised, and without relations
to any other existence.... Although the absolute cause of all that is,
God cannot, in his own essence, and immediately, operate on the
universe, either in the way of creation, preservation, or government.
Concealed in his absolute separation, God is manifest and an object of
knowledge in the world, only through his _Powers_ (δυνάμεις): these,
external forces of God in the universe, apart from his absolute essence,
are the necessary media of his presence in the universe.... These divine
δυνάμεις Philo calls sometimes _Ideas_, sometimes _Angels_, sometimes
_Logoi_. This identification of notions, powers, ideas, angels, logoi,
which is frequent in the writings of Philo, is of great importance for
the right apprehension of his doctrine of the Divine Logos. This Logos
he considers in a twofold relation. Sometimes he regards it as
_inherent_ (immanent), and refers it to him as a capacity (facultativ);
when it is the Divine νοῦς, analogous to the human. But this attributive
conception gives way to that of the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, as a living,
energetic δύναμις, which tends to external action. Of this, Philo, in
the spirit of Platonism, conceives as ἰδέα ἰδεῶν, the Ideal of things,
the archetypal Idea, the pattern World, the νοητὸς κόσμος, which is
extant in God as a reality, before all outward creations of the actual
universe. In this sense the λόγος is the primary energy of God,—the
ἐννόησις, the λογισμὸς θεοῦ λογιζομένου.
But, at the same time, the λόγος is also προφορικός; and, as a forming
activity, goes forth out of God. But as this is only another relation of
the Divine Logos, _viz._, relation to the world, so is it the _product_
of the former; yet essentially one with it, like the οἶκος of the
inherent Logos,—as human speech is the resident point of the idea, its
_form of manifestation_. All living, active relations of God to the
world, all his objective manifestations, are comprised in this emanated
Logos. He forms the world or creates it, imprinting himself on matter as
a Divine seal (σφραγὶς). And as he has created the world (or otherwise,
_God through_ him, δι’ αὐτοῦ,) so he preserves it; he is the indwelling
and sustaining power, full of light and life, and filling everything
with Divine light and life. So in the _human world_, he is both the
natural divine power of every soul, the pure intellect, the conscience;
and the bestower of wisdom, and the watch of virtue. He is the same with
the Wisdom of God, the Holy Spirit of God in his objective manifestation
in the world; partly because animating and inspiring men, particularly
in the capacity of Prophetic Spirit.
“Hence the Logos is the eldest Creation of God, the Eternal Father’s
eldest Son, God’s Image, Mediator between God and the World, the Highest
Angel, the Second God, the High-priest, the Reconciler, Intercessor for
the World and Men, whose manifestation is especially visible in the
history of the Jewish people.”[284]
It ought to be added, that some able writers, as Grossman and Gfrörer,
conceive that Philo invested his Logos with a real personality. The
reasons for this opinion do not appear to me to be satisfactory. Even
those who adopt it assign to this hypostasis a rank wholly subordinate,
in Philo’s estimation, to the Supreme God: and Lücke strenuously
maintains that both the Alexandrine philosopher and the apostle John
apply the name _God_ to the Logos only in a figurative sense (ἐν
καταχρήσει). He considers the clause “the Word was God,” merely
incidental, and unimportant compared with the preceding clause, “the
Word was with God.” “John,” he observes, “sums up the purpose of the
first verse in the words of the second; οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν.
From his not taking up again the idea θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, we must conclude,
that he considered this position only an accessory. Thus the πρὸς τὸν
θεὸν is evidently to be the more prominently marked assertion.” “John
would say, the primeval Logos is πρὸς τὸν θεὸν; that is, is in such
communion with God, stands in such relation to him, that he may be
called θεός. Looking at the historical connection between the mode of
expression in Philo and in John, there is no room for doubt, that θεὸς
is to be taken in the sense in which Philo applies the name θεός to the
ποιητικὴ δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ,—and explicitly calls the λόγος God—ὁ δεύτερος
θεός ; but to prevent misunderstanding, expressly subjoins that this is
only ἐν καταχρήσει. Though John, as we have seen, understands by the
Logos, a real Divine Person, he yet, as a Christian Apostle, held the
monotheistic conception of God in a still higher degree, and an
incomparably purer form (xvii. 3; 1 John v. 20) than Philo: and are we
then at liberty to suppose, that by him, less than by Philo, the
position θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is meant simply ἐν καταχρήσει? It is true that
the substitution for θεὸς of the adjective θεῖος is at variance with the
analogy of New Testament diction: but must we not, with the Alexandrine
Fathers, especially Origen, conclude that θεὸς without the article, is
to be taken as marking the difference between the indefinite sense of
‘Divine nature,’ and the definite, absolute, conception of God,
expressed by ὁ θεὸς? Thus would John’s θεὸς correspond with Paul’s εἰκὼν
τοῦ θεοῦ. Such an accordance between the manner of Paul and of John is
an advantage which must appear an equally desirable result of exegesis,
whether we consider it in its dogmatical or its historical
relations.”[285]
From this extract it appears, that if the author does not approve of the
old Socinian interpretation, which considers the Logos as synonymous
from the first with Jesus Christ; it is not because he knows, that θεὸς
in the predicate cannot signify _a_ god; or slights Origen’s opinion on
the usage of N. T. and Hellenistic Greek. We have here an authority,
than which no higher can be produced from among the living or the dead,
in favour of a meaning which, to the fastidious scholarship of Liverpool
theologians, is absolutely intolerable. Lücke of course admits the
general rule, respecting the omission of the article with the
predicative noun; but he conceives (greatly to the horror, no doubt, of
those whose soul resides in syntax) that the good old Apostle would even
have committed a solecism in respect of a Greek article, for the sake of
clearing a great truth in respect of God. “If there had been any
intention to express the substantial unity of the Logos and God, we
should have expected the Apostle to write ὁ θεός. On account of the
equivocal meaning of θεὸς without the article, the article could not
possibly have been absent.”[286] It is vain to say that such corrupt
Greek as this cannot be ascribed to the Apostles. Here are examples from
John; ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία; [287] Τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια: [288]
and here are others from Paul; ὁ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν: [289] Παντὸς
ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν. [290] Nay, we have an example in the
following text, of a total inversion of the rule, the article being
attached to the predicate, and _not_ to the subject; εἰ ἔστι Κύριος
(יהוה) ὁ Θεὸς.[291]
It will be perceived by the text of this Lecture that I do not adopt the
rendering of the Alexandrine Fathers; but I am anxious, in rejecting it,
to pass no slight on the learning of those who maintain it; and to show
that, out of England, orthodoxy can afford to be wise and just.
I think it right to add, that to the view which has been given of the
Proem, an objection of some weight occurs in the twelfth verse. The
clause ‘to them that believe on his name’ presents the question, ‘who is
denoted by the pronoun _his_,—the Logos or Jesus Christ personally?’
According to the interpretation which I have recommended, it should mean
the former; according to the analogy of Scriptural diction, certainly
the latter. Feeling the force of the difficulty, I yet think it less
serious than those which attend every other hypothesis: and incline to
think, that the clause is an anticipation of the personal introduction
of the Incarnate Logos which immediately follows; a point of transition
from the personification to the history.
In conclusion, may I take occasion to correct an erroneous statement in
Mr. Byrth’s Lecture;—that Samuel Crell was a convert to Trinitarianism
before his death. “He died,” we are told, “a believer in the Supreme
Divinity of Christ, and the efficacy of his atoning sacrifice.”[292] I
have before me the most authentic collection of Socinian Memoirs which
has been published, by Dr. F. S. Bock, Greek Professor, and Royal
Librarian at Königsberg. The work is principally from original sources;
and the testimony of the following passage will probably be received as
unimpeachable. It appears that a vague statement in the Hamburgh
Literary News gave rise to the report of Crell’s conversion: “Obiit
Crellius Amstelodami, a. 1747. d. 12. Maii, anno æt. 87. In _novis
litterariis Hamburg._ 1747, p. 703, narratur, quod circa vitæ finem
errorum suorum ipsum pœnituerit, hujusque pœnitentiæ non simulatæ haud
obscura dederit documenta, quod Paulo Burgero, Archidiacono
Herspruccensi in iisdem novis publicis Hamb. 1748, p. 345, eam ob
caussam veri haud absimile videtur, quia sibi Amstelodami degenti
Crellius, a. 1731, oretenus testatus fuerit, in colloquiis cum Celeb.
Schaffio Lugdunensi institutis, quædam placita, jam sibi dubia reddita
esse, adeo ut jam anceps circa eadem hæreat. Sed in iisdem novis 1749,
p. 92, et p. 480, certiores reddimur: Crellium ad ultimum vitæ suæ
halitum perstitisse Unitarium, quod etiam frater ipsius, Paulus, mihi
coram pluribus vicibus testatus est.”[293]
---------------------
F.
In the rendering which I have given to this passage the word ἁρπαγμὸς is
considered as equivalent to ἅρπαγμα. The interpretation, however, in no
way requires this; and if it should be thought necessary to maintain the
distinction between them, to which the analogy of Greek formation, in
the case of verbal nouns, undoubtedly points, and to limit the former to
the active sense of the “operation of seizing,” the latter to the
passive sense of “the object seized;” the general meaning will remain
wholly unaffected. The only difference will be this; that the _whole_ of
the sixth verse must, in that case, be considered as descriptive of the
rightful glory of Christ; and the transition to his voluntary
afflictions will not commence till the 7th. The signification of this
doubtful word simply determines, whether the clause in which it stands
shall be the last in the account of our Lord’s dignity, or the first in
the notice of his humiliation. The rendering, however, which I have
adopted, is confirmed by the use made of this passage in the most
ancient citation from this epistle. In the letter of the churches of
Vienne and Lyons, the 6th verse is quoted, without the sequel, and the
fact that Christ thought it not ἁρπαγμὸν to be equal with God, is
adduced as an example of _humility_; “who showed themselves so far
emulators and imitators of Christ; who being in the form of God thought
not his equality with God, a thing to be eagerly seized.”—Euseb. Eccl.
Hist. Lib. V. § 2. Heinichen, vol. ii. p. 36.
With considerable variation of expression, the same idea occurs in the
(1st) Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. “Christ is theirs
who are humble. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the sceptre of the majesty of
God, came not in the show of pride and pre-eminence, though he could
have done so; but in humility. Ye see, beloved, what is the model which
has been given us.” C. xvi. If the Trinitarian view of the mediatorial
office of Christ be correct, it is not easy to perceive how he could
have come in the show of pride and pre-eminence; had he not laid aside
the glories of his Deity, and clothed himself with a suffering humanity,
his mission, as commonly conceived, could have had no existence, nor any
one purpose of it have been answered. But he might have been the great
Hebrew Messiah, had he not chosen rather, by a process of suffering and
death, to put himself into universal and spiritual relations to all men.
------------------------------------
Footnotes for Lecture V.
Footnote 164:
Analogy of Religion, part ii. ch. 3.
Footnote 165:
Sermon on the Integrity of the Canon, p. 80.
Footnote 166:
Dr. Tattershall’s Sermon on the Integrity of the Canon, p. 81.
Footnote 167:
Elements of Logic. Appendix, in verb. Person.
Footnote 168:
See Note A.
Footnote 169:
See Mr. Jones’s Lecture on the Proper Humanity of our Lord Jesus
Christ, pp. 241, 242.
Footnote 170:
Genesis, xviii. 1, 2, 22; xix. 1, 10, 15.
Footnote 171:
Deut. xxix. 2, 5, 6.
Footnote 172:
It is hardly necessary to observe, that I use the word “Athanasian” to
denote the doctrine of the _Creed_ so called; not of St. Athanasius
himself, who is known to have had no hand in the composition of that
formula.
Footnote 173:
Jesus Christ, the great God our Saviour, pp. 81, 369.
Footnote 174:
It is orthodox, at the present day, to affirm that the mysteries of
the Godhead and Incarnation of our Lord were explicitly taught by
himself throughout his ministry, as well as by his apostles
afterwards; and Mr. Jones (Lecture, p. 237) assures us that he
“received _divine homage_, whilst on earth, from inspired men and
angelic spirits.” This shows how much more clear-sighted is modern
orthodoxy than was ancient: for the Fathers thought that a great part
of the “mystery” of these doctrines consisted in the _secrecy_ in
which they were long wrapped. “In the silence of God,” Ignatius
assures us, were the Incarnation and the Lord’s death accomplished;
and the ecclesiastical writers of the first six centuries seem not
only to have admitted that our Lord concealed his divinity from his
disciples, and enjoined on his apostles great caution in this matter,
but to have discerned in this suppression a profound wisdom, of which
they frequently express their admiration. They urge that the Jews
could never have been brought round to the faith, if these doctrines
had not been kept back for a while,—a strange thing, by the way, if
the whole ritual and Scriptures of this people were created to
prefigure these mysteries. But Ignatius threw out a suggestion, which,
from the eagerness wherewith it was caught up by succeeding writers,
was evidently thought a happy discovery: it was necessary _to conceal
these mysteries from the Devil, or he would have been on his guard,
and defeated everything_. The hint of the venerable saint is brief:
“The Virginity of Mary, and the Birth and Death of the Lord were
hidden from the Prince of this world.” But the idea is variously
enlarged upon by the later Fathers; for, as Cotelier observes, “Res
ipsa quam Ignatius exprimit, passim apud sanctos Patres invenitur.”
Jerome adds, that the vigilance of the Devil, who expected the Messiah
to be born in some Jewish _family_, was thus eluded; and the Author of
an anonymous fragment of the same age, cited by Isaac Vos, suggests
that, if Satan had known, he would never have put it into men’s hearts
to crucify Jesus. And Jobius, a monk of the sixth century, quoted by
Photius in his Bibliotheca, and complimented by the learned Patriarch
as τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν μελέτης οὐκ ἄπειρος, says, “It was necessary to
keep in the shade the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, both for
the sake of conciliating the hearers, and in order to escape the
notice of the Prince of Darkness.”—See S. Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. ch.
xix.; Patr. Apost. Le Clerc’s Ed. Notes; and Priestley’s Early
Opinions, b. iii, ch. 3, 4.
Footnote 175:
Lambertus Danaus, cited by Drusius, in his Diss. de nom. Elohim. Crit.
Sacr. Tractatt. t. 1. See also Drus. de quæsitis per Epist. 66.
Footnote 176:
Comment. in Gen. i. 1. Calvin adds, “Imagining that they have here a
proof against the Arians, they involve themselves in the Sabellian
error: because Moses afterwards subjoins that _Elohim spake_, and that
_the Spirit of Elohim brooded over the waters_. If we are to
understand that the three Persons are indicated, there will be no
distinction among them: for it will follow that the Son was
self-generated, and that the Spirit is not of the Father, but of
himself.” For further notice of this point see Note B.
Footnote 177:
Grammar of the Hebrew Language, art. 228, 6. Note.
Footnote 178:
See Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism, by
John Wilson, second edition, 1837, p. 33, where will be found a
curious table, exhibiting the usage of the word _God_, in every book
of the New Testament. Mr. Wilson has collected his materials with
great industry, and arranged them with skill.
Footnote 179:
Matt. i. 23.
Footnote 180:
Isaiah vii. 14. The whole passage is as follows:
“Behold the virgin conceiveth, and beareth a son;
And she shall call his name Emmanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat,
When he shall know to refuse what is evil,
and to choose what is good:
For before this child shall know
To refuse the evil, and to choose the good;
The land shall become desolate,
By whose two kings thou art distressed.”
Footnote 181:
Quoted from Wilson’s Illustrations, p. 117.
Footnote 182:
Letters on the Trinity, by Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred
Literature in the Theological Seminary, Andover, U.S. Belf. ed. p.
161.
Footnote 183:
Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, 2nd edit. vol. i. p. 382.
Footnote 184:
Amos v. 2.
Footnote 185:
Jeremiah xiv. 17.
Footnote 186:
Micah iv. 8, 9. See the whole context.
Footnote 187:
See Note C.
Footnote 188:
Isaiah ix. 5, 6.
Footnote 189:
Isaiah viii. 23-ix. 4. Compare 2 Kings xv. 29; 1 Chronicles v. 26.
Footnote 190:
Martin Luther’s Version, _in loc._
Footnote 191:
See Note D.
Footnote 192:
Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος.
Footnote 193:
Λόγος προφορικός.
Footnote 194:
Phil. Jud. Op. Schrey et H. J. Meyer. Francof. 1691. De Mundi opific.
p. 5. C. p. 6. C. Leg. Alleg. p. 93. B, C, D. De somniis, pp. 574. E.
575. C. E. 576. E. De confus. Ling. p. 341. B. C. Quis rer. div.
hæres. p. 509. B. C. Euseb. Prep. Evang. VII. 13.
Footnote 195:
See Note E.
Footnote 196:
1 Tim. iii. 16.
Footnote 197:
Εἷς θεός ἐστιν, ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ
αὐτοῦ.—S. Ignatii Epist. ad Magnes. c. viii.
Footnote 198:
Δι’ οὗ, not ὑφ’ οὗ.
Footnote 199:
Psalm xlv.
Footnote 200:
v. 1-9.
Footnote 201:
v. 10-17.
Footnote 202:
New Translation of the Psalms, by Dr. M. Young, Bishop of Clonfert;
_in loc._ Comp. Preface.—When resident in Dublin, I enjoyed the
advantage of consulting this posthumous work, suppressed before its
publication, for reasons sufficiently obvious to those who know the
work, and have noticed the reception which orthodoxy gives to honest
and impartial biblical criticism and exegesis. See Mr. Wellbeloved’s
Bible _in loc._ where Bishop Young’s translation is cited. May I
venture to refer our learned opponents to the last-mentioned work,
whenever they think proper to examine what kind of Old Testament
theology a Unitarian may hold? It would be curious to know, probably
perplexing even to “ordained clergymen” to determine, on which horn of
the dilemma the Rev. Hebraists in Christ Church must fix Mr.
Wellbeloved;—“_defective scholarship?_”—or “_uncandid and dishonest
criticism?_”
Footnote 203:
See Acts iii. 19-21; xiii. 33-37; xxvi. 6-8. Hebrews ii. 5. Titus ii.
12, 13. 1 Tim. iv. 1. James v. 3, 7, 8. 1 Cor. x. 11. Phil. iv. 5. 2
Thess. ii. 2.
Footnote 204:
2 Pet. iii. 13.
Footnote 205:
1 Pet. iii. 20.
Footnote 206:
Acts xvii. 31.
Footnote 207:
Rom. i. 4.
Footnote 208:
Acts xiii. 30-34. comp. Heb. i. 5.
Footnote 209:
Heb. i. 3.
Footnote 210:
2 Pet. iii. 9.
Footnote 211:
Heb. i. 3.
Footnote 212:
Paraphrase on the Epistles; Rom. xiii. 11, 12. Note.
Footnote 213:
From the word GOD, supposed to be addressed to Christ, in the clause
“Thy throne, O God, &c.,” the Deity of our Lord, as _a second person
in the Trinity_, is inferred. Yet this word, in the original, is
ELOHIM, whose plural form, we are told, is intended to prevent our
thinking of only One Person, and which cannot mean less than _the
whole Trinity_.
Footnote 214:
1 John v. 20.
Footnote 215:
Notes _in loc._
Footnote 216:
Newcome.
Footnote 217:
2 John 7.
Footnote 218:
Phil. ii. 5-8.
Footnote 219:
2 Cor. viii. 9.
Footnote 220:
See Note F.
Footnote 221:
These texts naturally arrange themselves thus:
Condescension.
Philippians ii. 5-8.
2 Corinthians viii. 9.
Exaltation.
Phil. ii. 9-11.
Eph. i. 20-23.
Col. i. 15-19.
Heb. i.
Footnote 222:
Col. i. 15-19. Comp. Eph. iii. 19; where the apostle desires that _the
Ephesians_ may “_be filled with all the fulness of God_.”
Footnote 223:
Note _in loc._
Footnote 224:
Acts xiv. 15.
Footnote 225:
Eph. ii. 10.
Footnote 226:
2 Cor. v. 17.
Footnote 227:
1 Cor. xv. 24.
Footnote 228:
1 Thess. iv. 14.
Footnote 229:
1 Cor. xv. 51. 1 Thess. iv. 17; v. 10.
Footnote 230:
Eph. i. 10.
Footnote 231:
2 Thess. i. 9.
Footnote 232:
Heb. i. 6; Phil. ii. 10.
Footnote 233:
Heb. xii. 28.
Footnote 234:
2 Tim. ii. 12.
Footnote 235:
1 Thess. iv. 14.
Footnote 236:
Rom. viii. 19, 23, 6.
Footnote 237:
1 Pet. i. 5.
Footnote 238:
Eph. ii. 21, 22.
Footnote 239:
Eph. ii. 23.
Footnote 240:
1 Cor. viii. 6.
Footnote 241:
John xvii. 3.
Footnote 242:
John iv. 23, 24.
Footnote 243:
Eph. iv. 6.
Footnote 244:
This is the source to which our opponents in the present controversy
have explicitly referred the divine wisdom of Christ. Mr. Jones says,
“Unaided by the fulness of _the Godhead which dwelt within him
bodily_,” (did _the Father_, according to the Creeds, dwell in him
bodily?) “his human soul was, necessarily, finite in its operations.”
And again, “Nor could he, as we have already intimated, know anything
beyond the ken of a finite intelligence, except it were _revealed to
him by the_ ETERNAL WORD, with which he was mysteriously united.”
Christ says, “as MY FATHER _hath taught me_, I speak these things.”
Was his “_Father_” “the _eternal Word_?”—See _Lect. on the Proper
Humanity, &c._ pp. 221, 243.
Footnote 245:
John v. 19, 30.
Footnote 246:
Ib. xiv. 10.
Footnote 247:
Ib. vi. 57.
Footnote 248:
Ib. v. 36.
Footnote 249:
Ib. x. 29.
Footnote 250:
Mark xiii. 32.
Footnote 251: