strict meaning of the term, altogether, and define the mental faculties
of man according to their various fancies. But the existence and nature
of our moral and rational powers are and ought to be, in true
philosophy, the subject of mental observation, not the sport of
hypothesis. Those who love metaphysical abstractions may people the
worlds of their imagination with beings of whatsoever character they
prefer; but the nature and capabilities of man, as he really is, must be
determined not by speculation but by experience. It is true that this
experience is the object of consciousness, not of the senses; and,
accordingly, each man is, in some respect, the judge in his own case,
and may, if he chooses, deny his own freedom and his power of self
control, or of using those means which God hath appointed to lead to
this result. But this is seldom done in ordinary life, except by those
abandoned individuals who seek, in such a statement, an excuse for
capricious or unprincipled conduct,--an excuse which is never admitted
by the majority of reasoning persons, much less by the truly pious. The
latter, indeed, will always be found attributing any thing good they
achieve to the coöperating efficacy of superior assistance. But they
will, with equal sincerity, blame themselves for what they have done
amiss; or, in other words, acknowledge that they should and might have
willed and acted otherwise; and this is exactly the practical question,
the very turning point, on which the whole controversy hinges. The only
competent judges in such a question, says Dr. R. H. Graves, are those
who have made it the subject of mental observation, exertion, and
pursuit; or, in other words, those who have sought after righteousness,
under whatever dispensation, Acts x, 35; Romans ii, 7, 10. And surely
the confessions, the prayers, the repentance, and the sacrifices, of the
humble and pious of all ages show that they felt, not only that they
were themselves to blame for their actions, and therefore that they
might have done otherwise, that is, they had a free will, but that, to
make this will operative in spiritual matters, they required an aid
beyond the reach of mere human attainment. Some may fancy this statement
inconsistent in itself; and I allow that it cannot satisfy the mere
speculative supporters either of free will or its opponents. But to me
it seems the testimony of conscience and experience, which, in natural
religion, must, as I conceive, be preferred to abstract hypothesis. The
inquiry is not how the mind _may be_, but how it _is actually_,
constituted. This surely is a question of fact, not of conjecture, and
must therefore be decided by an appeal to common sense and experience,
not by random speculation. Again: even those who in theory contend for
the doctrine of necessity, yet in all the affairs of life where their
interests, comforts, or gratifications are concerned, both speak and act
as if they disbelieved it, and as if they really imagined themselves
capable of such self determination and self control, as to improve their
talents, their opportunities, and their acquirements, and so to exercise
a material influence on their worldly fortunes. But suppose the
assertions of individuals, as to their consciousness in this particular,
to disagree. It is then evident, that, the question being as to the
nature of man in general, it must be determined by the voice of
preponderating testimony. But how, it may be asked, are the suffrages to
be collected? Since the judgment of each individual must in this scheme
be considered as a separate fact, how is a sufficiently extensive
induction to be made? In answer, it may be asserted, that in every
civilized nation the induction has been already made, the suffrages have
been taken, the case has been tried, and the decision is on record. And
the verdict is the most impartial that can be looked for in such a case,
because given without any reference to the controversy in dispute. All
human laws, forbidding, condemning, and punishing vicious actions, are
grounded on the acknowledged supposition that man is possessed of a self
control, a self determining power, by which he could, both in will and
in deed, have avoided the very actions for which he is condemned, and in
the very circumstances in which he has committed them. Nor would it be
easy to find a case where the criminal has deceived himself, or hoped to
deceive his judges, by pleading that he laboured under a fatal
necessity, which rendered his crimes unavoidable, and therefore
excusable. The justice of all legislative enactments evidently and
essentially depends on the principle, that the things prohibited can be
avoided, or, in other words, might have been done otherwise than they
were done; and this is the very turning point of the controversy.
Accordingly, in whatever instances such freedom of will is not
presupposed, (as in the cases of idiots and madmen,) the operation of
such enactments is suspended. All nations, therefore, who consent to
frame and abide by such laws, do thereby testify their deliberate and
solemn assent to the truth of this principle, and, consequently, to the
existence of free will in man; and do certify the sincerity of their
conviction by staking upon it their properties, their liberties, and
their lives. Numberless other instances might be adduced in which the
practice of mankind implies their belief in this principle. And so
conscious of this are the opponents of free will, that they generally
deprecate appeals to common sense and experience, and resort to
metaphysical arguments to examine what is in truth a matter of truth,
not of conjecture; or, in other words, to determine, not what man is,
but what they imagine he _must be_. In their reasonings they differ, as
might have been expected, as much from each other as they do from truth
and reality. But the experience of common sense and conscience will
always decide, that no man can conscientiously make this excuse for his
crimes, that he could not have willed or acted otherwise than he did.
The existence of the above faculties in the human mind once acknowledged
leads, by necessary inference, to the admission, that there exists in
the great First Cause a power to create them. Not, indeed, that these
faculties themselves exist in him in the same manner as in us, but the
power of originating and producing them in all possible variety. We can
indeed conclude, that having created all these in us, his nature must be
so perfect that we cannot attribute to him any line of conduct
inconsistent with whatever is excellent in the exercise of these
faculties in ourselves. And therefore we cannot ascribe to him, as his
special act, any thing we should perceive to be unworthy of any just or
merciful, any wise or upright, being. But this furnishes no clue
whatever to a knowledge of the real constitution of his nature, or of
the manner in which his divine attributes exist together. In truth, we
no more comprehend how he wills than how he acts, and therefore we have
no better right to assert that he wills evil than that he does evil.
Again: we as little understand how he knows as how he sees, and
therefore might as well argue that all things exist in consequence of
his beholding them, as that all events arise in consequence of his
foreknowing them. In short, all that can be inferred by reason
concerning the intrinsic nature of the invisible, unsearchable Deity,
must be admitted by the candid inquirer to be no better than conjecture.
And he who should hope from such doubtful support as his fancied insight
into the unknown operations of the divine mind to suspend a system of
irrespective decrees, embracing the moral government of the world, would
but too much resemble him who should imagine the material globe
adequately sustained if upheld by a chain whose highest links were
wrapped in clouds and darkness. Thus our affirmative knowledge of the
Deity, as derived from this part of our inquiry, consists in the
certainty, (though his nature is unknown to us,) that he is the creative
source of all that is great, glorious, and good in heaven or in earth;
while we may negatively conclude, that his moral government shall, on
the whole, be conducted in a manner not inconsistent with whatever is
excellent in the exercise of power and wisdom, justice and mercy,
goodness and truth. Nor is it a little important, as connected with the
present inquiry, to keep in mind this distinction between our
affirmative and negative knowledge in this matter. For it shows us that
as, on the one side, we cannot pretend to such an insight into the
nature and character of the divine knowledge as to deduce therefrom a
system of eternal and irrespective decrees; so neither, on the other,
can this system of moral government be ascribed to the Deity, because it
would be manifestly unworthy, not merely of him who has created all
moral excellence, but of any of those beings on whom he has conferred
the most ordinary degrees of mercy and justice. The natural benefits or
evils arising out of moral or immoral practices are, in fact, so many
rewards or punishments, exhibiting the Being who has so constituted our
nature as a moral governor. This part of his government may not be so
clearly discernible in individual instances, because much of the
happiness and unhappiness attending virtue and vice is mental and
invisible. In the case of nations, however, considered merely as bodies
politic, the internal sanction of an approving or reproaching
conscience, of subdued or distracting passions, can have no existence;
and therefore the external sanctions are more uniformly enforced. Hence,
whoever carefully examines the dealings of Providence with the human
race will admit, that national prosperity has ever kept pace with
national wisdom and integrity; whereas, the greatest empires, when once
corrupted, have soon become the prey of internal strife or foreign
domination. Again: man is made for society, and cannot exist without it:
consequently, all the regulations which are really conducive to the
maintenance of civil policy and social order must be regarded as evident
consequences of our nature, when enlightened to the rational pursuit of
its own advantage; and therefore should be considered as intimations of
a moral government, carried on through their intervention. In addition
to which, it ought to be observed, that these laws may be regarded in
another point of view,--as a most important class of moral phenomena;
inasmuch as they virtually exhibit the most unexceptionable declarations
of reason on this subject, because they are collected from the common
consent of mankind, and therefore rendered, in a great measure,
independent of the obliquities of individual intellect, the errors of
private judgment, and the partial views of self interest, prejudice, or
passion. But all the laws of civilized nations, both in their enactment
and administration, not only presuppose certain notions concerning the
freedom and accountableness of man, the merit and demerit of human
actions, and the inseparable connection of virtue and vice with rewards
and punishments, but greatly contribute to fix and perpetuate these
notions. It is therefore evidently the intention of that part of the
moral government with which we are acquainted, to impress these
principles deeply on the human mind, and to induce the human race to
regulate their conduct accordingly. The laws, then, of this moral
government under which we find ourselves placed, and from which we
cannot escape, correspond with and corroborate the conclusions deduced
from the observation of mental phenomena. And from both we conclude that
similar principles of government will be adopted, (so far, at least, as
man is concerned,) in other worlds and in future ages; only more
developed, and therefore more evidently free from its present apparent
imperfections. Upon this account we look, in another life, for some such
general disclosure and consummation of the ways and wisdom of Providence
as shall vindicate, even in the minor details, the grand principles upon
which, generally speaking, the government of God is at present obviously
conducted. How this may be done, with many questions connected
therewith, reason without revelation could, as I conceive, do little
more than form plausible conjectures. Though now that it has pleased God
in Christ to bring “life and immortality to light through the Gospel,”
it is possible for reason to estimate the beauty and the mercy and the
wisdom of the dispensation by which it has been effected.
WIND. The Hebrews, like us, acknowledge four principal winds, Ezek.
xiii, 16–18: the east wind, the north wind, the south wind, and the west
wind, or that from the Mediterranean sea. See WHIRLWIND.
WINDOWS. The method of building both in Barbary and the Levant seems to
have continued the same from the earliest ages. All the windows open
into private courts, if we except sometimes a latticed window or balcony
toward the street. It is only during the celebration of some _zeenah_,
or public festival, that these houses and their latticed windows are
left open; for this being a time of great liberty, revelling, and
extravagance, each family is ambitious of adorning both the inside and
outside of their houses with the richest part of their furniture; while
crowds of both sexes, dressed out in their best apparel, and laying
aside all ceremony and restraint, go in and out where they please. The
account we have, 2 Kings ix, 30, of Jezebel’s painting her face, tiring
her head, and looking out at a window upon Jehu’s public entry into
Jezreel, gives us a lively idea of an eastern lady at one of those
solemnities.
WINE, יין, Gen. xix, 32, οινος, Matt. ix, 17, a liquor expressed from
grapes. The art of refining wine upon the lees was known to the Jews.
The particular process, as it is now practised in the island of Cyprus,
is described in Mariti’s Travels. The wine is put immediately from the
vat into large vases of potters’ ware, pointed at the bottom, till they
are nearly full, when they are covered tight and buried. At the end of a
year what is designed for sale is drawn into wooden casks. The dregs in
the vases are put into wooden casks destined to receive wine, with as
much of the liquor as is necessary to prevent them from becoming dry
before use. Casks thus prepared are very valuable. When the wine a year
old is put in, the dregs rise, and make it appear muddy, but afterward
they subside and carry down all the other feculences. The dregs are so
much valued that they are not sold with the wine in the vase, unless
particularly mentioned.
The “new wine,” or “must,” is mentioned, Isa. xlix, 26; Joel i, 5; iii,
18; and Amos ix, 13, under the name עסים. The “mixed wine,” ממסד, Prov.
xxiii, 30, and in Isaiah lxv, 11 rendered “drink-offering,” may mean
wine made stronger and more inebriating by the addition of higher and
more powerful ingredients, such as honey, spices, _defrutum_, or wine
inspissated by boiling it down, myrrh, mandragora, and other strong
drugs. Thus the drunkard is properly described as one that seeketh
“mixed wine,” Prov. xxiii, 30, and is mighty to “mingle strong drink,”
Isa. v, 22; and hence the psalmist took that highly poetical and sublime
image of the cup of God’s wrath, called by Isaiah, li, 17, “the cup of
trembling,” containing, as St. John expresses it, Rev. xiv, 10, pure
wine made yet stronger by a mixture of powerful ingredients: “In the
hand of Jehovah is a cup, and the wine is turbid; it is full of a mixed
liquor, and he poureth out of it,” or rather, “he poureth it out of one
vessel into another,” to mix it perfectly; “verily the dregs thereof,”
the thickest sediment of the strong ingredients mingled with it, “all
the ungodly of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them.” “Spiced
wine,” Cant. viii, 2, was wine rendered more palatable and fragrant with
aromatics. This was considered as a great delicacy. Spiced wines were
not peculiar to the Jews; Hafiz speaks of wines “richly bitter, richly
sweet.” The Romans lined their vessels, _amphoræ_, with odorous gums, to
give the wine a warm bitter flavour: and the orientals now use the
admixture of spices to give their wines a favourite relish. The “wine of
Helbon,” Ezek. xxvii, 18, was an excellent kind of wine, known to the
ancients by the name of _chalibonium vinum_. It was made at Damascus;
the Persians had planted vineyards there on purpose, says Posidosius,
quoted by Athenæus. This author says that the kings of Persia used no
other wine. Hosea, xiv, 7, mentions the wine of Lebanon. The wines from
the vineyards on that mount are even to this day in repute; but some
think that this may mean a sweet-scented wine, or wine flavoured with
fragrant gums.
WINE PRESS. The vintage in Syria commences about the middle of
September, and continues till the middle of November. But grapes in
Palestine, we are informed, were ripe sometimes even in June or July,
which arose perhaps from a triple pruning, in which case there was also
a third vintage. The first vintage was in August, the second in
September, and the third in October. The grapes when not gathered were
sometimes found on the vines until November and December. The Hebrews
were required to leave gleanings for the poor, Lev. xix, 10. The season
of vintage was a most joyful one, Judges ix, 27; Isaiah xvi, 10; Jer.
xxv, 30; xlviii, 33. With shoutings on all sides, the grapes were
plucked off and carried to the wine press, פורה, פארה, ληνὸς, which was
in the vineyard, Isa. liii, 3; Zech. xiv, 10; Haggai ii, 16; Matt. xxi,
33; Rev. xiv, 19, 20. The presses consisted of two receptacles, which
were either built of stones and covered with plaster, or hewn out of a
large rock. The upper receptacle, called נת, as it is constructed at the
present time in Persia, is nearly eight feet square and four feet high.
Into this the grapes are thrown and trodden out by five men. The juice
flows out into the lower receptacle, through a grated aperture, which is
made in the side near the bottom of the upper one. The treading of the
wine press was laborious, and not very favourable to cleanliness; the
garments of the persons thus employed were stained with the red juice,
and yet the employment was a joyful one. It was performed with singing,
accompanied with musical instruments; and the treaders, as they jumped,
exclaimed, הידד, Isa. xvi, 9, 10; Jer. xxv, 30; xlviii, 32, 33.
Figuratively, vintage, gleaning, and treading the wine press, signified
battles and great slaughters, Isa. xvii, 6; lxiii, 1–3; Jer. xlix, 9;
Lam. i, 15. The must, as is customary in the east at the present day,
was preserved in large firkins, which were buried in the earth. The wine
cellars were not subterranean, but built upon the earth. When deposited
in these, the firkins, as is done at the present time in Persia, were
sometimes buried in the ground, and sometimes left standing upon it.
Formerly, also, new wine or must was preserved in leathern bottles; and,
lest they should be broken by fermentation, the people were very careful
that the bottles should be new, Job xxxii, 19; Matt. ix, 17; Mark ii,
22. Sometimes the must was boiled and made into syrup, which is
comprehended under the term דבש, although it is commonly rendered
“honey,” Gen. xliii, 11; 2 Chron. xxxi, 5. Sometimes the grapes were
dried in the sun and preserved in masses, which were called “bunches or
clusters of raisins,” 1 Sam. xxv, 18; 2 Sam. xvi, 1; 1 Chron. xii, 40;
Hosea iii, 1. From these dried grapes, when soaked in wine and pressed a
second time, was manufactured sweet wine, which is also called new wine,
γλεῦκος, Acts ii, 13.
WISDOM is put for that prudence and discretion which enables a man to
perceive that which is fit to be done, according to the circumstances of
time, place, persons, manners, and end of doing, Eccles. ii, 13, 14. It
was this sort of wisdom that Solomon intreated of God with so much
earnestness, and which God granted him with such divine liberality, 1
Kings iii, 9, 12, 28. It also signifies quickness of invention, and
dexterity in the execution of several works, which require not so much
strength of body, as industry, and labour of the mind. For example, God
told Moses, Exod. xxxi, 3, that he had filled Bezaleel and Aholiab with
wisdom, and understanding, and knowledge, to invent and perform several
sorts of work for completing the tabernacle. It is used for craft,
cunning, and stratagem, and that whether good or evil. Thus it is said
by Moses, that Pharaoh dealt wisely with the Israelites, when he opposed
them in Egypt, Exodus i, 10: it is observed of Jonadab, the friend of
Ammon, and nephew of David, that he was very wise, that is, very subtle
and crafty, 2 Sam. xiii, 3; and Job, v, 13, says, that God “taketh the
wise in their own craftiness.” Wisdom means also doctrine, learning, and
experience: “With the ancient is wisdom, and in length of days
understanding,” Job xii, 12. It is put for true piety, or the fear of
God, which is spiritual wisdom: “So teach us to number our days, that we
may apply our hearts unto wisdom,” Psalm xc, 12; “The fear of the Lord
that is wisdom,” Job xxvii, 28. Wisdom is put for the eternal Wisdom,
the Word of God. It was by wisdom that God established the heavens, and
founded the earth, Prov. iii, 19. How magnificently does Solomon
describe the primeval birth of the eternal Son of God, under the
character of Wisdom personified; to which so many references and
allusions are to be found in the Old and New Testament! “The Lord
possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was
set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When
there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains
abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the
hills was I brought forth,” Prov. viii, 22–25. The apocryphal book of
Wisdom introduces, by a reference to this passage, the following
admirable invocation, Wisdom ix, 9, 10:--
“O send forth wisdom, out of thy holy heavens,
Even from the throne of thy glory;
That being present she may labour with me,
That I may know what is pleasing in thy sight!”
And our Lord assumes the title of Wisdom, Luke xi, 49; Matt. xxiii, 34;
and declares that “wisdom shall be justified of all her children,” Matt.
xi, 19; Luke vii, 35.
WISDOM, BOOK OF, an apocryphal book of Scripture, so called on account
of the wise maxims contained in it. This book has been commonly ascribed
to Solomon, either because the author imitated that king’s manner of
writing, or because he sometimes speaks in his name. But it is certain
Solomon was not the author of it; for it was not written in Hebrew, nor
was it inserted in the Jewish canon, nor is the style like that of
Solomon; and therefore St. Jerom observes justly that it smells strong
of the Grecian eloquence; that it is composed with art and method, after
the manner of the Greek philosophers, very different from that noble
simplicity so full of life and energy to be found in the Hebrew books.
It has been ascribed by many of the ancients to Philo.
WOLF, זאב, in Arabic, _zeeb_, Gen. xlix, 27; Isa. xi, 6; lxv, 25; Jer.
v, 6; Ezek. xxii, 27; Zeph. iii, 3; Hab. i, 8; λύκος, Matt. vii, 15; x,
16; Luke x, 3; John x, 12; Acts xx, 29; Eccles. xiii, 17. M. Majus
derives it from the Arabic word _zaab_ or _daaba_, “to frighten;” and
hence, perhaps, the German word _dieb_, “a thief.” The wolf is a fierce,
strong, cunning, mischievous, and carnivorous quadruped; externally and
internally so nearly resembling the dog, that they seem modelled alike,
yet have a perfect antipathy to each other. The Scripture observes of
the wolf, that it lives upon rapine; is violent, bloody, cruel,
voracious, and greedy; goes abroad by night to seek its prey, and is a
great enemy to flocks of sheep. Indeed, this animal is fierce without
cause, kills without remorse, and by its indiscriminate slaughter seems
to satisfy its malignity rather than its hunger. The wolf is weaker than
the lion or the bear, and less courageous than the leopard; but he
scarcely yields to them in cruelty and rapaciousness. His ravenous
temper prompts him to destructive and sanguinary depredations; and these
are perpetrated principally in the night. This circumstance is expressly
mentioned in several passages of Scripture. “The great men have
altogether broken the yoke and burst the bonds; wherefore, a lion out of
the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil
them,” Jer. v, 6. The rapacious and cruel conduct of the princes of
Israel is compared by Ezekiel, xxii, 27, to the mischievous inroads of
the same animal: “Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves
ravening the prey, to shed blood, to destroy lives, to get dishonest
gain;” and Zephaniah, iii, 3, says, “Her princes within her are roaring
lions, her judges are evening wolves: they gnaw not the bones till the
morrow.” Instead of protecting the innocent and restraining the evil
doer, or punishing him according to the demerit of his crimes, they
delight in violence and oppression, in blood and rapine; and so
insatiable is their cupidity, that, like the evening wolf, they destroy
more than they are able to possess. The dispositions of the wolf to
attack the weaker animals, especially those which are under the
protection of man, is alluded to by our Saviour in the parable of the
hireling shepherd: “The wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the flock,”
Matt. vii, 15. And the Apostle Paul, in his address to the elders of
Ephesus, gives the name of this insidious and cruel animal to the false
teachers who disturbed the peace and perverted the faith of their
people: “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves
enter in among you, not sparing the flock,” Acts xx, 29.
WORD. Sometimes the Scripture ascribes to the word of God certain
supernatural effects, and often represents it as animated and active:
“He sent his word and healed them,” Psalm cvii, 20. It also signifies
what is written in the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, Luke
xi, 28; James i, 22; the divine law which teaches and commands good
things, and forbids evil, Psalm cxix, 101; and is used to express every
promise of God, Psalm cxix, 25, &c, and prophecy or vision, Isaiah, ii,
1. This term is likewise consecrated and appropriated to signify the
only Son of the Father, the uncreated Wisdom, the second Person of the
most holy Trinity, equal to and consubstantial with the Father. St. John
the evangelist, more expressly than any other, has opened to us the
mystery of the Word of God, when he tells us, “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in
the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was
not any thing made that was made,” John i, 1–3. The Chaldee paraphrasts,
the most ancient Jewish writers extant, generally make use of the word
_memra_, which signifies “the Word,” in those places where Moses puts
the name Jehovah. They say, for example, that it was the _Memra_, or the
Word, which created the world, which appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai,
which gave him the law, which spoke to him face to face, which brought
Israel out of Egypt, which marched before the people, and which wrought
all those miracles that are recorded in Exodus. It was the same Word
that appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre, that was seen of Jacob
at Bethel, to whom Jacob made his vow, and acknowledged as God, saying,
“If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, then
shall the Lord be my God,” Gen. xxviii, 20, 21. The manner in which St.
John commences his Gospel is strikingly different from the introductions
to the histories of Christ by the other evangelists; and no less
striking and peculiar is the title under which he announces him--“the
Word.” It has therefore been a subject of much inquiry and discussion,
from whence this evangelist drew the use of this appellation, and what
reasons led him, as though intending to solicit particular attention, to
place it at the very head of his Gospel. That it was for the purpose of
establishing an express opinion, as to the personal character of him it
is used to designate, is made more than probable from the predominant
character of the whole Gospel, which is more copiously doctrinal, and
contains a record more full of what Jesus “_said_” than the others. As
to the source from which the term Logos was drawn by the Apostle, some
have held it to be taken from the Jewish Scriptures; others, from the
Chaldee paraphrases; others, from Philo and the Hellenizing Jews. The
most natural conclusion certainly appears to be, that, as St. John was a
plain, “unlearned” man, chiefly conversant in the Holy Scriptures, he
derived this term from the sacred books of his own nation, in which the
Hebrew phrase, _Dabar Jehovah_, “the Word of Jehovah,” frequently occurs
in passages which must be understood to speak of a personal Word, and
which phrase is rendered Λόγος Κυρίου [the word of the Lord] by the
Septuagint interpreters. Certainly, there is not the least evidence in
his writings, or in his traditional history, that he ever acquainted
himself with Philo or with Plato; and none, therefore, that he borrowed
the term from them, or used it in any sense approaching to or suggested
by these refinements:--in the writings of St. Paul there are allusions
to poets and philosophers; in those of St. John, none, except to the
rising sects afterward known under the appellation of Gnostics. The
Hebrew Scriptures contain frequent intimations of a distinction of
Persons in the Godhead; one of these Divine Persons is called Jehovah;
and, though manifestly represented as existing distinct from the Father,
is yet arrayed with attributes of divinity, and was acknowledged by the
ancient Jews to be, in the highest sense, “their God,” the God with
whom, through all their history, they chiefly “had to do.” This Divine
Person is proved to have been spoken of by the prophets as the future
Christ; the evangelists and Apostles represent Jesus as that Divine
Person of the prophets; and if, in the writings of the Old Testament, he
is also called the Word, the application of this term to our Lord is
naturally accounted for. It will then appear to be a theological, not a
philosophic appellation, and one which, previously even to the time of
the Apostle, had been stamped with the authority of inspiration.
Celebrated as this title of the Logos was in the Jewish theology, it is
not, however, the appellation by which the Spirit of inspiration has
chosen that our Saviour should be principally designated. It occurs but
a very few times, and principally and emphatically in the introduction
to St. John’s Gospel. A cogent reason can be given why this Apostle
adopts it; and we are not without a probable reason why, in the New
Testament, the title “Son of God” should have been preferred, which is a
frequent title of the Logos in the writings also of Philo. Originating
from the spiritual principle of connection, between the first and the
second Being in the Godhead; marking this, by a spiritual idea of
connection; and considering it to be as close and as necessary as the
Word is to the energetic mind of God, which cannot bury its intellectual
energies in silence, but must put them forth in speech; it is too
spiritual in itself, to be addressed to the faith of the multitude. If
with so full a reference to our bodily ideas, and so positive a
filiation of the second Being to the first, we have seen the attempts of
Arian criticism endeavouring to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust
of a figure; how much more ready would it have been to do so, if we had
only such a spiritual denomination as this for the second! This would
certainly have been considered by it as too unsubstantial for distinct
personality, and therefore too evanescent for equal divinity. One of the
first teachers of this system was Cerinthus. We have not any particular
account of all the branches of his system; and it is possible that we
may ascribe to him some of those tenets by which later sects of Gnostics
were discriminated. But we have authority for saying, that the general
principle of the Gnostic scheme was openly taught by Cerinthus before
the publication of the Gospel of St. John. The authority is that of
Irenæus, a bishop who lived in the second century, who in his youth had
heard Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, and who retained the
discourses of Polycarp in his memory till his death. There are yet
extant of the works of Irenæus, five books which he wrote against
heresies, one of the most authentic and valuable monuments of
theological erudition. In one place of that work he says, that Cerinthus
taught in Asia that the world was not made by the Supreme God, but by a
certain power very separate and far removed from the Sovereign of the
universe, and ignorant of his nature. In another place, he says that
John the Apostle wished, by his Gospel, to extirpate the error which had
been spread among men by Cerinthus; and Jerom, who lived in the fourth
century, says that St. John wrote his Gospel, at the desire of the
bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and chiefly
against the doctrines of the Ebionites, then springing up, who said that
Christ did not exist before he was born of Mary.