Christian church, that St. John, who lived to a great age, and who
resided at Ephesus, in Proconsular Asia, was moved by the growth of the
Gnostic heresies, and by the solicitations of the Christian teachers, to
bear his testimony to the truth in writing, and particularly to
recollect those discourses and actions of our Lord, which might furnish
the clearest refutation of the persons who denied his preëxistence. This
tradition is a key to a great part of his Gospel. Matthew, Mark, and
Luke had given a detail of those actions of Jesus which are the
evidences of his divine mission; of those events in his life upon earth
which are most interesting to the human race; and of those moral
discourses in which the wisdom, the grace, and the sanctity of the
Teacher shine with united lustre. Their whole narration implies that
Jesus was more than man. But as it is distinguished by a beautiful
simplicity, which adds very much to their credit as historians, they
have not, with the exception of a few incidental expressions, formally
stated the conclusion that Jesus was more than man; but have left the
Christian world to draw it for themselves from the facts narrated, or to
receive it by the teaching and the writings of the Apostles. St. John,
who was preserved by God to see this conclusion, which had been drawn by
the great body of Christians, and had been established in the epistles,
denied by different heretics, brings forward, in the form of a history
of Jesus, a view of his exalted character, and draws our attention
particularly to the truth of that which had been denied. When you come
to analyze the Gospel of St. John, you will find that the first eighteen
verses contain the positions laid down by the Apostle, in order to meet
the errors of Cerinthus; that these positions, which are merely affirmed
in the introduction, are proved in the progress of the Gospel, by the
testimony of John the Baptist, and by the words and the actions of our
Lord; and that after the proof is concluded by the declaration of
Thomas, who, upon being convinced that Jesus had risen, said to him, ‘My
Lord, and my God,’ St. John sums up the amount of his Gospel in these
few words: ‘These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God;’ that is, that Jesus and the Christ are not
distinct persons, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Apostle
does not condescend to mention the name of Cerinthus, because that would
have preserved, as long as the world lasts, the memory of a name which
might otherwise be forgotten. But, although there is dignity and
propriety in omitting the mention of his name, it was necessary, in
laying down the positions that were to meet his errors, to adopt some of
his words, because the Christians of those days would not so readily
have applied the doctrine of the Apostle to the refutation of those
heresies which Cerinthus was spreading among them, if they had not found
in the exposition of that doctrine some of the terms in which the heresy
was delivered; and as the chief of these terms, Logos, which Cerinthus
applied to an inferior spirit, was equivalent to a phrase in common use
among the Jews, ‘the Word of Jehovah,’ and was probably borrowed from
thence, John by his use of Logos rescues it from the degraded use of
Cerinthus, and restores it to a sense corresponding to the dignity of
the Jewish phrase.”
The Logos was no fanciful term, merely invented by St. John, _pro re
natâ_, [according to circumstances,] or even suggested by the Holy
Spirit, as a suitable title for a prophet by whom God chose to reveal
himself or his Word. It was a term diversely understood in the world
before St. John began his Gospel. Is it possible, therefore, that he
should have used the term without some express allusion to these
prevailing opinions? Had he contradicted them all, it would, of course,
have been a plain proof, that they were all equally fabulous and
fanciful; but by adopting the term, he certainly meant to show, that the
error did not consist in believing that there was a Logos, or Word of
God, but in thinking amiss of it. We might, indeed, have wondered much
had he decidedly adopted the Platonic or Gnostic notions, in preference
to the Jewish; but that he should harmonize with the latter, is by no
means surprising; first, because he was a Jew himself; and, secondly,
because Christianity was plainly to be shown to be connected with, and,
as it were, regularly to have sprung out of, Judaism. It is certainly,
then, in the highest degree consistent with all we could reasonably
expect, to find St. John and others of the sacred writers expressing
themselves in terms not only familiar to the Jews under the old
covenant, but, in such as might tend, by a perfect revelation of the
truth, to give instruction to all parties; correcting the errors of the
Platonic and oriental systems, and confirming, in the clearest manner,
the hopes and expectations of the Jews.
While the reasons for the use of this term by St. John are obvious, the
argument from it is irresistible; for, first, the Logos of the
evangelist is a _person_, not an _attribute_, as many Socinians have
said, who have, therefore, sometimes chosen to render it _wisdom_. For
if it be an attribute, it were a mere truism to say, that “it was in the
beginning with God;” because God could never be without his attributes.
The Apostle also declares, that the Logos was the Light; but that John
Baptist was not the light. Here is a kind of parallel supposed, and it
presumes, also, that it was possible that the same character might be
erroneously ascribed to both. Between person and person this may,
undoubtedly, be the case; but what species of parallel can exist between
man and an attribute? Nor will the difficulty be obviated by suggesting,
that wisdom here means not the attribute itself, but him whom that
attribute inspired, the man Jesus Christ, because the name of our
Saviour has not yet been mentioned; because that rule of interpretation
must be inadmissible, which at one time would explain the term Logos by
an attribute, at another by a man, as best suits the convenience of
hypothesis; and because, if it be, in this instance, conceived to
indicate our Saviour, it must follow, that our Saviour created the
world, (which the Unitarians will by no means admit,) for the Logos, who
was that which John the Baptist was not, the true Light, is expressly
declared to have made the world. Again: the Logos was made flesh, that
is, became man; but in what possible sense could an attribute become
man? The Logos is “the only begotten of the Father;” but it would be
uncouth to say of any attribute, that it is begotten; and, if that were
passed over, it would follow, from this notion, either that God has only
one attribute, or that wisdom is not his only begotten attribute.
Farther: St. John uses terms decisively personal, as that he is God, not
divine as an attribute, but God personally; not that he was in God,
which would properly have been said of an attribute, but _with_ God,
which he could only say of a person; that “all things were made by him;”
that he was “in the world;” that “he came to his own;” that he was “in
the bosom of the Father;” and that “he hath declared the Father.” The
absurdity of representing the Logos of St. John as an attribute seems,
at length, to have been perceived by the Socinians themselves, and their
new version accordingly regards it as a personal term.
If the Logos be a person, then is he Divine; for, first, eternity is
ascribed to him: “In the beginning was the Word.” The Unitarian comment
is, “from the beginning of his ministry,” or “the commencement of the
Gospel dispensation;” which makes St. John use another trifling truism,
and solemnly tell his readers, that our Saviour, when he began his
ministry, was in existence! “in the beginning of his ministry the Word
_was_!” It is true, that ἀρχὴ, “the beginning,” is used for the
beginning of Christ’s ministry, when he says that the Apostles had been
with him from the beginning; and it may be used for the beginning of any
thing whatever. It is a term which must be determined in its meaning by
the context; and the question, therefore, is, how the connection here
determines it. Almost immediately it is added, “All things were made by
him;” which can only mean the creation of universal nature. He, then,
who made all things was prior to all created things; he _was_ when they
_began_ to be, and before they began to be; and, if he existed before
all created things, he was not himself created, and was, therefore,
eternal. Secondly, he is expressly called God; and, thirdly, he is as
explicitly said to be the Creator of all things. The two last
particulars have often been largely established, and nothing need be
added, except, as another proof that the Scriptures can only be fairly
explained by the doctrine of a distinction of divine Persons in the
Godhead, the declaration of St. John may be adduced, that “the Word was
_with_ God, and the Word was God.” What hypothesis but this goes a
single step to explain this wonderful language? Arianism, which allows
the preëxistence of Christ _with_ God, accords with the first clause,
but contradicts the second. Sabellianism, which reduces the personal to
an official, and therefore a temporal, distinction, accords with the
second clause, but contradicts the first; for Christ, according to this
theory, was not with God in the beginning, that is in eternity.
Socinianism contradicts both clauses; for on that scheme Christ was
neither with God in the beginning, nor was he God. “The faith of God’s
elect” agrees with both clauses, and by both it is established: “The
Word was with God, and the Word was God.” See UNITARIANS.
WORM, the general name in Scripture for little creeping insects. Several
kinds are spoken of: 1. Those that breed in putrefied bodies, רמה, Exod.
xvi, 20, 24; Job vii, 5; xvii, 14; xxi, 26; xxiv, 20; xxv, 6; Isa. xiv,
11; σκώληξ, Ecclus. vii, 17; x, 11; 1 Mac. ii, 62; 2 Mac. ix, 9; Judith
xvi, 17; Mark ix, 44, 46, 48; Acts xii, 23. 2. That which eats woollen
garments, סס, Isa. li, 8; σὴς, Matt. vi, 19, 20; Luke xii, 33. 3. That
which, perforating the leaves and bark of trees, causes the little
excrescences called _kermes_, whence is made a crimson dye, תולע, Deut.
xxviii, 39; Job xxv, 6; Psalm xxii, 6; Isa. xiv, 11; xii, 14; lxvi, 24;
Exod. xvi, 20; Jonah iv, 7. 4. The worm destructive of the vines,
referred to in Deut. xxviii, 39; which was the _pyralis vitanæ_, or
_pyralis fasciana_, of Forskal, the vine weevil, a small insect
extremely hurtful to the vines.
WORMWOOD, לענה, Deut. xxix, 18; Prov. v, 4; Jer. ix, 15; xxiii, 15; Lam.
iii, 15, 19; Amos v, 7; vi, 12; ἄψινθον, Rev. viii, 11. In the
Septuagint the original word is variously rendered, and generally by
terms expressive of its figurative sense, for what is offensive, odious,
or deleterious; but in the Syriac and Arabic versions, and in the Latin
Vulgate, it is rendered “wormwood;” and this is adopted by Celsius, who
names it the _absinthium santonicum Judaicum_, [bitter wormwood of
Judea.] From the passages of Scripture, however, where this plant is
mentioned, something more than the bitterness of its qualities seems to
be intimated, and effects are attributed to it greater than can be
produced by the wormwood of Europe. The Chaldee paraphrase gives it even
the character of “the wormwood of death.” It may therefore mean a plant
allied, perhaps, to the _absinthium_ in appearance and in taste, but
possessing more nauseous, hurtful, and formidable properties.
WORSHIP. The Scriptural obligation of public worship is partly founded
upon example, and partly upon precept; so that no person who admits that
authority, can question this great duty without manifest and criminal
inconsistency. The institution of public worship under the law, and the
practice of synagogue worship among the Jews, from at least the time of
Ezra, cannot be questioned; both of which were sanctioned by the
practice of our Lord and his Apostles. The preceptive authority for our
regular attendance upon public worship, is either inferential or direct.
The command to publish the Gospel includes the obligation of assembling
to hear it; the name by which a Christian society is designated in
Scripture is a church; which signifies an assembly for the transaction
of business; and, in the case of a Christian assembly, that business
must necessarily be spiritual, and include the sacred exercises of
prayer, praise, and hearing the Scriptures. But we have more direct
precepts, although the practice was obviously continued from Judaism,
and was therefore consuetudinary. Some of the epistles of St. Paul are
commanded to be read in the churches. The singing of psalms, hymns, and
spiritual songs is enjoined as an act of solemn worship to the Lord; and
St. Paul cautions the Hebrews that they “forsake not the assembling of
themselves together.” The practice of the primitive age is also manifest
from the epistles of St. Paul. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated by the
body of believers collectively; and this Apostle prescribes to the
Corinthians regulations for the exercises of prayer and prophesyings,
“when they came together in the church,”--the assembly. The statedness
and order of these holy offices in the primitive church, appear also
from the apostolical epistle of St. Clement: “We ought also, looking
into the depths of the divine knowledge, to do all things in order,
whatsoever the Lord hath commanded to be done. We ought to make our
oblations, and perform our holy offices, at their appointed seasons; for
these he hath commanded to be done, not irregularly or by chance, but at
determinate times and hours; as he hath likewise ordained by his supreme
will, where, and by what persons, they shall be performed; that so all
things being done according to his pleasure, may be acceptable in his
sight.” This passage is remarkable for urging a divine authority for the
public services of the church, by which St. Clement, no doubt, means the
authority of the inspired directions of the Apostles. The ends of the
institution of public worship are of such obvious importance, that it
must ever be considered as one of the most condescending and gracious
dispensations of God to man. By this his church confesses his name
before the world; by this the public teaching of his word is associated
with acts calculated to affect the mind with that solemnity which is the
best preparation for hearing it to edification. It is thus that the
ignorant and the vicious are collected together, and instructed and
warned; the invitations of mercy are published to the guilty, and the
sorrowful and afflicted are comforted. In these assemblies God, by his
Holy Spirit, diffuses his vital and sanctifying influence, and takes the
devout into a fellowship with himself, from which they derive strength
to do and to suffer his will in the various scenes of life, while he
there affords them a foretaste of the deep and hallowed pleasures which
are reserved for them at his right hand for evermore. Prayers and
intercessions are offered for national and public interests; and while
the benefit of these exercises descends upon a country, all are kept
sensible of the dependence of every public and personal interest upon
God. Praise calls forth the grateful emotions, and gives cheerfulness to
piety; and that instruction in righteousness which is so perpetually
repeated, diffuses the principles of morality and religion throughout
society; enlightens and gives activity to conscience; raises the
standard of morals; attaches shame to vice, and praise to virtue; and
thus exerts a powerfully purifying influence upon mankind. Laws thus
receive a force, which, in other circumstances, they could not acquire,
even were they enacted in as great perfection; and the administration of
justice is aided by the strongest possible obligation and sanction being
given to legal oaths. The domestic relations are rendered more strong
and interesting by the very habit of the attendance of families upon the
sacred services of the sanctuary of the Lord; and the rich and the poor
meeting together, and standing on the same common ground as sinners
before God, equally dependent upon him, and equally suing for his mercy,
has a powerful, though often an insensible, influence in humbling the
pride which is nourished by superior rank, and in raising the lower
classes above abjectness of spirit, without injuring their humility.
Piety, benevolence, and patriotism are equally dependent for their
purity and vigour upon the regular and devout worship of God in the
simplicity of the Christian dispensation.
The following is an abridgment of Dr. Neander’s account of the mode of
conducting public worship among the primitive Christians, which, though
questionable on some points, is upon the whole just and
interesting:--Since the religion of the New Testament did not admit of
any peculiar outward priesthood, similar to that of the Old, the same
outward kind of worship, dependent on certain places, times, and outward
actions and demeanours, would also have no place in its composition. The
kingdom of God, the temple of the Lord, were to be present, not in this
or that place, but in every place where Christ himself is active in the
Spirit, and where through him the worship of God in spirit and in truth
is established. Every Christian in particular, and every church in
general, were to represent a spiritual temple of the Lord; the true
worship of God was to be only in the inward heart, and the whole life
proceeding from such inward disposition, sanctified by faith, was to be
a continued spiritual service; this is the great fundamental idea of the
Gospel, which prevails throughout the New Testament, by which the whole
outward appearance of religion was to assume a different form, and all
that once was carnal was to be converted into spiritual, and ennobled.
This notion came forward most strongly in the original inward life of
the first Christians, particularly when contrasted with Judaism, and
still more so when contrasted with Heathenism; a contrast which taught
the Christians to avoid all pomp that caught the eye, and all
multiplication of means of devotion addressed to the senses, while it
made them hold fast the simple, spiritual character of the Christian
worship of God. It was this which always struck the Heathen so much in
the Christian worship; namely, that nothing was found among them of the
outward pomp of all other religions; no temples, no altars, no images.
This reproach was made to the Christians by Celsus, and answered thus by
Origen: “In the highest sense the temple and image of God are in the
human nature of Christ; and hence, also, in all the faithful, who are
animated by the Spirit of Christ,--living images! with which no statue
of Jove by Phidias is fit to be compared.” Christianity impelled men
frequently to seek for the stillness of the inward sanctuary, and here
to pour forth their heart to God, who dwells in such temples; but then
the flames of love were also lighted in their hearts, which sought
communion in order to strengthen each other mutually, and to unite
themselves into one holy flame which pointed toward heaven. The
communion of prayer and devotion was thought a source of sanctification,
inasmuch as men knew that the Lord was present by his Spirit among those
who were gathered together in his name; but then they were far from
ascribing any peculiar sacredness and sanctity to the place of assembly.
Such an idea would appear to partake of Heathenism; and men were at
first in less danger of being seduced into such an idea, because the
first general places of assembly of the Christians were only common
rooms in private houses, just according as it happened that any member
of the church had sufficient accommodation for the purpose. Thus Gaius
of Corinth, Rom. xvi, is called the host of the church, because the
church was in the habit of assembling in a room of his house. Origen
says, “The place where believers come together to pray has something
agreeable and useful about it;” but then he only says this in respect to
that spiritual communion. Man, we must avow, is very easily led to fall
away from the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and to connect the
religion of the Spirit with outward and earthly things; as the Apostle
says, “Having begun in the Spirit, to wish to end in the flesh.”
Watchfulness on this point was constantly needed, lest the Jewish or the
Heathen notions should here intrude themselves on those of the Gospel,
which was likely enough to happen as soon as the Old and the New
Testament notions of the priesthood had been confused. Even in the time
of Clemens of Alexandria he found himself obliged to combat the notion,
which allowed the essentials of a Christian life to be of one kind in,
and of another out of, the church. “The disciples of Christ,” he says,
“must form the whole course of their life and conduct on the model which
they assume in the churches, for the sake of propriety; they must be
such, and not merely seem so; as mild, as pious, and as charitable. But
now, I know not how it is, they change their habits and their manners
with the change of place, as the polypus, they say, changes its colour,
and becomes like the rock on which it hangs. They lay aside the
spiritual habit which they had assumed in the church, as soon as they
have left the church, and assimilate themselves to the multitude among
whom they live. I should rather say, that they convict themselves of
hypocrisy, and show what they really are in their inward nature, by
laying aside the mask of piety which they had assumed; and while they
honour the word of God, they leave it behind them in the place where
they heard it.”