on the other, in their critical editions of the N. Test. Dr. Henderson, in his Essay on this text, (reprinted in the older Bib. Repository), has placed this matter beyond fair critical objections.

I might also appeal to Heb. 1: 8: "But unto the Son he saith: Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever;" and that the true God is here meant, appears from the sequel, which ascribes the creation of all things to this same God. But as my purpose is not to exhaust the subject, but only to give leading touches and outlines, I must turn the reader's attention to a somewhat different view and illustration of the matter before us, by asking the question, Whether the general usage of the N. Test. will justify us in ascribing to ɛós a secondary, subordinate, catachrestic sense?

As John will best explain himself, we will proceed still further with him. In John 5: 17, Jesus says, in order to justify himself against the accusations of the Jews that he had violated the sabbath, by healing the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda on that day: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work ;" i. e. I have the same authority that he has to supersede the law of the sabbath. In 14: 9 he says: "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." In 10: 30, "I and my Father are one;" which does not seem here to mean a unity or harmony of a moral nature, as in 17: 11, 22. In 17: 5, Jesus speaks of "the glory which he had with the Father before the world was," i. e. from eternity. Glory from whom? Not from creatures. It must then have been essential glory. In 5: 19, he says: "Whatsoever things he [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." In 5: 21, "The Son quickeneth whom he will;" v. 25, "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and live;" v. 26, "The Son hath life in himself." In 5: 22, 23, "All judgment is committed to the Son, that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.

These are only a small selection out of John's many declarations respecting Christ. If we follow him to the Apocalypse, we open (1:6) with the ascription of "glory and dominion to him [Christ], forever and ever, Amen;" and in 6: 8-14, the whole of the heavenly world are represented as ascribing to "the Lamb that was slain, power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing;" and then, again, as repeating this doxology by once more ascribing "blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, to him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever;" to which a solemn Amen is responded. If any greater honor and praise are ascribed to God than this, I know not where to find an account of it.

In four different places does John represent, in the Apocalypse, the Saviour as saying of himself: "I am the first and the last ;" and (with

1850.]

The Word was God.

49

a variation of phraseology) as declaring the same by saying repeatedly of himself, that he is "the Alpha and Omega," and "the beginning and the end;" viz. in Rev. 1: 11, 17. 2: 8. 21: 6. 22: 13. The very same description of Jehovah is given by Isaiah, in Isa. 41: 4. 44: 6. 48: 12. In Rev. 7: 15, the Lamb is spoken of by calling him ó xaouevos ini Tov góvovan appellation often employed in the Apocalypse to designate God supreme.

That the Lord our God is to be worshipped in a spiritual manner, and that he alone is entitled to such homage, is as much a doctrine of the N. Testament as of the Old. Indeed, it lies upon the face of both Testaments. Yet that spiritual homage, prayer, and praise, are spoken of as directed and given to Christ, and as being due to him, lies also on the face of the N. Test. writings. When Judas fell, and the apostles were about to select another apostle, they appealed in prayer to Christ, saying: "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men," etc. i. e. do thou, who art omniscient, direct us to a right and proper choice, Acts 1: 24. The dying Stephen said, with his last breath, when filled with the Holy Ghost, and looking up to heaven: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" Acts 7: 59. Christians are familiarly spoken of as "those who call on, i. e. invoke, the name of Christ." So Ananias, Acts 9: 14. So Paul, 1 Cor. 1: 2. 2 Tim. 2:22. Even a heathen writer (Pliny) has noted it as a prominent characteristic of early Christian worship, that in their public assemblies, "they sung a hymn to Christ as to God." Paul prayed thrice to the Lord, i. e. Christ, that the thorn in his flesh might be removed, 2 Cor. 12: 8. He has assured us that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord [Christ] shall be saved," Rom. 10:13. The fragments of very ancient Christian hymns, moreover, are filled with praises of Christ. But the most magnificent and ample of all that is said, in any one place, of the worship and glorification of Christ, is that sublime passage of John in Rev. V., which has already been quoted, and which leaves no question whether the worship is spiritual. In heaven, what other worship can be rendered?

But I must refrain from further pursuing the subject of Christ's true and proper rank, as it is presented by John himself, or by the other writers of the N. Test. The usus loquendi of the apostles and primitive Christians, with regard to their manner of speaking in respect to Christ, and also the manner in which Christ spake of himself, are now, I would hope, sufficiently before us to enable us to decide, whether John has probably called Christ eos in merely a subordinate and secondary sense. And now what says conscience? I ask not merely for what an ordinary Christian conscience may say, but I would appeal, in all sincerity and honestness of heart, to the enlightened and VOL. VII. No. 25.

5

candid critical conscience. I am aware of the many objections which philosophy can raise against the doctrine of Christ's divine nature. I am also aware, that very many objections have been and may be raised from declarations respecting Christ, which have their foundation entirely in the fact, that he was possessed of a nature truly human. But can all these change our opinion, as to the plain and obvious meaning of such texts as have now been brought to view? Can they furnish us with any satisfactory evidence, that John has left his readers to make out, as they can, the probability that he employs ɛós in a sense foreign to that of all the Bible besides ?

It is not my duty nor my province, to decide these questions for others. For myself, I cannot see good reason to doubt, that John believed, and meant to teach, the real and essential divinity or godhead of the Logos. I came to the present investigation, with an effort to lay aside, for the time being, all my previous convictions and views. I have done my best to pursue the investigation in the simple way of philological and historical exegesis. I know of no ultimate appeal but this, and no higher one than this, when the question is made: What does the sacred writer mean? Did we possess the gift of inspiration, or had we an a priori knowledge of all that appertains to the mysteries of the Godhead and of the incarnation, we might then decide in an easier and more certain way, and with more authority. But as I make no claim to either of these, I have felt bound to follow the simple path of historico-exegetical inquiry. I have, after repeating the study of this portion of Scripture, and lecturing more or less upon it every year for the last forty years, gradually settled down upon the views which I have now given, and can sincerely aver, that my understanding, my heart, and my conscience, are satisfied with them. Others, of course, must judge for themselves. If I could, I would not refuse to them the liberty that I have myself taken.

I must confess, however, that it is not without pain and the most sincere regret, that I see such men as De Wette and F. Lücke virtually rejecting conclusions such as those to which I have come. The extensive critical knowledge of these writers, their general sobriety and can. dor and ingenuousness as interpreters, and their kindness of feeling toward those who differ in opinion from them, all commend an attentive and respectful perusal and consideration of what they say, on any topic of such a nature as that before us. But after all, when I find that Lücke, in his. Commentary, depends principally on the alleged resemblance of John's views of the Logos to those of Philo Judæus, in order to make out a secondary and lower sense of sós in the case before us, I am not prepared to follow him. He does indeed assign some other

1850.]

The Word was God.

51

reasons for his conclusion (I. s. 266); but these have already been examined, and shown, at least as it seems to me, to be altogether unsatisfactory and inadequate to establish it. His last argument, and the one on which he appears to have most relied, I have already briefly stated on p. 43 above. I bring it to view again, merely for the sake of some additional remarks not there made. It runs thus: If Philo, with his looser and indefinite conceptions about the divine unity and attributes, deemed it necessary to caution the reader against taking eos in its usual and proper meaning, when applied to the Logos, how much more must we suppose such a strenuous assertor of the divine unity as John, intended to employ the same word in a qualified sense, when applied by him to the Logos?'

But what now, I ask, is this, except to transfer Lücke's own difficulties about the infringement on the divine unity to the mind of John? At all events, however, the argument on this score can be turned strongly against Lücke. In our turn we have a fair claim to ask: How came John, with his high and pure and strenuous views of the divine unity, to neglect doing what even the looser and less accurate Philo has not ventured to leave undone? The latter, it is admitted, has specially cautioned and guarded his readers against giving to ɛós its full and obvious meaning; and so he has saved them from mistaking him. But where has John done this? Not a word of the kind; nay, he has taken a course directly the contrary. In the next breath, after he has declared the Logos to be ɛós, he tells us that he was the very ɛós who created the Universe, and who is the original author of all life and light. We have moreover seen, above, how fully all his writings confirm this view. And why may we not, or rather, why must we not, believe with Paul, that "he who made all things is GOD?"

De Wette takes a course somewhat different. He first brings together the prominent attributes and powers of the divine word, as developed in both Testaments. He then suggests, that inasmuch as Christ was fully commissioned to dispense this word so powerful and even creative; since, moreover, he rose from the dead, was exalted to heaven, and made Lord and Governor of the Universe; it is no wonder that John was led to represent Christ as having borne a part in the creation of the world, and as now sustaining a part in the preservation of it (s. 12). He moreover deems it probable, that Philo's works had an influence upon John. But he does not think it would be correct to say, that John had Arian views of the Logos; yet he cautions us against ascribing to him Trinitarian views. He says: "The half-Athanasian idea of a person, who has a separate subsistence, and yet forms no proper being for itself, but partakes of one in common with other persons, we must not ascribe to John." (s. 14).

According to the first of these two representations, then, it was only the fervid and exuberant love and wonder of the apostle, which led him to make the lofty ascriptions of attributes divine to Christ. We, of course, must not interpret them in plain and sober earnest, but with all due regard to the rhetorical language and hyperbolical nature of the expressions employed. In the second case, where it is averred that John probably borrowed from Philo, we are admonished that we must be cautious, how we make out any Trinitarian deductions from him; for Philo knew nothing of a Trinity.

What then, I would respectfully yet earnestly ask, are we to make out from Jolin, as to the Logos? De Wette has not told us what we ought to think or believe concerning him; at least I cannot make out from him any explicit answer to this question. The suggestions which he has made, partake so largely of the quality of surmises and conjectures, that I can find no punctum stans; and on this account, I deem it unnecessary further to canvass them.

With a deeper interest still, then, I now return to the question: What says conscience? conscience both critical and Christian. The demands of criticism I have endeavored to meet. The usus loquendi of the Scriptures throughout, in regard to ɛós, admits of no doubt in any other case. Why should we doubt here? Our philosophical or speculative difficulties are not to be obtruded upon John. The simple question is: Has he been his own interpreter? That question has been discussed. If we act the part of critics and simple interpreters, we cannot find good reason for doubt. Is there, then, any other satisfactory reason, why we should refuse our assent, to what he has so plainly, and (may I not now say?) unequivocally asserted?

If the appeal may now be made to a conscience both critical and Christian, then I would ask, in all serious earnestness, why we are not to give credit to that apostle whom Jesus specially loved, on whose bosom he leaned, and to whom he seems to have imparted more of the secrets of his bosom, than to any other man? I am aware of the repeated and violent efforts that have been made to destroy the credit of John's Gospel, by impeaching its genuineness. But it has stood the fiery trial; it has passed unscathed through the furnace that was seven times heated. The time is now near, if not already arrived, when no sober critic will venture on such an impeachment. A reader intelligent, feeling, and devout, cannot well study attentively the Gospel of John, without a deep conviction, that he has developed more minutely and exactly the manner of his Master's peculiar thoughts and expressions, than any other New Testament writer. Why then should we not give him full credit? Why not anxiously ask of him, what He who leaned upon his bosom disclosed, respecting his person and his work?