Page images

ple, it is said in Isaiah (xliii. 11), according to the Common Version: "I, even I, am the LORD, and beside me there is no saviour." But Christ, it is argued, is our Saviour; and, as it is proved by this passage that there can be no saviour but God, it follows that Christ is God. The reasoning proceeds upon the assumption that the same word is always used in the same sense, with the same reference, and in the whole extent of its signification; and the monstrous conclusions that would result from applying this argument to other individuals beside Christ, to whom the name "Saviour" is or may be given, are put out of sight.*

* [See 2 Kings xiii. 5; Nehemiah ix. 27; Isaiah xix. 20; Obadiah 21.

Some Trinitarians have quoted in proof of the deity of Christ a few passages in which they suppose the title "God our Saviour" to be applied to him. The following are all the passages of the New Testament in which this expression occurs: 1 Timothy i. 1; ii. 3; Titus i. 3; ii. 10; iii. 4; and Jude 25. See also Luke i. 47; 1 Timothy iv. 10.

In some of these texts, as 1 Timothy i. 1, Titus iii. 4-6, the being who is called "God our Saviour" is expressly distinguished from Christ; and one need only compare the others with these, and with their context, to perceive that it is not only without evidence, but against all evidence, that any of them are referred to Christ. A large majority of Trinitarian commentators recognize this fact.

In Jude 25 the best ancient manuscripts and versions, and other authorities for settling the text, read, “To the ONLY God our Saviour, THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, be glory," &c. This reading is adopted by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Vater, Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn, Tischendorf, Theile, and nearly all modern critics. There can be no reasonable doubt of its genuineness.

We may here notice also 2 Peter i. 1 and Titus ii. 13, in which it has been maintained, on the ground of the omission of the Greek article, that Christ is called "our God and Saviour," and "our great

On misinterpretations such as this it would be useless to dwell. No information can be given, no thoughts can be suggested, which are not obvious to every reader who will exercise his own understanding; and to him who will not, all assistance must be in vain.

THUS, then, with one exception, which we will immediately consider, we have taken a general view of the manner in which the passages adduced by Trinitarians are to be explained.

God and Saviour." As to the argument founded on the omission of the article, it is not necessary to add anything to what has already been said. (See p. 199, note.) But it is urged by Professor Stuart and others, in respect to Titus ii. 13, that the "appearing" of God the Father is never foretold in the New Testament, and therefore that "the great God" here spoken of must be Christ. The answer to this is, that, according to the literal and correct translation of the original, it is not "the appearing," but "the appearing of the glory, ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης, of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ," of which the Apostle speaks; and that our Saviour did expressly declare that he should come "in the glory of his Father." See Matthew xvi. 27; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26; and compare 1 Timothy vi. 14-16. Professor Stuart admits that "the whole argument,. ...... so far as the article is concerned, falls to the ground." (Biblical Repository for April 1834, p. 323.) The title "the great God" in this passage is referred to the Father by Erasmus, Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Doddridge, Macknight, Abp. Newcome, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Schott, Winer, Neander (Planting and Training, I. 509, note, Bohn's ed.), De Wette, Meyer (on Romans ix. 5), Huther, Conybeare and Howson, and others.]


The Introduction of St. John's Gospel.

We will now attend to a passage that has been misunderstood through ignorance or disregard of the opinions and modes of conception which the writer, St. John, had in mind. This is the introduction, or proem, as it has been called, of his Gospel.

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."

There is no word in English answering to the Greek word Logos, as here used. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote, and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking, that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word Logos, in one of its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. It denoted that faculty by which the mind disposes its ideas in their proper relations to each other; the Disposing Power, if I may so speak, of the mind. In reference to this primary sense, it was applied to the Deity, but in a wider significance. The Logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God. To this the creation of all things was

especially ascribed. The conception may seem obvious in itself; but the cause why the creation was primarily referred to the Logos or Intellect of God, rather than to his goodness or omnipotence, is to be found in the Platonic philosophy, as it existed about the time of Christ, and particularly as taught by the eminent Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria.

According to this philosophy, there existed an archetypal world of IDEAS, formed by God, the perfect model of the sensible universe; corresponding, so far as what is divine may be compared with what is human, to the plan of a building or city which an architect forms in his own mind before commencing its erection. The faculty by which God disposed and arranged the world of Ideas was his Logos, Reason, or Intellect. This world, according to one representation, was supposed to have its seat in the Logos or Mind of God; according to another, it was identified with the Logos. The Platonic philosophy further taught, that the Ideas of God were not merely the archetypes, but, in scholastic language, the essential forms, of all created things.* In this philosophy, matter in its primary state, primitive matter, if I may so speak, was regarded merely as the substratum of attributes, being in itself devoid of all. Attributes, it was conceived, were impressed upon it by the Ideas of God, which Philo often speaks

[For an account of Plato's doctrine of Ideas, see the author's Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. III. Additional Note A.]

of under the figure of seals. These Ideas, indeed, constituted those attributes, becoming connected with primitive matter in an incomprehensible manner, and thus giving form and being to all things sensible. But the seat of these Ideas, these formative principles, being the Logos or Intellect of God, or, according to the other representation mentioned, these Ideas constituting the Logos, the Logos was, in consequence, represented as the great agent in creation. This doctrine being settled, the meaning of the term gradually extended itself by a natural process, and came at last to comprehend all the attributes of God manifested in the creation and government of the universe. These attributes, abstractly from God himself, were made an object of thought under the name of the Logos. The Logos thus conceived of was necessarily personified or spoken of figuratively as a person. In our own language, in describing its agency,agency in its nature personal and to be ultimately referred to God, we might indeed avoid attaching a personal character to the Logos considered abstractly from God, by the use of the neuter pronoun it. Thus we might say, All things were made by it. But the Greek language afforded no such resource, the relative pronoun in concord with Logos being necessarily masculine. Thus the Logos or Intellect of God came to be, figuratively or literally, conceived of as an intermediate being between God and his creatures, the great agent in the creation and government of the universe.

« EelmineJätka »