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, likewise, a frequent title of the Logos in the writings also of Philo.

"Originating from the spiritual principle of connexjon, between the first and the second Being in the Godhead; marking this, by a spiritual idea of connexion; 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 grossness 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."(7)

"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 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.(8) 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 ;(9) and Jerome, who lived in the fourth century, says that 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.(1)

Of the reason of its occasional use by St. John, a satisfactory account may also be given. The following is "From the laying these accounts together, it appears a clear abridgment of the ampler discussions on this to have been the tradition of the Christian church, that subject which have employed many learned writers. John, who lived to a great age, and who resided at "Not long after the writings of Philo were published Ephesus, in proconsular Asia, was moved by the there arose the Gnostics, a sect, or rather a multitude growth of the Gnostic heresies, and by the solicitations of sects, who having learned in the same Alexandrian of the Christian teachers, to bear his testimony to the school to blend the principles of Oriental philosophy truth in writing, and particularly to recollect those diswith the doctrine of Plato, formed a system most re- courses and actions of our Lord, which might furnish pugnant to the simplicity of Christian faith. It is this the clearest refutation of the persons who denied his system which Paul so often attacks under the name of pre-existence. This tradition is a key to a great part 'false philosophy, strife of Words, endless genealogies, of his Gospel. Matthew, Mark, and Luke had given a science falsely so called.' The foundation of the Gnos- detail of those actions of Jesus which are the evidences tic system was the intrinsic and incorrigible depravity of his divine mission: of those events in his life upon of matter. Upon this principle they made a total sepa- earth which are most interesting to the human race; ration between the spiritual and the material world.- and of those moral discourses in which the wisdom, the Accounting it impossible to educe out of matter any grace, and the sanctity of the teacher shine with united thing which was good, they held that the Supreme Be- lustre. Their whole narration implies that Jesus was ing, who presided over the innumerable spirits that more than man. But as it is distinguished by a beauwere emanations from himself, did not make this earth, tiful simplicity, which adds very much to their credit but that a spirit of an inferior nature, very far removed as historians, they have not, with the exception of a in character as well as in rank from the Supreme Be- few incidental expressions, formally stated the concluing, formed matter into that order which constitutes the sion that Jesus was more than man, but have left the world, and gave life to the different creatures that inha- Christian world to draw it for themselves from the facts bit the earth. They held that this inferior spirit was narrated, or to receive it by the teaching and the writings the ruler of the creatures whom he had made, and they of the apostles. John, who was preserved by God to considered men, whose souls he imprisoned in earthly see this conclusion, which had been drawn by the grat tabernacles, as experiencing under his dominion the mi- body of Christians, and had been established in the sery which necessarily arose from their connexion with Epistles, denied by different heretics, brings forward, matter, and as estranged from the knowledge of the in the form of a history of Jesus, a view of his exalted true God. Most of the later sects of the Gnostics re- character, and draws our attention particularly to the jected every part of the Jewish law, because the books truth of that which had been denied. When you come of Moses gave a view of the creation inconsistent with to analyze the Gospel of John, you will find that the first their system. But some of the earlier sects, consisting eighteen verses contain the positions laid down by the of Alexandrian Jews, incorporated a respect for the law apostle, in order to meet the errors of Cerinthus; that with the principles of their system. They considered these positions, which are merely affirmed in the introthe Old Testament Dispensation as granted by the De- duction, are proved in the progress of the Gospel, by miurgus, the maker and ruler of the world, who was the testimony of John the Baptist, and by the words incapable, from his want of power, of delivering those and the actions of our Lord; and that after the proof is who received it from the thraldom of matter: And they concluded by the declaration of Thomas, who, upon looked for a more glorious messenger, whom the com- being convinced that Jesus had risen, said to him, My passion of the Supreme Being was to send for the pur-Lord, and my God,' John sums up the amount of his pose of emancipating the human race. Those Gnostics Gospel in these few words: These are written that who embraced Christianity regarded the Christ as this ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of Messenger, and exalted on, who, being in some man- God,' i. e. that Jesus and the Christ are not distinct perner united to the man Jesus, put an end to the domi- sons, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The aposnion of the Demiurgus and restored the souls of men tle does not condescend to mention the name of Cerinto communion with God. It was natural for the Chris- thus, because that would have preserved, as long as the tian Gnostics who had received a Jewish education to world lasts, the memory of a name which might otherfollow the steps of Philo, and the general sense of their wise be forgotten. But although there is dignity and countrymen, in giving the name Logos to the Demiur- propriety in omitting the mention of his name, it was gus. And as Christos was understood from the begin- necessary, in laying down the positions that were to ning of our Lord's ministry to be the Greek word equi- meet his errors, to adopt some of his words, because valent to the Jewish name Messiah, there came to be, the Christians of those days would not so readily have in their system, a direct opposition between Christos and applied the doctrine of the apostle to the refutation of Logos. The Logos was the maker of the world; Chris- those heresies which Cerinthus was spreading among tos was the on sent to destroy the tyranny of the Logos.

(7) WHITAKER's Origin of Arianism.

(8) IREN. contra Hær. lib. iii. cap. xi. 1.
(9) Ibid. lib. i. xxvi. 1.

1 JEROM. De Vit, Illust. cap. ix.

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 correspond-trifling truism, and solemnly tell his readers, that our ing to the dignity of a Jewish phrase."(2)

The Logos was no fanciful term, merely invented by St. John, pro re nata, 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 which 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.(3)

been perceived by the Socinians themselves, and their New Version accordingly regards it as a personal term. If the Logos is 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 Saviour, when he began his ministry, was in existence! -"in the beginning of his ministry the Word was!" It is true that apxn, 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;(5) and the question, therefore, is, how the connexion here determines it. Almost immediately it is added, "all things were made by him ;" which in a preceding chapter has been proved to 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.(6) Secondly, he is expressly called God, in the same sense as the Father; and thirdly, he is as explicitly said to be the Creator of all things. The last two particulars have already 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 pre-existence of Christ with God, accords with the first clause, but contradicts the second. Sabellianism, which reduces the personal to an official, and therefore a tempoWhile the reasons for the use of this term by St. ral, distinction, accords with the second clause, but John are obvious, the argument from it is irresistible; contradicts the first; for Christ according to this theory, for, first, the Logos of the evangelist is a PERSON, not was not with God in the beginning, that is, in eternity. an attribute, as many Socinians have said, who have Socinianism contradicts both clauses; for on that therefore, sometimes chosen to render it "wisdom." scheme Christ was neither with God "in the beginFor if an attribute, it were a mere truism to say that itning," nor was he God. "The faith of God's elect" was in the beginning with God, for 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."(4)

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 Gon, 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 attributive seerns, at length, to have

(2) HILL'S Lectures.

(3)

(4)

agrees with both clauses, and by both it is established, "The Word was with God and the Word was Gon."

CHAPTER XIII.

CHRIST POSSESSED OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. HAVING Considered the import of some of the titles applied to our Lord in the Scriptures, and proved that they imply Divinity, we may next consider the attributes which are ascribed to him in the New Testament. If to names and lofty titles which imply Divinity we find added attributes never given to creatures, and from which all creatures are excluded, the Deity of Christ is established beyond reasonable controversy. No argument can be more nclusive than this. Of the essence of Deity we know nothing, but that he is a Spirit. He is made known by his attributes; and it is from them that we learn, that there is an essential distinction between him and his creatures, because he has attributes which they have not, and those which they have in common with him, he possesses in a degree absolutely perfect. From this it follows, that HIS is a peculiar nature, a nature sui generis, to which no creature does or can possibly approximate. Should, then, these same attributes be found ascribed to Christ, as explicitly and literally as to the Father, it follows of necessity, that, the attributes being the same, the essence is the same, and that essence the exclusive nature of the corns, or "Godhead." It would, indeed, follow, that if but one of the peculiar attributes of Deity were ascribed to

(5) Quotiescunque fit principii mentio, significationem illius ad id de quo accommodare necesse est."BEZA.

(6) "Valde errant, qui ev apyn interpretantur de initio Evangelio; huic enim sententiæ consilium Joannis, et sequens oratio aperte repugnat. Si vero o Moyos fuit jam tum, quum mundus esse cæpit, sequitur eum fuisse ante mundum conditum; sequitur etiam eum non esse

See NARES' Remarks on the Socinian Version.unam ex cæteris creatis rebus, quæ cum mundo esse LAURENCE's Dissertation on the Logos.

cœperunt, sed alia natura conditione."-ROSENMULLER.

|

Christ, he must possess the whole, since they cannot only proper object of an absolute "faith." A similar exist separately; and whoever is possessed of one must and most solemn ascription of eternity and immutabibe concluded to be in possession of all.(7) But it is not lity occurs Heb. i. 10-12, "Thou, Lord in the beginone attribute only, but all the attributes of Deity which ning hast laid the foundation of the earth: and the are ascribed to him; and not only those which are heavens are the works of thine hands. They shall moral, and which are, therefore, capable of being com- perish; but thou remainest: and they all shall wax municated (though those, as they are attributed to old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold Christ in infinite degree and in absolute perfection, them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art THE would be sufficient for the argument), but those which SAME, AND THY YEARS SHALL NOT FAIL." These are, on all sides, allowed to be incommunicable, and words are quoted from Psalm cii., which all acknowpeculiar to the Godhead. ledge to be a lofty description of the eternity of God. ETERNITY is ascribed to him. "Unto us a child is They are here applied to Christ, and of him they born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall affirm, that he was before the material universe-that be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called it was created by him-that he has absolute power Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting over it-that he shall destroy it-that he shall do this Father, the Prince of Peace." "Everlasting Father" with infinite ease, as one who folds up a vesture; and is variously rendered by the principal orthodox critics; that, amid the decays and changes of material things, but every rendering is in consistency with the applica- he remains the same. The immutability here ascribed tion of a positive eternity to the Messiah, of which this to Christ is not, however, that of a created spirit, which is allowed to be a prediction. Bishop Lowth says, will remain when the material universe is destroyed; "the Father of the everlasting age." Bishop Stock, for then there would be nothing proper to Christ in the "the Father of Eternity;" i. e. the owner of it. Dathe text, nothing but in which angels and men participate and Rosenmuller, "Eternus." The former considers with him, and the words would be deprived of all meanit an Oriental idiom, by which names of affinity, as ing. His immutability and duration are peculiar, and a father, mother, &c., are used to denote the author or contrast is implied between his existence and that of eminent possessor of a quality or object. Rev. i. 17, all created things. They are dependent, he is inde18, "I am THE FIRST and THE LAST, I am he that pendent; and his necessary, and therefore eternal, exliveth and was dead;" so also ch. ii. 8; and in both istence must follow. The phrase "ETERNAL LIFE," passages the context shows, indisputably, that it is our when used, as it is frequently, in St. John's Epistles, is Lord himself who speaks, and applies these titles to also a clear designation of the eternity of our Saviour. himself. In ch. xxii. 13, also, Christ is the speaker, and "For the LIFE was manifested, and we have seen it, declares himself to be "ALPHA and OMEGA, the BE- and bear witness, and show unto you that ETERNAL GINNING and the END, the FIRST and the LAST." NOW, LIFE, which was with the Father, and was manifested by these very titles is the eternity of God declared, unto us." In the first clause, Christ is called the Life; Isaiah xlv. 6, and xliii. 10, "I am the first, and I am the he is then said to be "eternal;" and, that no mistake last and beside me there is no God." "Before me was should arise, as though the apostle merely meant to dethere no God formed, neither shall there be after me." clare that he would continue for ever, he shows, that he But they are, in the book of Revelations, assumed by ascribes eternity to him in his pre-existent state,-"that Christ as explicitly and absolutely; and they clearly eternal life" which was WITH THE FATHER; and with affirm, that the Being to whom they are applied had no him before he was "manifested to men." And eternal beginning, and will have no end. In Rev. i. 8, after pre-existence could not be more unequivocally marked. the declaration, "I am Alpha and Omega, the begin- To these essential attributes of Deity, to be without ning and the ending, saith the Lord," it is added, beginning and without change, is added that of "which is, and which was, and which is to come, the being extended through all space.-He is not only Almighty." Some have referred these words to the eternal, but OMNIPRESENT. Thus he declares himself Father; but certainly without reason, as the very scope to be at the same time in heaven and upon earth, which of the passage shows. It is Christ who speaks in the is assuredly a property of Deity alone. "No man hath first person, throughout the chapter, when the sublime ascended up to heaven, but he hat came down from titles of the former part of the verse are used, and in-heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." deed, throughout the book; and to interpret this particular clause of the Father would introduce a most abrupt change of persons, which, but for a false theory, would never have been imagined. The words, indeed, do but express the import of the name Jehovah, so often given to Christ; and as, when the Father is spoken of For "where two or three are gathered together in in verse 4, the same declaration is made concerning my name, THERE AMI IN THE MIDST OF THEM." How him which, in verse 8, our Lord makes of himself, it futile is the Socinian comment in the New Version! follows, that if the terms "which was, and is, and is This promise is to be "limited to the apostolic age." But to come" are descriptive of the eternity of the Father, were that granted, what would the concession avail? In they are also descriptive of eternity as an attribute also the apostolic age, the disciples met in the name of of the Son. We have a similar declaration in Heb. their Lord many times in the week, and in innumeraxiii. 8, "Jesus Christ, THE SAME YESTERDAY, TO-DAY, ble parts of the world at the same time, in Judea, Asia and FOR EVER," where eternity, and its necessary con- Minor, Europe, &c. He, therefore, who could be "in comitant, immutability, are both ascribed to him. That the midst of them," whenever and wherever they the phrase, "yesterday, to-day, and for ever" is equiva-assembled, must be omnipresent. But they add, "by lent to eternity needs no proof: and that the words are a spiritual presence, a faculty of knowing things in not spoken of the doctrine of Christ, as the Socinians places where he was not present;""a gift," they say, contend, appears from the context, which scarcely makes any sense upon this hypothesis, (8) since a doctrine once delivered must remain what it was at first. This interpretation, also, gives a figurative sense to words which have all the character of a strictly literal declaration; and it is a farther confirmation of the literal sense, and that Christ is spoken of personally, that bauros is the phrase by which the immutability of the Son is expressed in chapter i. verse 12: "But thou art ó avros, the same." Pierce, in his Paraphrase, has well expressed the connexion: "Considering the conclusion of their life and behaviour, imitate their faith; for the object of their faith, Jesus Christ, is the same now as he was then, and will be the same for ever." A Being essentially unchangeable, and therefore eternal, is the

(7) "Attributa Divina arctissimo copulari vinculo, sic, ut nullum seperatim concipi queat, adeoque qui uno pollet, omnibus ornetur."-DOEDERLEIN. (8) See MACKNIGHT.

The genuineness of the last clause has been attacked by a few critics: but has been fully established by Dr. Magee.(9) This passage has been defended from the Socinian interpretation already, and contains an unequivocal declaration of ubiquity.

given to the apostles occasionally," and refer to 1 Cor. v. 3. No such gift is, however, claimed by the apostle in that passage, who knew the affair in the church of Corinth, not by any such faculty or revelation, but by "report" (ver. 1). Nor does he say, that he was present with them, but judged " as though he were present." If, indeed, any such gift were occasionally given to the apostles, it would be, not a "spiritual presence," as the New Version has it; but a figurative presence. No such figurative meaning is, however, hinted at in the text before us, which is as literal a declaration of Christ's presence every where with his worshippers as that similar promise made by Jehovah to the Israelites: "In all places where I record my name I will come to thee, and I will bless thee." At the very moment, too, of his ascension, that is, just when, as to his bodily presence, he was leaving his disciples, he promises still to be with them, and

(9) MAGEE on the Atonement.

and thoughts of men was obtained in consequence of a revelation made to them by Him whose prerogative it is to search the heart. In the case of our Lord, it is, however, not merely said, "And Jesus knew their thoughts," that he perceived in his spirit, that they so reasoned among themselves; but it is referred to as an attribute or original faculty, and it is, therefore, made use of by St. John, on one occasion, to explain his conduct with reference to certain of his enemies:-" But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he KNEW ALL MEN, and needed not that any should testify of man, FOR HE KNEW WHAT WAS IN MAN." After his exaltation, also, he claims the prerogative in the full style and majesty of the Jehovah of the Old Testament: "And all the churches shall know that I am he which SEARCHETH THE REINS AND THE HEART."

DISCERNER OF THE THOUGHTS AND INTENTS OF THE

calls their attention to this promise by an emphatic particle, "And LO, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even unto the end of the world." Matt. xxviii. 20. The Socinians render" to the end of the age," that is, "the Jewish dispensation, till the destruction of Jerusalem." All that can be said in favour of this is, that the words may be so translated, if no regard is paid to their import. But it is certain, that, in several passages, "the end of the world," nouvreλeia тos alwvos, must be understood in its popular sense. That this is its sense here, appears, first, from the clause "Lo I am with you ALWAYS," naσas Tas nuepas, "at all times;" secondly, because spiritual presence stands, by an evidently implied antithesis, opposed to bodily absence; thirdly, because that presence of Christ was as necessary to his disciples after the destruction of Jerusalem as till that period. But even were the promise to be so A striking description of the omniscience of Christ is restricted, it would still be in proof of the omnipre- also found in Heb. iv. 12, 13, if we understand it, with sence of our Lord, for, if he were present with all his most of the ancients, of the hypostatic Word; to which disciples in all places, "always," to the destruction of sense I think the scope of the passage and context Jerusalem, it could only be by virtue of a property clearly determines it. "For the WORD OF GOD is which would render him present to his disciples in all quick (living) and powerful, and sharper than any two ages. The Socinian Version intimates, that the pre-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of sence meant is the gift of miraculous powers. Let soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a even that be allowed, though it is a very partial view of the promise; then, if till the destruction of Jerusa- HEART; neither is there any creature that is not MANIlem the apostles were "always," "at all times," able FEST in his sight; for all things are NAKED and OPEN to work miracles, the power to enable them to effect to the eyes of him with whom we have to do." The these wonders must "always," and in all places, have reasons for referring this passage rather to Christ, the been present with them; and if that were not a human author of the Gospel, than to the Gospel itself, are, first, endowment, if a power superior to that of man were that it agrees better with the apostle's argument. He requisite for the performance of the miracles, and that is warning Christians against the example of ancient power was the power of Christ, then he was really, Jewish unbelief, and enforces his warning by remindthough spiritually, present with them, unless the attri- ing them, that the Word of God discerns the thoughts bute of power can be separated from its subject, and and intents of the heart. The argument is obvious, if the power of Christ be where he himself is not. This, the personal Word is meant; not at all so, if the dochowever, is a low view of the import of the promise, trine of the Gospel be supposed. Secondly, the clauses, "Lo, I am with you," which, both in the Old and New "neither is there any creature that is not manifest Testament, signifies to be present with any one, to in HIS sight," and, all "things are naked and open to help, comfort, and succour him. “Είναι μετα τινος, the eyes of HIM, with whom we have to do," or "to alicui adesse, juvare aliquem, curare res alicujus."(1) whom we must give an account," are undoubtedly It is not necessary to adduce more than another pas- spoken of a person, and that person our witness and sage in proof of a point so fully determined already by judge. Those, therefore, who think that the Gospel is the authority of Scripture. After the apostle, in Colos- spoken of in verse 12, represent the apostle as making sians i. 16, 17, has ascribed the creation of all things in a heaven and earth, " visible and invisible," to Christ, he adds, " and by him all things consist." On this passage, Raphelius cites a striking passage from Aristotle, De Mundo, where the same verb, rendered "consist," by our translators, is used in a like sense to express the constant dependence of all things upon their Creator for continued subsistence and preservation. "There is a certain ancient tradition common to all mankind, that all things subsist from and by God, and that no kind of being is self-sufficient, when alone, and destitute of his preserving aid."(2) The apostle then, here, not only attributes the creation, but the conservation of all things to Christ; but to preserve them his presence must be coextensive with them, and thus the universe of matter and created spirits, heaven and earth, must be filled with his power and presence. "This short sentence implies that our Lord's presence extends to every part of the creation; to every being and system in the universe; a most striking and emphatical description of the omnipresence of God the Son."(3)

To these attributes of essential Divinity is added, a PERFECT KNOWLEDGE of all things. This cannot be the attribute of a creature; for, though it may be difficult to say how far the knowledge of the highest order of intelligent creatures may be extended, yet is there two kinds of knowledge which God has made peculiar to himself by solemn and exclusive claim. The first is, the perfect knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the heart. "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins," Jeremiah xvii. 10. "Thou, even thou only," says Solomon, "knowest the hearts of all the children of men," 1 Kings viii. 39. This knowledge is attributed to and was claimed by our Lord, and that without any intimation that it was in consequence of a special revelation, or supernatural gift, as in a few instances we see in the apostles and prophets, bestowed to answer a particular and temporary purpose. In such instances also, it is to be observed, the knowledge of the spirits

(1) ROSENMULLER.

transition from the Gospel to God himself in what follows. This, however, produces a violent break in the argument, for which no grammatical nor contextual reason whatever can be given; and it is evident that the same metaphor extends through both verses. This is taken from the practice of dividing and cutting asunder the bodies of beasts slain for sacrifice, and laying them open for inspection, lest any blemish or unsoundness should lurk within, and render them unfit for the service of God. The dividing asunder of "the joints and marrow" in the 12th verse, and the being made "naked and open to the eyes," in the 13th, are all parts of the same sacrificial and judicial action, to which, therefore, we can justly assign but one agent. The only reason given for the other interpretation is, that the term LOGOS is nowhere else used by St. Paul. This can weigh but little against the obvious sense of the passage. St. Luke, i. 2, appears to use the term Logos in a personal sense, and he uses it but once; and if St. Paul uses it here, and not in his other epistles, this reason may be given, that in other epistles he writes to Jews and Gentiles united in the same churches; here, to Jews alone, among whom we have seen that the Logos was a well-known theological term.(4)

The Socinians urge against this ascription of infinite knowledge to our Lord, Mark xiii. 32,-" But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." The genuineness of the clause "neither the Son" has been disputed, and is not inserted by Griesbach in his text; there is not, however, sufficient reason for its rejection, though certainly in the parallel passage, Matt. xxiv. 36, "neither the Son" is not found. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven; but my Father only." We are then reduced to this-a number of passages explicitly declare that Christ knows all things: there is one

(4) "Non deerat peculiaris ratio, cur Filium Dei sic vocaret, cum ad Hebræeos scriberet, qui eum illo nomine indigitare solebant: ut constat ex Targum, cujus (2) RAPHELIUS in loc. See also PARKHURST's Lex. pars hoc tempore facta est, et ex Philone aliisque Hel3) HOLDEN'S Scripture Testimonies.

lenistis."-POLI Synop.