this astonishing disproportion? Some cause,-something corresponding to it in the minds of the writers it must have had; nor is it easy to understand how an equal disposition of the Divine Persons in the habitual conceptions of the authors could lead to so unequal an award of the grand expression of Divinity."* The phrase, "Lord of all" (Acts x. 36), quoted by Mr. Bickersteth in this connection, requires notice. By consulting the context the reader will, I think, perceive that the meaning is—not of the Jews alone, but also of the Gentiles. Peter has a vision in which he is instructed not to reject the Gentiles. A man in bright clothing appears to Cornelius, and bids him send to Peter. "Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all): That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judæa, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him." Mr. Bickersteth goes on to say, "The collation of two passages from the Old, with two passages from the New Testament, seems to clinch the argument:" * Rev. J. Martineau, Liverpool Controversy, Lecture v. 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord" (Kúpos ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, Κύριος εἷς ἐστι, lxx.) Deut. vi. 4. 66 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth. In that day there shall be one Lord, and his name One." (Κύριος εἷς καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ev, lxx.)-Zech. xiv. 9. "There is one Lord" (es Kúptos).-Eph. iv. 5. "To us... there is ... one Lord (es Kúpios) Jesus Here I feel I have only to quote the words of the apostle, with their contexts: Eph. iv. 5, 6, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Surely the one God and Father of all corresponds to the one only true God of the Jews. 1 Cor. viii. 6: "To us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." So writes St. Paul, but Mr. Bickersteth, leaving out the words, "To us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him," identifies the Supreme Being with Christ, "by whom are all things, and we by him." The only method by which I can account for such an application of Scriptural language, is by recollecting the words of Neander in the 2nd vol. of his History :* "When a man intrenches himself in some particular dogmatic interest, and makes that his central position, he can easily explain everything in conformity with his own views, and find everywhere a reflection of himself." * Clarke's Edition, p. 334. Heb. i. 1—12. On this passage Mr. Bickersteth states in a note that the "most severe criticism has not really brought one sustained objection against the received version." Yet I must beg to offer the following remarks: "By whom also He made the worlds." The original is al@vas, literally ages. "Brightness of His glory"-"emanation (aπavyaoμa) of His glory." "Express image of His person❞— substance Trooтaois. Prof. Stuart says: "His substance I regard as equivalent to him, himself as he really is; for this would seem to be the meaning of substance in the case before us, and not the designation of the physical or metaphysical nature of the divine substance."*"To or concerning (πpos) the Son he said, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Compare Ps. lxxiii. 26, Septuagint, and Heb. i. 8. Ἡ μέρις μου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 'H ̔Ο θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. If the former may be translated, "God is my portion for ever," the latter may be rendered, "God is thy throne for ever," as it has been by Grotius, Dr. Samuel Clarke, and others. If, however, the translation in the Common Version be preferred, no objection will be made. What, then, is the meaning? Mr. Bickersteth says, "Paul is proving the preeminence of Christ over all other prophets, and the essential difference between his and the angelic nature;" but it does not follow that because there is this difference there is no distinction between Christ and the infinite Father. The Son is appointed by the Father, is the agent and messenger of the Father, * Wilson's Concessions, 524. an emanation from the Father's glory, an image of the Father Himself, upholds all things by the word of the Father's power, sits down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, being made so much better than the angels as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Then, immediately after the words, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom," we have this remarkable declaration, "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Thus, exalted as the Saviour is, there is a manifest distinction between him and his God. Think of saying of the Supreme Being that He was anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows, for His love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity! One more critical remark: Ps. xlv., from which 8th and 9th verses of Heb. i. are quoted, is regarded by the generality of interpreters as applicable to some Jewish prince on his marriage; though, according to many, referring in an allegorical sense to Christ, and describing the mystical union between him and his church. Let me recommend to the reader an attentive perusal of the Psalm in connection with the present subject. THE PROEM TO ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. scep Against this passage Mr. Bickersteth says, tical criticism has directed its fiercest attacks." We do differ from him in our interpretation, but I trust we are neither fierce nor sceptical; at all events, we find ourselves in the present instance in company with Professor Lücke (himself not a Unitarian), who, with great learning and much patient study, has applied himself to the study of the Logos, and of whom it has been said that no higher critical authority can be produced from among the living or the dead. There was an opinion among religious philosophers that God had remained inactive, wrapped up, as it were, in His own essential nature from all eternity till the creation, and that then an operating power manifested itself, which was called the Logos. God Himself was regarded as remaining as of old, but this manifesting power assumed a kind of personality. There appear to have been somewhat similar notions with regard to life, light, etc. "St. John in the gospel," says Lücke, "does not by Logos understand any particular divine attribute, but collectively all the powers of the Deity, manifesting themselves in the world; the manifestation of God in the world in contradistinction to His occult nature."* "In the beginning was the Word." It was not a created being, but always existed. "And the Word was with God," never separated from Him. "And * "The origin and germ," Lücke says, "of the theological formula of the Logos, are furnished in the canonical Hebrew Books (alluding to certain passages, especially Prov. viii., which he has been shewing to be mere poetical personifications of Divine attributes). It obtained its full development in the Jewish theology, in the writings of the Alexandrine Philo. And, in an intermediate state of formation, we find it in the Greek Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament.”—Liverpool Controversy, Lecture v., p. 74. |