The obvious inferences from the above extracts will not fail to occur to the reader. He cannot fail to remark, that even in the time of Origen, Christians in general-the bulk of them-believed in the simple humanity of Christ. It appears also that the question of the Trinity was beginning to be agitated; but in how unorthodox a fashion!

It

may be observed, however, that the above cited writers and others explain the first verses of John conformably, in a great measure, to our interpretation, and inconsistently with the orthodox system. Justin said expressly, A2λa duvamis Θεου ὁ λογος αυτού ην For the word of God was his power or energy. And again:

6

For his word of truth and wisdom is more ardent and bright than the intensity of the sun.'

Irenæus has the following explication: "So God himself, in himself incomprehensible to us, pre-ordaining all things, created them according to his pleasure.........and all by his indefatigable word; for it is the prerogative of God to want no instruments, and his word is sufficient for all things, as John says."-p. 116. From another passage it is inferred, that by his word Irenæus meant God himself: “ And God being wholly mind, and wholly 20yos-what he thinks that he also speaks, and what he speaks that he also thinks."

Tatian explained the last clause of the first verse thus: Και ὁ λογος μεν εστι φως Θεου. 66 And the word is the light of God."-We perceive, then, towards the close of the second century, how this passage was understood, and that the essential elements of the Trinity were then unknown. I may here remark also, that the foregoing writers found their novel opinions, not upon plain statements of the scriptures setting them forth, but upon casual forms of expression and peculiar idioms of the ancient language-in which they are closely followed by the modern school of orthodoxy.

NOTE VII.

I have endeavoured carefully to explain the scriptural meaning of the phraseology, coming from God, sent from God, &c. because it has not unfrequently been used as an argument in favour of the deity of Christ, and especially of his preexistence. The inference drawn from this language has at first a specious appearance:-" Jesus Christ was sent into the world he came in the flesh."-But he could not be sent before he existed; and therefore he existed before he was sent. However, with whatever wrong associations, and in whatever unwarrantable sense, these expressions may be still used, they have little weight as arguments in favour of the deity and pre-existence of Christ, and I believe not much stress has been laid on them of late, because they prove too much,* namely, that John the Baptist and other divine messengers also, pre-existed. It is true that one of these cognate expressions-" is come in the flesh"-is used concerning Jesus Christ alone; and therefore a late writer† has urged it as a conclusive argument. But though the same expression literally is not used of others, yet equivalent expressions are not uncommon, applied both to persons and

* "Prove too much."-When the above was written, I had not seen in Origen the opinion gravely maintained, that John the Baptist also pre-existed; and he made the inference from this very expression, “there was a man sent from God."-See Huet's Orig. Comment. v. ii. p. 75. So bent were the writers of Origen's time, and after, on deifying Christ, that they were ready to acquiesce in any absurd hypothesis, which seemed necessary to the consistency of that doctrine. It is evident, too, that that doctrine was not received at first without much effort against opposition, and did not appear so very obvious to those, whose minds were not warped and perverted by inveterate associations as to the meaning of scriptural language. + Joseph John Gurney.

things. "I will send them prophets and apostles." (Luk. xi. 49.) "The baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven or from men ?" (Matth. xxi. 25.) "The wisdom that is from above." (Jam. iii. 15.) "Even as thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.” (Joh. xvii. 18.) The reason is well known why the apostle John used the expression come in the flesh: it was to oppose the heresy of those, who, as they thought, in order to magnify and exalt the Saviour, held that Christ was not a man in reality, but only in appearance. The scope of the apostle is wholly foreign to the notion of a pre-existence. The expression is singular; and so was the false notion which it opposed and it is remarkable too that it was against the first attempt the first scheme-of conferring a dignity above human upon the instrumental Saviour of mankind. Mark, how different the object of the sacred writer and of the orthodox reasoner; of the former to prove that Christ was a real man of the latter, that he was God.

Inasmuch as the pre-existence of Christ from all eternity, as the second personal God, according to the Trinitarians, or as the Logos, as an undescribed and unknown kind of existence according to the Arians, has been inferred from some casual expressions, which occur in the New Testament concerning our Saviour, we judge it not improper in this place impartially to review them, and to weigh the evidence afforded by them in favour of the doctrine in question—the pre-existence of Christ in any sense.

The expressions, "coming from God," and "sent from God," having been already explained above, we will now notice the others, which have been supposed to imply the preexistence.

In several passages Christ is said to have come from heaven. Joh. vi. 38. "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." iii. 31.

xvi. 28. "I

am

"He that cometh from above is above all." come from the Father, and am come into the world: again I "To come down leave the world, and go to the Father."

from heaven" means the same as to be sent from God, that is, to have a divine commission. When this phrase, too, is used, no hint is given of a state of prior existence; nor are any circumstances relative to that assumed prior existence detailed any where in the scriptures. The connection in every instance shews, that a prophetical appointment is the notion meant to be conveyed by the writer. And this expression is used when the meaning cannot be that contended for; which proves that the phraseology of itself is not conclusive. See Lament. ii. 1. "How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel." Rev. iii. 12. “And I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God." Rev. xxi. 2. 10. Jam. i. 17. Every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, &c." In the passages now quoted the expressions are fully as strong and circumstantially emphatical, as to the notion of coming down from heaven, as those appealed to in favour of the pre-existence, but the mind, not being previously biassed to a particular interpretation readily apprehends their true import.

Several other passages are cited in proof of the preexistence, in which Christ is said to have descended from heaven, as well as to have ascended into heaven. Joh. iii. 13. "Now no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven." -It is contended, that the expressions here used are to be understood literally, that Jesus went up to heaven, that he came down from heaven, and that he was at the same time actually in heaven as perfect God. But in this interpretation

P

oudis, sistency of the passage. οὐδείς,

No one, not to

man.

n

no regard is had either to the language used, or to the con"No MAN has ascended up to heaven, but he, &c." Then the idea of God ascending and descending was not that which was present in the speaker's mind, but of man. Indeed it is difficult to conceive how God could be imagined, or with propriety be said, to ascend and descend. It is equally difficult to conceive, how Christ as the Son of Man can be literally said to be in heaven. We are nowhere informed that the Son of Man ascended to heaven, literally, till after his resurrection. If it be said that the Godhead of Christ ascended and descended from heaven, the notion is as unwarrantable, as it is precluded by the very language used: "No MAN hath ascended, &c." If the ascending and descending was an action to be performed by man, how is the language to be justified? The Son of Man is said to be in heaven, but in a sense peculiar to the deity. Is it supposed then that Son of Man and God are convertible terms? By what authority? The order of the clauses also is worthy of remark: the Son of Man ascended up to heaven after he came down from heaven; what account have we of such ascent ?

In order to elicit the true interpretation, we must attend to the scriptural meaning of the phraseology in question, and try to discover a sense consonant to the scope of the passage. "To ascend to heaven" is to be made acquainted with the divine counsels. Cruden,* Doddridge, and other orthodox expositors, have offered this interpretation of the phraseology. See Deut. xxx. 11-14. "For this commandment, which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldst say, Who

* Cruden's explication of the passage on which we are commenting is," No man has attained the perfect knowledge of heavenly things, so as to know the secret will and counsels of God."