Footnotes for Lecture III.
[133]. “Heresy and Orthodoxy,” by Rev. J. B. White, pp. 8, 9.
[134]. Scholz retains θεος.
[135]. See Griesbach. Chrysostom omits “who is God over all.” Clement, in a passage evidently imitated from this, omits the doxology, which he is not likely to have done if he understood it as referring to Christ. In addition to other authorities for pointing the passage in consistency with the Unitarian Interpretation, Griesbach quotes “Many Fathers who denied that Christ could be called ‘the God over all.’ Multi patres, qui Christum τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν appellari posse negant.” In an edition of Griesbach, printed by Taylor and Walton in 1837, this punctuation is given, and is stated also to be the pointing of Scholz.
[136]. John xiv. 6, 7.
[137]. John v. 19.
[138]. Acts x. 34-43.
[139]. Matt. xxiv. 3, 34.
[140]. “The mistranslation of the word αἰῶνες, by the English word ‘worlds,’ in the commencement of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For giving this sense to the original term, there is not, I think, any authority to be found either in Hellenistic or classic Greek.”—Norton on the Trinity.
[141]. Heb. ix. 26.
[142]. Whitby, from whose armoury I find so many weapons have been taken, contends also for “the end of the world,” on the ground that Christ’s miraculous assistance was continued sensibly till the beginning of the fourth century.
[143]. John x. 34, 35, 36.
[144]. Wetstein, quoted by Norton.
[145]. See note, page 19. I have no access to the text of Scholz, except in the edition published by Taylor and Walton. This places a period after σάρκα, flesh; which, however, it also gives in the text as the pointing of Griesbach, contrary to the only other edition I have at present the opportunity of examining.
[146]. See Appendix for a fuller examination of these two passages, viz., the Proem of St. John’s Gospel, and Rom. ix. 5.
[147]. And especially since Mr. Byrth has alluded to the disapprobation with which the sentiment was received.
[148]. Christian Teacher, New Series, No. I, pp. 31, 32.
[149]. By this I mean a God who cannot forgive except by one process—advantage of which must be taken by an act of faith—it being always uncertain whether the faith is right or sufficient.
[150]. We find in the first beginnings of the Trinity, the Logos and the Holy Spirit identified. This is even angrily contended for by Tertullian. “What! when John said that the Logos was made flesh, and the angel” (respecting the miraculous conception) “that the Spirit was made flesh, did they mean any thing different?”—Tertullian, Advers. Praxeam. Cap. xxvi.