of the gospel and if ever we had security for the soundness of a Christian's faith, it is that which Polycarp and Irenæus furnish to Justin Martyrk. Nor is this all. It seems to be forgotten that Ignatius, who died but a few years after St. John, speaks of Christ exactly in the same manner with Justin Martyr. The latter writer expresses himself with more precision, and gives proofs of a more philosophical mind; but one sentence may often shew the sentiments of a man as plainly as the most laboured argument: and if Ignatius had written nothing else concerning Christ than that which he has written, that he is "the Son of God, his eternal "Logos'," it would be most unwarrantable to say, that the personality of the Logos was a doctrine first introduced by Justin Martyr. But it would be trifling with criticism, as I have already observed, to prove that St. John himself held the personality of the Logos and the argument of Zuicker is far more rational than that of Priestley, who said that St. John himself was indebted to Platonism for his doctrine of the Logos 88. This is a statement which it well becomes us to examine; and the subject is closely connected with that of the present Lectures, --an inquiry into the heresies of the first century. Most persons must have been struck with the opening of St. John's Gospel: not only for the high and mysterious doctrines which it propounds so abruptly, and in a manner so entirely different from The charge brought against Justin Martyr is refuted by Casaub. ad Baron. p. 5. Lansselius, Calumn. Casaub. Dispunct. C. I. Bull, Primit. et Apost. Trad. Maranus, Benedictine editor of Justin Martyr, Præf. part. II. c. 1. p. x. 1 Ad Magnes. 8. p. 19. the other Evangelists, but also for the use of a totally new term, which none of those Evangelists had used before. It was the opinion of many of the Fathers, and not a few modern writers have adopted the same notion, that the word Logos is used in the Old Testament, and in many passages of the New, beside the writings of St. John, with reference to the Son of God, i. e. to Jesus Christ. Thus we find it constantly asserted, that the second and third Persons of the Trinity are intended in the 33rd Psalm, where we read, By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (v. 6m.) So also those words in the 119th Psalm, (v. 89.) For ever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven", and other similar expressions in the Psalms have been applied to the Son of God. In the New Testament, St. Luke has been thought to use the term Logos in this sense, when he speaks of eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word: (i. 2.) and where in the Acts he represents St. Paul as saying, I commend you to God, and to the Word of His Grace, which is able to build you up. (xx. 32.) St. James has been considered to have done the same, when he writes, Of his own will begat He us with the Word of truth : m Iren. I. 22. 1. p. 98. Eus. Dem. Ev. V. 5. p. 228. Epiph. Har. LXIX. 34. p. 757. LXXI. 4. p. 832. Theodoret, Hær. Fab. 4. p. 261. V. n 21. p. 227. et alibi. Marcellus apud Epiph. Hær. LXXII. 2. p. 836. Eus. Dem. Ev. III. 15. p. 179. Psalm cvii. 20. He sent his Word and healed them. Eus. Epiph. Hær. LXV. 3. p. Dem. Ev. VI. 7. p. 264. cont. 609, 610. 。 Psalm xlv. 1. "Eructavit "cor meum Verbum bonum," is quoted by Origen in Joan. tom. I. 23. p. 25. et alibi. Athanasius, de Decret. Syn. Nic. Marcell. II. 2. p. 36. Psalm P Marcellus apud Epiph. (i. 18.) and many more instances might be brought, in which the term Logos is supposed to have been applied to Christ before the writings of St. John. I am aware of the presumption of opposing the opinion of the ancients, or of learned men in later times, who have made the Scriptures their study. But I am unwilling that any even of the outworks of our faith should rest upon a weak foundation; and I can hardly think it judicious to maintain the early use of the term Logos by such instances as these. It will be plain to every reader, that the Word in these passages from the New Testament may be taken simply to mean the doctrine of the gospel, as the Word which God has revealed through his Son: and if this may be the interpretation, we shall never satisfy gainsayers by shewing that there may be another. I allow that there are passages much stronger than those which I have quoted, where the Logos or Word may without any violence be understood personally of Christ, and where perhaps a more appropriate sense may be obtained by such an interpretation. Thus when St. Peter says in the Acts, The Word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ, he is Lord of all, (x. 36.) the idea of God sending the Word brings naturally to our mind the personal Logos, or his Son Jesus Christ: and this notion might be confirmed by what we read in the next verse, That Word ye know, which was published throughout all Judæa, and began from Galilee. Here, indeed, it is said, that the Word was not sent, but published, and the personality of the Word might It is so understood by Hippolytus, cont. Noetum. 13. vol. II. p. 15. seem to be excluded: but then it will be observed, that St. Peter here changes the form of his expression, and the term is not as before, λoyos, but pua. In his First Epistle, St. Peter speaks of our being born again by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever: (1 Pet. i. 23.) and here also the living Word might be taken for the personal Logos or Son of God: but I would again observe, that in the next verse, where we read, But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever: and this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you, the Greek term is not óyos, but μa. St. Paul also, in his Epistle to Titus, speaks of God having in due times manifested his Word through preaching: (Tit. i. 3.) and there is a more remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which has been applied in the personal sense to Christ by many commentators: The Word of God, says the apostle, is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart: neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight. (Heb. iv. 12, 13.) The construction of this sentence might certainly allow an interpreter to attach personality to the Word of God: and this interpretation might be confirmed by our finding from Philo Judæus, who used the Logos in the Platonic sense, that it was common with the Jewish Platonists to compare the Logos or Reason of God to a sword. Philo has certainly more than one passage, which strongly reminds us of this in the Epistle to It is so taken by Athanasius in several places. the Hebrews and I would not pronounce that the apostle may not have had in his mind the use which was made of the idea by his philosophical countrymen 89: but our faith in such an interpretation might be shaken by observing that St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, speaks of the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of Gods: (vi. 17.) and there the term is not λóyos, but ñμa. Upon the whole, I can only repeat what I observed before, that none of these instances are sufficiently certain to prove that the Logos was intended personally for the Son of God: and, at all events, it will be allowed that the instances are few, and that St. John uses the term in a much more marked and unequivocal manner than any of the other writers'. Let an unprejudiced person, after reading the rest of the New Testament, then proceed to the writings of St. John; and he cannot fail to observe that there is a term in St. s Grotius at Heb. iv. 12. quotes a verse of Phocylides, ὅπλον τοι λόγος ἀνδρὶ τομώτερόν ἐστι σιδήρου. This application of the term Logos, as used in the Old Testament, to Christ, is pursued at some length by Eusebius, Dem. Ev. lib. V. and Præp. Ev. VII. 12: XI. 14. Waterland conceived that Heb. iv. 12, 13. applied to the Son of God, vol. II. p. 154; and Mangey, in his preface to Philo Judæus, p. xiii. supports the interpretation of the Fathers: “ memoratur λόγος ἐνυπόστατος "in Novo Fœdere sæpius quam vulgo videtur, tum apud cæteros sacros scriptores tum D. Joannen ipsum." He then 66 66 mentions John v. 38. Acts xx. 32. beside some of the instances which I have quoted : " Quin etiam in multis aliis Fœderis Novi libris λόγος ἐνυπόστατος "significatur, quæ interpretum vulgus fugisse videntur." Michaelis opposes this interpretation, Introd. vol. III. Part. I. c. 7. §. 3. as does archbishop Laurence, in his Dissertation upon the Logos, p. 26. Deylingius conceived Psalm xxxiii. 6. to refer to Christ, Observ. Sacr. vol. I. p. 249; as did Lampe, (Com. in Joan. i. 1. :) but he thought the application of 2 Sam. vii. 21. Psalm cvii. 20. cxlviii. 8. Hag. ii. 5. uncertain. |