occurs, it may be difficult to prove, that Philo does not view the Logos in a delegated character, entirely different from what belongs to him effentially. For he undoubtedly confiders him as both the Son of God, and the Mediator between God and man. Although this manner of expreffion should be joined with what respects his effence, it may easily be accounted for from the writer's viewing the fame person in two lights fo very different. Even in the facred records, we find the language of fupremacy, and of fubjection, that which is peculiar to God, and that which belongs to man, most intimately connected in the description of him whose name is Wonderful,

66

As a proof of this inferiority attributed by Philo to the Logos, Dr P. quotes that paffage in which he is described 66 as the middle between the two extremes." But had he done Philo the justice to have quoted his words more fully, it would have appeared that he has a special respect to the Logos in his mediatory character. "The Father of "all things," he says, "has bestowed this most admirable gift upon this Prince of Angels, his most ancient Logos, "that he should stand as a mediator to judge between the 66 creature and the Creator. He therefore intercedes with "him who is immortal, in behalf of mortals. And on the “other hand, he acts the part of an ambassador, being sent "from the fupreme King to his fubjects. And this gift "he fo willingly accepts, as to glory in it, saying, And I "have ftood between God and you, being neither unbe"gotten as God, nor begotten as mortals, but one in the "middle between two extremes, acting the part of an "heftage with both; with the Creator, as a pledge that he "will never be provoked to deftroy, or defert the world, "fo as to fuffer it to run from order into confufion; and "with creatures, to give them this certain hope, that God, "being reconciled, will never ceafe to take care of his own "workmanship.

"workmanship. For I proclaim peace to the creation "from that God who removes war, and introduces and " preferves peace for ever *.”

Thus, his words, when fairly exhibited, appear in a very different point of view. When he calls the Father the fupreme King, he evidently speaks of the Logos in a delegated and affumed character. Shall we therefore conclude, that he denied his proper deity? With equal propriety may it be inferred, that all who acknowledge Christ as Mediator, deny that he is God. The most accurate human writer may eafily be represented as a heretic, by culling out a few words without any regard to the connexion, or to the general spirit of his work.

But although it should be fuppofed that Philo confidered the Logos as in some respect inferior to the Father; nay, although this could be proved; it would be no fufficient evidence that the Jews did not believe the existence of a plurality of perfons in one nature. For it is well known, that many who have been zealous for the doctrine of a Trinity in unity, have had their minds so strangely warped with respect to this great mystery, as to speak of the subordination of the Son even as God, of the derivation of deity from the Father, &c. Understanding the language of Philo with the greatest severity, it cannot be fuppofed

that

Το δι αρχαίγελω και πρεσβυτατω λόγω δωρεαν εξαίρετον εδωκεν στα ολα γέννησας πατήρ, ινα μεθόριος σας, το γενομενον διακρίνη τη πεποιηκότος. ο δι αυτος ικέτης μεν εςι το θνητε κηραίνοντος αει προς αφθαρτον, πρεσβευα της δε το ηγεμόνος προς το υπήκοον Αγάλλεται δε επι τη δωρεα, και σεμνυνόμενος αυτήν εκδιηγείται φασκων. Καγω εισηκειν ανα μέσον κύριο και υμών, ότε αγέννητος ως ο Θεος ων, ύτε γεννητος ως υμείς, αλλα μέσος των άκρων, αμφοτέροις ομηρεύων παρα μεν τω φυτευσαντι, προς πίςιν τη μη σύμπαν αφανίσαι ποτε και αποςηναι το γενος, ακοσμίαν αντι κοσμε ελα μενον παρα δε τω φυντι, προς ευελπισίαν τη μηποτε τον ελέων Θεον πιο ρείδειν το ίδιον εργον. εγω γαρ επικηρυκεύσομαι τα ειρηναία γενέσει παρά το καθαίρειν πολεμος εγνωκοτος ειρηνη φύλακος και Θεο. Quis rerum divi. narum hæres fit, p. 397.

that he went any further. For he declares the eternity of the Logos in fuch terms as to oppose him to all creatures. "Mofes," he says, "has not likened the rational foul to "any of the things which are created, but has pronounced "it to be the image of that which is divine and invifible; reckoning it proper that it fhould be confubftantiated "and conformed to the feal of God, the character of which "is his eternal Word.-Therefore it is faid that man is "made after the image of God, but not after the image of any creature *.”

-46

He afferts the neceffary exiftence of the fame divine Perfon. Addreffing himself to others, while speaking of the Logos, he fays; "You profefs to have the fame Father, "not mortal, but immortal, the man of God, who being the "Word of the Eternal, is himself also neceffarily immor"tal t." He evidently afcribes the fame eternal and neceffary existence to the Logos, as to the Father. He declares the absolute perfection and all-sufficiency of his glorious subject. "Unity," he fays, "can admit, neither of addition, nor "of fubtraction, being the image of God, who alone is "all-fufficient. For other things are by nature vain, and if "there is any folidity in them, it is conftricted by the "Word of God. For this is a bond or glue, compacting "every effence. But he, who connects and conjoins all things,

66

• Ο δε μέγας Μωυσης υδενι των γεγονότων της λογικής ψυχής το είδος ομοίως ωνόμασεν, αλλά είπεν αυτήν τη θεια και αφραίν εικόνα, δοκιμον είναι νόμισας, ασιωθεισαν και τυπωθεισαν σφραγίδι Θεα. η ο χαρακτηρ εσιν «ίδιος λόγο - Διο και λέγεται, κατ' είκονα Θεν τον άνθρωπον γεγενησθαι, να μην κατ' εικόνα τινος των γεγονότων. De Plantatione Noe, p. 169.

+ Τον αυτόν επιγεγραμμένοι πατερα, ο θνητον, αλλ' αθανάτοι, από θρωπον Θεό, ος τε αιδιο λογος ων, εξ ανάγκης και αυτος εσιν αφθαρτος» De Confufione Linguar. p. 255.

things, is perfectly his own completion, and needs no “other *."

If Philo did not mean to declare that the Logos was of the fame effence with the Father, what sense can we impose on the following affertions? "The Logos is fimilar to no “ sensible object; but he is the image of God, the most an"cient of all intelligible things, the nearest to him who is "eftablished in truth, there being no line of difference +." "For his Logos is not made by striking of the air (allu"ding to the word of man); it is free of all mixture, in"corporeal, naked, and differing in no respect from unity ‡."

He evidently maintains the doctrine of a Trinity. For he fays," He who is, is on each fide attended by his "nearest powers, of which the one is creative, and the * other kingly. The creative is God, by which he found. "ed and adorned the universe. The kingly is Lord. It " is fit that the creature fhould be governed by his Maker. "Therefore he who is in the middle, being thus attended " by

• Μένας δε ετε προσθήκην, ετε αφαίρεσιν δέχεσθαι πέφυκεν, είκων Ένα το μόνο πληρες Θες. χαυνα γαρ τα τε άλλα εξ εαυτων, ει δε σε και πυκνωθεν είη, λόγω σφίγγεται θείως κολλα γαρ εςι και δεσμος αυτός, τα παντα της εσίας εκπεπληρώπως, ο δ' ειρας και συνήφηνας έκατα, πλήρης αυτος εαυτώ κυρίως εσιν, ο δεηθείς ετέρ» τοπαράπαν. Quis rerum divinarum hæres, p. 396.

+ 08, υπερανω τετων λογος θείος, εις ορατον εκ ηλθεν ιδέαν, ατε μηδενι των κατ' αισθησιν εμφέρης ων, αλλ' αυτός είκων υπάρχων Θε8, των νοητων απαξαπαντων ο πρεσβυταίος, ο εγγυτατω, μηδενος οντος μεθόρια διαστήματος, τα μόνα ο εστιν αψευδώς αφιδρυμένος. De Profugis, p. 363.

* Ου γαρ εστιν ο λογος αυτω γεγονώς αέρος πληξις,, αναμιγνύμενος, αλλά το πέρασαν εδενί, αλλά και ασώματος τε, και γυμνός, αδιαφο των μονάδος. Quod Deus fit immutabilis, p. 238.

"by both his powers, exhibits to the difcerning mind fome"times the appearance of one, and sometimes of three *.”

But with respect to creation, the sentiments of Philo affume a different afpect in our author's fecond work. In the firft, he has told us that Philo "attributes the creation "of the world to the fecond God, thinking it below the "majefty of the great God himself." But in the fecond, we are informed that "Philo was fo much a Jew that he "ascribed proper creation to God the Father only, and the "forming of created matter to the Logos +." This is a ftrange reverse of matters, indeed! But the learned gentleman must meet with a little indulgence. For here, in the creation of his own fancy, he gives form to what had been formerly left in the state of chaos. So little did he underftand his author, that he mistook the inftrument for the proper agent, and confidered that as a proof of inferiority, which is now found to be a standing mark of fupremacy. But it is merely doing juftice to Philo, to inquire if, in the place referred to, there is any evidence of his denying proper creation to the Logos. According to Dr P. he expreffes himself in this manner. "He being produced, imi"tating his Father, and regarding his patterns, reduced things into form ‡." But what our author renders pro⚫duced, ought to be begotten. The literal meaning of the paffage is, "He, being begotten," or, "He, who is the be"gotten, imitating the ways of his Father, and obferving

66

"his

* Πατερ μεν των όλων ο μέσος, ος εν ταις ιεραις γραφαις κυρίω ονοματι καλείται ο ως αι δε παρ' εκατέρα πρεσβυταται και εγγυταται τα οντος δυνάμεις ων η μεν ποιητική, η δε βασιλικη προσαγορεύεται και η μεν ποιητικη Θέος" ταύτη γαρ έθηκε τε και διεκόσμησε το παν η δε βασιλική κυριος. Θέμις γαρ αρχειν και κρατειν το πεποιηκος τα για νομενε. δορυφορώμενος εν ο μέσος υφ' εκατέρας των δυνάμεων, παρέχει τη ορατική διάνοια, τοτε μεν ενός, τοτε δε τριων φαντασίαν. De Abrahamo, p. 287.