"come fit to be called the fons of God, let us be so at « leaft of his eternal Image, the moft facred Word. For • the Image of God is that moft ancient Word. And in« deed, in many places of the law, the hearers of this Seer "are also called Sons of Ifrael, for as much as hearing is "accounted inferior to seeing, and he who is taught always "holds the second place in relation to him who perceives " the exact forms of fubjects without any previous inftruc" tion *.” No one can doubt that he fpeaks of a real perfon. There is as little reason, to deny that he ascribes divine characters to him, and yet declares him to be a meffenger. He calls him an Angel, and yet the Name of God; 2 Man, and yet the Beginning, the eternal Image. He evidently views him as the perpetual Prophet of the Church, and the true Ifrael. He alfo applies these words to the Logos; Behold, the man whofe name is the Branch, Zech. vi. 12. rendering them, according to the Septuagint, whofe name is Ανατολή, the Riing Sun. Juftin ufes the term in the fame fenfe. I need not say that he understands it of Chrift f.

We

θερ ων υιος προσαγο

* Καν μηδέπω μεντοι τυγχανη τις αξιοχρέως ρευεσθαι, σπυδαζε κοσμείσθαι κατα τον πρωτογονον αυτά λόγον, τον αγγελον πρεσβυτάλου, ως αρχαγγέλου πολυώνυμον υπαρχουλα. Και γαρ αρχή, και ονομα θες, και λόγος, και ο κατ' εικόνα ανθρωπος, δε •ξων Ισραηλ προσαγορευεται· διο προήχθην ολίγω πρότερον επαινίσαι τας αρχάς των φασκόντων οτι παντές εσμεν υιοι ενός ανθρωπε. Και γαρ ει μηπω ικανοι θεα παίδες νομιζεσθαι γεγοναμεν, αλλα τοι της αιδια εικονός αυτό λογκ τε ιερωτάτε. Θες γαρ εικων, λόγος ο πρεσβύτατος. Και πολλαχου μέντοι της νομοθεσίας υιοι παλιν Ισραηλ καλενται το φώντος οι ακέοντες, επειδη μεθ' όρασιν ακοη δευτερεύοις τετιμηται, και το διδασκομενον το χωρις υφηγήσεως εναργεις τύποις των υποκειμένων λαμβάνοντες αίει δευτερον. De Confus. Ling. p. 267.

f Dial. p. 337. 334.

We cannot understand the following words, withont fuppofing that Philo believed that the Logos would be incarnate. "There are, as appears to me, two temples of "God; the one, indeed, is this world, in which the High"prieft is his firft-begotten divine Word. But the other "is the rational foul, of which he is Prieft, who is true "man, of whom the fenfible image is he, who, according 66 to the customs of our fathers, offers up prayers and facri"fices *." Here he undoubtedly views the Jewish highprieft as merely a type of the Logos in this character.

I have not observed, that Philo any where ufes the word Meffiab or Chrift. The nearest approach that he seems to make to this mode of expreffion, is when applying to the Logos, confidered in his facerdotal character, what is enjoined with respect to the manflayer continuing in the city of refuge till the death of the high-prieft. On this occafion, he says, that "his head is anointed with oilt." But did not Philo, as well as all the rest of his nation, expect a Meffiah? Is it not natural to fuppose, that this most interefting fubject would often engrofs fo contemplative a mind? Does Philo fo often find the Logos in the Old Teftament; and could he discern no veftige of the Meffiab? The difficulty cannot be otherwife folved, than by fuppofing that he meant to defcribe the Meffiah under that very name which was fo familiar to him. His ideas feem to have been far more fpiritual than thofe of the rest of his nation who did not believe in Jefus. Therefore, he might think it improper exprefsly to call the Logos Meffiab; as

he

* Δυο γαρ - ως εοικεν, ιερά θεν, εν μεν οδε ο κόσμος, εν ω και αρχιερεύς ο πρωτόγονος αυτα θείος λόγος ετερον δε λογικη ψυχή, της ιερευς ο προς αληθειαν άνθρωπος, ου μίμημα αισθηταν ο τας παΐρους ευχας τε και θυσίας επιτελών εσιν. De Somniis, p. 463. F.

+ Και διοτι την κεφαλην κεχρισται ελαίω. De Profugis, p. 364.

he confidered him especially in a spiritual light, and knew the deep-rooted prejudices of his countrymen in favour of a temporal monarchy. Befides, the term Logos was far more suitable to the bent of his genius. It afforded him a much more ample field for abstract fpeculation and refined allegory than the other.

But although he does not mention the name, we find him afcribing all the fcriptural characters of Meffiah to the Logos. For he defcribes him as an Angel or Meffenger, as a Seer or Prophet, as the true High-prieft who makes atonement, as the Mediator between God and man, as the Governor of the world, as the true Manna, as divine and yet true man, &c. Therefore, he must either have believed, that he, who was known to the ancient church as the Logos, fhould at length appear as Meffiah; or that the Logos fhould cease to exercise any concern with respect to the church, and devolve all his work on the Meffiah. We cannot fuppofe the latter, becaufe of the divine and unchangeable attributes which he afcribes to the Logos. We are, therefore, under a neceffity of fuppofing, that he confidered the Logos as the fame perfon who should appear as the fon of David. While he not only afcribes to him the neceffary characters of the promised Meffiah, as including deity, but connects thefe with manhood; it is not conceivable, that he had not fome ideas of the future incarnation of the eternal Word.

I fhall only add, that, as Philo calls the Logos Avaтon, the rifing Sun, applying the prophecy of Zechariah to him, chap. vi. 12. the manner in which the paffage has been uniformly explained by his countrymen, affords a strong collateral proof, that by the Logos he meant the Meffiah. Many Jewish writers, who have perfifted in infidelity, have exprefsly applied this language to the latter. Jonathan

• Martini Pagio Fidei, p. 125. 308. 376. 594.

Ben

Ben Uzziel, who, if not cotemporary with Philo, was nearly fo, interprets it in the fame manner: "Behold, the

man whose name is Meffiah," &c. Nay, it would appear, that it was generally expected by the Jews, that the Meffiah would be manifested under that very name which Philo gives to the Logos. For it is adopted by Zacharias, in his fong of praife: Through the tender mercy of our God, -the day-spring from on high bath visited us, Luke i. 78 *. The fame word is used by the Evangelist, as by Philo.

CHAP. V.

Of the Senfe in which the Chaldee Paraphrafts used the term

Memra.

UR author fays in his former work; "We find that "the Chaldee Paraphrafts of the Old Testament "often render the Word of God, as if it was a being distinct "from God, or fome angel who bore the name of God, "and acted by deputation fron him. So, however, it has "been interpreted, though with them it might be

no more than an idiom of fpeech t." Here Dr P. speaks only in the language of probability. But in his fecond work matters are ripened into certainty. "With respect "to the Jews, it is evident, that in general, they did not "ufe the term Logos in the Platonic sense, but as fynony

66

mous to God, or the mere token, or symbol, of the di"vine prefence. The Chaldee paraphrafts often use the "word, mimra, which may be tranflated Logos or "Word. But that, in the ideas of thefe writers, the word

" of

*Vid. Glaffii Rhetor. Sac. p. 178. Wolfii Cur. in loc.

+ Hift. Corrupt. Vol. i.

"of a person was merely fynonymous to himself, is evi"dent from their application of the fame phrafeology to "man *."

It was urged by many of thofe who preceded Dr P. in the fame fyftem, that the term memra fimply fignified Speech. The vanity of this pretence has been so clearly demonftrated †, that he seems to leave it to its fate, and confines himself merely to the objection already mention

ed.

Some worthy men have undoubtedly gone too far, in afferting that this expreffion, when used by the Paraphrafts, is always to be understood of the perfonal Word. It would feem to be fometimes used, as fimply denoting the mind, either of God or of man. The ancient Jews, finding that their scriptures afforded undoubted evidence of a plurality of perfons existing in an unity of effence, and that action, fpeech, coming and walking, are afcribed to the Word of Jehovah, would naturally conclude that this name denoted a person. Observing also, that one divine person speaks to another as begotten of him; and connecting the character of begotten with the Word, they would naturally enquire, what might be the reason of this defignation. It would occur to them, that, as the inward word is produced by the mind of man, and yet remains in it, the Son is fo denominated, because he is begotten by the Father, and is effentially in him; and that, as words, when uttered, are the images and expreffions of thofe ideas which the mind at first forms within itself, he also receives this name, not only because he is the exprefs image of the Father, but because all the purposes of the Father are both declared by him, and outwardly accomplished, as in the creation of the world, VOL. I.

Earl. Opin. vol. ii. p. 19, 20.

D

† See Fleming's Christology, vol. i. p. 138. Bedford's Sermons,

P. 290, &c.

the