1846.] but shadows. They existed not in the mind of God, but were distinct from him, by themselves. God contemplated them. They were always the same, undergoing no change - unproduced indestructible. But although he conceived them to be animate and divine natures, we do not find that he endued them with consciousness and will, as was done by his later followers. In Philo, Plato's "ideas" became the hypostatized powers of God, and the whole archetypal world became the conscious, living Logos. With this, however, he is not always consistent, -sometimes representing the Logos as the hypostatized intellect of God, the framer and seat of the archetypal world, and sometimes as the archetypal world itself. This confusion arose from mistaking Plato's "ideas," which were distinct from God, for the hypostatized powers of God. This may seem to be a needless exactness, but it is very important that it be understood that Philo's Logos was a distinct conscious agent. When this Logos is made Christ, a loose thinker may easily infer from his words the supreme divinity of our Saviour.* Most of the writings ascribed to the Apostolical Fathers are by the learned pronounced spurious. Admitting their genuineness, however, they contain little of consequence in relation to the subject before us. The Trinity gains * One more question might be raised in regard to Philo's Logos. Did he attach to it a double meaning, -as existing within the mind of God, and as manifested? Did he distinguish between the Logos indiaveros and the Logos Tooоoizоs? Neander, as quoted by Mr. Norton, and Martini assert that he did. On the other hand Mr. Norton says, that this distinction was peculiar to the Fathers, nothing of the kind being found in Philo with any certainty. Münscher seems to coincide with Mr. Norton here. In Philo's view, the Logos was the hypostatized attributes and powers of God, not a distinct created being. The conception of the Fathers was this. Their Logos "diago was the hypostatized wisdom of God, existing from eternity in God. Their Logos "T was the Logos as an actually created being, going out from God at the creation of the world in order to act as an agent in its formation. It came out from the inward Logos, and was distinct from God, created as an inferior agent. This is a very important distinction in its bearing upon the doctrine of the Trinity, as upon it, in after-times, turned the whole question between the Arians and the Athanasians. The idea is absurd and contradictory, but with that we are not concerned. The conception of God as living with his own wisdom as a distinct person, and then producing that same wisdom, as an inferior created being, from his own loins, (v vois idions oлháy xvois, Theophilus, Ad Autol. Lib. II. p. 355,) is as disgusting as it is nonsensical. But we must be patient with the thinkers of those days. nothing from them. We pass therefore to the Christian Fathers, commencing at the middle of the second century. But before considering their opinions individually, one or two general remarks upon the character of their statements and the cast of their thought may not be out of place. For a century and a quarter, or a little more, after the birth of its Founder, Christianity had shown no scholars; but at the end of that time, the constancy of the Christian martyrs and the peculiar character of Christian doctrine excited the curiosity of inquiring men, and philosophical converts from Heathenism came forward in defence. They were the early Church Fathers. These men had grown up in the current Platonism of their time. They were imbued with its spirit. They looked upon philosophy as a religion, and upon Christianity as a new form of philosophy, and saw no harm in reconciling the two. It would have been strange indeed, had they suddenly broken loose from their favorite studies, on their adoption of a new system. Their previously formed mental habits, the wish to set forth more clearly (as they thought) the nature of Christ, and the desire to recommend his religion to the philosophers of their age, explain sufficiently the use they made of their former speculations. In applying them to our Saviour they had the simplest intentions. They made no attempt to spread them abroad among the common people, who lived and died as unmistified as before. It does not appear, that at first they attached any saving importance to them. We hear nothing of heretics on any such grounds. Even the Gnostics were denounced, only because they denied that Jehovah was the Christian's God. Justin Martyr did not excommunicate or revile the Nazarenes for holding that Christ was only a divinely inspired man.* Up to the time of Origen there seems to have been a distinction between. the faith, "us," which every Christian was required to accept, and the "roots," or philosophy of religion, upon which men were entitled to their own opinions. The γνωσις was the scholarly exposition of the πιστις. This distinction, however, was not of long continuance after contradiction and discussion made particular opinions of more immediate importance. γνωσις, * Dial. cum Tryph. p. 144. 1846.] The Logos of the Fathers. 65 But beside their old inclinations, other circumstances induced the Fathers to apply their speculations to Christianity. They were met by two classes of opponents. The first was the Gnostics, who denied the supreme Deity of Jehovah, from the imperfections and barbarities ascribed to him. The Orthodox Christians felt bound to take up the cause of Jehovah as the Christians' God. To get rid of the unworthy and degrading conceptions which had their origin in certain passages of the Hebrew Scriptures, they had recourse to the allegorical method of interpretation, which was of ancient origin, had been long applied by the Heathen philosophers to the offensive fables of their mythology, and was in very common use in the age of which we speak. Philo here, as elsewhere, prepared the way for the Fathers. They resorted also to the Platonic Logos for an explanation of these difficulties. Opening the Old Testament they met with such passages as the following:-"God said, Let there be light." "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made." "I, wisdom, was set up from everlasting." "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way." "Thine Almighty Logos leaped down from heaven, a fierce man of war." To these, they applied their philosophical theory of the Logos. The Logos, the word, the speech of God, became a separate being, standing between man and God. He walked in the garden of Eden, he appeared in the burning bush. Out of this, perhaps, grew their prophoric Logos. This was a proper person; they called it "God" ("eos"); it "became flesh." Thus Jehovah's honor was vindicated and the difficulties overcome. This Logos, which had existed from eternity in God as his "mind," and at the creation came out from him and began to exist as a distinct subject, was Jesus Christ, "God" ("Oeos,") as passages in the New Testament, it was thought, also declared him to be. Thereupon other opponents, (Celsus in the second century, and Porphyry in the third,) brought forward a charge of polytheism. This compelled the Fathers to explain a little their conception. of the Logos in its relation to God the Father, as a Divine being. Then too the Gnostics denied to Christ a corruptible body, which obliged the Fathers to explain the Logos in its relation to the Son as a man. We are speaking now, it will be remembered, of lines of thought, rather than of suc cessive, logically developed ideas. This demand upon them for clear definition was a sore trial for such writers. In judging of the reasonings of the Fathers, we must be careful not to try them by too strict rules of logic. In examining their statements, we are driven to think that they did not understand themselves, or the question upon which they were speculating. It was long before the vague notions and fluttering words of Justin, Athenagoras, and Irenæus brightened into meaning in the time of Tertullian and Origen, under the continued rubbing and filing of heretics. The Fathers halted between two opinions. On the one hand, they were anxious to exalt the Logos as high as possible, without identifying him with the Supreme Being; from which arose the question of the Son's generation and union with the Father. And on the other, they wished to make him as entirely a man as was consistent with his being the incarnate Logos; whence grew up the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Between these two extremes the Fathers hovered, contriving to elude the variously directed assaults of their adversaries, their words stiffening constantly into sharper distinctness, while hanging over them and driving them on was the reproach of a crucified Saviour, so often and so bitterly cast upon them by their Heathen adversaries. We have now glanced at three points, which are, we think, established. First, that nothing corresponding to the Church doctrine of the Trinity was held by Plato; thus removing the Trinitarian's reliance upon an ancient tradition. Secondly, that there were no speculations among Christians concerning the Logos, previously to Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. And thirdly, that the idea of the Logos, out of which grew the Trinity, was borrowed from Plato through Philo Judæus. It remains for us to examine the actual statements of some of the more distinguished among the Orthodox Fathers. Justin, a native of Flavia Neapolis, of Heathen parentage, was the first, as far as we know, who speculated upon the Logos as Christ. After going through all the various schools of philosophy he became a follower of Plato, and as a Platonist was converted to the Christian faith. He brought to Christianity no knowledge but that of phi 1846.] Justin Martyr. 67 losophy. He studied the Old Testament, but only in the Greek translation, which he interpreted allegorically. His illustrations of his doctrine of the Logos were drawn chiefly from the Old Testament. His conception of the Logos was as follows. It existed from eternity in God, as his reason or intelligence, being analogous to reason in man.* Before the creation it was produced, or begotten; not necessarily, but by the will of the Father. When thus begotten, the Logos was numerically distinct from the Father, although still one with him in concurrence of will. Justin called the Logos "God," though clearly in an inferior sense, following the usage of Philo. Justin distinctly and particularly asserted the complete subordination of the Logos as Son.|| His existence as Son depended upon the will of the Father. The Father is the Lord of the Logos, by whom the Logos becomes Lord and God,¶ of whom the Logos is servant and agent. He illustrates his views by extracts from the Old Testament. "What!" says he, "he who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, was not the Creator of all things, but his servant and agent, the Logos, who in earlier days appeared to Abraham and to Jacob. No one of the least sense would say, that the Creator and Father of all things could leave his highest dwelling-place above the heavens, and become visible upon a little speck of earth."** With regard to the hypostatic union of the Logos with Christ, Justin's idea seems to have been this. The Logos was imparted to all rational beings.tt It was imparted to the Prophets and patriarchs, to Plato, Socrates, poets and law-givers, and to wise men generally, in a remarkable manner. Each had more of the Logos in having more of truth. How this was, he does not clearly state. He evidently regarded the Logos as constituting intelligence, mind, in man. Christ possessed the whole Logos, as revealing the whole truth. The Logos was, properly speaking, Christ himself. From such conceptions we should suppose the Logos to have constituted the whole intelli |