270 REV. H. J. CLARKE. 
Wisdom, v. 15, there are these remarkable words: “ Thine Almighty 
Word (6 ravroduvapoe cov Nb yoc) leaped down from Heaven out of 
Thy royal throne as a fierce man-of-war” (xoXepusrijc). It is clear 
in both passages that the Logos is depicted as the exponent of the 
will of God. We find the same idea in the Targums, in which the 
| Word (Heb. Memra) of God frequently stands almost for God Him- 
self. It is said that “the Lord protected Noah by His Word when he 
entered the Ark”; that He made a covenant between Abraham 
and his Word”; that at Bethel, Jacob made a covenant “that the 
Word of the Lord should be his God”; and that Moses, at Sinai, 
“brought forth the people to meet the Word of God.” In the pas- 
sage from the Psalms which I have quoted, there is clearly no 
impersonation of the word, and in the passage from Wisdom the 
language is probably to be taken as metaphorical, and not implying 
a personal Logos. Opinions, however, may vary as to this, as they 
may on the question whether wisdom, in Proy. i. and ix. and the 
Adyoe in Heb. iv. 12, are intended to be personal or impersonal. 
The same doubt arises as to the Logos of Philo Judeus; but it is 
perfectly clear, when we come to his writings, that the Logos is now 
invested with the two meanings of Intelligence and Utterance. 
His Logos is, at the same time, an embodiment of Wisdom and 
Reason, and also an exponent of the will and power of God. The 
Jewish and Greek ideas are, in short, found united in him, but it 
was reserved for the inspired Christian writers to set forth the 
complete fusion of these two meanings in the only way in which 
such fusion was logically possible,—namely, by asserting the 
Logos to be an inherent portion or person of the Deity. 
Mr. Niven.—I should like to make a few remarks in regard to 
some of the suggestions which the author of the paper has con- 
sidered, which, if they should lead him in any instance to make a 
correction, may, I think, be of service. It seems to me, if I may 
say so, that one of the defects in the paper is this,—that it is 
couched too much in the words of an honest Christian advocate, 
who, from his point of view, really is hardly in a position to do 
justice to those ancient schools of thought; and if it would not 
occupy too much time, I would like just to refer to a few 
points, which it appears to me he has either not completely seen, 
or which, having seen, he has not done full justice to. The 
first remark I will make refers to page 255. I do not think 
that he does complete justice to Anaxagoras when he repre- 
