LOG 



LOG 



the erigin and utility of the art were ftateJ in a trcatife writ- 

 ten by Henry Johnfon. From the year 1778 he made frve- 

 ral fuccefsful attempts for the praftice of this art. The 

 author has undertaken to demonllrate feveral advantages 

 belonging to tliis method of printing ; viz. I. That the 

 compofitor (hall hare lefs charged upon his memory than in 

 the common way. 2. That it is much lefs liable to error. 

 3. That the type of each word is as eafily laid hold of as 

 that of a fingle letter. 4. That the decompofition is much 

 more readily performed, even by novices, than that of mere 

 letters. 5. That no extraordmary expence nor greater num- 

 ber of Jypes is required in the logographic than in the 

 common method of printing. For other particulars, we 

 mult refer to the author's own account of the invention. 

 See Stereography. 



LOGOGRIPHUS, from the Greek }.o'or, difieurfe, and 

 ypijo;, or ■vf.ro;, net, a kind of fymbol, or riddle, propofed 

 to ftudents for their folution, in order to exercife and im- 

 prove the mind. 



The logogriphus ufually confifts in fome equivocal allufion, 

 or mutilation of words ; which, literally taken, fignify 

 fomething different from the thing intended by it ; fo that 

 it is a kind of medium between a rebus and proper enigm.a. 



According to Kircher, logogriphi are a kind of canting 

 arms : thus a perfon called Leonard, who bore in his arms 

 a lion and nard, or fpikenard, according to that father, 

 made a logogriphe. CEdip. ./Egypt. 



In another place, the fame author defines logogriphus to 

 be an enigma ; which, under one name or word, will bear 

 various meanings, by adding or retrenching fome part of it. 

 This kind of enigmas is well known to the Arabs ; among 

 whom are autiiors who treat cKprefsly of it. 



I.,OGONE, in Geography, a town of Hindooftan, in 

 Vifiapour ; 10 miles N. of Poonah. 



LOGONI, a town of Sardinia; nine miles E. of Cag- 

 liari. 



LOGORAS, a town of Syria ; 15 miles N. of 

 Antioch. 



LOGOS, 7.070,-, Gr. ^?~l':;^, Chald. [memra), or luord, 

 Zng. in Philofophy and Theology, a term very differently un- 

 derltood and applied by both ancient and modern writers. 

 Thofe who believe that the logos was the perfonification of 

 the divine intelledf, or of the divine attributes of wildom, 

 power, &c. trace this doctrine to the ancient Platonifts, 

 from whom, as they conceive, it was adopted by the Chrif- 

 tian fathers. It muft be acknowledged, however, that 

 Plato exprelfes himfelf with a conliderable degree of 

 obfcurity on this fubieft. Whilft he afcribcs the origin of 

 the univerfe to the Suoreme God, whom he denominates 

 a.y-Ji(,:, Or the good, without the inftrumentality of any fub- 

 ordinate being whatever, and who is reprefented as having 

 formed it according to a pattern previoufly formed in his 

 own mind ; he fometimes leads us to conceive that he re- 

 garded this pattern or idea of the divine mind as 3.fLCond 

 principle of things, and the world itfelf, which was produced 

 from thofe ideas, as a third principle. But it does not iatis- 

 faftorily appear that he made the divine mind, i. e. -mi (nous) 

 or Mya: {logos) i dlAinCl intelligent being. His Demiurgus, 

 or immediate maker of the world, feems to have been the 

 Supreme Beitig himfelf, and not any fubordinate agent or 

 principle whatever. The reafon, or logos, which, accord- 

 ing to him, comes from God, and by which he made the 

 univerfe, feems, in his view of it, to have been fynonimous 

 with iixmioc and !-irr,u.D, of his underilanding, and not any 

 other proper perfon or agent. In the' writings of Plato, 

 logos has only two acceptations, -viz. thofe of fpeech, and of 

 Ttafon, fuch as is found in man. But when this philofopher 



fpcaks of -.ue, or >.!i>«,-, as fomething diftinft from the Divine 

 Being himfelf, as a power or property belonging to him, 

 and all divine power and properties \)^\n^fuhj{ance, it would 

 be very natural and eafy to transform this divine power into a 

 fubftantial perfon ; and this we rtiall find to have been the 

 cafe with refpeft to the later Platonifts, agreeably to one 

 of the Platonic maxims, rra. that being and energy are the 

 fame thing. Philo, a learned Jew of Alexandria, and con- 

 temporary with the apoftles, approached more nearly to a real 

 perfonification of the logos than Plato himfelf, or liis im.me- 

 diate followers. Although he did not proceed fo far a» 

 fome of the Platonizing ChrilHans, and make a permanent 

 intelligent perfon of the divine logos, he made of it an oc- 

 cafional one, reprelcnting it as the vifible medium of all the 

 communications of God to man, and of the inttrument by 

 which he both made the world and maintained an intercourfe 

 with the patriarchs of the Old Tellament. Philo dignifies 

 this logos with the appellation of God; but in order to dif- 

 tinguiih him from the Supreme God, he fays, that the lattev 

 is known by the term God with the article prefi.^ed to in» 

 the God ; whereas the logos, like other inferior gods, is only 

 called God, without the article. Whilft he afcribes proper 

 creation to God the father only, he attributes the forming of 

 created matter to the logos. The Jews did not, in genc-Til, 

 ufe the term logos, or {^"1^2 (memra) which correfpondt 

 to it in the Platonic fenfe, but as fynonimous to God, or 

 the mere token, or fymbol, of the divine prefence. In- 

 ftances occur in various paffages of the Old Teltament, and 

 a fimilar phrafeology may be found in the " Wifdom of 

 Solom.on," which fome have afcribed to Philo. The Chrif. 

 tian Platoniils, deriving their notions from the fchool of 

 Alexandria, and the relemblance diicernible in fome of the 

 doftrines of Plato to thofe of the facred fcripti:res, could 

 not help thinking, that he had aftually borrowed them from 

 the writings of Mofes, with which, as they thought, he 

 might have been acquainted during his refidence in Eg)'pt, 

 or on his travels in the Eaft. This opinion is frequently ex- 

 preffed and inculcated by Juftin Martyr, and others of the 

 fathers. A modern writer (fee Prieftley's Early Opinions) 

 affirms, that Juftin was the firft, or one of the firft, who 

 advanced the doctrine of the permanent perfonahty of the 

 logos ; of whom he fays, " Jefus Chrift; is the only proper 

 fon of God, being his logos, firft born and powerful." 

 Many of the Chnftian fathers, however, maintained that 

 the logos was an attribute of the Father, and that this at- 

 tribute became the perfon of the Son, and was afterwards 

 united to Jefus Chrift. But we (hould enlarge this article 

 far beyond its proper limits, if we cited more authorities 

 in relation to this fubjecl. We muft therefore content 

 ourfelves with prefenting to our readers a brief account of 

 the fentiments of modern divines with regard to the logos. 

 It has been very generally allowed that this name belongs, 

 in a peculiar and appropriate fenfe, to Jefus Chriil; of v.hofe 

 nature and rank of being different notions have been enter- 

 tained. (See AuiANs, Sabklli.\ss, Socixi.\xs, Tri.vita- 

 111AN.S, and Uniiwrians. See alfo Pre-existence of 

 Chrift and TRINITY ) We ftiall here fubjoin a brief abftraft 

 of thefe opinions from fome of the principal writers on this • 

 fubjeft. The Pfeudo-Athanafians, as they are denomi- 

 nated by the author of " The Apology of Ben Mordecai 

 &c." feem to maintain, that the logos, or word of God, 

 and that God, with whom he was in the beginning, and 

 whofe fon he is, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from 

 them both, are each of them, y??;j/>', the one Supreme God; 

 and yet the three all together are the fame Supreme God, 

 To this purpofe Dr. Clarke, in his " Scripture Doctrine of 

 the Trinity," mentions the interpretation which fome have 

 O o 2 !!'"■<■■■ 



