LOGO S-; 



given of the phrafe, " the word was God" (John i. l.) that Chrifl: was the pcrfon, by wliom God created and 



The Icos, or nuorJ, is conceived by fiich pcrfons to be an- governs the world, and that in and by him the Deity ap- 



cther lelf-exiftent, underived, independent pcrfon, co-ordi- peared to men under the Old Tellamcnt by the name of 



nate in efll-ntial fupreme anthority and dominion with the Jehovah, the Angel of the covenant, and fimilur appellations. 



Father Almighty: and this, fays Dr. Clarke, whatever The apoftle tells us (Heb. i. 2. xi. 3.) that it was by 



tnetaphyfical union may be imagined of two fuch co-ordinate Chrid God made the world, aiZ:j.;, the ages or dilpenfa- 



perfons, will always and necelfarily, in the religious and tions ; i. e. by whom, fays Ben Mordecai, God formerly 



moral fenfe, be real polytheifm ; fubverting that firft and difpofed and ordered thofe eminent and remarkable periods 



great foundation of all religion, both natural and revealed, of time: the Antediluvian, the Patriarclial, the Molaic, and 



the monarchical unity of the great King and God of the the Prefcnt, being put under his government, according to 



imiverfe ; and diredily contrary to that fird and great com- the will of the Father. Now the ages or dilpenfations be- 



fore Chrift, we know from our own Icriplures, were ordered 

 by the angel Jehovah ; and if he were not the Chrill, the 

 Old and New Tellament contradift ojie another ; by af- 

 cribing the fame government to two diflerent beings. St; 

 Paul therefore could mean no other perfon by Chrift, than 

 the fame logos or word of God ; whom Philo, and all of that 



mandment in both Teliaments (Dent. vi. 4. and Mark xii. 

 -29.) "Hear, O Ifrael, the Lord our. God is one Lord, 



Another opinion with rcfpeft to the logos, is that which 

 fuppofes the appellation to dclignate a pre-oxiilent fpirit, of 

 inconceivably exalted rank, and poffeffrng fupereminont 



power and perfeftion, which derives being from an immediate age, underllood to be the angel of the covenant, or tlie 



att of the power and will of God, in contradillindion to ex- angel Jehovah. The f.ime truth is confirmed by many other 



illence by mere necedity of nature, and called only begotten references in the gofpels and epillles ; in which the fenfe is 



becaufe it is thus derived from the Father in a fingular and in- defeftive, upon any other principle. 



conceivable manner, and fo as to be thus diftinguiflied from There is another opinion concerning the logos, which has 



all other beings. This pre-exillent fpirit, or logos, apcord- had many advocates among modern divines, and efpecially 



ing to the doftrine of ApoUinarius about the year 370, and among thole who are denominated Unitarians. Perfons of 



the Arians, defcended from heaven, and fupphed the place this defcription imderiland by the logos, either not a real 



of a foul in Chrilt. To this purpofe Mr. Whiiton fays, "the perfon, or God himlelf. Accordingly fome of them inter- 



fcripturc, and earheft antiquity, never- affirm, that Chrid pret the palfage above cited in the following manner: "In 



took a human rational foul ; they never fay, he took a whole the beginning was Reafon, and Rcafon was with God, and 



kuman nature ; they never fay, tliat he was in that fenfe a Reafon was God." But the fenfe of thefe propoiitions 



true and perfeft man ; but that he was made flclh ; had a 

 body prepared for him ; was the Word, or a God incarnate ; 

 was made in the likenefs of man ; was found in faflnon as a 

 man, while he was God the word. Nay, Ignatius direftly 

 affirm?, that it was the Word, and not a human foul, which 

 inhabited in that body ; and almoin all the ancients agree in 

 the fame doctrine ; even Athanalius himfelf, before the coun- 



amounts to nothing more, as Dr. Clarke has Itated it, than 

 that God always was a rational being ; or if we underftand 

 by logos, the wifdom, or power, or any of the attributes of 

 God, the conelulion will be much the fame. This, we mull 

 allow, is in itfelf a certain truth ; and, as to the manner of 

 the expreffion, it might perhaps in fome fenfe, by a figu- 

 rative way of fpeaking, be affirmed, that the reafon of God,. 



oil of Nice." It is laid by Ben Mordecai, that notwithftanding or any one of his attributes, is God ; yet this is nothing to 

 the pains that were taken to difcourage this opinion, it ap- the purpofe of (what St. John is here treating of) the mcar- 

 peared again, in different fhapes, in the Chriftian church in nation of Chrift. For the reafon of God is no otherwife 

 the doftrine of tlie Monothelites ; who held, that Chrift God, than the reafon of a m.an is the man himfelf. Ac- 

 had only one will, which, without doubt, is fuflicicnt for cording \o this interpretation, tliertfore, all thofe declarations 

 one perfon. Ai'reeably to this fame ufe of the appellation of fcripture, in which it is affi-n ed that " the word was 

 logos. Dr. Clarke interprets the feveral paffages that pertain made flefti and dwelt among us (John i. 14.), that Chrift 

 to it in the lit chapter of the gofpel of St. John. In this " came fort'u from the Father (John xvi. 28.), that " he 

 fenfe "the word was with God ;' not sv la Sju, in God, as came down from heaven (John iii. 13-), that "he came 

 reafon or underftanding is In the mind, but Tjor toi (am, with down from heaven, not to do his own will, but the will of 

 God, as one perfon is prefent with another ; and "the word him that fcnt him (John vi. 18.), tiiat he "took part of 

 was God ;" not i:c; ccrli, is God, but 5:c.: r.v, was God, or flefh and blood (Heb. ii. 14.), that, having been "in the 



tliat vifible perfon, who under the Old Tellament appeared 

 from the beginning tv ixo^'tn Geh, the vifible image of tba 

 invilible God, in whom the naine of God was, the an- 

 gel of the Lord, &c. Phil. li. fu Col. i. 15. Exod. xxiii. 

 2T. Zech. xii. 8. &c. &c. It this be the right interpreta- 

 tion of the text, then the words, a a^x" i' "'■'■'y'''.^ hi the be- 

 ginning was the word, and A070; cr^^f iyin\o, the word was 



form of God," he did (xsno-ci skuIov) empty himftlf oi that 

 form, " and was made in the likenefs of man," and "found 

 in falhion as a man," (Phil. ii. 6, 7, 8.) : — All thefe ex- 

 preffions (according to this laft interpretation of the words, 

 ^ioc w Aoyoi), will in reality mean nothing more than that 

 "the wifdom of the Father dwelt in tl-.e "}»Ian Chrift Jefiis;" 

 that is, that Chrift was only in a more perfect and continued 



made flefti, mean, that the fame perfon who in the fulnefs of manner than other prophets, " an infpired wan." Notiiing, 



the time was made man and dwelt with us, did before dwell 

 with God, and acled in the capacity of a divine perfon, as 

 the. vifible image of the invihble God, by whom God made 

 all things, and by whom all things were from the beginning 

 tranfatied between God and the creature ; and as he is 

 ftyled (l Cor. i. 24.) the Power of God, and the Wifdom 

 of God, upon account of the wifdom and power of God 

 beiii:: manifefted in and by hira; fo here he is ftyled (oXovo,) 

 the Word, becaufe he does \iy,n ; he does, as Rcvealer, Law- 

 giver, and Judge, declare the will, the laws, the fentence of 

 his I'atiier. Thofe who adopt this opinion alio maintain, 



fays Dr. Clarke, can be more forced ai^d unnatural than this 

 interpretation. It is reducing the whole dodtrine of the hu- 

 mihation and incarnation of the fon oi Gud to a mere figure 

 of fpeech ; and under the appearance of fpepking of Clinit 

 as the Supreme God, making lum really nctking but a mere 

 man. This, however, would ferve the purpofe of thofe wlio 

 are advocates for the (imple humanity of Chrift. 



Dr. Lardner, in his " Letter on the Logos, written iiv 

 the year 1730," profeffes, that he was once favourable to the 

 fuppofition, that the logos was the ioulof our Saviour ; but 

 being at a lofs to conceive how that high being, the lirlt, and 



only 



