ed the subject. Much more may be said in proof of the despotic tendencies of orthodoxy, and orthodox projects and influences. We have left untouched several parts of the Letter, on which we intended to have offered some remarks. But for the present we must conclude.

REMARKS ON THE TERM 'LOGOS,' OR 'WORD,' as used IN THE INTRODUCTION OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL, ADDRESSED BY A THEOLOGICAL STUDENT IN PENNSYLVANIA TO A TRINITARIAN CLERGYMAN OF THAT STATE.

[It is understood by our readers, we suppose, that communications are occasionally inserted in the Advocate which present views in some respects different from our own. Though it may not be easy to ascertain, beyond a doubt, all that was present to the mind of John when he wrote the introduction to his gospel, yet it seems to us certain that he did not intend to say anything in accordance with the Trinitarian theory.]

REV. SIR,In our last conversation on the introduc tion of John's Gospel, you quoted in defence of your views a two-fold supposition, made by Wardlaw, the English controversialist: 1st. That John was not acquainted with the writings of Philo the Jew; and 2dly, that the Evangelist used the term Logos in the same sense in which the phrase, The word of God' was used by the writers of the Old Testament. I propose to give these two suppositions a cursory examination.

6

We frequently meet with the phrases, 'the word,' 'the word of God,'' the word of the Lord,' in the Old Testament. Thus we find Ps. lxviii, 11, The Lord gave the word, great was the company of those who published it;' Ps. cxix, 105, Thy word is a lamp unto my feet; Is. xl, 8, The word is not in them;' Jer. xxxiii, 1, The word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah.' But between this phraseology which is so perfectly plain, and the term applied by the Evangelist to Christ, there is no other connexion or resemblance, than that in both cases the translators use a word having the same sound, but of totally different meaning.

Let us now pass to the other supposition, that the Apostle was totally unacquainted with the writings of Philo, or rather with the popular meaning of the term Logos, for this is the point to which the supposition leads. No one has yet ventured to deny absolutely, that the Evangelist used the language of his country, in its common acceptation. Now if his countrymen were familiar with the term Logos, and attached a definite meaning to it, he, if he were acquainted with this, must have used this term according to its common acceptation. To this point, sir, I wish now to direct your attention. Philo was a learned Jew, who flourished at Alexandria in Egypt, about the year 40 of the Christian era. He taught that the throne of the Almighty was surrounded by created intelligent beings, who act as the ministers of his will; that among these, one denominated the Logos stood pre-eminent; and that this superangelic being, to whom he applies the titles of Son of God, First Born, Only

Begotten, and even the title God, in its subordinate sense, had been, under the supreme God, the creator of this lower world. The term Logos had been in use in the schools of philosophy three hundred years previous to this time. Philo was not an inventor of new dogmas. He merely embodied in his philosophy the 'opinions which he held in common with the wisest and best of his countrymen. According to ecclesiastical history, John resided chiefly at Ephesus, a principal seaport in Asia Minor, between which and Alexandria there was a constant intercourse. He there wrote his Gospel, according to the best authority, about the year 68, that is, twenty-eight years after Philo. Now that, under these circumstances, the Evangelist could be ignorant of the meaning, attached by his countrymen to the word Logos, is highly improbable. Happily, however, for the cause of truth, this interesting point does not rest upon a mere inference however convincing. Ecclesiastical history, combined with the sacred writings, furnishes us with positive evidence on this subject. The sect of philosophers, called Gnostics, were prior to, and contemporary with the Apostles, and among the earliest converts to christianity. This appears not only from the unanimous testimony of the early Christian writers, but from the writings of the Apostles themselves; for among the Gnostics, there was one sect, the Docetæ, who, misled by the Eastern Philosophy, maintained that matter was the source of all evil. Starting from this principle, they taught that Christ had no human body, but merely the semblance of a body; and that there would be no resurrection. Against these errors, both the Apostles Paul and John, strongly

contend in many places; and the latter, in his Epistles, declares those to be antichrists, who deny that Jesus was come in the flesh.

Having thus shown that John was cotemporary with the Gnostics, was well acquainted with the tenets they held, and even controverted some of their errors; let us now examine the opinion which the Gnostics held concerning the Logos. In this they did not essentially differ from Philo. They also held that the throne of the Supreme Being is surrounded by a number of created intelligences to whom they gave the name of cons—that among these the Logos occupied a distinguished rank. That the opinions held by the Gnostics concerning the Logos, were not deemed by the Apostles to be essentially erroneous, appears from this, that we no where find them controverting these opinions. But surely, if the Apostles had believed Christ to be the Supreme, Self-existent God, they would have opposed the opinion of the Gnostics, who ranked him among the created, dependent beings, with more zeal than that with which they combated their errors concerning the body of Christ. That they did not do this, shows that they did not consider these opinions erroneous.

We have thus found that the term Logos was in common use in the age of the Apostles, both among the Jews and Christians; and that both by that name designated a created and dependent, though highly exalted being. If it be granted then, that the sacred writers used the language of their country in its common acceptation, (and to deny it would render their

writings inexplicable and useless,) it follows that when the Evangelist speaks of the Logos, he there understood a created dependent being.

Let us next examine how far the subsequent parts of the introduction of his Gospel confirm this position.

And the word was with God.' This seems to imply that the Evangelist considered the Logos as one of those exalted intelligences which Philo supposed to be around the throne of the Almighty; but at the same time it excludes the idea of his being God, in the absolute sense of the term. We cannot, without violating all the usages of speech, say that God was with himself; and it is almost an insult to the understanding to attempt to prove that a being said to be with God cannot be God himself.

'And the word was God.' You appeal to this passage, sir, as an indisputable application of the title God to Christ. I have no disposition to question the correctness of the application; but let us investigate its import. With us, in modern times, the title God is exclusively appropriated to the Supreme being; but we must be guided in our inquiries, not by the meaning which this term now has, but by the meaning which was attached to it, at the time the Evangelist wrote. That this title was, even at that time, generally applied to the Supreme being is admitted by all; but it is equally indisputable, that at that time this title was not as now, exclusively restricted to the One Supreme, but that it was applied by the Jews, not only to beings of a superior order, but even to men and to inanimate objects. Thus we find it used in Exodus