Isa. v. 14. "Hades [the grave] has enlarged its soul"Tηv JuxNv auTov-that is, itself.

Tenfold more examples of this kind might easily be accumulated, but perhaps it will be thought that I have given more than enough. A proper notion, however, could not be well formed of the true character of the peculiar idiom in question by means of mere verbal description, without, at the same time, exhibiting a sufficient number of appropriate examples. After all, those whose minds have been perverted by false systems of interpretation, and who think they can discover traces and proofs of orthodoxy in every singularity of idiom, will not soon be induced to follow the true clue of investigation; much less will they understand the philosophical character of the most ancient of languages, in whose various forms of expression, much poetical imagery and vigorous efforts of the imagination were developed, for efficiently giving utterance to intellectual notions and sentiments. If, however, any men choose to interpret the idiomatical peculiarities of the language in some particular instances, in accordance with the metaphysical subtleties blended with Christianity, in the course of its corruption, does not consistency require, that they should interpret the idiom in all cases in an uniform manner? If this were done, the question naturally suggests itself: How many new personal existences would be the result? If the word of the Lord, and the spirit of the Lord, be each a personal existence different from the Lord himself, why should not the name of the Lord, the face of the Lord, the soul of the Lord, &c. be accounted personal existences in like manner? And why did the Jews themselves always remain ignorant of the import of their own idioms?

NOTE III.

An extract or two from Irenæus, the bishop of Lyons, who flourished about the middle of the second century, about

which time the subordinate deity of Christ began to be openly maintained, will shew that he sometimes interpreted the expressions the word, and the word of God, in the sense maintained in the Commentary. The translation is given as literal as possible.-" And if any one believe that there is one God, and that he made all things by his word [verbo,] as Moses himself says, God SAID, Let there be light, and there was light'; and we read in the gospel, 'All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made, &c.'" Grabe's Iren. Oper. p. 355.

Again from the same: "The disciple of the Lord [John] willing at once to cut off these errors, and to leave a rule of faith in the church-that there is one God almighty, who by his word made all things visible and invisible; declaring likewise that by the word, by which God finished the creation, by the same also he bestowed salvation upon those men, who were in the creation-thus begins in his doctrine which is according to the gospel, In the beginning was the word, &c.'"-Id. p. 218.

The three following extracts from Clement of Alexandria, (who flourished as late as A.D. 194,) are worthy of attention. -"For God alone created, because he alone is truly† God. By merely willing he operates; and the effect follows his bare will.”—Oper. p. 42. Paris ed. 1641.-" For Moses was heard to say, He said, and it was done'-meaning that the word of God is his work."-Id. p. 596. In explaining Ps. xxxiii. 6. By the word of the Lord, &c." he expresses himself thus: "Human art produces houses and ships and cities and writings, but how can I relate what God creates ? Behold

66

• The supreme deity of Christ, which was broached long after, would have been regarded as blasphemy at that time.

+"Truly." By the early Arian writers such qualifying expressions were frequently used, as a reserve against the imputation of violating the faith-generally prevalent-in one God, the Father.

this universe! Both the heaven and the sun are his work. Angels and men are the works of his fingers. How great is the power of God! The creation of the world is the effect of his mere volition. For God alone made it; and he alone is truly God. He creates by his simple volition; and by his simply willing it the result follows."—Id. p. 43.

NOTE IV.

In the very ancient translation of Irenæus, in which alone much of that father's work against the heretics remains, this clause" with God"—is rendered apud Deum, i. e. at or near God; Wicliff, in his translation, rendered it at God;* and in Luther's translation it is, bey Gott. Tertullian's representation of the phrase Tgos Tov beov, is, penes quem [i. e. Deum] erat -in whose possession it was.'-See Advers. Prax. c. xiii. Perhaps the nearest equivalent expression in English is—' the word was in God,' that is, in his possession and keeping, and at his command. If we consider the meaning intended wholly apart from the expression, it may be represented thus: God had recourse to his efficient word whenever he pleased.

NOTE V.

In Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus and subsequent writers, o λoyos, the word, used as a proper name, was an appellation very frequently applied to Christ. But in the previous Christian writers this application of it is not found; nor have later critics been justified in asserting that it has been thus used in the New Testament. Indeed John is the only writer who is thought to have used the expression word as a proper and personal denomination of Jesus Christ. But

See Astle's Orig. and Progr. of Writing, Plate xxvii. No. 11. Wicliff also renders the last clause of the verse-" and God was the word."

N

for this supposition we have already shewn, that there is no just ground. Schleusner indeed cites Luk. iv. 36. as another instance in which λoyos is used of Christ as a personal and proper name; but surely without a shadow of probability. There is an exactly corresponding expression in 2 Sam. i. 4. Tis ó λoyos duros;-according to the septuagint. It is not a little surprising, that Schleusner should render this " Qualis est hic doctor"—" What kind of a teacher is this.' But it is to be added, that this critic does not include Joh. i. 1. and 14. in this acceptation without expressing some doubt. Such, then, is the foundation upon which rests the grand superstructure of the real personification and deification of the Logosthe authority of Justin Martyr, and others after him, unsupported by the usage of the sacred writers in any one incontestible instance. Even the contested passages do not exceed three or four.

But still some will say, Whence the use of the word λoyos in this proem? Was it adopted from Philo, or from the platonic philosophers, who are known to have made great use of it? There is truly no occasion to refer it to either of these sources. Long before either Plato or Philo it was extensively used, personified too, by the writers of the Old Testament. If so, why look for another origin? Is it not more probable that John derived it thence, than from any other quarter? I will, however, add what Lardner says in relation to this inquiry.

"I am of opinion, that it was not out of regard to Philo, or to any platonic writers. But I suppose this way of speaking to have been very common with the Jewish people, and, perhaps more especially with those of them, who were most zealous for the law, and most exempt from foreign and philosophical speculations: who by the word,' or the word of God,' understood, not a spirit separate from God, and inferior to him, but God himself, as St. John does."-This

6

"Many

paragraph is confirmed by a note, containing an extract from the Miscellanea Sacra of Witsius, a celebrated Calvinistic divine; which I here add in a literal translation. observe a similar phraseology often to occur in the Chaldee paraphrases, which exhibit the religious teaching [catechesis] of the old Hebrews, and their ancient forms of speaking. Whenever God is said to converse with us, the writers of the Targum substitute for God, or Jehovah, the word of God.' Take the following examples from many more. Gen. xxi. 20. God was with him. Onkelos: The word of the Lord was

his aid. Verse 22. God is with thee. Onkelos: The word of the Lord is thy help. Deut. xx. 1. Be not afraid of them; for thy God is with thee. Onkelos: Because Jehovah thy God-his word is thy help, which brought thee from the land of Egypt. Num. xi. 20. Because thou hast despised Jehovah. Onkelos: Because ye have despised the word of the Lord, whose shechinah [divine majesty] dwells among you. Exod. xvi. 8. Your murmurings are not against us, but against Jehovah. Onkelos: but against the word of Jehovah. Such examples are innumerable. From whence it is inferred, that it was usual with the Jews at that time, to designate God, when considered as conferring with his people, by the expression Word: to which they ascribed the attributes of God."-Wits. Miscel. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 88. 89. Exercita iii. Tegou λoyou. sect. ii. Apud Lard. v. iii. p. 241. 4to edn.

"Numb. xxiii. 8. How shall I curse, whom God has not cursed? or, how shall I defy, whom the Lord has not defied?' Upon which verse Patrick says, "In the Jerusalem Targum this verse is thus paraphrased: How shall I curse the house of Israel, when the word of the Lord has blessed them; or, how shall I diminish the family of Israel, when the word of the Lord has multiplied them ?'

"It is well known, that in the Chaldee paraphrases, it is