Philo equally introduces his Logos to Mofes, to Abraham, and to Adam*, &c. "And the Jews themselves," as Dr. Allix comprehenfively remarks, "finding every thing in Philo fo agreeable to the notions that their ancestors had in his age, do own them to be the writings of a Jew, and of Philo in particular; as we fee in Manaffeh Ben Ifrael, who, in many places, alledges his authority, and fhews that his opinions do ge nerally agree with thofe of their moft ancient authors." P. 78. Mr. Bryant, however, thinks very differently from "the Jews themselves," concerning the opinions of their molt ancient authors;" even at first without knowing them, and at laft in contradiction to them. He confiders them as borrowed, the later from the earlier; and the earlier from he knows not whom. But, in ftill fuller refutation of this vifionary hypothefis, let us appeal to fome authors confettedly earlier than Philo, and cited, very lately, by a writer totally unknown to Mr. Bryant, "The most curious and interefting article upon which Philo dwells," fays Mr. Bryant," is the nature of the Logos, or Droine Word." Pref. p. vii. "He fpeaks at large in many places," it is added, " of the Word of God, the fecond Perfon; which he mentions as delegos bros, the fecond Divinity, the great cause of all things, and ftyles him the Logos. His thoughts upon this fubject are very juft and fublime, fuch as would do honour to a Chriftian." P. 15-16. Yet Philo himself deduces thefe exprefsly from the Oll Teftament. They are even fuggefted by other Jews, prior to himself, and fpeaking from the fame Teftament. "Some of your countrymen (Philo introduces God as faying to him, and meaning fome of the Jews before Philo, who had been refining like him on the fubject of the Logos) have called him an Idea ;" juft as Philo himself has called him the Intellectual World, and the World compofed of Ideas; because Ideas, in the Greek, the language in which Philo and they wrote, fignify thoughts as the proper refemblances of thingst. Thus feveral of the Alexandrian Jews appear to have written before Philo, upon the divinity of the Logos! Ezekiel alfo, a Jewish writer of facred dramas, is cited about two hundred and eighty years before our Saviour; declaring HIM who appeared to Mofes in the burning bufh, and whom Philo intimates to have been the Logos, to have actually been the Heavenly Logos," the "God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob." But we have another Jew, one like Philo, a Jew of Alexandria, but living * Whitaker, pp. 1001, 93, 94, 92, &c. + Ib. 109. Ib. 219-222. one one hundred and fifty years before Philo; who fpeaks exprefsly of the fecond caufe"; who alfo quotes fome Heathen verfes as proofs of what the Heathens had borrowed from the Hebrews, thus making them evidences of his own and the Jewish faith; and who, in thefe, finds the Divine Logos," or "the Ancient Logos," or "the Great Logos of the ancient times," mounted upon his throne of Heaven, and fetting his feet upon the earth, having alfo in himself at once the end, the middle, and the beginning of all things*. From thefe, with other authorities, Eufebius, whom we have cited before, gives us this comprehenfive account: "The oracles of the Hebrews after the uncaufed and ungenerated perfon of the God of all, introduce a fecond perfon and divine power, the principle of all created things, fubfifting the firft, and generated out of the Firft Caufe; calling it the Logos of Godt." ་་ So plainly is what Mr. Bryant himself denominates "the moft curious and interefting article upon which Philo dwells, the nature of the Logos or Divine Word," proved to be not peculiar to Philo among the Jews; but to have been common to him with earlier writers among them, and to have been drawn by all from the great well-fpring of theology in the Jewish Scriptures! Yet, in a lift of fifty-two articles of Philo's doctrine, which could not be borrowed from "his brethren the Jews," according to Mr. Bryant, and which he says, therefore, muft have been obtained from the Gofpel;" (p. 201) no less than thirty-four relate entirely to the nature and offices of the Logos (p. 203-206). Thefe therefore are fwept away at once, by the overbearing tide of evidence which we have before adduced; and of the reft, fome are relative to them, others are merely moral in themselves; and all of them were neceffary parts of a religion, that was as much the fame with Chriftianity in fubftance, as an infant is the fame in fubftance with a man. In Christianity and in Judaifm, there is enough of fameness to conftitute a fimilarity; and enough of variation to form a difference. So it is alfo with Philo and the Gofpel-preachers; neither borrowing from the other, but both deriving their information from the treafury of heaven. We have thus faid enough, we believe, to convict Mr. Bryant of great injudicioufnels, in framing fo rafh an hypothelis, as he has now brought forward. But, for the fake of an important truth, we muit puth him ftill further, and thow that his mind has been, in thefe moments of error, peculiarly bewildered. Whitaker, 247-252. + Ib. 195. That That Mr. Bryant confiders the nature of the Logos as the principal point in Philo's writings, and as all borrowed from Chriftianity, we have jult feen; yet, if the principal part is taken away as Chriftian, none but fubordinate parts can remain for Jewish. The lineaments in the face of the portrait all become Chriftian, and nothing is left but the Jewith gaberdine, to denote the nation of the writer. Yet Mr. Bryant unconfcioufly feps forward himfelf, to refcue him from a delineation fo difgufting to his Jewith admirers; though he difgraces himself by the interpofition. At the very paflage which we lately cited, and in which Philo (according to Mr. Bryant) mentions, as delegos Osos, the fecond divinity, the great caufet of all things;" Philo (according to Mr. Bryant again)" ftyles him, which Plato, as well as the Jews had done before, the Logos (p. 15-16). The existence then of the Logos, the name, the Godhead, even the fecondary Godhead, and his very act of creating the univerfe, were all known to the Jews before Philo: and Mr. Bryant has annihilated half of his own fyftem, at a blow. " But let us give a fecond instance of the fame illogical tergiverfation, in this venerable author. "So much was Philo beholden to them," the first Chriftians, he tells us, in p. 42, “that we may read in him the opinion of the Apofties, and the doctrines of Chrift himself, about this effential article of belief," the nature of the Logos. Philo's opinion, therefore, upon this article, was taken from Chriftianity, according to the prefent paffage. Yet, when we turn to another, in p. 28, we find it was not fo taken, as it was not peculiar to Philo, as it was common to him with his countrymen, and was, therefore, truly Jewish. From the extracts produced above," he there remarks, concerning fome paffages taken from Philo, "we may learn what was the opinion of Philo, and others of his nation, concerning the divinity of the fecond perfon, the Logos or word of God." Mr. Bryant thus annihilates the other half of his own fyftem, by a fecond blow! 44 Yet let us go on to fee this Briarens of controversy, brandifhing his hundred hands againit himself, as well as his adverfaries. In him," he adds, p. 28, concerning Philo, "we find the doctrine" of the the nature of the Logos, more improved, and more precifely given, than it was ever afforded before the coming of Chriit." Or, as he writes more explicitly, in p. 40; "A perfon, who fpeaks of the word of God, as the Son of God, his firft-begotten, the shepherd of his flock, the second great cause, the image of God, the mediator between God and man, the great highprieft mentioned by the Prophets, the creator of all that was created; who fpeaks alfo of redemption, and xilpa nas σwspx, the price or re demption, demption, and of the perfon by whom it was to be procured, and by whom we are finally to attain an aidon, everlafting life. I fay, who ever was acquainted with thefe doctrines, could be no stranger to Chrift and Chriftianity." Or, as Mr. Bryant fpeaks more contractedly again in P. 42, "What he [Philo] fays of the firft-born Son of God, the creator of all things, the image of God, the mediator, &c. was past the apprehenfion of man. Neither Plato, nor the Stoicks had any thing fimilar; and even the Jews had nothing ad quate, to the precife truths which he difclofes. He certainly adopted much from Christianity." And, as Mr. Bryant fpeaks again, in p. 25-26, " from his intercourfe with the Chriftians, he [Philo] obtained this improved knowledge." In fuch a wavering manner does this learned author vacillate, from the mode to the fubftance, and from the substance to the mode! At one time the very doctrines themselves, at another the mere degrees of luftre around them, are what Philo is averred to have borrowed from Chrif tianity. So feebly has he taken his footing, and fo poorly has he poifed his body upon it, that he is rocking continually from fide to fide; and the Coloffus is thrown at laft to the ground, even beaten to pieces in its fall, by the fhock of one paffage in P. 75 No people but the Jezus," he there allows in fome ftrong revul fion of his thoughts," had any knowledge of a fecond Divine Being, of fo high an order and character; and none but the Jews in Egypt, could have rendered [it] in this manner, 20yos. That they rendered it in this manner, may be feen by the Greek Verfion of the Bible. For, though this verfion was not made till after the time of Plato, yet we may reafonably infer, that the term word as a perfon in Scripture, was antecedently thus expressed by the Hellenistick Jews in those parts. The Lagos, therefore, was confcffedly known as a perfon in Scripture" to the Jews of Egypt, "antecedently" to "the Greek verfion of the Bible," even as early at least, as "the time of Plato.” So much is Mr. Bryant here an enemy to himself in his reafoning, that he is perhaps the worst enemy that he could poffibly have. Let us illuftrate this extraordinary phænomenon, by a fourth evidence. "From his intercourfe with the Chriftians," notes Mr. Bryant, concerning Philo, in p. 25-26," he obtained this improved knowledge, concerning the word of God, whom he styles the Son of God, his tirit-begotten; whofe divine nature he has defcribed more truly by * Rather fay, he could not be " far from the kingdom of God." Rev. far, far, than any of the Platonifts before him, or any of the Alexandrine school after him, or even than any of his own nation of old." Mr. Bryant thus encounters himfelf, within the compafs of a fingle fentence; admitting, at the clofe, the very point which he denies at the commencement; and allowing Philo to have had only the fame general knowledge concerning the nature of the Logos, with others" of his own nation of old." We fay the fame general knowledge; we fpeak not of degrees, because we would not willingly fight with thadows. But we go on. "Though no friend to Chriftianity," he adds, in p. 78-801, "Philo has admitted most of the principal doctrines, which relate to the two characters of our Saviour. They have been likewife maintained, by fome of the most learned among the yews; however implacable enemies they might be to Chriftianity. The doctrine of the Meffias they admitted; and mentioned him as the word of God, and as God, antecedent to angels, and before creation. This appears from their Targums, and other Rabbinical writings. Hence we learn, that thofe myfterious truths, concerning the fecond perfon, which in these times are rejected by many Chriftians, as impious and idolatrous, were allowed by the very people who were the greatest enemies to idolatry, and who always fhewed themselves the moft hoftile to Christianity and the Gofpel. They maintained them as being, when made known, confonant to reafon, and as having the fanction of the Scriptures." Philo thus thought concerning the Logos, only as "fome of the most learned among the Jews" have thought, and as, indeed, "the very people" thought of which he was an individual; not deriving his opinions from Christianity, because they did not fo derive theirs; he truly being "no friend to Christianity," while they were "molt hoftile to Chriftianityand the Gofpe!;" but they confeffedly receiving them, and, therefore, he receiving them equally," as having the fanction of the Scriptures" of the Old Teftament. So completely has this author overturned here all the building that we have feen him rearing with fo much waste of toil and time before. But let us obferve additionally on this paffage, that Mr. Bryant, when he found himself unexpectedly encountered, at the clofe of his work, by Dr. Allix, boldly furmifed that his "Targums and other Rabbinical writings," might be copied from Philo; but before he found the Doctor facing him with his hoft of Jewish evidences, and when he knew not of either him or them, he very properly afferted them to have "the fanction of the Scriptures." With fo much ductility can the mind of Mr. Bryant bend to the preffing impulfe of the moment! and fo much in the dark does he here fight, that he contends with himself in ftead |