ART. II. A Differtation upon the Logos of St. John, comprehending the Subftance of Sermons, preached before the Univerfity of Oxford, by Richard Lawrence, LL D. Rector of Merham, Kent. 8vo. pp. 83. 3s. 1808. Oxford. Parker.

DR.

R. Lawrence being a writer who has paid particular attention to the moft profound and laborious works of modern biblical critics, his remarks on any particular topic, connected with that branch of ftudy, must be exceedingly valuable. The differtation before us undoubtedly demands the closest attention of every theologian. It is become fo cominon a ftratagem with a certain party adverse to the doctrine of Chrift's Divinity, to promulgate opinions in direct contradiction to the teftimony of antiquity, that the world ought to be protected from every mifreprefentation of this nature, by the utmost efforts of the learned. Dr. Lawrence propofes in this differtation to confider "the fuppofed origin of this expreffion, the feveral meanings which have been affixed to it, and the genuine acceptation of it among the earliest Chriftian writers on record." The work is accordingly divided into three parts, in which these three topics are feverally difcuffed. As to the origin of the term, he diftinctly confiders the alledged derivation of it from the Chaldea Paraphrafts, from the Platonic or Alexandrian Philofophy, from the Gnoftics, and from the terms used in the xxxiiid Pfalm, ver. 6. Upon all which points he plainly proves, that many things have been affumed as matter of fact, for which there is very little if any plaufible ground.

It is doubtful, for inflance, whether the Targumifts were ever known to St. John, or whether indeed they could be known, the time of their compofition and appearance being very uncertain. As to the adoption of the term in the fenfe of the Platonists, this is ftill more improbable, fince it does not appear that the Philofophy alluded to was in any manner generally embraced by the Jews; the correfpondence difcoverable in the writings of Philo, being attributable only to the particular fentiments of that learned Jew, and his individual endeavours to combine the two fyftems; at least there is no contemporary evidence to the contrary. In attributing the term, with many others in the proem of St.John's Gofpel, to the fyftem of Gnoftics, fome of the most learned authors appear to have confounded the tenets of the earlier and later heretics of that denomination; and thus to have fallen into a palpable anachronism. The Valentinian doctrines being subfequent to the times of the Evangelift, he could at the utmost

only have alluded to them proleptically, and confequently by divine infpiration. That the term was fuggefted by the expreffion of the Pfalmift, Pf. xxxiii. ver. 6, Dr. L. is in no imanner difpofed to admit, and indeed it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to reconcile the Pfalmift and the Evangelift, without falling into the groffeft contradictions.

There remains one more conceit as to its origin, and that is, that it is ufed metonymically, and this interpretation the learned author himself feems moft inclined to adopt. Let the origin howeyer of the word be what it may, another enquiry remains, namely, in what fenfe was the term applied by thofe from whom it has been fuppofed to be derived; and this enquiry leads the author into fome curious difquifitions concerning the term, whether derived from the Chaldee Paraphrafts, from the Alexandrian school, from the Gnoftics, or in the way of metonymy; and he concludes, from a very curious and critical difcuffion of its general ufe and application, that it must at all events be underflood in a perfonal point of

view.

"Whichfoever of thefe various fuppofitions we admit," fays the author, "whether we confider the term as used by the Evangelift metonymically according to the characteristical genius of his native language, or as derived from the phrafeology of the Gnoftics; or whether in conformity with the other conjectures, we choofe to fay, that it was fuggefted by a particular paffage in the Palms, or that it was a technical expreffion of Rabbinical ufage at the time, or that it was evidently borrowed from the Chaldee Paraphrafes, which were in equal eftimation with Jews and with Christians, ftill fhall we affume the fact, that it is to be contemplated folely in a perfonal point of view, in a point of view, which reprefents it as indicative of an actual fubfiftence, and a real perfon." P. 31.

On the abfurdity of fuppofing the Logos of the Evangelift to be a mere attribute, the learned author thus expreffes himfelf:-" But let us more minutely examine the fuppofed metaphorical fenfe, which has been fo confidently imputed to the language of St. John. We may indeed fay, if we pleafe, that the attribute wifdom was in the beginning, and that he was in the beginning with God: but how can we with propriety affert that he was God? Can Deity be afcribed to an abftract quality? We may indeed flate, that God is Wifdom, as St. John elsewhere terms him Love; but we cannot correctly reverfe the propofition, by flating that wifdom is God. And the reafon is obvious. God may be faid to be any abftract quality, congenial with his nature; but it would be manifeftly inaccurate to

C

BRIT, CRIT, VOL. XXXV. JAN. 1810.

fay

fay, that any abstract quality is God, because a quality may be predicated of a perfon, although a person cannot be predicated of a quality. When Plato appropriated to the Supreme God the appellation of ro ayatov, it is plain, that the propofition must have originally occurred to his mind, not under the form of "Goodness is God," but under that of "God is Goodness;" under a form in which the person was the fubject, and the thing the predicate; for although a being may be defcribed by any quality, which he eminently poffeffes, a quality cannot be defcribed by the being who poffelles it.

"As we proceed we find it afferted, that John the Baptift was not the Light, but He, or as the Unitarian will have it, fhe (that is, the perfonified attribute Wisdom) who made the world. Now when the Evangelift affirms that the Logos, and not John the Baptift, was the Light, it must be granted, that he conceives the exiftence of a kind of parallel between them, by fuppofing the poffibility of the fame character being afcribed to both. Between perfon and perfon, this may undoubtedly be the cafe; but what fpecies of parallel can exift between a man and an attribute? Nor will the difficulty be obviated by fuggefting, that wisdom here means not the attribute itself, but him, whom that attribute inspired, the man Jefus Chrift, because the name of our Saviour has not yet been mentioned, becaufe that rule of interpretation must be inadmiffible, which at one time would explain the term Logas by an attribute, at another by a man, as beft fuits the convenience of hypothefis; and becaufe, if it be in this inftance conceived to indicate our Saviour, it must follow that our Saviour created the world (which the Unitarian will by no means admit,) for the Logos, who was that, which John the Baptift was not, the true light, is exprefsly declared to have made the world.

"But the concluding part of the exordium furnishes, upon the Unitarian conftruction, the ftrongeft inftance of metaphorical incongruity, in which it is faid, that Wisdom was made flesh, and dwelt with us full of grace and truth. Perfonify as we please, ftill muft we find it difficult to explain, how a mere attribute can be fuppofed to have affumed our nature, and to have dwelt among us. Metaphor, it is true, may afcribe to an attribute a perfonal character, and operation; but furely cannot reprefent it as becoming a real man, and a particular individual, without manifeft abfurdity. If however, St. John be fuppofed only to mean, that the wifdom of God was illuftriously displayed in Jefus Chrift, would he, it may be obferved, have expreffed fo incontrovertible a po

fition in fo fingular a mode? Were it intended fimply to af firm, that a man appeared, eminently wife, to fay, that a divine attribute was made flesh, and, exhibiting the glory of God's only begotten Son, dwelt with us full of grace and truth, would be a fpecies of figurative phrafeology without a parallel. Besides, it is on both fides agreed, that by the term flesh, must be understood that, which is properly and truly man. Unless, therefore, the Logos here alluded to, indicates fomething more than an attribute perfonified, fomething which poffeffes a real perfonality, how can actual manhood be predictated of it, without the fubftitution of an hypothefis more fubtle, in its explication at leaft, than the hypothefis of the Docetæ ? The Docetæ contended that a celestial fpirit affumed the human form; the Unitarian on the other hand, contends, that the wifdom of the Deity affumed actual humanity, and thus appears to convert an attribute into a fubftance. If however to avoid the idea of fo prepofterous a converfion, he argues that the term Aoyos, which elsewhere fignifies God's wisdom, fignifies here a man, poffeffing a portion of that wisdom, to fay nothing of his inconfiftency in making the fame expreffion import firft the infpiring prínci ple perfonified, and afterwards the perfon infpired, how will the propofition then stand? will it not confift in the affertion, that a man endowed with divine wifdom was truly a man; an expofition, as harfh in its metaphor, and inconclufive in its meaning, as the former? But let us fuppofe, according to the general perfuafion, that the word always implies a perfon, one, who was the only begotten Son of God, participating in the Godhead, and every difficulty in the conftruction of the Apoftles language vanishes, every fentence admits an eafy folution, exempt from all thofe intricacies and perplexities, which feem to render the Unitarian comment, not a fimple illuftration of divine truths, but an inxplicable knot of hyperbolical incongruities.

"On the whole, therefore, because Aoyos cannot be correftly rendered reafon or wisdom, the only meanings which fuit the hypothefis of an attribute, and because, even if it could be fo rendered, it would ftill prove in its application to the text conftrained and incoherent, is it not fair to reject that hypothefis as untenable, and to admit the oppofite one, which contemplates it in the light of a perfon?" P. 47.

We could have made many extracts of ftill more importance than the above, but they would have required a large accompaniment of learned notes, exceeding the ordinary limits of our Review. In the course of the enquiry into the meaning of the term Aoyos, other very curious points of cri

C 2

ticifra

ticifm are brought under difcuffion, and fome very important remarks occur, particularly on the date of the Pefbito verfion, Dr. Lawrence inclining to fupport Michaelis against his learned annotator; and notwithstanding the fufpicions of the latter, to affign to that important verfion, a very high antiquity. The author has undoubtedly difplayed, in this fmall Tract, great learning and ability, and amply fhown how eminently qualified he is, to engage in fuch very curious researches and important criticisms.

ART. III. Treatife on Pulmonary Confumption, in which a new View of the Principles of its Treatment is fupported by Original Obfervations on every Period of the Difcafe. To which is added, An Inquiry, proving, that the Medical Properties of the Digitalis, or Fox glove, are diametrically oppofite to what they are believed to be. By James Sanders, M.D. one of the Prefidents of the Royal Medical and Royal Phyfical Satiety of Edinburgh. 8vo. pp. 319. 8s. boards. Longman and Co. 1808.

PULMONARY confumption, from the frequency of its occurrence, and the fatality of its character, has attracted peculiar attention. The phenomena of the complaint have been acutely inveftigated and accurately detailed, by various diftinguifhed writers, from Hippocrates, down to our own times; in the prefent flate of our knowledge, we cannot therefore rationally expect that any thing new can be offered on the fubject. The prefent writer, however, juft emerging from the fchool of Edinburgh, and having already attained the honour of prefiding over two focieties of medical students in that city, afferts that every thing relative to confumption is involved in obfcurity and confufion. Introduct. p. v. This roufed our attention, and we were anxious to discover the order, the arrangement, and the new information, which this author fuppofed himfelf to poffefs. The work is divided. into two parts, the firft of which treats of pulmonary confumption. The author first defcribes incipient phthifis. After enumerating fome of the ufual fymptoms, he informs us that

"Whoever is fo affected can neither run nor climb with the fame ease of refpiration as others; without incurring greater danger than others indeed, or often without immediately increaf ing the complaint; he can neither exert his voice, nor forcibly retain the air in his lungs; he cannot inhale acrid fumes, as of

coals,