that Philo, in some places certainly, comes up to the idea of a real hypostasis (Alleg. iii. 93; De Somn. i. 584, 586; Quis Rer. Div. Hær. 509, and elsewhere); comp. F. Keferstein, Philo's Lehre von den göttlichen Mittelwesen, Leipz. 1846; also Semisch, Justin der M. s. 274. Baur, DreieinigkeitsLehre, i. s. 59 ff. Meier, Trinitätslehre, i. s. 20 ff.; and the works of Grossmann, Scheffer, Gfrörer, Dähne, and Ritter, referred to in § 19. [Michel Nicholas, Les Doctrines religieuses des Juifs, Paris 1860, Pt. 2, ch. 2, p. 178-216, contends that the doctrine respecting the Word (Logos) could not have been derived from either Babylonian or Platonic sources; that it had its origin in Palestine, and passed thence to Alexandria. It is a result of the Jewish views respecting God. "The doctrine of an intermediate being between God and the world is a part of the theology of the Talmud; but this intermediate being is there designated, not by the name of the Word, but by that of the Shekinah," p. 215.]

(5) Traces of the doctrine of the Logos are also found in the Samaritan theology, and in the writings of Onkelos and Jonathan, comp. Lücke, 1.c. s. 244. Concerning the Adam Kadmon of the Cabbalists, and the Memra and Shekinah, vide Bretschneider, 1.c. s. 233, 236. Baur, Gnosis, s. 332, Anm. De Wette, biblische Dogmatik, § 157. [Burton, 1.c. Lect. ii. p. 51-55.] Dorner, l.c. i. 1, s. 59. Gfrörer, das Jahrhundert des Heils, Stuttg. 1838, s. 272 ff.

§ 41.

(b) The Christian Doctrine of the Logos in the Writings

of John.

Bucher, des Apostel Johannes Lehre vom Logos (§ 40).

Weizsäcker, die Johanneische Logoslehre (Jahrbuch f. deutsche Theol. 1862), 7 vols. 4to.

Christianity first gave to the speculative idea of the Logos practical and religious relations and significance (1). The Gospel of John, in accordance with the doctrine of Paul (2), which differs only in the form of expression, applied the term Logos to the complete and personal revelation of God.

in Christ. This Christian Logos of John was no longer a mere abstract idea, but with all its ideality it was at the same time an historical fact and a religious truth; and on this account it was from the first the peculiar and living root of Christian theology.

(1) It is true that Philo himself made use of the idea of the Logos for practical and religious purposes, inasmuch as he accommodated it to the Hebrew religion in connecting it with the idea of the Messiah. But this connection was nevertheless very loose, and the idea of the Messiah itself was altogether abstract, and in the sense of the Jews, not historically realized. ("The idea of the Messiah becomes in Philo but a dead coal; only the phlegm remains," Dorner, s. 49.) In contrast with this, the Christian idea of the Logos on the one hand (the speculative and divine), and the idea of the Messiah on the other hand (the national and human), both appear historically realized in the person of Jesus of Nazareth (ó Móyos σàpέ éyéveTo). Bucher, ubi supra, s. 214: "The Logos (in John) is not a mere mediating principle, but also an independent Creator of the world." In Philo the Logos is viòs πρωτόγονος, in John υἱὸς μονογενής: ibid. s. 211. On the relation of the Christian doctrine of the Logos to the heathen systems of emanation, see Duncker, 1.c. s. 23.

(2) Though the term óyos does not occur in the writings. of Paul in the sense in which it is understood by John (cf. John i. 1; Rev. xix. 13), yet the idea of a divine pre-existence of Christ is clearly expressed by him, especially Col. i. 15-17, ii. 9.1 Similar expressions are used by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. i. 4 ff. (Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 47; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Rom. viii. 29.) See Weizsäcker, l.c. Concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, as propounded in the New Testament, see Meier, 1.c. s. 24 ff., and Hellway, ubi supra.

Those who, with Baur, consider the shorter Pauline Epistles as spurious, will, of course, regard the Christology which they contain as a transition intermediate between the genuine Pauline and the pseudo-Johannean doctrine; cf. Baur, Dg. s. 425.

$42.

(c) The Theologumenon of the Church concerning the Logos, to the Times of Origen.

Möller, Geschichte der Kosmologie (§ 47). [Burton, Testimonies of the AnteNicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, etc. (Works, ii.).]

But Christian theology in its further history did not stand still with this idea of the Logos, as historically manifested in the Messiah. That which appears in historical manifestation, it endeavoured to grasp as having its ground in the very nature of God. A deeper religious interest was unquestionably here at work, but it frequently yielded to speculation, and was mixed up with foreign modes of philosophizing. Those heretics who adhered more closely to Judaism (the Ebionites), as well as the Alogi, Theodotus and Artemon, were most remote from speculations of this nature, but also from the more deeply religious spirit, since they set aside the very substance of this Christian gnosis, the idea of the Logos, by denying the divinity of Christ. The distinction between God the Father and the Logos was likewise abolished by the other section of the Monarchians, Praxeas, Noëtus, and Beryllus, without, however, denying the actual revelation of God in Christ, which they insisted upon with all emphasis (1). The Gnostics, on the contrary, connected the idea of the Logos with their fanciful doctrine of emanation and of æons, and thus played over into the realm of speculative mythology (2). And so it became incumbent upon the Fathers to defend the speculative element in opposition to the former class of heretics, the historical in opposition to the latter, and to preserve both these elements for the practical religious interests of the Church (3). Justin (4), Tatian (5), Theophilus (6), Athenagoras (7), Clement of Alexandria (8), endeavoured to illustrate the existence of the Logos, and His relation to the Father, by the aid of figures and analogies, borrowed from the external

world and the nature of man.

Tertullian (9) strove to explain

the mystery, wrestling hard with language; while Irenæus (10), opposed to all gnosis, on the one hand set aside hair-splitting queries, and on the other held fast to the trinitarian faith of the Church as the direct expression of the Christian consciousness.

(1) Compare § 23, note 1, § 25, notes 2 and 3, and the dissertation of Heinichen there cited. The orthodox doctrine identified the idea of the Logos and that of the Messiah; but the doctrinal tendency of the Ebionites, as well as of the Gnostics, separated them. The former, adopting the idea of the Messiah alone, lost sight of the spiritual import of the doctrine of the Logos; the reverse was the case with the Gnostics, who held merely an idea of the Logos, but without admitting His incarnation in the Messiah. - Concerning Artemon, whose opinions rank him among the Monarchians, Schleiermacher (in his essay: Ueber die Sabellianische und Athanasische Vorstellung) observes that he appears to have retained the doctrine of the unity of God with more seriousness, and greater desire to promote the interests of religion, than the more frivolous Theodotus; vide Zeitschrift von Schleiermacher, de Wette, and Lücke, iii. s. 303, 304. He there shows also the difference between this tendency and that of Praxeas and Noëtus, already mentioned § 24, note 4. Comp. also § 46, note 3, and Gieseler in Stud. u. Krit. 1853, 4.

(2) Even if we look at it numerically alone, there is a great difference between the Catholic doctrine of the Logos and the views of the Gnostic sects. Before the doctrine of the Trinity was further developed (see below), the Logos was considered by Catholics to be the only hypostasis; while the Gnostics imagined heaven to be inhabited by a multitude of æons (fœtus æonum, Tert.).-According to Basilides, there are 365 heavens (οὐρανοί, the lowest of which is under the ἄρχων); and he assigned an intermediate position between the supreme God and the Logos to the voûs, and taught that the Logos emanated from the latter. Further emanations of the vous, were the φρόνησις, σοφία, δύναμις, δικαιοσύνη, and εἰρήνη; and these five æons, together with the other two, voûs and Xóyos,

HAGENB. HIST. DOCT. 1.

L

in all seven, formed, along with the Ocòs äppηtos (åvwvóμαστος), the first ὀγδοάς.—Still more ingenious is the system of Valentinus. [He asserted that from the great first cause (primitive existence, βυθός, προπάτωρ, προαρχή) successively emanated male and female æons (νοῦς, or μονογενής and ἀλήθεια, λόγος and ζωή, ἄνθρωπος and ἐκκλησία, etc.), 80 that thirty æons (divided into the ὀγδοάς, δεκάς, and δωδεκάς) form the npwμa. The vehement desire of the last of the æons, the copía, to unite itself with the Bulós, gave existence to an immature being (ή κάτω σοφία, εὐθύμησις, ἀχαμώθ) which, wandering outside the pleroma, imparted life to matter, and formed the dnμlovpyós, who afterwards created the world. In order to restore the harmony of the pleroma, the two new zons, Χριστός and τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, were made; and last of all 'Inσoûs (σwτnp) emanated from all the æons, and as the future σuçuyos of the achamoth was appointed to lead back into the pleroma alike the æons and all spiritual natures.] (Comp. Neander, Matter, and Baur, in the works mentioned, § 23; also Baur, Dg. s. 431 ff. On the Syzygies of the Clementines and the Sophia, as χεὶρ δημιουργοῦσα τὸ πᾶν (Hom. xi. 22, xvi. 12), cf. Hilgenfeld, 1.c. s. 285.) [Gieseler, i. § 45. Niedner, i. s. 201 ff. Burton, 1c. Lect. ii. p. 36-41. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. ii. note B: On Basilides and the Basilideans, p. xxxviii-xlix. Basilides' System, G. Uhlhorn, 1855, cf. Hilgenfeld, Judische Apokalyptik, 1857, s. 289 ff. Baur in Theol. Jahrb. 1856. On Valentinus, see Volkmar in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1855 -the relation to it of the Colorbasus-Gnosis, mentioned by Epiphanius. Petermann's edition of the Pistis Sophia, Berlin 1852. Bishop Hooper on Valentinus, Works, p. 307-345. Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, p. 150 ff.]

(3) The apostolical Fathers hold fast to this practical religious interest; though they do not make any use of the peculiar doctrine of the Logos (Semisch, ii. s. 275 ff.), yet there are single, scattered declarations, which offer the outlines of an immanent doctrine of the Trinity (Meier, Gesch. d. Trinit. i. s. 47 ff.). Thus particularly, Ignatius (in the longer rec.), ad Polyc. i. : Τοὺς καιροὺς καταμάνθανε, τὸν ὑπὲρ καιρὸν προσδόκα τὸν ἄχρονον, τὸν ἀόρατον, τὸν δι ̓ ἡμᾶς ὁρατὸν, τὸν ἀψηλάφητον, τὸν ἀπαθῆ, τὸν δι ̓ ἡμᾶς παθητὸν, τὸν κατὰ