Again, "God fpake to the Patriarchs either by angels, or "fome temporary appearance, which may fometimes. "have been in the form of man *." Certain we are, the Doctor hath not half so well proved, that this is the opinion of Philo, as that it is his own. But it would not be matter of furprise, although it were afterwards found to be only occafionally fo.

Now, if it be granted, that any thing is fo" emitted "from the Supreme Being," as to have a temporary perfonality, to perform the actions of a perfon, to act and speak; call it a divine power, or what you will; let it be, with unparalleled abfurdity, denied that it is a perfon; ftill it can go by no other name, it can fuggeft no other idea. Only, it has this fingular property, that it is identified in another perfon. This is a being of fuch a kind, that it may be a perfon at one time, and not at another. "For,"

Dr P. fays, "On this fcheme, the Logos, it might have "been faid, would have been a perfon at the creation "of the world; and again, when it was employed in the "divine intercourfe with the Patriarchs +." Here is the mystery of Socinianism! the plurality and unity of the fons of Reason! Not three perfons in an unity of ef fence, but according to the number of the heavenly hosts, ten thousand times ten thousand exifting in one person. A participation of the divine nature is denied to the only begotten Son of the Father, while, without any hesitation, all thofe fons of God, called Angels, are admitted to this ho

nour.

But our author ought seriously to confider, that thus he hath virtually declared that he has no objection to the doc

trine

Vol. i. p. 34

Vol. ii. p. 47.

trine of an occafional plurality. Now, it will be difficult for him to show, that what is in the divine nature at one time, may not be at another, nay, is not always. For with God there is no variableness. He ought to confider, that no Trinitarian maintains, that one perfon is properly detached from another, far lefs from " the Supreme Being :" and that the great difference between this unitarian plurality and ours, is, that according to the latter, one perfon is effentially in another, (John xiv. 10, 11.) yet so as to retain distinction of perfonality; but according to the former, one person is fo in another, as at times totally to lofe this. Is the one doctrine more demonftrable from reason, or from analogy, than the other? It is no contradiction to reason, that three perfons should permanently subsist in one effence: but it certainly is a contradiction, that the nature, which is plural to-day, fhould be fingular to-morrow.

CHAP. IV.

Of the Doctrine of Philo concerning Angels.-Whether be confidered the Logos as the future Meffiah?

HE Doctor, having fo well proved, that Philo allows only an occafional perfonality to the Logos, infers, that he ascribes no other kind of perfonality to angels. According to Philo,' it is faid, " Angels are nothing more than "this divine Logos;' so that he could not confider them as ' having a permanent being.' Speaking of Hagar, he says, "She was met by an Angel, which is the Logos of God *.? Treating of the migration of Abraham, he says, "He "that

* Σημείον δε, το υπανταν αυτή αγγέλον θείον λόγον, α χρή παραινεσοντα, &c. De Profugis, p. 352. ap. Auct. 451.

42

"that follows God muft of neceffity make ufe of the at"tending logoi, which are commonly called angels *." It clearly fhews how fanguine our author is, as to the article of evidence, that he can make fuch an inference from the first of these paffages. It may, indeed, be inferred from it, that in the opinion of Philo, the Word of God might be called an angel, from his being employed as a messenger: And this is believed by all true Christians. But will any man, but one determined to force proof where he cannot find it, thence conclude, that according to Philo, every angel might be called the Word of God? When that ancient writer calls angels logoi, it is evident that he does fo, merely in an occafional way. He indulges himself in a commutation of the names. He calls the Logos an angel, not as if he imagined that he was a creature, for he often afferts the contrary; but because the Logos acted in the relation of an angel or messenger to him who is unbegotten. In like manner, he calls the angels logoi, not as apprehending that they were eternal and uncreated, like the Logos; but, as would feem, from their being occafionally his attendants in his important embaffies, and being fometimes employed in the fame work, though in an inferior character. Accordingly it is evident, that in the paffage quoted, Philo refers to the circumftance of angels being in company with the Logos, when he appeared to Abraham at the door of his tent. "Thence it is faid For he immediately adds: "that Abraham went forth to bring them on their way +." In another place he teaches that God who spake to Abraham, on this occafion, was the Word t. He gives no hint that angels were commonly known by the name of logoi; but

• Vol. ii. p. 16, 17.

De Migratione Abraham. p. 314. D. E.

Leg. Allegor. p. 77

fays,

fays, on the contrary, that those whom he called logoi were commonly called angels; plainly enough intimating, that he was fingular in this ufe of the defignation.

The process of our author's reasoning is very uncommon. Philo occafionally uses the term logos, when it does not fignify a perfon; therefore, he confidered the logos as an occafional perfon only. He occafionally calls the angels logoi; therefore, he viewed them alfo as merely occafional beings, and as "nothing more than this divine "Logos." But it is truly aftonishing that Dr P., in order to support an abfurd hypothefis, fhould urge the vague and fingular use of one term, in direct oppofition to the well known fentiments of the author, as difplayed in a great variety of paffages. Nothing can be more evident, than that Philo confidered angels as permanent beings. Therefore he calls them animals. "The firft divifion of ani

mals," he fays, "is into irrational and rational. But the "rational is again divided into the mortal and immortal "kinds; the mortal that of men, but the immortal that of "difembodied fpirits, which are employed in the air, and "in heaven. These are free of fin, having an immortal " and happy lot from the beginning, as not being connected "with the body, the habitation of mifery." Speaking of the death of Abraham, he fays; "For Abraham having left the state of mortality, is joined to the people of "God, enjoying immortality, being made like unto the "angels.

66

* Η μεν φυσις των ζωων, εις τε αλογον και λογικήν μοιραν εναντίας αλ ληλαις ετμήθη το πρώτον η δε αν λογικη παλιν, εις τε το φθαρτον και αθα να τον είδος φθαρτον μεν το ανθρώπων, αφθαρτον δε το ψυχων ασωμάτων, αι κατά τε αέρα και κρανον περιπόλεσι κακιας δε αμέτοχοι μεν εισιν αν τας, τον ακήρατον και ευδαίμονα κληρον εξ αρχης λάχεσαι, και των συμ φορ η ανήνυτών εκ ενδεθείσαι χωριό σωμάτιο De Confufione Linguar. P. 270, E. F.

I

"angels. For the angels are the army of God, incorpo“ real and blessed fouls *." Does he mean that the foul of Abraham was abforbed in the divine effence?

Our author further objects to the evidence of Philo, that "he was far from imagining that the Logos had any more "relation to the Meffiah, than to any other prophet +." But perhaps Dr P. has not obferved that Philo calls him the Man of God, faying, "How can it be that ye should

66

not hate war and love peace, who acknowledge one and the "fame Father, not mortal but immortal, even the Man of "God; who, because he is the Word of him who is eter"nal, is also neceffarily immortal t." When he afterwards calls him "the first-begotten and most sacred Word," he evidently speaks of him with refpect to his incarnation and character as Meffiah. For he declares that he is “the "man according to the image" of God, and "the Seer "of Ifrael." The whole paffage deferves our attention. "If any one be not worthy to be called the fon of God,

ftrive to be conformed to his firft-begotten Word, the "most ancient Angel, existing as the Archangel of many 66 names. For he is called the Beginning, and the Name "of God, and the Word, and the Man according to the "image, and the Seer of Ifrael. Therefore, I have, a "little above, praised the principles of those who say, We are all the fons of one man. For if we are not yet be"come

Δε

γαρ Αβρααμ εκλιπών τα θνητα, προςτίθεται τω Θεκ λαω, καρπόμενος αφθαρσίαν, ισος αγγέλοις γεγονώς αγίελοι γαρ σρατος εισι Θεύ, ασωματοι και ευδαιμονες ψυχαί. De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, p. 101,

102.

† Vol. ii. p. 17.

Η Επει και πως ουκ εμέλλετε φησαιμ' αν, ω γενναίοι, πολέμω μεν δυσχεραίνειν, εξηνην di αγαπαν, ένα και τον αυτόν επιγεγραμμένοι παν Περα & θνητον, αλλ' αθανατον, ανθρωπον Θεό, ος τε αιδια λογος ων, εξ ɑvayuns xai autos 85 apdagros. De Confuf. p. 255. C.