-

411

command me to do wrong. How shall I regard this command ? I will regard it as I do any other command to do wrong, I will not obey it. I will look the magistracy calmly and respectfully in the face, and declare to it that in this matter I owe it no allegiance. I will have nothing to do with its wrong-doing. I will separate myself, as far as possible, from the act and its consequences, whether they be prosperous or adverse. It is wickedness; it has the curse of God inwrought into it, and I will have nothing to do with it. From the beginning to the end, I will eschew it, and the rewards that it offers. The magistracy may punish me; I cannot help that. I will not resist, but I will not do wrong, nor will I be a party to wrong, let the magistracy or aught else command me.

"In saying this, I hope that I arrogate to myself nothing in the least peculiar. I am only in the plainest and simplest manner stating the rights and obligations of an intelligent moral being, accountable to God for his actions, and bound to reverence his Creator above all else in the universe. Created under such a responsibility, can I transfer the allegiance which I owe to God to legislative assemblies, to political caucuses, to mass meetings, to packed or unpacked conventions representing or pretending to represent the assumed omnipotence of public opinion? My whole moral nature with loathing forbids it. I could not do it without feeling that I had become a despicable slave. I could not do it without knowing that I had exchanged the glorious and incorruptible God for an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things, and worshipped the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. My fellow-citizens must not ask this of me; I will surrender, for my country, my possessions, my labor, my life, but I will not sacrifice my integrity; and that is unworthy of being the country of a good man, which shall ask it."- pp. 267, 268.

Dr. Wayland maintains, that the waging of an offensive war clearly transcends the legitimate ends for which government was established, and that, consequently, no government has a moral right to engage in such a war, and that every citizen is a partaker in the wrong-doing of the government under which he lives, unless he not only abstains from all actual participation in it, but uses all the means in his hands to prevent it. These means are, a free expression of his opinion, voting for public officers who are opposed to the wrongdoing, and refraining, so far as his social condition renders it possible, from coöperation in the evil. The Christian will refuse to arm privateers to plunder his fellow-men of another nation, though his own government may have declared them

to be his enemies; or to lend his capital, however advantageous the terms offered, to aid in the prosecution of an unjust war; or to enter into contracts, however profitable, by which he may share in the gains of iniquity. We conclude our remarks with Dr. Wayland's estimate of the value of a strongly expressed moral sentiment, under a government like ours.

"And here I may add, that, in a free government like our own, this manly avowal of our adherence to right and our opposition to evil would commonly render a resort to other measures comparatively needless. The good men among us — and under this term I mean to include all men of virtuous sentiments, whether they profess themselves the disciples of Christ or nothave it perfectly in their power, by the calm and decided expression of their moral convictions, to direct the destinies of this nation. There never has existed, and there never can exist, either an administration or a political party that would dare to trifle with the uttered sentiments of the men of principle in the United States. Were such an act done but once, there would be small temptation to repeat the insult. If you ask me why it is, then, that public wrongs are so frequently done, and the doers of them held scathless, I answer, it is because those sentiments are not uttered. There exists among us a fear of avowing our moral sentiments upon political questions, which seems to me as servile as it is unaccountable. It envelops society like a poisoned atmosphere. It is invisible and intangible; but every virtuous sentiment that breathes it grows torpid, loses consciousness, gasps feebly, and dies. To this result every man contributes, who withholds the expression of his honest indignation on every occasion of public wrong-doing."— pp. 287, 288.

C. P.

ART. IV. — LÜCKE'S DISSERTATION ON THE LOGOS.

(Concluded from the last Number.)

IV. With Philo closes the Alexandrian development of the Jewish doctrine relating to the wisdom and the word of God, as far as it belongs to the historical premises, or argumental data, for determining the meaning of John's prologue. But Philo represents not only the Alexandrian, but, in general, the Hellenistic Jewish gnosis of his time. Alex

1849.]

Alexandrian Influence.

413

andria was the literary emporium of Hellenistic Judaism. Striking examples of the spread of the Alexandrian Jewish gnosis among the Hellenists of this age are afforded in Apollos and Cerinthus. Both appeared in Ephesus; the first, as Luke Acts xviii. 24) clearly intimates, coming from Alexandria, and spreading the Alexandrian wisdom in Ephesus among the Jews. Of the second, it is related by a later writer, but with great probability, that, before he came to Ephesus, he had been in Egypt, and had there received his philosophical culture.

Hence it would seem as if we could immediately proceed to an exact comparison of the Logos doctrine of the Apostle of Ephesus with that of Philo. But it cannot be proved that John drew immediately and originally from the Alexandrian gnosis. This prologue, as has appeared in our Introduction,† presupposes the rise and development of a Christian doctrine of the Logos before John.

Already the Apostle Paul had thought and taught concerning Christ in the Jewish-gnostic manner. His doctrine concerning the first and second Adam belongs to the Jewish gnosis. But Paul received his Jewish-gnostic culture in the schools of Palestine. There can be no doubt, therefore, that there was a Jewish gnosis in Palestine, which had found admission into Christianity before John wrote.

Notwithstanding all the endeavours to exclude every thing foreign, after the times of Nehemiah and the Maccabees, Palestinian Judaism could not divest itself of the various impressions of Chaldaism brought with it from the exile, nor, in spite of its indestructible nationality, could it, in the dispersion, escape the influence of Alexandrianism, or, in general, of Hellenism.

Both of the Chaldee paraphrases-that of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, and the somewhat later one of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets - belong to the age of the Apostles. In both is manifested, in the same way as in the Alexandrian translation, a gnostic tendency to conceive of all the Divine agency, and all the presence in the world of the God who is in himself hidden, as taking place through the medium of Divine powers. How much the whole of Judaism, even that which was heretical, partook of this gnostic tendency, is evident from the gnostic elements in the Samaritan theol

*Theodoret, Hær. Fab. 2, 3.

+ § 13.

ogy,* and from the reception which, according to Acts viii. 9, 10, Simon the sorcerer met with in Samaria.

These phenomena are to be explained by the progressive influence of Chaldaism. But there are not wanting indications and evidence of the introduction and diffusion of the Alexandrian Jewish gnosis among the Jews of Palestine. The connection of the Essenes of Palestine with the Egyptian Therapeutæ is undeniable. Herein, then, is to be seen a distinct influence of the Alexandrian gnosis upon Palestinian Judaism. It is also worthy of remark, that, from the middle of the second century before Christ, complaints are made of the influence of Grecian wisdom in Palestine. The Rabbins mention Gamaliel, the teacher of the Apostle Paul, as the chief promoter of the Grecian wisdom in the schools of Palestine. It appears from Acts vi. 9, that there was in Jerusalem a synagogue of the Alexandrian and Cyrenian Jews. The influence of these foreigners was inevitable. Josephus himself could not escape the Alexandrian influence.

In proportion, now, as the gnostic mode of thinking was diffused through the whole of Judaism in and out of Palestine, it was impossible that Christianity should escape its influence among educated Jews. It is true, that, in the origin of the Gospel, in Christ himself, we find no trace of it. Christ and his doctrine rest, it is true, upon the preparation of the whole ancient world for Christian salvation; to this preparation belongs also the gnostic tendency of Judaism. But Christianity and the Jewish gnosis are in their nature too different to admit of the possible derivation of the former from the latter. Christianity, as it is the complete satisfaction of the religious craving which is deeply hidden in the gnosis, is also the destruction of the gnosis by virtue of a principle which it opposes to it. But as soon as the systematic development of Christianity among the Jews commenced, the influence of the Jewish gnosis was inevitable. The Apostle Paul very soon apprehended the distinctive features of Christianity through the principle of Christian life. But it is evident that his system arose under the influence of the Palestinian gnosis.

If now we compare, with special reference to the prologue of John, the Alexandrian, especially the Philonian, doctrine of the Word of God with that of Palestine, we

* See Gesenius, Comment. de Samaritanorum Theologia, etc., pp. 12, et seq.

1849.]

Palestinian Theology.

415

have no documents immediately relating to it, except the two Chaldee paraphrases above mentioned. In these we find, however, that, wherever the revelation or manifestation and the presence of God in the world are in the Old Testament represented as more or less visible, either in figurative or plain language, there the writers, for the name or person of God, substitute "the angel of the Lord," or "the glory of the Lord" (p), or "the Shechinah" (2), or, finally, "the word of the Lord" (sp?). This occurs often in so awkward and remarkable a manner, that it must have its foundation in some dogmatical necessity. Especially is the "Memra" so strongly personified, that the Paraphrasts undoubtedly understood by it, as by the Shechinah, a Divine hypostasis, or emanation, after the manner of the Logos of Philo.

*

The more distinct formation and prevalence of the hypostasis doctrine in the Jewish Cabbala is well known. But it is not merely the fault of our historical sources, that in the Palestinian gnosis of the time of Christ we do not find the doctrine concerning "the word of God" developed in so distinct and clear a manner as in the Alexandrian. In general, the tendency to systematize in the Palestinian gnosis seems to have been of later origin, and to have been developed under the reacting influence of Christianity. Thus we cannot distinctly prove, whether or how far the Palestinian theology at the time of Jesus had applied the doctrine of the hypostatized word of God to the idea of the Messiah. We perceive among the Jews in the time of Jesus two views of the Messiah: the one more popular, the political-theocratical; the other more learned, the ideal view. Certainly, the Apostle Paul, as a Jew, held the latter view. But, if we may judge from Paul, the Palestinian guosis seems to have conceived of the ante-historical in the being of the Messiah more in the form of the Son of God, or the second heavenly Adam, than in that of Philo's idea of the Divine word. Paul certainly, like the rest of the Apostles, came first through faith in the historical Christ to the full Christian idea of the eternal Son of God, of which the Jewish schools of the time afforded only preparatory and fragmentary elements. But the proper metaphysical theorem concerning the person

* It is extremely doubtful whether "the word of Jehovah is hypostatized by the Chaldee Paraphrasts. See Chr. Exam. for May, 1836, p. 233. — TR. See Bertholdt, Christol. Jud. § 9.