In fact, the method ofPhilo, both in his philosophical theories and in his interpretations of Scripture, is so far from being, either in substance or in spirit, an anticipa- tion of the Christian revelation, that it may rather be taken as a representative of the opposite spirit of ration- alism, the tendency of which is to remove all distinction between natural and revealed religion, by striving to bring all religious doctrines alike within the compass
of human reason. It is not the recepti (divine truth
as a fact, resting on the authority of an inspired teacher, telling us t/mt these things are so: it is rather an inqui- ry into causes and grounds, framing theories to explain how they are so. The doctrine of the Logos, as it ap- pears in Philo, is a hypothesis assumed in order to ex- plain how it is possible that the God whom his philoso- phy taught him to regard as above all relation to finite existence, could nevertheless, as his religion taught him to believe, be actually manifested in relation to t he world. To explain this difficulty, he has recourse to the suppo- sition of an intermediate being between God and the world: standing, as it were, midway between the ab- stract and impersonal on the one side, and the definite and personal on the other: and described in language which wavers between the two conceptions, without succeeding in combining them. In this respect tin
theory reminds us not only of those forms of gnosticism
which subsequently emanated from the Alexandrian phi-
losophy under the influence of Christianity, as Philo's 'system emanated from the same philosophy under the ' influence of Judaism, but also, to some extent, of later speculations, which, in the endeavor to transfer the Catholic faith from a historical to a metaphysical foun- dation, have regarded the do.tr'me of (be iucarnat ion of the divine Word, not as the literal Btatcmenl of a fact which took place at an appointed time, but as the figu- rative representation of an eternal process in the divine nature, i See Fichte, Amceisung zwm seligen I. 'Inn. II'- /•/.•'. v. 182; Scbelling, Vorlesungen iioer Acad. Stud. p. 192; Hegel. Philosophic </• r Geschichte, Werke, ix, 388; Baur, Christlich Gnosis, p. 715.)
On the Other hand, the Christian revelation, while dis- tinctly proclaiming as a fact the reconciliation of man to God by One who is both God and man. yet announces this gnat truth as a mystery to be received by faith, ' not as a theory to be comprehended by reason. The mystery of the union between God's nature and man's docs not cease to be mysterious because we an that it is real. No intermediate hypothesis is advanced to facilitate the union of the two natures by removing the distinctive attributes of either ; no attempt is made to overcome the philosophical difficulties of the doctrine by deifying the humanity of Christ or humanizing his divinity. 1 lis divine nature is not less divine than that of his Father; bis human nature is not Less human than that of his brethren. The Intellectual difficult) of com- prehending how this can be remains still: but the au- thority of a divine revelation is given to enable us to believe notwithstanding.
lint while we acknowledge the wide and fundamental differences which exist between the doctrines of the Al- exandrian Judaism and those of the ( Christian Scriptures, we must also acknowledge the existence of some strik- ing similarities of language between the writings of Philo and some parts of the X. T. The following in- stances exhibit some of the most remarkable parallels of this kind:
N.T. John i, 1. T.i upxjj >c o Aoyo
Beon, Kai qi - \.--, ■•■ •
AolO? I|V 7Tp(>9
John i, 3. IttiiTa di' ainov hyiveio, Kai xwP<? avrov eyivcro
■ i .
John i, 4. Kai i'i £wi; lit to <pu><; tot avSpwiruv. 9. 171 to
0WS TO uAnJIl'fH' 0 (pltlTlf.Cl 7T<ilTU ul~pa>7TOL'.
John i, IS. Ot6i> ot'oei? tiiuaw TrwiroTe " 6 juoio-ji 1 n\ u
uii e'ti roi KoXiroi tou varpn , .'mo... .' ■ ,,-, ijiruro. (The par- allels sometimes adduced from John iv, 10 and vi, 32, ns compared with De Prof, is, p. 560, and Legis Alleg. ii, 21 ; iii, 50, 59, are very questionable. In both cases the allu- sion seems to arise naturally from the conversation, and not from any reference to Philo.)
1 John i, .'.. ><r; 6 H,,u <)>u,s tart, Kai oKozia iv ainw ova 1 John ii, 1. Kui iav tic ujuupTi;, 7rapaKAi|TOi' txop-t11 Wpur
TOI Trail ua. lljOuilV XpiOTOl oikuioV.
Rom. IV, 17. Ocofj toc KaAouifTOff t« pi] bvra u>r una.
1 Cor. Ell, 1, 2. an vqirioii hi \,>i.tt(~.' ya\a i'uut inoTiaa, Kai oil fiptbtna ; COmp. Ilel). V, 12, 13. '
. 1 Cor. iv, 1. i«c Inrqp^rac Xoio-toc Kai oikovojuout pvo-rnpiuv
1 Cor. X, t. •-,,.. - ip Ik -ri . i'u.itik.".. ,niA,.r;-„i«ni, n4rpat '
l| Ot fl>7|».i >ji 6 \
1 Cor. xiii, 18. (3\iironev yap apri At' itroirrpov it aviyfiart. 2 Cor. Iii, 1 ,,iru,irij) xi/v da o Ki/piou Ka roirrpi^u/Lil . 01.
2 ( '»!]'. iii, I'i. .'-i.t;,.\,j XpttTTOV i»iiii.<i1I|:iC,i <tr j
"tpap.pi 1 ' ui Kavt, a\\a im \,c ,
Ktbii an . < n V' ti irXafi 11 ■
2 Cor. iv, 4. tuv Xihgtov, of torn €.kuiv tuv ucoTi; como. Co!, i, 15.