Even the Latins having borrowed the idea from the Greeks, steered clear of the equivocation of the ridiculous word; and the immortal Maro, when describing the quickening influence of this ethereal logos through all the branches of nature, interprets it as above, literally, by the spiritual flame!
“Principio cœlum ac terras, camposque liquentes,
Lucentemque globum Lunæ, Titaniaque Astra,
Spiritus intus alit; totamque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet.
Inde hominum pecudumque genus, vitæque volantum,
Et quæ marmoreo fert monstra sub æquore pontus.”[564]
Am I, therefore, presumptuous in appealing to the community to reject this word as applied to the logos? A meaning, it is true, has been trumped up for this, as the communicating vehicle between God and His creatures! No doubt the Saviour is all that: but logos does not express it; and the duration of an abuse is no reason why it should be perpetuated after its exposure.
I have said that it degraded the dignity of the Godhead to render this expression by the form of word. I do not retract the charge: on the contrary, I add that, independently altogether of the former arguments, adduced to establish its inaccuracy, it would be revolting to common sense, were it not even thus incorrect!
For example—“In Him was life,” says the text, “and the life was the light of men.”
Now, how could there be life in a word? except by the most unnatural straining of metaphor. Or, admitting that there was life, how could there be light, except by the same? Whereas, by substituting the proper term, then all is regular and easy; for what could be more natural, than that there should be life in spirit? and that this life should give light to men?
You will observe accordingly, that Jesus Himself, when describing His own character, exactly states what I here rectify, saying, “I am the light of the world”—not the word of the world—or any such nonsense. And He continues the idea by noting further, that “he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”[565] Thus keeping up an uninterrupted reference to logos, or the spiritual flame!
I do, therefore, humbly, but strenuously, implore of the legislature that they restore this epithet to its divine interpretation! I entreat of the heads, as well of Church as of State, that they cancel the error; for error I unhesitatingly pronounce it to be,—a derogation from the Godhead, and a perversion of the attributes of the Messiah!
I will myself show the way—thus: “In the beginning was the spiritual flame: and the spiritual flame was with God, and the spiritual flame was God.”[566]
How beautiful! may I hope that it will never more be extinguished!