if considered as an abstract term, or as merely designating an attribute, must mean either wisdom or word; and in what intelligible sense can the wisdom or the word of God, in the abstract sense, be said to have "become flesh and dwelt among us," v. 14.; or why should John select either the wisdom or word of God, as any more concerned with the incarnation, than the benevolence of God, or the mercy of God, which one might suppose would be the attributes more especially displayed in the incarnation? Thirdly; if Logos mean here the power of God, as many assert, the exposi tion is attended with the same difficulties. Fourthly, if it mean, as others aver, the power of God putting itself forth, i. e. in creation, it is liable to the same objections. In short, make it any attribute of God thus personified, and you introduce a mode of writing that the New Testament no where else displays; and which even the Old Testament exhibits but once, Prov. viii, in a poetic composition of the most animated and exalted nature.

Yet this is not the chief difficulty. To what class of men could John address the asseveration, that the Logos (wisdom, word, or power of God,)" was with God?”

Where did these singular heretics suppose the power of God was, except with him? Or where, his wisdom or his word? A peculiar pertinacity too in their strange opinion, they must have had, to have rendered it necessary for the Apostle to repeat with emphasis,in the second verse, that this Logos was with God. What would be said of a man, who should gravely assert, that "the power of Peter is with Peter; or that his wisdom, or his word is so?" And suppose he should add," the power or wisdom of Peter is Peter;" with what class of mystics should we rank him? Yet John adds; The Logos was God. Until then, some heretics of the apostolic age can be discovered, who maintained that the attributes of God were not with him; I cannot explain how the apostle could assert twice successively, and of course emphatically, that his attributes were with him.

Equally difficult is it for me to divine, how he could say that any attribute, (power, or wisdom,) was God; understanding the word God, in any sense which you please. If it mean Supreme God; then it reduces itself to this, eith

er that one attribute is the supreme God; or that there are as many Gods as attributes. If it mean an inferior God; then the wisdom of God being an inferior God, implies that his other attributes are superior Gods; or else that his wisdom holds the place of quasi god, while his other attributes occupy a lower place. Suppose then it should be said, that Logos or wisdom denotes the essence of God; then how could it be called Oros, which implies an agent, or person; a concrete, as logicians say, and not an abstract? The divine substance or essence is called Oorns, or To Θειον, not ὁ Θεός. What could be meant, moreover, by the essence of God becoming incarnate?

If however, it should be said, that to suppose the exist ence of a sect of heretics, who held that the attributes of God were not with him, is unnecessary in order to justify the apostle for having written the first verse of his gospel; and that we may regard this verse, as written simply for general instruction: then I would ask, whether it is probable, that a revelation from heaven is made to inform us that the attributes of a being are with that being; or what can be thought of the assertion; that the wisdom or power of God, is God himself?

Let us proceed, now, to the second clause, " and the Logos was with God;" i. e. as all agree, with God the Father. Compare verses 14 and 18; also chap. xvii. 5, and 1 John, i. 1, 2; which make the point clear. Is this expression capable of any tolerable interpretation, without supposing that the Logos, who was with God, was in some respect or other different, or diverse from that God, with whom he was? This Logos was the same that became incarnate, ver. 14; that made the most perfect revelation of the will and character of God to men, ver. 18; and was called Christ. He was therefore, in some respect, diverse from the Father, and therefore by no means to be confounded with him.

"And the Logos was God." It has been proposed, (in Impr. Vers. of N. Test.,) to render the word Osos, a god. Does then the Christian Revelation admit of Gods superior and inferior? And if so, to what class of inferior gods does the Logos belong? And how much would such a theory of

divine natures, differ from that which admits a Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and gods greater and less?

But it is said, that "s is destitute of the article, and therefore cannot designate the divine Being, who is Supreme." This observation, however, is far from being justifiable, either by the usage of the sacred writers, or the principles of Greek syntax. Among instances where the Supreme God is certainly designated, and yet the article is omitted, the inquirer may consult the very chapter in question, ver. 6, 13, 18; also, Matt. xix. 26. Luke xvi. 13. John ix. 33. xvi. 30. Rom. viii. 8. 1 Cor. i. 3. Gal. i. 1. Ephes. ii. 8. Heb. ix. 14. Besides; every reader of Greek knows, that where the subject of a proposition, (which in this case is ioyos,) has the article, the predicate Osos) omits it. Such is Greek usage; and from it dissent only propositions of a reciprocating or convertible nature; as in ver. 4, of the chapter in question. It may be added too, that if the writer had said, xa o λoyos nv å Õeos, it would have conveyed a very different sense from the proposition as it now stands. He would then have said, the Logos is the God with whom he is; whereas I understand Osos here to mean divine nature, simply but not abstractly considered, for which it so often stands in other places. Vide Mark viii. 33. x. 27. xii. 24. Luke iii. 8. xi. 20. xviii. 4, 19.— John i. 13. iii. 2. iv. 24. x. 33. Acts v. 29. vii. 55. x. 33.

xi. 18. &c. &c.

I readily acknowledge, that affirmative evidence of the somewhat diverse meaning of Os here, cannot be drawn from the word itself; but must be deduced from the circumstances of the affirmation, united with the supposition that John did assert, and did mean to assert, something that is intelligible. There is indeed no very serious difficulty, in taking Oos (God) in the same sense in both clauses, provided we understand it to denote the Divinity. To interpret the verse thus, would represent John as saying, that while Christ was God or truly divine, there was at the same time, a sense in which he was with God. In order that this should have any possible meaning, a distinction in the Godhead must be admitted; viz. that the Father is not in all respects the same as the Son.

For myself, I do not hesitate to understand the word God, in a sense somewhat diverse, in the two clauses of the verse under consideration. Every word takes a sense

adapted to its connexion. Such is the rule which must be adopted, after we have once conceded that a writer uses words with propriety, and designs to be understood. So, when our Saviour says, "Let the dead bury their dead;" the connexion requires us to explain it thus; Let those who are morally or spiritually dead, bury those who are corporeally so.' It were easy to accumulate examples, where the very same word, in the very same verse, has two different shades of sense. The exigency of the passage, (exigentia loci,) is the rule of interpretation which guides us here. And guided by this exigency, what difficulty is there in supposing that God as Father, is meant, in the first instance; and the Divinity, without reference to the peculiar distinction of Father, in the second ?

I understand John then as affirming, that the Logos was God, and yet was with God; viz. that he was truly divine, but still divine in such a manner, that there did exist a distinction between him and the Father. I take the word God, in one case, to mean, as in a great number of cases it does mean, God as Father; in the other case, I regard it as a description of divine being, of the Divinity, without reference to the distinction of Father; a use which is very

common.

Least of all, have those a right to object to this, who here make the meaning of God, in the second instance, to be infinitely different from its meaning in the first instance; understanding by the first, the self-existent, independent, and infinite God; by the second, a created, or derived and finite being.

If you ask now, What could be the object of John in asserting that the Logos was with God? I answer; that the phrase, to be with one, (eval gos Tiva,) indicates conjunction, communion, familiarity, society. See Mark ix. 19. Compare too John i. 18, where the only begotten Son is said to be "in the bosom, (EIS TOY XOλTOY,) of the Father," which is a phrase of similar import.

To illustrate the meaning of the phrase to be with God, it is useful also to compare those cases, where Christians

See

are promised, as the summit of their felicity, that they shall be with God and Christ, and be where they are. among other passages, John xiv. 2, 3. xii. 26. xvii. 24. Thess. iv. 17. Compare Rom. viii. 17. 2 Tim. ii. 11, Colos. iii. 1-4.

12.

In John xvii. 5, Christ speaks of that "glory, which he had with the Father, before the world was." From all these passages taken together, it would seem that the phrase, the Logos was with God, amounts to asserting that he was conjunctissimus Deo, most intimately connected with him. If you ask me, how? I answer freely that I cannot tell. The Evangelist has asserted the fact, but has not added one word to explain the modus. If I could explain it, then perhaps I might define the distinction, which I be lieve to exist in the Godhead.

But why should John assert such a connexion? In opposition, I answer, to those in early times, who asserted that Christ was a being not only distinct from God, but an emanation from him? The asseveration, that the Logos was with God was from the beginning most intimately connected with him, and was divine, would, of course, contradict such an opinion.

But does the Evangelist here, mean to assert of the Lo gos, that he is God in the true and supreme sense, or not? This is the fundamental question between us. Analogy, drawn from the New Testament usage of the word 90s, (which no where else employs this word simply and singly, except to designate the Supreme God,) must be admit ted strongly to favour the idea, that Christ is here asserted to be truly divine. I readily allow that in the Old Testament, the word God has various applications; that it is applied, (though only in the plural number,) to magistrates; that it is used to designate those, who, for a time, stand as it were in the place of God, as Moses was to be for a god to Pharaoh, Exod. vii. 1, and instead of God to Aaron, Exod. iv. 16. But it is not possible, in any instances of this nature, to mistake the meaning. The adjuncts, or context, always guard effectually against mistake. Men, or inferior beings, are never called God, or Gods simply.We read of a "god to Pharaoh ;" we read also, "I have said ye are gods, but ye shall die like men." The Scrip