point, because you have dwelt most upon it; and because, very obviously, when this is admitted or rejected, no possible objection can be felt to admitting or rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. ·

You will not require of me, however, to examine at length every text of the New Testament, which I may suppose to have any connexion with the subject in question. I must be permitted, in order to save time and patience, to select only those texts, the language of which appears to be genuine, and above the condemnation of textual criticism; and such as appear to contain the best and most decisive proof of the point to be discussed. Believing the New Testament to be of divine origin and authority, you will permit me to add, that I cannot think the decision of this or any other question, depends on the number of times, in which the terms of that decision are repeated.

I observe then,

I. The New Testament gives to Christ the appellation of GOD, in such a manner, as that, according to the fair rules of interpretation, only the SUPREME GOD can be meant.

A conspicuous passage in proof of this, I should find in John i. 1-3. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made, that was made." Verse 10,...." and the world was made by him."

All known Manuscripts agree in the text here. Griesbach has indeed recorded, that for there is a conjectural reading, ; and that for a esos mi hoyos, there is a conjectural reading of says. The first of these conjectures was made by Crellius. (Initium Evang. Johan. restauratum per. L. M. Artemonium, P. i. c. 2.) The reason of making such a conjecture, Crellius has given. "The greater Christ is," says he, "compared with other gods, (the Father excepted,) the less can he be expressly called God, lest he should be taken for the supreme God the Father." And again; "if he (Christ) had been expressly called God by the sacred writers, and had not always been distinguished from God, the sacred writers would have given an occasion to unskilful men, to regard him as the supreme God." (Init. Evang. Johan. p. 295.) To liberate John from being taxed with this imprudence, Crellius proposed to substitute for

ios, in John i. 1; so as to say, the Logos was of God, instead of saying, as John has done, that He was God.

The second conjectural reading is supported by no better authority. Bahrdt, (in Neuesten Offenbarungen,) proposed it as a happy expedient, to relieve the text from the difficulty and embarrassment, under which he thought it to labour. For instead of saying, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" he might then translate it thus, "The Word was with God. God was, and this Word was in the beginning with God, &c.

I have a great regard for the labours and learning of Griesbach; but I am constrained to ask here, why he should have condescended to notice conjectures so gratuitous, and unfounded as these.

I proceed to the explanation of the text. Ey aexn corresponds exactly with the Hebrew nwx2, Gen. i. 1. I cannot embrace the opinion of those critics, who think that the phrase "ex of itself simply, signifies from eternity. Although I believe that the Logos did exist from eternity, I do not think it is proved directly by this expression. (Compare Gen. i. 1.) That existence from eternity, is implied, however, may be properly admitted. Ex is equivalent to a xorμ in the beginning of the world, i. e. before the world was made; and so agreeing in this particular with the phrase, John xvii. 5, "the glory that I had with thee before the world was;" and Eph. i. 4, "before the found ation of the world." To say with Crellius, that by is meant the commencement of preaching the gospel, or the beginning of Christian instruction, would be making John gravely tell us, that before the Logos preached the gospel, he had an existence.

Before the world was created then, the Logos existed. Who or what was this Logos? A real existence; or only an attribute of God? A real substance; or only the wisdom, or reason, or power of God?

It is of no importance in settling this question, that we should know with certainty, whence John derived the appellation, Logos. In my mind, the most probable account is, that this appellation is bestowed on Christ, in reference to his becoming the Instructor or Teacher of mankind; the medium of communication between God and them. Be this however as it may; the Logos appears to be a real ex-·

istence, and not merely an attribute. For first; the attri butes of God are no where else personified, by the New Testament writers; i. e. the usage of the New Testament authors is against this mode of writing. Secondly; Logos, 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. 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.

In

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 Pe ter;" 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; under. standing the word God, in any sense which you please. If it mean Supreme God; then it reduces itself to this, either 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 e, which implies an agent, or person; a concrete, as logicians say, and not an abstract? The divine substance or essence is called enery or ve soy, not What could be meant, moreover, by the essence of God becoming incarnate?

If however, it should be said, that to suppose the existence 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 e, 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 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 eyes,) has the article, the predicate (9) omits it. Such is Greek usage; and from it dissent only propo-sitions 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, zasiλoyes in, 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 90s 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. Johni. 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 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 (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