.

designates Jesus by this name, with the additional words "of life," once in his Epistle, 1 John i. 1, "The word of life," and with the additional words "of God," once in Rev. xix. 13, "His name is called The Word of God;" whereby he manifests that Jesus, as the deliverer of the word of God, is called by that name, and not actually identified with the word, as otherwise might have been supposed from his Gospel, i. 1. John i. 1, is not the only instance in which an attribute of the Deity is thus represented as one with God; for the very same writer identifies love with the Deity, in John iv. 8, 16, on the ground that love is of God, and is manifested in the world by him, 1 John iv. 7.

Secondly, I have to notice the orthodox exposition of the verse in question: they interpret the word "beginning," as signifying all eternity, and by the term "word," they understand Jesus the Son of God; that is, from all eternity the Son of God existed with God, distinct in person, and he was also God. The interpretation is, I presume, equally unscriptural as it is revolting to the understanding, and for several reasons: First, as long as a passage can be consistently taken and understood in its literal sense, there can be no apology for taking it in a figurative one. Here we find no authority for identifying Jesus with the "word," or designating him by that term in any of the preceding gospels; he is only figuratively so called in Revelation, by the name of "the word of God." Under these circum

stances, to understand Jesus literally and so abruptly, by the term "word," in John i. 1, (against the established doctrine of the Jews and the rest of the oriental nations,) and to assume this word as existent in the beginning, and as instrumental in the hands of God, in moral and physical creations, is entirely inadmissible. 2ndly, The Evangelist John, in his Gospel, uses the word "beginning" in a finite sense, and generally implying the beginning of the Christian dispensation, John xvi. 4, xv. 27, viii. 25, 44, vi. 64, ii. 11, and not once for "all eternity." Hence, to understand the word "beginning" in an infinite sense, is opposed to the sense adopted throughout the whole of his Gospel. 3rdly, In the first verse of Genesis, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," we find, in a similar connexion, the same phrase," in the beginning." Were we to follow the orthodox interpretation, and take it in an infinite sense, (i. e. from eternity God created the earth and heavens,) we should be compelled to profess the eternity of the world and become materialists. 4thly, To acknowledge the Son to be the true God, and to have lived with the true God from eternity, destroys at once the idea of the unity of God, and proves, beyond every question, the plurality of the Deity. For, if we see one real man living with another real man, though both of them are one in nature and design, are we not compelled, by the ordinary course of nature, to apprehend the duality of man, and to say that there are two men? Can

orthodox ingenuity prove, that there are not two, but one man, or prevent the comprehension of the duality of man? If not, I wish to know whether, after admitting that the real God, the Son, exists with the real God, the Father, from eternity, the Editor can consistently deny the existence of two real Gods? 5thly, The exposition of the Editormust render John i. 1, directly contradictory of Deut. xxxii. 39, "I am he, and there is no God with me." Here Jehovah himself expressly denies having another real God with him in the universe, for he is often said to have had fictitious gods with him, and, therefore, Jehovah's denial, in this verse, must be referred and confined to real gods. Psalm lxxxii. 1: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods." He then addressed himself to those nominal gods of Israel, among whom he stood, "I said, ye are gods," (in verse 6). But we firmly believe that John, an inspired writer, could not utter any thing that might contradict the express declaration of Jehovah, though the Editor and others, from a mistaken notion, ascribe this contradiction to the Evangelist. 6thly, They thus render the last sentence of the verse, "the word was God," without the indefinite article "a" before "God," while they translate Exod. vii. 1, "I have made thee (Moses) a god to Pharoah," though, in the original Hebrew, there stands only the word " or " God," without the indefinite article "a" before it. If regard for the divine unity

אלהים

induced them to add the article "a" in the verse of Exodus, "a god to Pharoah," why did not the same regard, as well as a desire of consistency, suggest to them to add the article "a" in John i. 1," the word was a god"? We may, however, casily account for this inconsistency. The term " God,” in Exodus, is applied to Moses, the notion of whose deity they abhor; but as they meant to refer the same term, in John i. 1, to Jesus, (whose deity they are induced by their education to support,) they leave the word "God" here, without the article "a," and carefully

Lastly, If eternity be un

write it with a capital G. derstood by the phrase "In the beginning," in John i. 1, and Jesus Christ be literally understood by the "WORD," then we shall not only be compelled to receive Christ as an eternal being, but also his apostles; since Luke (ch. i. 2) speaks of himself and his fellow-disciples, as "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning."

Thirdly, I shall now quote the interpretation of this passage, by searchers after truth, who have been enabled to overcome their early-acquired prejudices. See Improved Version, for which the Christian world is indebted to its eminently-learned authors.

"The Word.] Jesus is so called because God revealed himself or his word by him.' Newcome. The same title is given to Christ, Luke i. 2. For the same reason he is called the Word of life, 1 John i. 1, which passage is so clear and useful a comment upon the proem to the gospel, that it may be proper

to cite the whole of it. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life; for the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you, that eternal Life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us, that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you.' By a similar metonymy Christ is called the Life, the Light, the Way, the Truth, and the Resurrection. See Cappe's Dissert. Vol. I. p. 19."

"In the beginning.] Or, from the first, i. e. from the commencement of the gospel dispensation, or of the ministry of Christ. This is the usual sense of the word in the writings of this Evangelist. John vi. 64, Jesus knew from the beginning, or from the first; ch. xv. 27, Ye have been with me from the beginning. See ch. xvi. 14, ii. 24, iii. 11; also 1 John i. 1, ii. 7, 8; 2 John 6, 7. Nor is this sense. of the word uncommon in other passages of the New Testament. 2 Thess. ii. 13; Phil. iv. 15; Luke i. 2."

"The Word was with God.] He withdrew from the world to commune with God, and to receive divine instructions and qualifications, previously to his public ministry. As Moses was with God in the mount, Exod. xxxiv. 28, so was Christ in the wilderness, or elsewhere, to be instructed and disciplined for his high and important office. See Cappe, ibid. p. 22."