the eighteenth verse. "No one hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." At first sight of this passage, the Trinitarian would say, perhaps, that he had found a strong confirmation of his hypothesis. The Son in the bosom of the Father, is equivalent to the Word being with God. But if he examines it more closely, he will find that it amounts to a contradiction of his theory. The Father, here spoken of, is not the Father which his theory requires. The Father which his theory requires, is the Frst Person of a Trinity. The Father here spoken of, is the whole Deity, without distinction of Persons, and is used as synonymous with God in the former part of the sentence: "No one hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father," that is, in the bosom of God," he hath declared him." To be in the bosom of another, is an Orientalism, signifying not to participate in his nature, but his counsels. It is derived from the mode in the East of sitting at table, or rather of reclining on couches at the table, in such a manner that the head of the person who reclined on the right hand, came near the bosom of him who reclined on the left, and thus they were in most intimate interThus John, at the last supper, reclined on the bosom of Jesus; that is, was next him at table. As an admirable illustration of this whole subject, I refer you to John's account of the last supper. Jesus had said, "that one of his disciples should betray "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of the disciples whom Jesus loved." Not that it was

course.

him."

any thing wonderful for him to recline on his master's breast, for they all did the same at the table to each other, but it merely means to say, that John sat next to Jesus at table, so that he could communicate with him privately if he chose. "Simon Peter beckoned to him," literally nodded to him, "to ask who this might be, of whom he spake. He leaning over the breast of Jesus, said to him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, It is he, to whom I shall give a morsel, when I have dipped it." To be in the bosom of any one, is not to partake of his nature, but of his counsels, to have a most intimate knowledge of his mind and will, not by identity of being or of consciousness, but by freedom of communication. All this is perfectly consistent with the impersonality of the Word, but inconsistent with its personality. The Word, considered as a Person of the Trinity, cannot derive knowledge from God, cannot, in Oriental phrase, be in the bosom of the Father. And here has been a great source of error in the interpretation of the Bible. Coming to it with the Trinitarian hypothesis, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, people have taken it for granted, that Father, when applied to God, means the first Person of a Trinity, instead of the whole Deity, without distinction of Persons. But a little examination would convince them, that there is no such meaning in the Bible.

Such, then, are a few among many objections to considering the term Word, in the beginning of John, to mean a person. To me they are sufficient to make me reject such an hypothesis; but I leave each one to judge for himself. How then is it to be interpreted ?

I shall go on to paraphrase it in the manner of Dr. Doddridge. Justice cannot be done to it in a translation, as by the arrangement of the genders, in Greek, to correspond to the terminations of words instead of the nature of things, Word, in that language, is masculine, though the name of a thing, and has masculine pronouns, adjectives and articles, to agree with it.

I would first premise, that whatever there is peculiar in this introduction to John's Gospel, cannot be vital to salvation, because the Gospel of John was written long after the rest, and they were not collected in one volume for many ages afterwards, so that thousands of men were made Christians, and lived and died such, without knowing one word of the first fourteen verses of John's Gospel.

I would premise, moreover, that in the view that I shall give of this passage, I shall make John the interpreter of his own writings. I shall go to the introduction to his first Epistle, for an explanation of the introduction to his Gospel. The same thing which he there speaks of in the masculine gender, he introduces, in his Epistle, in the neuter, and in the feminine. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, and which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life; for the Life was manifested, and we have seen it," literally her, "and bear witness and show unto you that eternal life, which,” literally she," was with the Father and was manifested to us." Now it is evident from this, that what is called the "Word" in the Gospel, is called in the

was,

Epistle the Word of life." Then it is called "the Life," which in Greek is feminine. But still she was with God, under the same phraseology that the Word and was manifested to men. Now it seems impossible, to my mind, to believe that John meant to say, that "eternal Life" was a person with God, and in God; yet it is just as strongly asserted, as that the Word was. The "word of life," and "eternal life," which was with the Father, and was manifested to the disciples, we have no difficulty in interpreting to mean the doctrines and commission of Christ, which he received from God, and which were the means of conferring eternal life on those who received them. Why then should we have any hesitation in taking the term Word in the same signification, which dwelt in Christ, or, to use a more familiar phrase, became incarnate in him? I take then the whole passage to mean this. The word which God spake by Christ, the revelation which he made of himself, through him, is nothing new, but is a part of a series of revelations running back to the very beginning of all things. The same Almighty Power, and Perfect Wisdom, which were displayed in the miracles and doctrines of Christ, were first manifested in the works of the physical creation : "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." The next manifestation was in the creation of the soul of man, to which he imparted, in a fainter degree than that in which they exist in himself, some of his own attributes: "The inspiration of the Almighty hath given him understanding." "In him, or rather it, was life, and that

life was the light of men. But the light shone in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." The revelation which God made of himself in the material world, and in the soul of man, was not understood, and the world fell into idolatry. The next revelation that God made of himself, was to the Jewish nation, by which he took a particular people and made them his own, brought them into an especial relation to himself. After a long interval, he visited his own people by another revelation, but they did not recognize him in it. He sent John the Baptist, to announce the coming of his last and greatest revelation to man; and at length in Christ himself, that Light, which had ever been shining, burst out with greater brilliancy; that Life, which had ever been the source of intellectual energy to men, received a more perfect development; that Word, which had been sounding in the ears of mortals since the beginning of time, from the works of God, from the heavens above and from the earth beneath, received a more full and articulate annunciation.

Such I believe to be the meaning of the introduction to John's Gospel. I think it satisfies the language, at the same time that it is more consistent and probable in itself. It is more simple, and agrees better with the acknowledged facts of the case. If you interpret the Word to mean a person, then you involve yourself in the most inextricable difficulties and perplexities. If you identify him with the Son, the second Person of a Trinity, and make him, according to the common phraseology, the Divine nature of Christ, you find it to correspond neither with the one nor the other.