THE INTR

Translation in the common English Bible.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, I and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning the with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him as t was not any thing made that was made. 4. In him was life; Fatl and the life was the light of men. 5. And the light shineth in any darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6. There was was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7. The dark same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all God" men through him might believe. 8. He was not that Light, testi but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9. That was the belie true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the Lig world. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made by com him, and the world knew him not. 11. He came unto his own, the and his own received him not. 12. But as many as received not. him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to not. them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of the blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of werd God. 14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, man (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of bein the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15. John bare witness of we him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that 15. cometh after me is preferred before me; for he was before me. spak 16. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for befor grace. 17. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and ness truth came by Jesus Christ. 18. No man hath seen God at any give time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Fa- man ther, he hath declared him.

mysi

* Psalm xxxiii. 6. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and a commanded and it stood fast.

+2 Cor. iv. 6. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darknes this emendation, (in which he is followed by Mr Be'sham,) supplying the wor The land of the Jews, a people to whom, at successive periods, the light § There is reason for believing that by the term 'only begotten,' μovoyévns, v the beloved Son of God, while John never calls him the beloved but the only be Inquiry, p. 259.

the fathers the title of Theologos, or Divine, from his supposed zeal for the pre-existence and divinity of Christ.* This appellation, applied to John, will be observed by the readers of the common English Bible, on opening the book of Revelation, which will be found to be entitled, 'The Revelation of St John the Divine.'

It is the Introduction to St John's Gospel that has been made the principal ground of the opinion, that the Apostle wrote to prove the deity of Christ. We may, therefore, properly confine our observations to this point: In the beginning was the Word,' &c.

And in objection to the view of the Trinitarian fathers, I would put a simple question; why did not John, if he meant to declare plainly the deity of Jesus Christ, introduce his gospel with saying, ' In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was God as well as the Father,' instead of speaking of the word,' which, to say the least of it, might be supposed to signify only the voice of God, even the word of his power? Why did he not, had he been anxious to supply the deficiency of evidence for the deity of Christ in the other evangelical histories, state distinctly that his master had pre-existed as God the Son in eternal communion with the Father and the Spirit? This would have placed the doctrine of Christ's deity beyond the reach of controversy. But this John has certainly not done; nor can his language be fairly construed into anything that approaches this meaning.

But the true design of St John's Introduction can be shown. I think that the Apostle had two ends in view in it. First, to ascribe very high dignity to Jesus Christ, as the person in whom the word of God's wisdom and power dwelt, even that word which from eternity belonged to God, and was God himself; by which all things were created; and in which light and life were contained. And, secondly, to confute the errors of a certain philosophy prevalent at the time that he wrote, viz., that besides God, there were other divine beings, such as the Creator of the Universe,' the 'Word,' the Eon Light,' and the Eon' Life,' &c. † In reply to this, but in an indirect manner, John has declared, that the Word, and the Creator, and God himself, are the same, because it was through means of the 'word' that all things were created, and this word' belonged to God, and was God himself. It is added that light was in the 'word,' and that this light was the life of men, in opposition to the notion of divine Eons, who were called Light,' Life,' &c.

Both of these objects must be taken into view, in order to explain satisfatorily St John's Introduction.

*Priestley's Early Opinions, vol. iii. pp. 123, 124. Cave's Lives of the Apostles, p. 127. Lond. 1694.

Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament, Marsh's trans. vol. iii. part i. ch. 7. sect. 5.

If we look only to the last object, viz., that John wished to confute a certain pernicious philosophy, prevalent in his time, without having also another intention, we detract from his character as an evangelist. For an evangelist should not be thought to have written any part of his history of Christ for the benefit of his own time only, but also for succeeding generations, though he might confute temporary errors by oral admonition or by epistle. On this account Dr Lardner cannot be persuaded that John wrote in any way in his Gospel against errors of his time.* But this is going too far on the other side; for John might thus write in an indirect manner, having another more direct object in view, viz., the declaration of the dignity of Christ as the bearer of the word of God; and this is what I believe him to have done.

On the other hand, if we reflect only on the first object, viz., that John wished to ascribe dignity to Christ, as the bearer of the word of God, (without taking his other intention into view,) it may be asked, why the Apostle uses such a string of terms as the word,' 'light,'' the life," darkness,' &c, and why he uses them without explanation, bringing them in abruptly? To account for this I must suppose that John intended (indirectly) the confutation of certain errors where, as we shall show, this phraseology was employed.

These remarks prepare the way for a more full consideration of St John's Introduction under the two aspects now mentioned. I need only further premise, that the terms 'he,' and 'him,' used in connexion with the 'word,' in the common English Bible, must be changed into it,' in order to suit my interpretation. But this is lawful; for those Greek terms, which, in the common Bible, are here translated 'he,' and 'him,' may with equal propriety be rendered 'it;' nor is there any reason why the latter translation should not be preferred, if it be necessary to the sense.†

I. Viewing John, then, in the first place, as having intended to begin his history of Christ with an account of his dignity, as the bearer of the word of God, the following observations are warranted.

1. The expressions in the two first verses, the word was with God,' or belonged to him, and the word was God' himself, though at first they seem strange according to this view, (but they are much more strange according to the Trinitarian view,) will appear sufficiently natural on a little examination. An American writer has given a parallel case, which, so far as I can remember, is as follows: In the beginning of the war of Independence, there was a hope to America, and that hope was with Washington, and that hope was Washington.' Here the same person is said

*Lardner's Works, vol. iii. pp. 239, 240.

Principal Campbell has employed the pronoun 'it' in his translation of verses 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th; and this liberty he has ably defended. See his work on the four Gospels, vol. ii. p. 407; vol. iii. p. 282.

to have had the hope of American freedom lodged with him, and to have been himself that very hope; a method of expression, which does not differ in the least from that in John's Introduction. And the Apostle has used similar language in other parts of his writings: "Love is of God," and "God is love." 1 John iv. 7, 8; as he (God) is in the light,” and “God is light.” 1 John i. 7, and i. 5.

66

2. Various texts of the Old Testament may be brought to illustrate St John's statements concerning the word, supposing him to have meant simply the word of God's wisdom and power. Is it said by John that this word was in the beginning (or from eternity) with God? We find in Psalm cxix. 89. "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven," that is, the word of God's omnipotence which endures from eternity to eternity. Is it declared that all things were made through means of the word? We find in Psalms xxxiii. 6. " By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth;' cxlviii. 5. "For he commanded, and they were created;" xxxiii. 9. “For he spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood fast." Is it said that the word contained light, and that this light came unto its own land? It is the land of the Jews which is referred to, a land which had been favoured in a most peculiar manner with the presence of God's word, and with the light thereof; " The word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah," "the word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel," "the word of the Lord that came unto Hosea," ""the word of the Lord that came unto Joel," &c. &c.; and we read in Psalm cxlvii. 16. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel."

3. By regarding the evangelist as having meant by the word' not a being or person existing from eternity, and then uniting with Jesus Christ, but simply the word of God's wisdom and power, which enabled Jesus Christ, being a man, to speak and act like one having divine authority, we reconcile St John's testimony with that of the other three evangelists. These describe Jesus merely as a man, who ate and drank, who was hungered and fatigued, who suffered, died, and was buried, and who derived all his knowledge and power from God. Now why should John be thought to have revealed more than this? to have taught that Christ was the second person of a three-one God? an eternally existing divinity? Why should the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, be stigmatized as grossly imperfect by the hypothesis, that it was left to John to exhibit a most important discovery concerning Christ, which they had almost or altogether forgotten to mention ?

4. The view which I have given of the word' of God agrees with what John has himself declared concerning the object of his Gospel. John xx. 30, 31. “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing

66

ye might have life through his name. ." He does not say, that he wrote to prove that Jesus pre-existed as God the Word, or God the Son, equal to God the Father, but only to show that he was the Christ, or anointed of God, and the Son of God, being the object of His choice and affection, obedient to His will, and fulfilling the offices to which He had raised him. Nor can it be said that the title Son of God,' (a very different title from 'God the Son,') conveys the notion of Christ's deity. It seems to have been used as much the same with the epithet Christ.' When our Lord asked his disciples, whom they thought him to be? we learn from Mark, (viii. 29,) that " Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.” According to Luke, (ix. 20.) "Peter answering said, The Christ of God." While by Matthew's account, (xvi. 16,) “ Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of God." Either the three evangelists have given reports that are at variance, or we must reconcile them by supposing that 'the Christ, the Christ of God,' and 'the Christ the Son of the living God,' are nearly equivalent expressions. Luke xxii. 67. "Art thou the Christ? tell us." 70. "Art thou then the Son of God?" Mark i. 1. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Luke iv. 41. "Thou art Christ, the Son of God." John i. 49. "Thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel." In all these cases I have no

6

doubt that the epithets Christ,' 'Son of God,' and 'King of Israel, had a very close similarity of meaning.

6

5. That the word' mentioned by John had no personality distinct from God himself, but was simply His word of power, was the opinion of the ancient Unitarians, as I before mentioned (p. 41). Tertullian confesses that it was the case with Praxeas, who would not allow the 'word' to be distinct from the Father, but asked, "What is a word but an expression, and the sound of the voice?" Hippolytus, writing against Noetus, says: "But you will tell me, that I am mentioning something strange, when I call the word' the Son." + Ambrose says, "that the error of Sabellius lay in making the Father and the word' to be the same."‡ Epiphanius connects together Noetus, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, as believing that the 'word' had no existence distinct from God. Referring to Paul of Samosata, he says: "he maintained that the 'word' of God and the spirit' of God had always existed in God, just as reason exists in the heart of man, which was also the opinion of Sabellius, Noetus,

* Non vis enim eum substantivum habere in re per substantiæ proprietatem, ut res et persona quadam videri possit, et ita capiat secundus a Deo constitutus, duos efficere, Patrem et Filium, Deum et sermonem. Quid est enim dices sermo, nisi vox, et sonus oris? Ad Prax. cap. vii. p. 638. Ap. Lardner, vol. iv. p. 678. † Αλλ' ἔρει μοι τίς· ξένον φέρεις, λόγον λέγων υίον. Hipp. contr. Noet. p. 16. Neque, ut Sabellius, Patrem confundamus et Verbum. Ambrose, apud Lardner, vol. i. p. 619.