which St. John speaks in the text, is intended by him as the proper name of a distinct person. Others, who profess also to be Christians, consider The Word to represent a certain quality or property of the Deity, and not a separate or intelligent agent. This latter mode of understanding the text is embraced widely, but not universally, by the class of Christians to whom the regular and accustomed worshipers in this church belong.*

It will be the object of the following discourse, first, To attempt a candid and temperate discussion of some of the principal interpretations which have at various times been given of the text; secondly, To demonstrate, that these differences of interpretation may really agree in all that is of importance to religion; and, thirdly, To present to you a few of such reflections and lessons as may naturally arise from a consideration of the whole subject.

Grant, oh thou Spirit of Holiness, that these our studies and meditations may be prosecuted at this time with a sincere love of truth, a kind regard for the motives of our fellow-men, and an earnest desire to promote thy glory and our own eternal welfare, through Jesus Christ thy Son.

First, let us attempt a candid and temperate discussion of some of the leading interpretations which have been given of the text. The most prominent is that to which allusion has already been made, viz. that the Word spoken of in the beginning of John, is a separate and intelligent person, infinite in power and wisdom, equal to the Father, distinct from the Father, yet one with the Father, and also one and the same with Him whom the Scriptures call the man Christ Jesus,† whose history is given us in the records of the New Testament. The advocates of this representation, I believe, almost universally allow, that it is on its very face inconsistent with reason; but that it must be believed, although we do not understand it, and although it violates some of the most common forms of language which convey ideas from man to man.

I have not intentionally misrepresented this doctrine. I have borrowed the language used in books and discourses on the side of the question to which it belongs, and indeed

* This Sermon was preached in the Second Independent Church, Charleston. † 1 Tim, ii, 5,

I do not fear in the least but that every one of my hearers at all conversant with the subject, will have recognized the statement to have been full, fair and exact.

Let us now listen with due attention to the principal considerations used in defence of it. For it must be acknowledged that they are such as ought to possess great weight with those who profess to be guided by the Scrip

tures.

The strongest argument then, is this: Look, say the advocates of this doctrine, at the plain language of the first verse in John. What can be clearer, what can be more explicit, than the naked statement itself in the very terms of Scripture? The Word was God. How, they ask, can any, who pretend to receive the Bible, after this, deny the possession both of deity and personality to what John calls the Word?

You see that I have stated the argument in its very strongest light, and I do not wonder that its advocates confidently bring it forward, and charge us home with its whole force. But, after allowing and stating all this, I think I may humbly claim to be heard with equal attention and equal deference on the other side.

I hold it then to be a right rule of Scripture criticism, when a text occurs, which in its literal sense contradicts our understanding, to search and examine as diligently as we possibly can, for some meaning which may satisfy our reason, and still be consistent with the rest of the Bible. If two meanings are assigned to any scriptural passage, one mysterious and another clear, I wish to know by what law of God or man I am required to adopt the mysterious in preference to the clear. The Roman Catholic asks us, what can be more plain and explicit than the assertion of Jesus, This bread is my body. Now, if I am to take every expression in its first and literal sense, I know not how I can escape admitting that the bread which Jesus brake, was literally and truly his own body. But, on a moment's reflection, I perceive that that could not be the meaning of Scripture. Why not? Because, as my respected opponents, who are Protestants, will themselves say, it violates the plainest dictates of the understanding. Exactly so! Here then they have stepped over on my own ground. When we look at the sentence, The Word was with God, and the Word was God, who is not ready to pronounce that this is an absolute contradiction, or at least a plain

solecism in terms? We never say in common life, unless indeed we happen to be speaking figuratively, and we never, in other parts of Scripture, find it said, that one thing is with another, and yet that the first thing is the same as the second. The very term with, in the mind of every one who uses it, intrinsically implies an idea of distinction, separation, and want of identity.

Here then we are one moment at a stand. Which way shall we proceed? How interpret the sentence before us? "Take it," says the conscientious Trinitarian, “just as it stands, with all its mystery, all its difficulty, all its opposition to the common uses of language and of reason, and inquire no farther." "Not so," says the thoughtless Infidel. "6 Reject the whole thing at once. Laugh at such a heterogeneous mass of incomprehensible nonsense, and close the Bible for ever, which presents language to view that shocks and staggers the mind." Suppose we decline to take either of these diametrically opposite extremes. Suppose we make this text the subject of our attention; does it argue any want of reverence for the Bible, if we put forth our studious and faithful efforts to try to give it a meaning consistent with our reason, and the other portions of the Scripture ?

In the foregoing train of reflection, my friends, I have endeavoured fairly to describe the progress by which the conscientious Unitarian finds himself on the ground he has assumed. I beg that it may be considered as applicable, not only to the passage before us, but also to the whole Bible. We only wish to understand and interpret that precious and sacred book on principles of criticism which, if stated without any reference to previous doctrines or prejudices, every man would cheerfully allow.

To return now to the passage before us. It is not to be expected or demanded that all Unitarians should precisely agree together in their explanations of every difficult scriptural text. If their interpretations are not inconsistent with their own leading doctrine, nor with the general tone of Scripture, and come with clearness and satisfaction to their own minds, it is all they ever ask of God to give them-it is all they ever require of each other. I therefore frankly inform you, that there are many modes among them of explaining the introductory passage of St. John's Gospel. There are two principal ones, however, which attract by far the greatest number of followers, and which

you may be interested in hearing described. The seatments of the preacher accord at present with the second t be laid before you, in the defence of which some litt pains will be taken. It is proper, however, first to state the explanation which is adopted by Mr. Belsham, who, in this point, accords with the Polish Socinians, with Hopton Haynes, the friend of Sir Isaac Newton, with the late ex cellent Mr. Cappe, with Mr. Simpson in his Essays, with Dr. Carpenter, one of the most eminent of living English Unitarians, and with the authors of the Improved Versio of the New Testament. The leading points in the expla nation of all these interpreters are as follow: *

The phrase In the beginning they refer, not to the be ginning of the world, but to the beginning of the Gospe dispensation. Their reasons for this, which are strong and supported by some Scripture analogies, I cannot now stop to consider. The appellation, The Word, they regard as an expressive proper name of Jesus Christ, signifying his office of instructer, and teacher of truth and life. When we are told, that he was in the beginning with God, they think it means that before he appeared in public, from the very commencement of his ministry, he had intercourse with God, and was called and qualified by him for his high and important office. Then, when it is said, that the word was God, or as they translate it according to grammatical rules, was a God, these interpreters, in order to avoid the palpable contradiction in terms before alluded to, and particularly to reconcile the passage with those numerous places where Jesus describes himself as distinct from, inferior to, and dependent on the Father, understand St. John as calling Jesus a God in a somewhat similar sense to that in which the prophets were called gods by our Saviour himselft-and in which Moses was called a god to Pharaoh by Jehovah-and in which magistrates and persons of high authority were called gods in the 82d Psalm, ver. 1, and five or six other places in the Bible. When all things are said to be made by the word, &c., they translate the original by the term done instead of made, against which no grammatical objection can be raised.. With this alteration, they paraphrase the 3d verse thus: Every thing relating to the introduction of the new dispensation has been accomplished either by Jesus himself, or by his apostles and mes

* See Belsham's "Calm Inquiry,” p. 18, &c. + John x, 35.

ngers, who derived their commission and powers from m, and who performed nothing without his express warnt and authority. Where our common translation of the ible says that the word was made flesh, they insist, and at too upon very strong grounds, that the passage ould read, the word was flesh, wherein they strenuously ontend, that the divinity of Christ, so far from being aintained, is expressly and positively denied. Thus uch for this scheme of interpretation, which, whatever ay be said of it, certainly involves no inconsistencies, no elf-contradictions, no statements revolting to reason, and ; moreover fortified by its defenders with several scriptual passages.

I shall now venture with due deference to propose anther explanation of this long-contested passage, which, fter many an hour of anxious, religious and intense reflecion, I have adopted, in some considerable points of view, conformably to the opinions of the truly great and celerated Grotius, Lardner, Lindsey, who, in compliance with his conscience, resigned his preferments in the Church of England, Dr. Priestley, and most of the modern Unitarians.*

My first remark is this, that had St. John intended to begin his Gospel by informing his readers that Jesus Christ was truly God, he would probably have told us so in plain and clear terms and not involved his meaning in a cloud of figurative obscurity.

I would observe, secondly, that the great object of this treatise of St. John is evidently to give an account of the establishment of the religion of Jesus. When he commences it, therefore, what so natural as to remind us immediately of its heavenly origin, and to describe the state of the world before the Gospel dispensation, and the need there was of a new revelation from heaven? Accordingly, the first five verses appear to me to be devoted to this purpose. In the beginning, he tells us, was the Word; that is, as I understand it along with most of the interpreters just now enumerated, In the beginning of all things, a vast creating power and wisdom were put into exercise. The word is evidently the command by which God creates all things. Moses represents God as only saying, Let there be light, and there was light. And the Psalmist tells us,

* See Belsham's " Calm Inquiry,” p. 15, 2d Ed.