is evident from the Greek tranflation, called the Septuagint, where wifdom is represented as faying, The Lord exTire, created me the beginning of his ways, is, unto his works, or for his works. Tро TY αros, before the age he' established me, & apx", in the beginning, po, before the making of the earth,-before all the hills, yerva, he generated me.' These words do alfo plainly indicate a generation and perfonal diftinction from the Father, which can only apply to Jefus Chrift. And it might be observed, that, in this paffage of Proverbs, in Micah, and in the introduction to John's gofpel, the fame word is ufed. In Micah it is e apxas, архива in Proverbs, & apyn, and in John it is er αpx" alfo. I therefore agree with Mr Lindsey as to its being highly probable that our apoftle al

ludes to Solomon's defcription,' there being a great fimilarity of expreffion; but I differ from him when he fays, The Logos then, (the Word, as we lefs properly tranflate it of which the apostle treats in his introduction to his gofpel, is not a divine person, or intelligent being, though figuratively introduced as fuch, but it is wisdom, the wisdom of God, which is • God himself."

The following is the reading propofed by Mr Lindley, which may be contrafted with the words of the apoftle John as follows:

The

The apostle fays, John i. 1-14.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

The fame was in the

beginning with God.

All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Which Mr Lindsey would have us read;

In the beginning was wisdom, and wildom was with God, and wifdom was God.

The fame (wisdom) was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by it her, and without it her) was not any thing made that was made.

According to the reading here proposed by Mr Lindley, it was not Jefus Chrift that came in the flesh, but an attribute of God; it was not the Son of God that was incarnate, but God himself. This feems very like the doctrine which the fame apoftle John warns a

ficult

gainst, 1 John, iv. 2, 3. But what shall we make of the last clause of the 14th verfe, according to Mr Lindsey's reading? It feems difficult to find any other perfon in the paffage to whom these words, we beheld his glory, will agree, but noyos, the Word; he feems, therefore, to have furnished an antidote, in his own reading, against the doctrine which that reading is intended to establish.

i

λόγος,

Dr Pricftley alfo fays, That the apostle John meant the wisdom of God, or God himself, and nothing diftinct from him, when he said, In the beginning was the Word, &c. He tells us that this apostle wrote later than the reft, and ufes language that cannot be applied to any thing but the fyftem of oriental or Platonic philofophy, which held the pre-existence of a perfon called the Logos, or Son of God, by whom he created all things; (Difqui. on Matter and Spirit, p. 287.) Now, if he thinks the apostle's words contradict this opinion, why does he alter them? If he thinks they favour it, he ought to be more cautious in his oppofition. Mr

Lindsey feems to differ from him as to the apoftle's words having any respect to the Platonic philofophy, for he fays, It is not at all certain that St John had any knowledge thereof; (Sequel, p. 123.) But, however they may differ about this, they are agreed that the words of the apostle should be altered, in order that they may agree with their opinion concerning Chrift; which is a very clear proof, that their opinion

is different from that which the apostle intended to establish.

There appears to be a peculiar fitness in the term Logos or Word, being used as a name or title of Chrift; for as a word is the image or outward manifeftation of the inward thought, fo Chrift is the image of the invisible God, the medium through whom the invifible glory and perfections of the Father are manifefted to creatures. And no words can more plainly and pointedly prove the perfonality of the Logos, or Word, than those made use of by the apostle in the foregoing paffage.

.

This text, John i. 14. is not only a moft. clear proof that he who dwelt among the Jews, and called himself the Son of God, was that fame Logos, or Word, who was with God in the beginning, fince the apoftle exprefsly fays, The Word was made flesh,' even that fame Word who he had faid was in the beginning, &c. but also, that the glory of the Son of God was known before his incarnation: For, fays he, We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.' It is evident that the glory, which the apoftle fays he faw, was the glory of Chrift when he was transfigured; and when, in order that the Jews might have a proper idea of this glory, he compares it with the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, it neceffarily implies that they had fome idea of this glory with which it is compared. Now, what glory of this kind can we suppose them to have any idea of, but the glory of God, which,

as

as they had frequently read or heard, had appeared in former times to their fathers? When therefore the apoftle compares the glory of Christ, at his transfiguration, to the glory of God that had formerly been feen, and calls that the glory of the only-begotten of the Father; is it not plain that he confidered thefe glorious appearances as appearances of the Son of God? And with this agrees the teftimony of John the Baptift, John i. 18. No man hath feen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who being in the bofom of the Father, he hath declared him.' And the teftimony of our Lord himself, John vi. 46. Not that any man hath feen the Father, fave he who is of God.' The apostle Paul alfo appears plainly to refer to the glorious appearances of Chrift before his incarnation, when he speaks of his being in the form of God before he took the form of a fervant, Philip. ii. 6. ; and mentions it as an extraordinary thing, that fuch a glorious being fhould be found in fashion as a man, verse 8. If the apoftle had fuppofed Chrift to have had no former exiftence in glory above other men, what fenfe can there be in his faying, and being found in fashion as a man? In that case it might have been afked, In what other fashion could he be found? But to those who did believe, and to those who do believe, that he exifted in the form of a God before he took the form of a fervant, his being found in fafhion as a man will appear an aftonishing degree of humilia

B 2

tion,