As the Evangelist had just spoken of this illustrious Declarer of the purposes of God, as being with God, favoured with direct manifestations of his will, the third verse may be justly rendered, All things came by him,' &c. and this is fully justified by St. John's own use of yvoμa; or it may be properly rendered, also agreeably to his use of the word, All things' (relative to the new dispensation)† were done by him; and without him was not any thing done which hath been done;' and this rendering I have employed in my paraphrase in p. 63.

γινομαι

Respecting the tenth verse, the circumstances require a different rendering.‡ Koopos (the world) according to the almost uniform usage of St. John, and agreeably to the next clause, signifies the world of mankind, not the natural world ;§

instances are Exod. xxxiv. 10. Is. xlviii. 7.-It is frequently employed as the translation of wy, to make, to do, to form, but never when that word implies creation. It is also very frequently employed in the sense of become.

* Tivoμal signifies to come, in the following instances: ch. i. 17. vi. 18. 19. 25. x. 35. xiii. 2. xxi. 4. (of which i. 17. and x. 35. are peculiarly in point.) It signifies to be done in at least the following instances, xv. 7. xix. 36.

+ The following passages sufficiently show that ra ravra (all things) may and often must be taken in a very restricted sense: Matt. xi. 27. (comp. John xv. 15.) xix. 27. Luke xxi. 32. John xiv. 26. 1 Cor. vi. 12. 2 Cor. v. 17. Phil. iv. 13. 1 Tim. vi. 17. 1 John ii. 20, 27. Rev. xxi. 5.—John xiv. 26. and 1 John ii. 20. 27. are peculiarly in point, as denoting all things relative to the Christian dispensation,

This is no objection to either, for in v. 6. the Evangelist uses it in a sense different from either; there was (ɛyevɛro) a man sent from God.'

§ "Koopos occurs in the Gospel of John about 78 times, and about 24 times in his Epistles, which is oftener than any other writer in the N.T. uses it; yet in all these there are only two instances in which it is applied to the original creation, both of which

I

δι

and he frequently uses yivouaι (become) to denote change of state:* the expression i noμos AUTOU EYEVETO might therefore justly, but somewhat freely, be rendered, mankind were brought by him into a new state.'-If we translate εγενετο became (or was), and may be allowed to supply the ellipsis from the preceding verse, we may then render the clause, the world became (or was) enlightened by him.'t The two renderings co

6

occur in the same chapter. John xvii. 5. 24. Kooμoc is used in this sense also, Rev. xiii. 8. xvii. 8. These are the only instances I can find in which коσμоç is applied by John to the original creation of the world, and in these the signification is decisively pointed out." Simpson's Explanation, p. 35.

See ch. i. 12. ii. 9. v. 4. 6. 9. 14. viii. 33. ix. 22. 27. 39. xii. 36. 42. xvi. 20. This is a very frequent sense of the word in the Septuagint.

+ Dr. Wardlaw (Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, p. 106) indulges himself in a strain of sarcastic remark on this interpretation that seems little suited to the pulpit, and to which I make no reply. What is criticism, is contained in the following sentences:

There are not a few unnecessary, and there are some injurious "supplements in our ordinary English Version; but certainly there "is nothing of the kind that can bear a comparison with this. I only

ask a person who has learned the first elements of English, what "he should think of a writer, who, intending to express the senti"ment that the world was enlightened by Jesus Christ, should "write the substantive verb, was, and leave the word enlightened, "not only the principal word, but absolutely the only word by "which his meaning could be determined, to be supplied by the "reader! Yet this is precisely what these critics suppose the in"spired historian to have done in the present instance." As this mode of interpretation in the Improved Version appears to have originated in a criticism of my own, and Mr. Belsham, in his Calm Inquiry adopts it "with some hesitation," I think it necessary to make some remarks on Dr. Wardlaw's strictures, first premising that I never myself proposed TεowrioμEvoc as the supplement, for I suppose the Apostle would have written periode (as in Heb. v. 9. τελειωθεις εγενετο,) or φωτιζομενος, according to the more usual construction.-(1) In reference to the "injurious" character of the supplement, I would ask Dr. Wardlaw whether he thinks it worse than that of the P.V. in Acts vii. 59?' calling on God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit.' (2) I will apply Dr. W.'s mode of criticism to another case, with a cognate verb, and ask

incide as to meaning, and both are fully justified by the matter of fact. The common rendering as usually interpreted, (referring it to the original creation,) is inconsistent with the Apostle's

6

what we are to think of a person, who, when he meant to convey the idea that he was a Roman citizen by birth-right, merely said, (Acts xxii. 28) But I was even born' (ɛyw dɛ kai yeyevvnμai), leaving" the only word by which his meaning could be determined, to be supplied by the" hearer. (3) I observe that the supplement in this last case is much less obvious from the immediately preeeding clause, than that in John i. 10. The Tribune had said, ' For a great sum I obtained this citizenship' (την πολιτείαν ταυτην): The Apostle replies,' But I was even born.' He obviously means, born a Roman citizen;' but the supplement is to be sought in the first question of the Tribune, not in his own words.

Such supplements are continually to be made by the reader or hearer; and they are frequent in reference to yivoμai, but still more (as might be expected) in the use of εμ. In the passage referred to by Mr. Belsham and myself (Matt. xxiii. 15), it is presumed, and I think correctly, that òrav yevŋtaɩ means 'when he is become :' the verb in the preceding clause is monoai I have had occasion to notice several instances in which classical authors use vivoμai with an ellipsis; for instance, when Lucian represents Menalaus as telling Proteus that it is inconceivable that a sea-god should become fire (up yivεodai), he makes Proteus reply, " Do not be surprised, Menalaus, yap yiyvoμai, for I am become fire." Again, Xenophon (Anab.lib.I.) tells us that when Cyrus asked Orontes if he would again become an enemy to his brother, and a faithful friend to himself, Orontes replied," Even if I were to become so, & yεvoiμny, I could not any longer, Cyrus, be so regarded by you." Herodotus (see Porti Lex. Ion.) uses yivoμai with a remarkable but not unusual subauditur (e.g. of πроç aуadov, or kaλwç,) making it denote to turn out WELL. Vigerus adduces several similar instances from Xenophon, Thucydides, and Plato. Every one, indeed, who has read the Greek authors with observation, must agree with Vigerus, that yivoμat is used with extreme latitude, and that scarcely any other word has so many idiomatical constructions.

This introductory portion of St. John's Gospel is very elliptical; the eighth verse presents one instance which every one will acknowledge: He was not the Light, but he came that he might testify concerning the Light.' In the tenth, if the nominative of the verb be not found in the preceding verse, there is one of the various proofs which this Gospel affords, that the Apostle wrote with his mind full of his subject, his beloved Master, and referred to him without considering the minute niceties of grammatical construction: he often is obscure in construction, and yet perfectly perspicuous in import. If we take the subject from v. 9, then it runs

phraseology; and the common interpretation inconsistent with various parts of the Scriptures. (See p. 161-167.)

I Cor. viii. 6. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of (e) whom are all things, and we in (ɛg) him: and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by (dia) whom are all things, and we by (dia) him." See p. 37.

No one can suppose that this passage affords any proof of the doctrine, that Jesus was the agent in the natural creation; all that can be admitted is, that the phraseology will suit it.

Eph. iii. 9. In God who created all things" by Jesus Christ."

The connexion, as has been observed, directs us to refer this passage to the new creation: but however this be, it proves nothing as to the point in question; since, in all probability, the words δια του Ιησου Χριστού by Jesus Christ were not written by the Apostle. See Griesbach, who rejects them from his text as certainly spurious.

thus, That which coming into the world enlightens every man, 'was in the world, and the world became-by him,' &c.; and the ellipsis would, in meaning, be just as easily supplied by the original readers of St. John's Gospel as this is by the English reader.

Nevertheless as this construction is not exactly borne out by any instance I know, (Acts xxii. 28. is most like it,) and made or formed (anew) accords with the continual import of the word, and (equally well with the former) with the analogy of Scripture, I give à preference to this rendering, and have accordingly employed it in p. 64.

But if I could not see any clue to the Apostle's precise meaning, I could not believe that he intended to represent the SERVANT of Jehovah as creating the heavens and the earth, in direct opposition to the declaration of JEHOVAH by his Prophet, that HE HIMSELF created them ALONE and BY HIMSELF. “I believe in God the FATHER Almighty, MAKER of Heaven and Earth." and to this I say, solemnly, and with full conviction," As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be; world without end: Amen." (3d Ed.)

Col. i. 16, 17. "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: And he is before all things; and by him all things consist."

If this passage do not prove a doctrine which is so much in opposition with the general tenor of the Scriptures, the doctrine itself must surely be given up by every Scripturalist. To investigate it, we must take it in its connexion; and I shall give the literal rendering of Griesbach's text.

In the introductory verses, the Apostle expresses his gratitude that the Colossians possessed the hopes of the Gospel, which had then reached the whole world, and was bringing forth its proper fruit; and the pleasure which he felt from their affection towards himself. He tells them that it was the object of his prayers, that they might fully possess the knowledge of the divine will, that they might act so as to obtain the approbation of God, and derive from Him strength to endure patiently to the end: 'giving 'thanks to the Father,' he continues (v. 12)' who • hath made us fit for the participation of the ' inheritance of the saints in light; "who hath ⚫ delivered us from the power of darkness, and • hath translated us into the kingdom of his be• loved Son," in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins; 15 who is the Image of the invisible God, the First-born of the whole ⚫ creation.* 16 For in (ev) him all thingst are

• Πάσης κτίσεως —so in Eph. iii. 15. πασα πατρια is correctly rendered the whole family.

It is a position laid down by many Expositors, that by things