divine will and the Logos received direct communications from God: aud he was to us a God, the representative of the Most Highh. He was the

which commenced with the baptism of Jesus, at which time his ministry began. I prefer the former rendering of this passage; but it is not necessary for the general plan of interpretation here adopted. That has the sense of Yvoμa, see Schleusner in 2; that it has the sense of agnoscor, declaror, see No. 9.

That agxn must mean, if we allow the Apostle to be his own interpreter, (not the creation of the world, but) the beginning of the Gospel dispensation, see Essays on the Language of Scripture, by John Simpson. This accurate Critic remarks, Ess. VII. p. 5. that the word occurs twenty-three times in the Apostle's writings; that it is fourteen times applied to the beginning of the ministry of Christ, and not once to denote the original creation.

To call one who was properly a man, a God, is little accordant with our modes of expression; and this appellation, which is here applied to Jesus as the Word of God, has led many to suppose that he must certainly be at least of a superior nature, if not "the very and eternal God."-The fact is, that the Greek and Hebrew words corresponding with the word God, were used with much greater latitude than our own idiom will admit of. By the word God we uniformly mean, either the Supreme Being, or one who really possessed, or was falsely supposed to possess, the peculiar attributes of the divinity. The Jews employed their word Elohim much more loosely; and of this we have sufficient proof in ch. x. 34, 35. 'Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are Gods? If he called them Gods Jous to whom the word of God å λoyos rov Jɛov came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, &c.' and it seems to me that this very expression of our Lord's, affords abundant reason for the Evangelist's application of the appellation God to him, to whom the word of God came in so eminent a degree, that he was most justly called the Word of God, the revealer of His gracious purposes with respect to mankind I shall be led in my next Part (see Chap. VI. § 1.) to subjoin a few more remarks on the application of the term to Jesus; and I therefore shall only add here, that the Supreme Being is represented, Exod. vii. 1, as saying to Moses, Behold I have appointed thee a God (Elohim, Seov) to Pharaoh, and Aaron

agent in all the wonderful manifestations of divine power and goodness, which have been made to us: in every one he was the agent'. He had authority to reveal everlasting life, to enlighten the darkness of men, and extend their prospects to an eternal world; yet men loved darkness rather than light, and too many rejected the offered blessings." He then affirms that John was a divine messenger, and sent to bear witness to him who was to give to

shall be thy prophet.' In "Exod. xxii. 28. Elohim, decus, Gods, and agxores, rulers, are used synonymously. Also Ps. lxxxii. 1. the Gods' is synonymous with the mighty,' Judges, magistrates, and prophets are called Gods, Elohim, So, Exod. xxi. 6. xxii. 8, 9. Deut. x. 17. 1 Sam. xxviii. 13." Simpson's Ess. vii. p. 13.

: The common rendering of vs. 3. παντα δι' αυτού εγένετο, 'all things were made by him,' and of vs. 10. d avrov syɛvero • the world was made by him,' has perhaps more than any thing contributed to establish in the minds of the unlearned, the Trinitarian, or the Arian hypothesis, respecting our Saviour. What the Apostle actually says is, All things were done (or came) by him;' and, the world be came by him,' or, if (as in Matt. xxiii. 15.) we supply the obvious ellipsis by the preceding verse, the world became enlightened by him.'-In Chap. VI. § 2. I shall show, that these expressions ought not to be rendered in the customary manner; and at any rate cannot justly be interpreted of the natural creation-As to Tarra all things,' it may, and often must be taken (as I shall hereafter show) in a restricted sense; it never signifies the universe in John's writings; and that this Apostle indisputably uses it to signify all things relative to the Christian dispensation, see especially 1 John ii. 20. • but ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things.' Tara.-) -Following the common reading of Matthew xxiv. 6. de yog Tarra yevsodai, our translators might have rendered it, for it is necessary that all things should be made;' the words are precisely the same with those in John. Here the connexion is allowed to determine, in favour of a customary meaning, against a most unusual one; and I do not see why the connexion and general tenor of Scripture, should not do the same in the passage under consideration.

men the light of life; but that he was not the light itself, (as probable some of his followers had asserted). "He was the true light," continues the Apostle, which having come into the world, (or come forth from God,) is enlightening every man. He was in the world, employed in executing his commission, and by him the world became enlightened, and yet the world rejected him. He came to his own people, yet they would not receive him; but he communicated the glorious privileges of the gospel to all who believed in him, though they might not possess the privileges of Jewish descent or proselytism. This illustrious Revealer of the divine will was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;' and for a short time dwelt among us, full of kindness and truth, with all the openness of friendship'; and we were witnesses to

"It

* The word cage flesh has various significations, all connected with or derived from this primitive meaning. frequently and peculiarly stands for man as mortal; subject to infirmities and sufferings." See Improved Version, and Schleusner No. 3, 4.-The Public Version has, was made flesh;' Archb. Newcome's has 'became flesh. The former is unsuitable to the Apostle's use of the word yivoμar; the latter is consistent with it, but (at least as generally understood) it is irrelevant to the preceding part of the Introduction in which the Apostle has said nothing which, when interpreted by his own use of words and by the phraseology of the Jews, refers to the supposed pre-existence or superior nature of the Logos. On the other hand, in the Gospel, the Apostle uses you frequently in the sense of to be; and it perfectly suits the context and the matter of fact: this great Revealer of the divine will, this illustrious agent in the renovation of the moral world, was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. See Is. liii. 3.

1 The Greek is, πληρης χάριτος και αληθείας. The Apostle afterwards (vs. 17,) uses ǹxagis na naλndua in opposition to

his glory (glory as of an only son from a father,) we saw the glorious displays of divine power by which his authority was confirmed, and the approbation of God manifested. John too bore witness to him, declaring that he was the person of whom he before said, that one was following him who was before him in dignity and power, for he was indeed his superior. And of those abundant blessings which he had to communicate, we have all received, blessings beyond former blessings: for the law was communicated by Moses, but favour and truth came by Jesus Christ, he has displayed to us the most gracious attributes of God and conveyed to us the most important truths. No one indeed hath seen God at any time; but the only Son, who was favoured with the most intimate

voμos-I lay no stress upon my interpretation in a doctrinal point of view; but it seems to me the most natural. The Apostle first uses the words in reference to the humanity of Jesus, in the sense which his intimate friendship with his honoured Lord naturally dictated: he is afterwards led by the train of thought, to employ the same words in reference to the purposes of his mission, in the sense dictated by those purposes.

A similar mode of composition is, I think, employed in the parenthetical clause of the verse; And we beheld his glory Tv dežav avrov, glory as of an only son from a father, δόξαν ως μονογενούς παρα πατρος, where the Apostle appears to speak merely by comparison and indefinitely; but he afterwards uses the words definitely vs. 18.-That by dota glory, the Apostle refers principally to the miracles of our Lord is sufficiently obvious from ch. ii. 11. This beginning of miracles Jesus made in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory την δόξαν αυτου.” The Apostle was also a witness of his transfiguration, and probably of other direct proofs of the divine approbation, approbation as of an only son from a father.

communion with the Father, and now enjoys the most illustrious marks of his favour, he hath revealed him."

Such is the idea which I have long entertained of the meaning of this much misunderstood, yet not obscure passage. Without laying any stress upon my own interpretation in its minuter parts, I feel more and more satisfied as to the general principles of it; and so far from considering the passage as inconsistent with Unitarianism, it appears to me to declare the proper humanity of the Logos, and to contain nothing which, when interpreted by the general tenor of the New Testament and other passages of the Apostle's writings, is inapplicable to one who was strictly and properly a man, but entrusted with the most illustrious commission, favoured with the most intimate communion with God for the purposes of his mission, and made the agent in the communication of the most important blessings. This passage declares no more of Jesus than what the Apostle assures us he wrote his Gospel to prove, viz. that he is the Christ, the Son of God; and I am satisfied that the rest of his writings teach us nothing further, respecting the nature of our Saviour. In fact the Gospel of John, though it contains some passages which, when interpreted by prevailing opinions, seem to intimate the pre-existence of our Lord, yet more than any other part of the New Testament affords proof, that whatever powers Jesus possessed, he derived them from God,-that he was inferior to and dependent upon Him,—that he