cumstances of the affirmation, united with the supposition that John did assert, and did mean to assert, something that is intelligible. There is, indeed, no very serious difficulty in taking Otos, (God), in the same sense in both clauses, provided we understand it to denote the Divinity. To interpret the verse thus, would represent John as saying, that while Christ was God or truly divine, there was at the same time a sense in which he was with God. In order that this should have any possible meaning, a distinction in the Godhead must be admitted,-viz. that the Father is not in all respects the same as the Son.

For myself, I do not hesitate to understand the word God, in a sense somewhat diverse, in the two clauses of the verse under consideration. Every word takes a sense adapted to its connexion. Such is the rule which must be adopted, after we have once conceded that a writer uses words with propriety, and designs to be understood. So, when our Saviour says, "Let the dead bury their dead," the connexion requires us to explain it thus,"Let those who are morally or spiritually dead, bury those who are corporeally so." It were easy to accumulate examples, where the very same word, in the very same verse, has two different shades of sense. The exigency of the passage (exigentia loci), is the rule of interpretation which guides us here: And, guided by this exigency, what difficulty is there in supposing that God, as Father, is meant in the first instance, and the Divinity, without reference to the peculiar distinction of Father, in the second?

I understand John, then, as affirming, that the Logos was God, and yet was with God,-viz. that he was truly divine, but still divine in such a manner that there did exist a distinction between him and the Father. I take the word God, in one case, to mean, as in a great number of cases it does mean, God as Father; in the other case, I regard it as a description of divine being of the Divinity, without reference to the distinction of Father, a use which is very common.

Least of all have those a right to object to this, who here make the meaning of God, in the second instance, to be infinitely different from its meaning in the first instance,

-understanding, by the first, the self-existent, independent, and infinite God; by the second, a created or derived and finite being.

If you ask now, What could be the object of John, in asserting that the Logos was with God? I answer, that the phrase, to be with one, (vai gos Tiva), indicates conjunction, communion, familiarity, society. See Mark, ix. 19. Compare, too, John, i. 18, where the only-begotten Son is said to be " in the bosom ( Tov xoλ) of the Father," which is a phrase of similar import.

To illustrate the meaning of the phrase to be with God, it is useful also to compare those cases' where Christians are promised, as the summit of their felicity, that they shall be with God and Christ, and be where they are. See, among other passages, John, xiv. 2, 3; xii. 26; xvii. 24; 1 Thess. iv. 17. Compare Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12; Coloss. iii. 1—4.

In John, xvii. 5, Christ speaks of that "glory which he had with the Father, before the world was.' From all these passages taken together, it would seem that the phrase, the Logos was with God, amounts to asserting that he was (conjunctissimus Deo), most intimately connected with him. If you ask me how, I answer freely that I cannot tell. The Evangelist has asserted the fact, but has not added one word to explain the (modus) manner. If I could explain it, then, perhaps, I might define the distinction which I believe to exist in the Godhead.

But why should John assert such a connexion ?—In opposition, I answer, to those in early times, who asserted that Christ was a being not only distinct from God, but an emanation from him. The asseveration, that the Logos was with God-was from the beginning most intimately connected with him and was divine-would, of course, contradict such an opinion.

But, does the Evangelist here mean to assert of the Logos, that he is God in the true and supreme sense, or not? This is the fundamental question between us. Analogy, drawn from the New Testament usage of the word 805, (which nowhere else employs this word simply and singly, except to designate the Supreme God), must be admitted strongly to favour the idea, that Christ is here

F

66

asserted to be truly divine. I readily allow, that, in the Old Testament, the word God has various applicationsthat it is applied (though only in the plural number) to magistrates that it is used to designate those who, for a time, stand, as it were, in the place of God, as Moses was to be for a god to Pharaoh, Exod. vii. 1, and instead of God to Aaron, Exod. iv. 16. But it is not possible, in any instances of this nature, to mistake the meaning. The adjuncts or context always guard effectually against mistake. Men, or inferior beings, are never called God, or gods, simply. We read of a god to Pharaoh;" we read, also, "I have said ye are gods, but ye shall die like men.” The Scriptures speak of the god of Ekron, the god of the Ammonites, the gods of the Heathen, &c. Is a mistake possible here? But the Logos is called God simply. Nor is this all. Admitting that the name of itself determines nothing, (and, for the sake of argument, I am willing to admit it), yet the writer has added explanations of his meaning, which seem to place what he intended to assert, by the expression in question, beyond the reach of fair debate.

John, i. 3. "All things were [made] by him; and without him was nothing [made] which was [made]." Verse 10, "The world was [made] by him."

I have excluded the word made, by placing it in brackets, merely to show that the sense is in nowise changed by the version of those critics, who tell us that YVETO never means made, but simply was. Yet nothing can be farther from correctness than such an assertion. Accordingly, ποιεω and γινομαι are used as synonymes,-as in James, iii. 9; compare Gen. i. 26, in the Septuagint; Gen. ii. 4; Isaiah, xlviii. 7. The cases where you means to make, or produce, are so numerous and obvious, that a moment's delay in respect to this part of the subject would be useless. Schleusner's Lexicon, under the word you, will furnish adequate proof of this. If not, read the Commentary of Theodoret on the two first chapters of Genesis. which places the question, as to the use of youa, beyond debate.

But what are the "all things"—the universe (TA TAITα) -which the Logos made or created?" The moral world

-the Christian Church," answers Faustus Socinus. To this exposition, however, there are two objections. First, a part of these тa яavтα are, in verse 10, represented as (xoopos) the world,—a term nowhere in the New Testament applied to the Christian Church, nor to men as morally amended by the gospel. Secondly, this very world ( xoruos), which he created, did not know or acknowledge him, ἀυτον ουκ έγνω: Whereas the distinguishing trait of Christians is, that they know Christ-that they know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.

Ta Tavτa, then, which the Logos created, means, (as common usage and the exigency of the passage require), the universe-the worlds, material and immaterial. (Ver. 10.) Here, consequently, in the First Chapter of John, is a passage in which, beyond all reasonable doubt, Christ is called God; and where the context, instead of furnishing us with reasons for understanding the word God in an inferior sense, (as is usual when this designation is applied to inferior beings), has plainly and unequivocally taught us, that this God, (os), who was the Logos, created the universe. The question, then, is reduced to this simple state,-Is he, who created the universe, truly and properly divine? On this question I shall make a few remarks, when I have considered some other passages which ascribe the work of creation to Christ.

Heb. i. 10-12. "And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish, but thou remainest; and they shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."

These words are spoken of the Son of God; for they are intimately connected by the conjunction and with ver. 8, where it is written, "But unto the Son he saith," &c. According to the laws of grammar, and most clearly according to the nature and design of the Apostle's argument, the ellipsis is to be supplied, in the beginning of the tenth verse, after and (xa) is, "And [to the Son he saith] Thou, Lord," &c. No other exposition can be pointed

out, which doth not make a violent divulsion of the passage from the connexion of the writer's argument.

The question still remains, "What is meant by founding the earth, and by the heavens being the work of Christ's hands?" To answer the first question, and place the answer beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt, it is necessary only to compare the passages in which Jehovah is said to have founded the earth. By this phrase, the creation of it is indubitably meant. The passages may be found in Ps. xxiv. 2; lxxxix. 11; civ.5; cxix. 90; Job, xxxviii. 4: Prov. iii. 19; Is. xlviii. 13; li. 13; Zech. xii. 1; where, if you inspect the Septuagint, you will see the very verb how (themelio-to found, to establish), employed, which the Apostle uses in our text.

In regard to the "heavens being the works of Christ's hands," it is an expression plainly of similar import to the one just examined, and signifies the creation of the heavens. Thus, Ps. viii. 3, 6" When I consider the heavens, the work of thy hands;" which is parallel with," The moon and stars which thou hast ordained," (Septuagint, sos). So, in verse 6th, "And hast placed him ἐθεμελίωσας). over the work of thy hands; all things hast thou put under his feet,"-i. e. placed him over the creation.

To prove that the phrase, to create the heavens and the earth, means to create all things, it is necessary only to consult Gen. i. 1; Exod. xx, Ï1; xxxi. 17; Neh. ix. 6; Ps. cxxi. 2; cxxiv. 8; cxxxiv. 3; and other like passages, which a Concordance will supply.

It will be remembered, that the passage in question, (Heb. i. 10-12), is a quotation from the Old Testament; and that, to quote the language of the Old Testament, therefore, in order to explain it, is peculiarly appropriate and necessary.

Would any one, now, unembarrassed by peculiarity of system, ever suspect that Christ's founding the earth, and the heavens being the works of his hands, could mean any thing less than the creation of the Universe? Yet we have been told, by some distinguished Unitarians, that the heavens mean the Christian state or dispensation, and earth the Jewish one.

But, first, this is against usage, either in the Old or New