very front of his work, a declaration which might have been conveyed in plain and safe expressions, but which, upon the hypothesis, is couched in terms peculiarly obnoxious to dangerous misapprehension. The declaration is supposed to be, in sense and substance, this: "Jesus was a prophet of the highest order, to whom the Divine will was fully revealed, who was endowed in a superior degree with miraculous powers, and who was appointed Lord and King, in that new dispensation which he was authorized to introduce to supersede the Mosaic covenant." And this sense the apostle conveys, by saying, "The Word was a god;" combining it also with another expression so closely resembling the opening clause of the books of Moses, that we can scarcely suppose the coincidence not to have been intended. The first sentence in the Pentateuch was a testimony against heathenism: but, if the opening sentence of the Gospel declared that "in the beginning" was an inferior god, it must have been most seriously offensive to the Jew; and to the Gentile it would appear as plainly harmonizing with his accustomed polytheism.

If the sense of these clauses were nothing more than the feeble truism, that Christ existed and received Divine communications, at the commencement of his course as an inspired teacher, it would further seem unaccountable that the evangelist should instantly repeat the declaration, a declaration than which nothing could be more selfevident, or less necessary to be reiterated. But he does so repeat it; and thus he gives a proof that he was propounding a doctrine of the most important and exalted kind, a doctrine which demanded to be attentively and constantly kept in view. "This [Word] was in the beginning with God:" as if he said, 'Let it be ever recollected as a truth of the first importance, that this Divine Logos existed, at the very commencement of all things, in a state of perfect union with the Divine nature.'

V." All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made."

The expressing of the proposition first in the affirmative form and then in the negative, is one of the Hebrew modes of making the sentence strongly emphatic, and it is used by the apostle John with remarkable frequency. Thus the very manner of utterance excites the expectation of something great, and out of the range of common things. The questions to be considered are the reference of the term "all things," the use of the preposition, and the sense of the verb.

I. With regard to the meaning of the universal expression, it is to be ascertained whether, with the generality of Christians, we are to understand it as referring to the created universe, both material and intellectual; or, with the Unitarians, as merely denoting all the arrangements of the new dispensation, whether done by Christ himself, or under his direction, by his apostles. To assist the determination on this point, I submit these remarks:

1. The usual and proper signification of the term, when, as here, put absolutely and without any limitation suggested by the connexion, is the total of all created things. For example, "Thou hast

created all things, and through thy will, they were, and have been created. One God, the Father, of whom are all things: one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. Thou hast put all things under his feet. On account of whom are all things, and through whom are all things. Of him, and through him, and to him are all things."

2. Whenever in Scripture the moral effects of the Gospel are spoken of, under the metaphor of a creation, either the ephithet new is added, or other qualifying language is employed, so that the figurative meaning is put out of all doubt.

3. In a following sentence the same clause occurs, but, instead of "all things," the evangelist employs the common term to express the created universe, or the human race as a principal part of it: “THE WORLD was made by him." It is fair, therefore, to explain the one by the other.

4. The most eminent grammatical interpreters, and those who are most distinguished for free-thinking habits, speak decisively in favor of the common interpretation, and with no little contempt of the other. "That the term all things," says M. Leclerc, "must be understood of the universe, it is needless to prove; for, though the phrase may be applied to different objects, yet here it cannot be understood otherwise." Semler contends that the reference to the new moral state, supposed in the Socinian and the modern Unitarian interpretation, could never have been intended by the apostle, for it would have been perfectly unintelligible to his readers. Michaelis, without the smallest hesitation, interprets the passage; 66 The Word was the Creator of all things:" and he adds this remark; "The assertion that the Word was the Creator of the world, is equivalent to the assertion that he was God in the highest possible sense." Morus thinks it perfectly needless to explain the words, since no language could more plainly express a proper creation. "The all things," says Rosenmüller, must unquestionably be understood of the actual Universe it is putting force upon both the words and the context, to interpret the phrase of the new creation." Paulus remarks, "The third verse, speaks of the making of the world." Kuinol comments upon the sentence thus: "All things, all that have been created, the universality of things: the opinion is wholly untenable, that these words refer to the moral creation, the instruction and reformation of mankind."

66

II. Recourse is had to another mode of helping the Unitarian interpretations, which, with so much pains and difficulty, are attempted to be forced upon this text. It is affirmed that i aroũ, by or through him, does not here, and in verse 10, retain its proper signification, that of a principal and efficient cause; but that it has the same sense as if it had been put in the accusative, fi auróv. So that the meaning is, on account of him, or for his sake. On this assertion, let the following considerations be attended to:

1. Not one of the scriptural instances which are alleged by Mr. Cappe, of ♪ with a genitive signifying the final cause or motive, appears to me satisfactory. Scarcely any of the passages seem to admit that sense, and none of them to require it.

2. The proper field of investigation, to determine the question, is the usage of the apostle John. Now, I take upon me to affirm that in all his writings, not a single passage can be found to countenance Mr. Cappe's doctrine; and that, on the contrary, every instance of Jia with a genitive is decisively against him.

3. If the reader will, by the help of a Greek concordance, examine all the instances of the two constructions in the New Testament, he will find the distinction observed clearly, accurately, and, I think I may say, invariably.

66

III. On the meaning of the verb, Mr. Belsham expresses himself with peculiar positiveness and complacency, as if he had made a notable discovery; "I never signifies to create." Did this writer really intend to convey to his readers, that any critic, translator, or interpreter had taken this verb in the active signification, to create? Or was it his wish to insinuate, that the interpretation which he opposes is founded upon such an assumption? It is scarcely conceivable that he could believe either of these implications: yet, if not, I know not how we can acquit his argument of a gross violation of candor and integrity. If, however, he mean to assert, that this word never signifies TO BE created, we are at issue with him. true and proper signification is, to be brought into existence, whether that be the first and original being of the subject, or any subsequent state or manner of existence. In all the variety of its applications, and by whatever different terms, according to its connexion, it may be translated in other languages, it always retains its essential idea, that of passiveness to a preceding cause.

Its

A fragment has been preserved by Eusebius, from the lost writings of Amelius, a Platonist, of the third century, which shews, in a very satisfactory manner, how a classical philosopher, a heathen, understood the language of the evangelist. The passage begins abruptly, and we have no means of knowing its connexion: but this does not diminish the decisive character of its evidence. "And this indeed was the Word, by which, since it exists forever, created things were produced; as Heraclitus himself would decide: and most certainly it is the same which that foreign writer lays down, as constituted in the order and dignity of the beginning, to be with God, and to be God; that by it absolutely all things were produced; that in it, whatever was produced, living, and life, and existing, possesses its natural properties; that it descended into bodily forms, and having put on a clothing of flesh, appeared as a human being, with which nevertheless it still shewed the majesty of its nature; and that at last, being dismissed [from the body], it again assumed its deity, and is God, the same as it was before it was brought down to the body and the flesh and the human being."

It cannot be questioned to what writer this heathen philosopher refers and, though he comments upon the passage in his own way, nothing can be clearer than that he understood the words of the evangelist, as predicating of the Logos a proper deity, a real agency in the physical creation, an assumption of human nature from a preexistent state, and a resuming of the glory which had for a season been veiled.

VI. "In him was LIFE." ding sentence, appears to be the position of a cause adequate to the effect. So that the argument is: the production of all things is fitly attributed to the Word, because he possesses conscious and active existence in such a manner that he is able to impart existence : he is the Former of all things, because he possesses essential and infinite life, and has the power of communicating life, that is, of bringing animated beings into existence. In many places of the Old Testament, Jehovah is called the Living God, or the God of life: in opposition to the lifeless and imaginary beings which the heathen worshipped; and to show that he is the only underived existence, and the Author of existence to all other beings: "With Thee is the fountain of lifE." The resemblance of this phraseology to the language of the evangelist, is very evident. Both the connexion and the terms, therefore, bind us, in all reason, to understand the clause as it has been explained.

The coherence of this with the prece

VII. "And the Life was the Light of men." The Messiah was predicted by the prophets, and described by himself, as the Light of Israel, the Light to illuminate all nations, the Light of men, and the Light of the world. In the passage before us, it is therefore with just coherence that he, who is the Author of existence, is further represented as the Author of all that constitutes the good of existence : deliverance from error, sin, and misery, all of which are, by the frequent scriptural metaphor, called darkness. This exalted idea of the Divine Redeemer coincides with all the passages which describe him as the immediate Bestower of all spiritual blessings on the children of men.

The reader will permit the request, that he would, with the closest attention, review this portion of the divine word, and the observations which have been submitted to him upon it; that he would scrutinize every term and expression; that he would rigorously but impartially sift every argument; and that he would compare the separate parts of the passage with each other, and with the apparent scope and design of the whole.

I would in particular, with the most respectful earnestness, solicit any intelligent and candid Unitarian, when he has risen from the serious perusal of the evangelist's Introduction, to form the supposition that he himself was about to write a narrative of the actions, or a compendium of the discourses, of Jesus Christ; and the further supposition that his mind was entirely free from acquaintance with any controversies on this question. Let him then ask his own mind and conscience, "Is this the way in which I should open my subject? Are these, or anything equivalent to these, the terms and expressions which I should naturally and readily take up?-Rather, am I not conscious of the reverse? Do I not feel that, if it were possible for them to be suggested to me, all my principles would rise against them, and I should reject them with the strongest disapprobation? And, dropping the visionary supposition, am I not inwardly sensible that, in my attempts to frame an interpretation of this paragraph, which may wear at all the semblance of consistency, I am rowing against the stream; I am putting language to the tor

ture; I am affixing significations to words and phrases which all my efforts can scarcely keep me from exclaiming, that they could never have been in the contemplation of the original writer? — Have I not, then, awakening reasons for the suspicion, that I have not formed my opinions with that close and faithful investigation which the solemn greatness of the case requires? And am I not bound to review the whole subject, in the sight of the all-seeing God, and under the sense of my accountableness to HIM as the Author and Revealer of truth?"

NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS.

1. Concio ad Clerum. A Sermon delivered in the Chapel of Yale College, Sept. 10, 1828. By NATHANIEL W. TAYLOR. Haven Hezekiah Howe. pp. 38.

men

New

We have here an able and satisfactory discussion of the natural and entire depravity of man, founded on Eph. ii. 3, “ And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." The plan of the preacher is to show, first, in what the moral depravity of man consists; and, secondly, that this depravity is by nature. In discussing the first of these propositions, Dr. T. observes, that the depravity of does not consist in any essential attribute or property of the soul," nor in their being guilty of Adam's sin; nor "in any constitutional propensities of their nature;" nor "in any degree of excitement in these propensities not resulting in choice;" nor "in any disposition or tendency to sin, which is the cause of all sin;" but in "man's own act, consisting in a free choice of some object rather than God, as his chief good;-or in a free preference of the world, and of worldly good, to the will and glory of God." This view of the subject he endeavors to support, and we think does support, by "the testimony of some of the ablest divines, of the apostles, and of common sense."

In explaining the proposition that the depravity of men is by nature, the author observes, "that such is their nature, that they will sin, and only sin, in all the appropriate circumstances of their being. They sin, not only in one situation, and under the influence of particular circumstances, but in all situations, and in all circumstances, -which makes it proper to say, in the common and legitimate use of the term, that they sin by nature. The proposition, thus explained, is established, by an appeal to the Scriptures, to human consciousness, and to facts.

The discussion is concluded with the following remarks:

1. "It is consistent with the doctrine of this discourse, that infants should be saved through the redemption of Christ. They belong to a race who, by nature, and in all the appropriate circumstances of their being, will sin.” "When made meet, therefore, for the celestial paradise, and admitted there, their song may tell of the grace that brought them to its glories."