and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The term Word is subject to no

E

is by Michaelis supposed to have been borrowed from the gnostic heretics, particularly from Cerinthus, whom he conceives the evangelist to have designed to refute in this, as in other passages. This, he represents, is intimated by the evangelist himself in ch. 20, v. 31. "These are written," says he," that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Cerinthus had held that Jesus and Christ were two distinct beings; that Jesus was a mere man, and Christ a superior spirit, which was united with Jesus at his baptism, but separated from him before his death on the cross. Introd. to the N. T. vol. 3. part 1. p. 281-283. Cambr. 1801. The same term indeed occurs in the philosophy of Plato, but in a different application, for according to the oriental philosophy of emanation the xóyos was a distinct being, derived from the divine essence, but still connected with it, whereas according to Plato it was the reason of God, and the seat of those ideas, or archetypal patterns, according to which all things were made by God. The term had probably been rendered familiar to the Jews by Philo a Jew, born about twenty years before the christian era, who adopted that mixed form of the platonic philosophy, which was taught in Alexandria, and combined it with the religion of Moses. The terin gnostic was itself borrowed by the orientals from the Greeks, to signify a person, who made pretension to a more perfect knowledge of the divine nature, Paul seems to allude to the appellation in 1 Tom. ch. 6. v. 20, when he cautioned Timothy against "oppositions of science (yvwows) falsely so called."

1

Archdeacon Nares has remarked of the term xóyos, that it appears to have been used to designate our Saviour, not only by John, but also by Luke, in ch. 1. v. 2, as men could not in any other sense of the term be said to be eye witnesses of the word. Horne's Introd. vol. 4. p. 284, note.

ambiguity, for in the 14th verse of the same chapter it is expressly applied to the person of our Saviour, in that state which preceded his incarnation: "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."

In regard to this very direct attestation of the divinity of our Saviour, doctor Bruce has thought it satisfactory to remark, that, in the original language of the New Testament, the term, which we translate by the word god, is applied in very various senses, some of them referring to beings of very inferior station. This observation may however be admitted, without in any degree affecting the interpretation of this very remarkable passage.

If there be any rule of sound interpretation, this must be one, that in every sentence, and more especially in a short and emphatical sentence, every word should be so interpreted, that its meaning should remain the same, except so far as the structure of the sentence itself should indicate a change. So inadequate are even the most copious languages to express all the modifications of thought, that it may be impossible to avoid some changes in the significations even of the most important terms; and indeed, even where such changes might be avoided, it may happen that even a good writer may prefer to apply a term with some

change of signification, relying on the combination of the sentence for rendering that, which he wishes to express, sufficiently intelligible. Still however we must presume, that the meaning is unaltered, unless the necessity of admitting a change can be proved from the passage itself. The supposition of a change of meaning, in the repeated application of the same term of the same sentence, cannot be justified by any consideration of other and independent passages, which might indeed serve to explain the varied use of the term, as a part of the language, but not a variation of its meaning within the compass of any single sentence.

This principle may be well illustrated by the example of the roman orator, though with this important distinction, that the change of signification, which he appears to have freely chosen for the sake of contrast, occurs in the same passage indeed, but in a different sentence. In his oration for the manilian law ** he thus pleaded with the people. "Because

E 2

Legati quod erant appellati superbius, Corinthum patres vestri, totius Græciæ lumen, extinctum esse voluerunt: vos eum regem inultum esse patiemini, qui legatum populi romani consularem vinculis ac verberibus, atque omni supplicio excruciatum necavit? Illi libertatem civium romanorum imminutam non tulerunt : vos vitam ereptam negligetis? Ius legationis verbo violatum illi persecuti sunt: vos legatum populi romani omni supplicio interfectum, inultum relinquetis? c. 4.

:

their ambassadors were haughtily addressed, your fathers willed, that Corinth, the light of all Greece, should be extinguished: will you suffer that king to be unpunished, who put to death the ambassador of the roman people, a man of consular rank, tortured with bonds, and scourges, and every severity? They did not permit the liberty of roman citizens to be infringed will you be indifferent when life has been taken away? They vindicated the right of an embassy, violated only by a word will you leave unrevenged the ambassador of the roman people, slain with every cruelty ?" In this passage the word inultum is used to signify, first unpunished, and then unrevenged but the change of signification is apparent from the context. The orator was manifestly influenced by a desire of contrasting more directly the two cases, which he was comparing; and he was justified in changing the signification of the term, because it is plain that the word must have one signification, as it was applied by a Roman to the enemy of the roman people, and another, as it was applied by the same person to a roman ambassador.

Let a change of signification, such as doctor Bruce has recommended, be admitted in the interpretation of the passage of the evangelist, and let the result be compared with the principle of interpretation, which has been here

stated and illustrated. The term god, he remarks, has been applied in the sacred writings to very various subjects, to angels, to men, to heathen idols, and to Satan. The inference, to be naturally drawn from this variation, would appear to be, that the meaning of the term should in each instance be determined from a consideration of the context. The inference of doctor Bruce however is, that the term has no definite signification whatsoever. According to this mode of interpretation we must understand the declaration of the evangelist, in this the solemn opening of his narrative, to have been in its true meaning this: "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was something called god, whether a being truly so denominated, an angel, a human being, a heathen idol, or Satan." No one of the various meanings. of the term can be selected from the rest, unless the principle of determining the meaning from the context be acknowledged, and this would direct us to the acknowledgment of the divinity of Christ. When we perceive that the term is applied to any of these inferior subjects, we discover the application from the passage itself. How are we led to such an interpretation in the brief statement of the evangelist? If a vague interpretation, comprehending all meanings, be