nal; who 'foreordained whatsoever comes to pass;' who has made all things for himself,' and for 'whose pleasure they are and were created,’ must be 'King of kings, and Lord of lords.' Possessed of every conceivable perfection, the Maker and Preserver of all, it is his right to challenge the homage of every heart, and the supreme devotion of every created intelligence. Our author was in no wise reluctant to ascribe to Jehovah the power, dominion and rights of an absolute and universal Sovereign. God giveth not account of any of his matters.' He openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth.' Clothed with majesty and girded with strength, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.' God over all, he borrows no leave to be,' or to plan, or to act. Whatsoever seems good unto him, that he doeth in heaven, and earth, and through all parts of his grand empire.1 In the exercise of his adorable sovereignty, he had a perfect right to form his own designs respecting angels and men, and he has the same right to exercise his agency in fixing the bounds of their habitation and determining their destiny for all eternity. Our author saw the amiable and awful sovereignty of God in the fall and punishment of the angels who kept not their first estate, and in the confirmation of those who resisted the tempter, in everlasting holiness and bliss. He saw it in the creation of man with powers to obey or disobey his Maker, in the test of loyalty which God prescribed, in the fall, in the provisions of mercy, in the ordaining of multitudes to eternal life and leaving others to their choice of destruction, in the diverse operations of God's Spirit, and in all the discriminations of providence and of grace. It seemed to him that this truth is admirably fitted to prostrate the soul in reverence and fill the heart with a sublime joy. Sad is the moral condition of that man on whom it produces no such effect. And what made God's sovereignty so amiable and so transcendently glorious in his sight was, that it is the sovereignty of wisdom, truth and righteousness, no less than the sovereignty of power.2 No creature in the universe will have just cause to complain of God, during any portion of his existence, because the Judge of all the earth will do right.' Though God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and hardeneth whom he will,' he is to be adored for this diverse agency because every part of it is in harmony with combined wisdom and benevolence, and intended to exhibit his glory to an intelligent universe.

"It is just matter of rejoicing to the whole intelligent creation, that God always acts as a Sovereign, without the least control from any other being in the universe. His own blessedness, and the highest felicity of 2 Ib. p. 247.

1 Works, Vol. III. pp. 247, 248.

all his holy creatures, entirely depends upon his being and acting as a Sovereign. For by acting in a sovereign and irresistible manner, he will infallibly overrule all things for his own glory; which will necessarily secure the highest good of all his benevolent and dutiful servants." I

From the view now taken, it will be seen that Dr. Emmons was accustomed to cherish exalted conceptions of the character of God. As was once suggested respecting Dr. Bellamy, he made God very great.' The sentiment of reverence was largely developed in him. If he dwelt frequently on the divine perfections and government, it was because of their intrinsic grandeur and importance, and of his conviction that a correct knowledge of these is essential to true religion. In his light, he was ever looking for light. The eye on him, all was clear; off, and all was dark. He knew that to be strong, one must rest in God; to be happy, one must be blest in God. Therefore he studied God with intense affection and profound veneration; and the sublime conclusions which he matured in his own mind, he was ever ready to communicate for the illumination of other minds. He knew, indeed, that none by searching can find out the Almighty unto perfection;' yet he was assured that there are parts of his ways' which may be investigated and comprehended. Though the great ocean 'cannot be sounded by plummet and line,' nevertheless the fathoms which that line does measure may be accurately numbered. Though a humorous hearer might now and then have asked, half in earnest and half in irony, 'When does Dr. Emmons expect to be able to tell us all about God?' yet his people were never more solemn or more benefitted than when he carried them up to that spiritual Shechinah, where the presence and majesty of Jehovah were shadowed forth.

Unwilling to protract this survey to the point of tediousness, we omit a synopsis of our author's belief respecting angels 2 and evil spirits.3 We do this the more readily because he taught nothing concerning these peculiarly new or important, and because it will afford us larger opportunity to consider his teachings in regard to man, his duties and his destiny. It animated him to feel that saints are always attended by good angels, and, in a sense, are under their guardianship. If, in a moment of deep perplexity, some thought was suddenly suggested to him which scattered light in his path, he was very ready to receive it as from his guardian angels. Believing also, that man is ever subject to temptations from spirits of evil, he warned both saints and sinners to 'resist the devil and draw nigh to God.'

[To be concluded.]

Works, Vol. VI. pp. 490, 491. See also Vol. IV. pp. 390-401. 2 Works, Vol. IV. pp. 415-429.

3 Ib. pp. 432-435.

ARTICLE IV.

EXEGETICAL AND THEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF JOHN 1: 1-18.

By M. Stuart, late Prof. of Sac. Lit. in the Theol. Sem. at Andover.
[Continued from No. XXV. p. 55.]

In the preceding number of this Miscellany, a somewhat extended view was given of what may be said in the way of illustrating the first verse, in this portion of the Gospel of John. The importance and difficulty of the subject required, in order to accomplish my design, a much more copious discussion than is necessary in regard to any particular portion of the remainder of the prologue. The exegetical demands of the text will now be the leading object of our attention; although I do not, in the present case, prescribe to myself the limits which a mere exegesis would impose.

V. 2. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

The same was in the beginning with God.

The demonstrative outos here refers, of course, to the subject immediately preceding, viz. ó λóyos. It was perhaps for the sake of such a reference, that the writer put ó 2óyos at the close of the preceding verse, and not before . The reason why John adopted the demonstrative pronoun here rather than to repeat the noun which it represents, seems to have been to save the too frequent repetition of o óyos. As the text stands, ouzos represents the 2óyos who was ɛós, and so, in this way, it virtually comprises a repetition of the last clause of v. 1. As to the reason of the repetition itself which is contained in v. 2, I have already stated my views, p. 38 seq. of the preceding Number. The manifest intensity which is indicated by the repetition, denotes earnest opposition to false sentiment. A progress in the development of facts or truths by the addition of new matter, is not made in v. 2. But the intensity of the writer's convictions is represented with additional impetus, in consequence of this verse; and on this account, the declaration which it makes cannot well be viewed as useless, nor as mere tautology.

V. 3. Πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, ὃ γέγονεν.

All things were made by him, and without him was no one thing made which was made.

Hávra, all things, i. e. the universe. Paul employs the word with the article, τὰ πάντα. The usual philosophie expression is τὸ πᾶν. But návra (without the article) is sometimes employed, as here, by the heathen writers; e. g. Anton. ad se ipsum, 4. 23. What is here designated by πάντα, is named ὁ κόσμος in v. 10 below. Τὰ πάντα has more the aspect of designating the universe, as made up of various constituent parts; while zárra has the aspect of unity as a generic whole. It is no wonder that John exchanges it for ô xóaμos below. The Hebrews often made (the earth) the representative of the universe, because in their view, it was the grand constituent of the whole. Thus we have such expressions as "the God of the whole earth;" "the Creator of the ends of the earth," etc. So John, in repeating the sentiment of this verse (in v. 10), says, in accordance with this idiom, that the world (ó xóouos) was made by the Logos.' Not, as the Socinians explain it, the spiritual world, i. e. the Christian church; for the world which the Logos made, and in which he was, was a world that knew him not, (v. 10). This of course excludes the idea of its being the new spiritual world, whose characteristic is, to know God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.

Ai avrov, by him. The allegation that did before the Gen. designates only an instrumental cause, is not correct. That this is its most frequent usage, is readily conceded. But in Rom. 11: 36, di' avrov refers to God himself; and the like in 1 Cor. 1: 9. So in Xen. Mem. I. 2. 14. Cyrop. 1. 4, did stands before the principal cause. - 'Eyévezo, Εγένετο, were made; more literally, came into existence, which has the same meaning. For the same sense of yévezo, comp. 1 Cor. 15: 45. Heb. 4: 3. 11: 3. No other meaning is admissible here. The verb singular with the neuter plural, is the usual construction in Greek.

In like manner as John has repeated v. 1 in the next following verse, so here the second clause of v. 3 repeats the sentiment of the first clause in a negative form, and in such a way as to give much intensity to the expression. Yogis avrov, without him, lit. separately or apart from him.-'Eyévero ovdè év, lit. (as translated above) no one thing. Some copies read ovdév, nothing; but the better reading is ovde r. This has a sense more specific and emphatic. With this, some authorities conclude the verse, and join o réyover with what follows. But what tolerable sense would there be in saying: "That which was in him was life ?" The internal evidence in favor of the present division of the verse, is sufficiently strong to vouch for its cor

rectness.

With John, the repetition of a sentiment in a negative form is of frequent occurrence, see v. 20 below, 1 John 1: 5, 8. 2: 4, 11, al. In the present case, the force of the repetition is so manifest, that every considerate reader is spontaneously inclined to ask: To whom does the writer oppose himself?" That he has a polemical design, in part, one can hardly refrain from believing. And if so, whose sentiments were in view? A portion of the Gnostics of that time, it is well known, maintained the eternity of 2n, matter, as being an original chaotic substance. If now we suppose that John's no one thing refers to this exception or limitation which the Gnostics made to the extent of creation, then is the earnestness of the writer's expression natural and easily accounted for. John had before denied the Gnostic views respecting the nature of the Logos, and now he stands again in opposition to them, in respect to what the Logos had done or accomplished. Has not Paul a like reference, in what he says of the creation by Christ in Col. 1: 16? His method of expression certainly appears to favor this supposition.

Such are the generic views which John has given us respecting the condition and nature of the Logos, and of the manner in which he first developed himself. He is eternal; he was with God; he was God; and he created all things without the exception of even one thing in the creation.

V. 4. Ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

In him, iv avre, not through him or by him. As has already been remarked, this expression designates the Logos as the source, the immanent fountain, of life. More fully is this same idea explained, in 5: 26, and 1 John 5: 11.- Zon, life, without the article and generic. The writer means to designate a life-giving power, which extends to the production of all life whether physical or spiritual. The reader should note the progress of thought. First, we are told what the Logos is; next the highest exhibition of his power, in the creation of the universe, is brought to view. Then follows the mention of some particular, special, and notable developments of his attributes. All life or animation, the highest and noblest quality of created things, is the gift of the Logos. Such is also the course of thought in Gen. 1: 1 seq., where the chaotic material is the result of the first creation, and the forming of living creatures comes in the sequel. Doubtless John had his eye upon this. The interpretation which assigns to Con here the meaning of happiness, or author of happiness or of spiritual life, does not reach the full force of the author's meaning. He does indeed com