nakedly propounded, can it be believed, that an apostle, writing under the influence of divine direction, or even under the guidance of ordinary discretion, could have compossed such a sentence, and have prefixed it to his gospel, as a formal and solemn enunciation of the dignity of the being, the incidents of whose ministry he was going to narrate? If this be indeed the fair construction of this introductory sentence, the inference, which would naturally present itself to the mind of a reader, would be, that the man, who could so trifle with his understanding, was unworthy of his attention.

There is no sense, urges doctor Bruce, in saying God was God, and was with God. Neither has it been said by the apostle. He has said "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The character of the person named the Word was to be determined, and there is no want of sense in saying, that this character was divine. Doctor Bruce indeed appears to have assumed, that the apostle must be understood to represent the Word as identical with the Father, and thus to express one of those unmeaning propositions, in which a term is affirmed of itself. The natural interpretation of the passage is however, that the being named the Word, was not only in the beginning, and with God, but was also himself God,

or a divine being. This interpretation would be yet more distinct, if the passage were more precisely translated, by inserting the demonstrative particle found in the original language; as "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God." The article the, thus inserted, indicates the unoriginated self-existent Father, and the Word is described as God, without any such emphatical designation of an underived existence. The apostle however, in announcing the dignity of the Word, did not content himself with simply stating that he was God, but proceeded to describe him as the being by whom all things were made, so that" without him was not any thing made that was made," thus attributing to him that creative power, which we which we cannot conceive to belong to any being less than divine. The object of the apostle was probably to oppose one of the fanciful doctrines of the gnostic heretics, who, to account for the origin of evil in the world, ascribed the formation of it to a being distinct from the λóyos, and of an evil, or at least an imperfect nature. But whatever may have been the design of the apostle, we are equally furnished with an argument, which seems to prove decisively the divinity of our Redeemer.

Doctor Bruce however disregards the force of such an inference. He has objected that

the terms used in the original languages do not imply production from nothing, and that we cannot determine, whether a power properly creative may not be communicated. It may be admitted that words are not in any language used with a metaphysical precision, which must incontrovertibly ascertain their application, because in the early period of a language the thoughts of those who speak it, are little abstracted, and as it becomes more improved, the significations of words are multiplied to give expression to the boundless variety of ideas. But we are not destitute of an argument sufficiently cogent, to demonstrate that the apostle here designed to express that which is properly creation, or a production from nothing. The context will here also serve to determine beyond all reasonable controversy the meaning of the apostle. He has not told us, that one thing, or some few things, had been made by the being, whom he has named the Word, but all things, and he has added the emphatic declaration, "and without him was not any thing made that was made." It may now be demanded, how could all things have been made, except by a power properly creative? It cannot be said that they were formed out of preexistent matter, for that preexistent matter would have been something, and therefore must have been comprehended in the general expression.

Whatever therefore may be in other cases the vagueness of the meaning of the term here translated by the english word made, the universality of the declaration of the apostle decides in this case, that it must signify created; nor is there any escape from this conclusion, except by maintaining that matter is eternal and self-existent, and thus denying the creative power even of the Father. The other objection, which implies that possibly a power strictly creative may be imparted to a being not divine, and that therefore such a power cannot furnish a proof of divinity, is happily contradicted both by Moses, who has ascribed the creation exclusively to God, and by Paul, who has, in his speech addressed to the Athenians, repeated the declaration. We are sure therefore that this power has not been so communicated, and consequently we infer that, if it was indeed exercised by our Saviour, as we have been assured by John, he must have participated the divine nature.

One rule of interpretation has been proposed, namely, that in the same sentence we should presume that the same word must, in recurring, bear the same signification, except so far as some change may be indicated by the context. Another principle of sound interpretation is that, in ancient compo

*This principle appears to have been adopted by the

sitions, the meaning of words addressed to any persons, may often be best collected from the impressions, which these words appear to have made on those persons, when they were spoken. It cannot often from any analogy of language be so surely determined, what was their true and proper acceptation, as. from observing in what sense they were actually understood at the time by the persons, to whose understandings they must be supposed to have been accommodated by the speaker. This principle, which approves itself to our reason in ordinary cases, is irresistibly evident when applied to the discourses of him, who knew the secret thoughts of the heart, and could reply to them before they had found utterance in language. Mere mortals indeed, however desirous of being understood, may sometimes fail to convey their ideas to their hearers, because they may be ignorant of those mental prejudices, through which they are frequently received; but that being, who "needed not that any should testify of man, because he knew what was in man," could not be so deceived, and must have been able to communicate with clearness and precision,

bishop of St. Davids in several tracts, to which reference has been made by archbishop Magee, in his Discourses and Dissertations on Atonement and Sacrifice, vol. 2. part 2. p. 40, note, London 1816; and also by Mr. Wilson, to whose work reference has also been made in the same passage.