the phrase became incarnate,' which, if it does not so much trace the letter of the original as the common rendering does, is closer to the sense, and sufficiently simple and intelligible. This expression, "The word became incarnate," has been thought by some, not implausibly, to have been pointed by the evangelist against the error of the Docete, who denied the human nature of Christ, supposing him to have been a man only in appearance; and the expression, "The word was God, ver. 1, to have been pointed against the error of the Ebionites, who denied his divine nature, affirming that he was no more than a man.

2" Sojourned," ¿oxyvwoev. E. T. "Dwelt." Vul. Ar. Er. Zu. Cas. "Habitavit." Be. "Commoratus est." Most foreign versions follow the Vul. An. " Had his tabernacle." Dod. " Pitched his tabernacle." Wes. and Wy. "Tabernacled." The rest follow the common version. The primitive signification of the verb oxηvów, from oxηvý, tent or tabernacle, is doubtless, to pitch a tent,' or dwell in a tent.' But words come insensibly to deviate from their first signification. This has evidently happened to the verb in question. As a tent, from its nature, must be a habitation of but short continuance, the verb formed from it would quickly come to signify to reside for a little time, more as a sojourner than as an inhabitant. This is well deduced by Phavorinus, σκηνή, ἡ πρόσκαιρος κατοικία σκηνόω, τὸ πρὸς καίρον οἴκησιν ποιοῦμαι, which exactly suits the sense of commoror, 'I sojourn,' It must be owned also, (as may be evinced from unexceptionable authorities), that the verb means sometimes simply to dwell, in the largest sense, without any limitation from the nature or the duration of the dwelling. Thus the inhabitants of heaven are called (Rev. 12: 12, and 13: 6), oi ¿v ovo̟avous ouvres. Nay, which is still stronger, it is made use of to express God's abode with his people after the resurrection, which is always represented as eternal, Rev. 21: 3. But we may be the less surprised at this when we consider, that oxyvn itself is used (L. 16:9), for a permanent habitation, and joined with the epithet aiavios. See N. 3, on that verse. We cannot therefore deny, that the manner wherein the word is rendered by the Vul. and the E. T. is entirely defensible. As the term, however, admits either interpretation; and as the word for to dwell commonly used in this Gospel, and even in this chapter, is different; and as, considering the shortness of our Lord's life, especially of his ministry, he may be said more properly to have sojourned than to have dwelt amongst us; I have preferred B.'s interpretation.

15. I look upon this verse as a parenthesis, in which the testimony of John is anticipated, ver. 16 being in immediate connexion with ver. 14. It is for this reason I have not only enclosed ver. 15 in hooks, but introduced it by the words it was, which ren

der the connexion closer. This will appear more evidently from what is to be remarked on ver. 16.

2 "Is preferred to me," Eurooб μov péyover. Vul. "Ante me factus est." Er. and Zu. "Antecessit me." Cas. "Ante me fuit." Be." Antepositus est mihi." Dio. "M'è antiposto," G. F. "Est préféré à moi." L. Cl. "Est plus que moi." Beau. "M'est préféré." Ger. Vor mir gewesen ist. E. T. Dod. Hey. Wes. Wy. Wor. "Is preferred before me." An. "Was before me." There are but two meanings in all the variety of expressions employed in translating this passage. Some make it express priority in time, others pre-eminence in dignity. With the former we should undoubtedly class the Vul. and yet most of those who have translated from it must be numbered among the latter. Thus the translators of P. R. and Sa. say, "A été préféré à moi." Si. “Est au-dessus de moi." But though the Vul. and the other Latin translators, Be. alone excepted, have adopted the first method; all the translators into modern languages I am acquainted with, Romish or Protestant, (except Lu. the An. and the Rh.), have followed Be. in preferring the second. Were I here translating the Vul. I should certainly say with the interpreters of Rheims, was made before me," and should be ready to employ Si.'s language against himself, accusing him (with better reason than he has accused Be. and the P. R. interpreters) of giving for a version a mere comment, which ought to have been put in the margin. But, as I do not translate from the Vul. the case is different. Wh. indeed, a commentator of known and deserved reputation, thinks the proper import of un000qev to be 'before in time,' and renders the Gr. expression is before me.' "I find no instance," says he, "where unpoodεv pov yέyover signifies, he was preferred before me, and therefore rather choose to retain the proper import of the words." Maldonat, another commentator justly celebrated for critical abilities and acuteness, is of an opinion directly opposite to Wh.'s. He affirms, that in Scripture unoоodev never expresses priority of time: "Ut multi notaverunt, non dixit προ μου, sed ἔμπροσθεν μου; præpositio autem ungoover nusquam in sacris literis reperitur tempus significare." Be. appears to have thought so also when he said, "Ego istos libenter rogem, ut vel unum ex Novi Testamenti libris exemplum proferant in quo euroоovεv tempus declaret." Opinions so contrary cannot be both true; but both may be false, and I suspect are so. That uлoooεv in the New Testament is sometimes expressive of time, may be argued from these words of the Baptist, ch. 3: 28, "I am not the Messiah, but am sent before him," Eurooσvεv inɛivov. There is at the same time, it must be confessed, some relation to place here also. The word unooovev, in the most common acceptation, answers to the Latin coram, not

66

seldom to præ, more rarely to ante. In the sense of preference or superiority it is doubtless employed by the Seventy, Gen. 48: 20, *Εθηκεν τὸν ̓Εφραΐμ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Μανασσῆ, “ He set Ephraim before Manasseh:" for though it may be said that Ephraim was the first named, it is only the preference implied as given to the younger brother which seems to have been regarded by their father Joseph. Chrysostom also, and other Gr. expositors, interpret in the same manner the words in the passage under consideration. Add to this, that in those places of the Gospel, which are pretty numerous, where priority in time alone is referred to, the word is never ἔμπροσθεν, but either πρό or πρίν, with the genitive of the noun, or the infinitive of the verb. See in this Gospel (amongst other places) ch. 1: 48. 4:49. 5: 7. 8: 58. Another argument in favor of this interpretation is, that priority in time appears to be marked by the succeeding clause noros uov nv, to be considered immediately. Now, to give the same meaning to both clauses, is to represent the evangelist as recurring to a sophism which logicians call idem per idem, that is, proving a thing by itself, repeated with only some variety in the expression; insomuch that his reasoning would amount to no more than this, 'He was before me, because he was before me.'

3For he was before me," öri nowτos μov v. Vul. Er. Zu. Be. "Quia prior me erat." Cas. "Quippe qui prior me sit." The Sy. (though in the former clause the expression may be thought ambiguous) is clearly to the same purpose with the aforesaid versions in this. In the same manner also Dio Lu. and the Fr. translators, except Beau. who says "Parce qu'il est plus grand que moi." With this agrees Hey. "For he is my superior." The other English versions concur with the English translation. The word no@ros is no doubt a superlative, and signifies not only first in time, but often also first in dignity and rank. When it is used in this way, it is commonly followed, like other superlatives, by the genitive plural of that which is the subject of comparison; or, if the subject be expressed by a collective noun, by the genitive singular. Thus (Mr. 12: 29), nowen naswv tŵv Evrokov is "the chief of all the commandments;" (Acts 28: 17), Tous ovτas tov 'lovdalwv лorovs, "the chief of the Jews." In like manner (Mr. 6:21) οἱ πρῶτοι τῆς Γαλιλαίας, and (L. 19: 47), οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ; for Aaos is a collective noun, so also is Talilaia, the name of a country, when used by a trope for the inhabitants. But in the expression in question there is neither collective nor genitive plural; Toros cannot therefore be rightly understood as a superlative. But is there any similar example in the sacred writers? There is one similar in this very Gospel, (15: 18), ¿uè noŵrov vμæv μeμiońxev, concerning the meaning of which, though the construction is unusual, there has hardly been, till very lately, a diversity of opinion amongst interpre

ters.

These have generally agreed in rendering the passage "it

hated me before it hated you." The sense which has been put on the word nowtos, and so strenuously defended by Dr. Lardner, shall be considered in the Note on that place. Till then I shall take it for granted, that what has hitherto been the commonest explanation of the term, is also the clearest. Now, by every principle of sound criticism, we ought to explain the doubtful by the clear, especially as both examples, which are all the examples that Scripture affords us, are from the same pen; and as the passage thus explained yields a sense which is both just and apposite, there being at least an apparent reference to the information he had given us concerning the Aoyos, the word,' in the beginning of the chapter.

ριν

6

16. "Of his fulness we all have received, even grace for his grace.” Εκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἔλαβομεν, καὶ χάQuv avri zάouros. E. T. "Of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. The context shows that the possessive pronoun avrov, his, refers to o lóyos, the word, which he says became incarnate. But what is the import of the clause "grace for grace?" Is it that we receive grace, in return for the grace we give? So says L. Cl. availing himself of an ambiguity in the Greek word zaous which (like grace in Fr.) signifies not only a favor bestowed, but thanks returned; and maintaining that the sense is, that God gives more grace to those who are thankful for that formerly received; a position which, however just, it requires an extraordinary turn of imagination to discover in this passage. Is it, as Dod. Wes. and Wy. render it," grace upon grace," that is, grace added to grace? I should not dislike this interpretation, if this meaning of the preposition avi in Scripture were well supported. It always there denotes, if I mistake not, 'instead of,' answering to,' or 'in return for.' Is it a mere pleonasm? Does it mean (as Grotius would have it)" grace gratuitous ?" I do not say that such pleonastic expressions are unexampled in sacred writ; but I do say, that this sense given to the idiom is unexampled. The word in such cases is δωρεάν, as Rom. 3:4, Δικαιούμενοι δωρεάν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι. Ι, instead of giving scope to fancy, we attend to the context and the construction of the words, we shall not need to wander so far in quest of the meaning. In ver. 14 we are informed, that "the word became incarnate, and sojourned amongst us, full of grace and truth." It is plain that the 15th verse, containing the Baptist's declaration, must be understood as a parenthesis. And it actually is understood so by all expositors; inasmuch as they make avrou here refer to loyos in ver. 14. The evangelist, resuming the subject which (for the sake of inserting John's testimony) he had interrupted, tells us, that all we his disciples, particularly his apostles, have received of his fulness. But of what was he full? It had been said expressly, that he was full of grace. When, therefore, the

historian brings this additional clause concerning grace in explanation of the former, (for on all hands the conjunction xal is here admitted to be explanatory,) is it not manifestly his intention to inform us, that of every grace wherewith he was filled his disciples received a share? The pronoun αὐτοῦ, which occurs after πληρώματος, must be understood as repeated after xáoizos, the omission whereof in such cases is so common as scarcely to be considered as an ellipsis. I shall give a few similar examples out of many which might be produced. Mt. 12: 50, αὐτός μου ἀδελφὸς, καὶ ἀδελφὴ, καὶ μήTng ou; where the pronoun pou is prefixed to the first noun, and left to be supplied by the sense before the other two: 1 Tim. 6: 1, ἵνα μὴ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία βλασφημῆται; where the sense requires the pronoun αὐτοῦ, or the repetition of τοῦ Θεοῦ after didaoxalia: and to give one example from this Gospel, ch. 6: 52, πώς δύναται οὗτος ἡμῖν δοῦναι τὴν σάρκα φαγεῖν ; where, if we do not supply from the sense vrou after oάoxa, we shall give a very different meaning to the question, and one perfectly unsuited to the context. But to return to the words under examination : when the immediate connexion between the 16th and the 14th verses is attended to, the meaning of the clause is equally obvious as that of any of the foregoing examples. "The Word incarnate," says the apostle, "resided amongst us, full of grace and truth; and of his fulness we all have received, even grace for his grace;" that is, of every grace or celestial gift conferred above measure upon him, his disciples have received a portion, according to their measure. If there should remain a doubt whether this were the sense of the passage, the words immediately following seem calculated to remove it: "For the law was given by Moses, the grace and the truth came by Jesus Christ." Here the evangelist intimates that Jesus Christ was as truly the channel of divine grace to his disciples, as Moses had been of the knowledge of God's law to the Israelites. I am happy to find that in this criticism I concur with the learned Dr. Clarke.

17. "The grace and the truth," zápis xai ý álýðɛia. E.T. "Grace and truth." The article in this place ought by no means to be omitted. These nouns are often used emphatically as names for the gospel dispensation; and are here contrasted as such to ó vóuos, 'the law,' the name given to the Mosaic economy. H yaois, χάρις, sometimes with and sometimes without an addition, is thus, if I mistake not, employed in these and other passages, which the reader may consult at his leisure: Acts 13: 43. 20: 32. 2 Cor. 6: 1. Gal. 2:21. 5: 4. 2 Thess. 1: 12. Tit. 2: 11. 1 Pet. 5: 12, and nana in the following: J. 8: 32. 16: 13. 17:17. 2 Cor. 4: 2. 13: 8. Gal. 3: 1. 5: 7. Eph. 4: 21. 2 Thess. 2: 12. 1 Tim. 3:15. 4:3. 2 Tim. 2: 15. 3: 8. 4: 4. Tit. 1: 14. Heb. 10: 26. Ja. 5: 19. 1 Pet. 1: 22. 2 Pet. 2:2. 1 J. 2:21. 2 J. 2. 3 J. 8.