"is true; and we are in Him that is true, in his "Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and "eternal life."

The word "even," inserted in our version, and which materially affects the sense of the passage, is not in the original. The meaning, I conceive, is, We are in his Son Jesus Christ, and therefore "we know, and are in Him that is true (the Father) according to our Lord's promise.'

At the 11th verse of this same chapter, the Apostle saith, "This is the record, that God hath

66

given to us eternal life, and this life is in His: "Son." And at the 17th ch. 3rd v. of the Gospel by the same Evangelist, he records the words of our blessed Saviour: "And this is life eternal, "that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE "GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." From these parallels in the writings of St. John, I humbly conceive that the concluding words in the text quoted by Mr. Jones, refer to the Almighty Father.

66

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philo- Col. ii. 8, 9. sophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, "after the rudiments of the world, and not after "CHRIST: for IN HIM DWELLETH ALL THE 66 FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY."

It would have been happy for the world if teachers in the Christian Church had all along attended to the wholesome advice given here by

the Apostle. To their disregard of it may be traced the origin of those dissentions, persecutions, and bitter animosities that have disgraced the name of Christianity ever since the second century. But it is the concluding passage that concerns the subject in hand.

I have never met with a satisfactory exposition of this text; and the expression, as it stands in our version, is certainly ambiguous. The conjunction for, shows that the words are connected with the caution St. Paul had given. The Platonic philosophy (which not long afterwards became mixed with Christianity) had already began to taint the minds of some Christian Converts, and the Apostle exhorts the Colossians to beware of it; telling them that in Christ Jesus was the fulness of the Godhead; meaning, as I humbly conceive, the fulness of all that God had seen fit to reveal to mankind concerning himself, as opposed to the fanciful notions of the Platonists or Pythagoreans. The words which immediately follow-" and ye

66

are complete in him" (Christ) seem to support this exposition. The word cwpaliuws, translated bodily, as it occurs here, would, I conceive, have been more correctly rendered by effectually, or in full bodily form; as in modern phrase we would say, ‘In him is the whole body of Divinity.' Be this as it may, the words cannot be understood as declarative of our Lord's co-equality with the Father, for in the preceding chapter, at the 19th v.,

the Apostle, after setting forth the dignity and majesty of our Lord's character, added, as if to prevent such an erroneous idea-" For it pleased "the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." This is the doctrine taught by our Lord himself, as in John 14. 10" The Father that dwelleth "in me, He doeth the works." And again, "The "Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things "into his hand," saith the Baptist. (John 3. 35.)

When we compare the opening of St. John's Gospel with very many other passages in his writings, I think it must be admitted that his manner of expression is extremely ambiguous and difficult. If we take the four words, quoted by Mr. Jones, in their literal sense, they would seem to be directly opposed to a multitude of texts from the pen of the same Evangelist.

It is generally believed (as affirmed by ancient writers) that St. John published his Gospel with the design of refuting the heresies of the Gnostics, Cerinthians, and other sects; some of whom denied the pre-existence of our blessed Lord, whilst others contended that he did not come in the flesh, but was man only in appearance, and

consequently incapable of suffering pain at his crucifixion.

St. John's proem is evidently pointed against these errors: to declare our Lord's pre-existence and incarnation, was plainly his object. That the Son is the beloved of God, and most high in the glory of the Father, the Scripture teaches us to believe; but his identity, or co-equality with the Father, is nowhere affirmed, but on the contrary is positively denied. For the present, one single passage from the Gospel of this same Evangelist (St. John) will be sufficient. He has recorded the last, most highly-interesting, discourse which our Lord held with the Apostles before his decease.

Among many other affectionate and consoling expressions, we find the following: "If ye loved

66

me ye would rejoice, because I said I go unto "the Father, for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14. 28.) It is argued that this was said in reference to his human nature; but it is hard to believe that our Lord would make this declaration in such unqualified terms, and upon a point so important, if he had intended that it should be so understood. The whole tenor of the Gospel and Epistles deny the doctrine of co-equality, as I humbly conceive the texts I have already quoted fully prove; I therefore believe that this declaration of our Lord is to be taken in the plain unlimited sense of the words.

66

XX.

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is

given, and the government shall be upon his "shoulder and his name shall be called Won"derful, Counsellor, the MIGHTY GOD, the EVER"LASTING FATHER."

Various explications of this text have been attempted. As we have it in our version (and is quoted by Mr. Jones without comment), it makes the Son and the Everlasting Father to be one and the same; a sufficient reason why we should not take it literally, nor rest any point of doctrine upon it. In the 3rd ch. 16th v. of St. John's Gospel, we have an explanation of the first clause, from the mouth of our Lord himself," God so loved "the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son." The government was laid upon his shoulder by the Almighty Father, who thus gave him to the world. There is nothing in the text to support the doctrine of co-equality; but on the contrary, it ascribes the merciful plan of man's redemption to the love of the Father, accomplished by the incarnation, ministry, and sufferings of his ever-blessed Son, who was given by Him.

(p. 17.)

Isa. ix. 6.

"This is the name whereby he shall be called, Jer. xxiii. 6. the Lord (JEHOVAH) our righteousness."

Mr. Jones has inserted the word Jehovah in

a parenthesis, in which he is supported by a mar