same in both. And though it might admit some defence, that in clauses connected as those in the text, the first should be expressed in the past, and the second in the present, the reverse is surely, on the principles of grammar, indefensible. I have employed the past time in both, as more suitable to the strain of the context. I think also it makes a clearer sense; inasmuch as the passage alludes to the reception which Jesus Christ, here called the light, met with whilst he abode upon the earth, and the mistakes of all his countrymen (the disciples themselves not excepted) in regard to his office and character.

9. "The true light was he who," "Hv to gas to áindivov ö. E. T. "That was the true light which.". When this verse, in the original, is compared with the foregoing, it appears, upon the first glance, to be in direct contradiction to it: ver. 8, ovn v inɛivos To qws; ver. 9, nv to qus. As if we should say, in Eng. that man was not the light-He was the light.' But, on attending more closely, we find that, in ver. 8, exeivos, referring to John the Baptist, is the subject of the proposition; whereas, in ver. 9, rò qus is the subject. In this view, there is a perfect consistency between the two assertions, as they relate to different subjects. For the greater perspicuity, I have rendered what is affirmed of the true light, ver. 9, he who coming, not that which coming, though this is the more literal version. My reason is, because, in the following verses, this light is spoken of always as a person. Now the best place for introducing this change of manner, is doubtless that wherein an explanation is purposely given of the phrase τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθι vov. And that there is such a change of manner in the original, is manifest. Thus the pronoun referring to qus, ver. 5, is auzo, in the neuter; but after the explanation given ver. 9, we find in verses 10, 11, and 12, avtov in the masculine.

2 "Who, coming into the world, enlighteneth every man, ὁ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Ε. Τ. “Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Vul. "Quæ illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum." I have observed (Diss. XII. Part. i. sect. 22.) that the word ¿ozóμevov, in this place, is equivocal, as it may be understood to agree either with φως or with ἄνθρωπον. As the ambiguity could not well be preserved in Eng. I have preferred the former method of rendering. Most modern translators, Itn. Fr. and Ger. as well as ours, have, with the Vul. preferred the latter. The former way has been adopted by Cas. and Leo de Juda in La.; by L. Cl. and Beau. in Fr.; by the An. translator and Dod. in Eng. The reasons which determined my choice are the following:-1st, 'O ozóμevos eis ròv xóoμov is a periphrasis by which the Messiah was at that time commonly denoted, [as chap. 6: 14. 18: 37.] 2dly, He is in this Gospel once and again distinguished as "the light that cometh into VOL. II.

59

the world." Thus, chap. 3: 19, "Now this is the condemnation, that the light (ro qus) is come into the world :"-chap. 12: 46, “I am come a light into the world.” 3dly, I do not find, on the other hand, that oxóuεvos eis rov xóσuov, "who cometh into the world," is ever employed by the sacred writers as an addition to nas ävDownоs, "every man." θρωπος, every man." I am far from pretending that words, not absolutely necessary, are not sometimes used in Scripture to render the expression more forcible. But it must be allowed to have weight in the present case, that a phrase which never occurs in the application that suits the common version, is familiar in the application that suits the version given here. 4thly, The meaning conveyed in this version appears more consonant to fact than the other. Το say that the Messiah, by coming into the world, lighteth every man, is, in my apprehension, no more than to say that he has, by his coming, rendered the spiritual light of his Gospel accessible to all, without distinction, who choose to be guided by it. The other at least seems to imply, that every individual has in fact been enlightened by him. Markland observes (Bowyer's Conjectures,) that if ἐρχόμενον agreed with ἄνθρωπον, it would have probably had the article, and been tov ¿oxóμsvov. But on this I do not lay any stress; for though the remark is founded in the Gr. idiom, such minute circumstances are not always minded by the evangelists.

11. "He came unto his own home, and his own family did not receive him,” εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθε, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. E. T. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." The E. T. is right, as far as it goes, but not so explicit as the origi nal. The distinction made by the author between ra dia and oi idiot is overlooked by the interpreter. As by that distinction the country of Judea and the people of the Jews are more expressly marked, I have thought it worthy of being retained. For a similar phrase to εἰς τὰ ἴδια, see L. 2: 49. N. Though τὰ ἴδια commonly means home, this is not always to be understood strictly for one's own house. A man naturally considers his country, when he is at a distance from it, as his home, and his countrymen as those of his family. Diss. XII. Part iv. sect. 8.

12, 13. "Children of God, who derive their birth not from blood:" That is, children by a generation spiritual and divine, which has nothing in common with natural generation.

14. "The word became incarnate," ó óyos odg§ ¿yéveto. E. T. "The word was made flesh." In the language of the synagogue the term odos was so often employed to denote a human being,' that the evangelist's expression would not sound so harshly in the ears of those accustomed to that idiom, as the literal version of the words does in ours. Besides, was made does not entirely correspond to yévezo as used here, being a translation rather of the La. factum est than of the Gr. I have for these reasons preferred

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.

66

2" Sojourned," ¿oxnvwaεv. 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 ovoavois oxyvouvres. 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 αἰώνιος. 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," ungoodεv μov jézovεv. 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 un006pev to be 'before in time,' and renders the Gr. expression is before me.' "I find no instance," says he, "where unoоodev pov yérovɛv 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 μлооσε never expresses priority of time: "Ut multi notaverunt, non dixit πρὸ μου, sed ἔμπροσθεν μου; præpositio autem unoоov 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 unoоovεv tempus declaret." Opinions so contrary cannot be both true; but both may be false, and I suspect are so. That Euroooev 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," μлoooεv Exɛivov. There is at the same time, it must be confessed, some relation to place here also. The word lungooder, in the most common acceptation, answers to the Latin coram, not

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 Μανασσή, “ 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 πρώτος μου ἦν, 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.'

3" For he was before me," or noшτos μov йv. 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 noros 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), пoóry яaçшv tov Evrokov is "the chief of all the commandments;” (Acts 28: 17), τοὺς ὄντας τῶν ̓Ιουδαίων 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 Aaós is a collective noun, so also is Talikaia, 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), ἐμὲ πρῶτον ὑμῶν μεμισήκεν, concerning the meaning of which, though the construction is unusual, there has hardly been, till very lately, a diversity of opinion amongst interpreters. These have generally agreed in rendering the passage "it