come, or do we look for another?" Could John be supposed, under such circumstances, to be acquainted with the eternal deity of Christ, or even his pre-existent state, according to the assumed meaning of his own words, "for he was before me"? Is not the belief in one case, and the doubt in the other, wholly incompatible?

Of the time and manner of the prophetic appointment of John, and of the institution of that rite which he administered, namely, baptism, we have no historical account. The narratives which we have, are limited to the manner in which he discharged his office. But we must suppose that John was authorized to act by a special and express commission, both in giving his testimony concerning Christ, and in explaining the economy of the new dispensation, and also in accompanying his declarations with a peculiar rite. That rite, at least invested with a religious character, was not previously in use. I am not acquainted with any previous institution that is to be identified with it: but it would be here out of place to introduce a disquisition on this subject.

From the foregoing view of the testimony of John, we are authorized to conclude, that he did not testify concerning Christ's supreme deity: but the contrary is clearly implied, and often to be inferred. This observation is not unimportant, as viewed in connection with our interpretation of the foregoing verses.

"To bear witness of the light."-Because the Father communicated the light in, or, by his Son, Christ is sometimes called "the light." John viii. 12. "Then

D

spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." But though Jesus was called "the light," by way of eminence, he was not so denominated, either exclusively or independently, in his own right. He said to his disciples, (Matt. v. 14.) "Ye are the light of the world." Even the Baptist, though in this proem he is said not to be the light, yet is so denominated in John v. 35, "He was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light," [εv Ty pwri aurou.] Essentially only "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." See 1 John i. 5. And in the following passage, Jesus virtually disclaims the possession of underived light. John xii. 44. 46. "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. .........I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness." He came a light in consequence of being sent.

εν

"That all men through him might believe."-The Jewish multitude justly "counted John as a prophet"; and therefore they must have considered his testimony in favour of Jesus as the Messiah as legitimate proof. Jesus made this appeal to the Jews: (John v. 33.) "Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth." The institution of the gospel is a rational system. The constitution of the new dispensation is pre-eminently intellectual, moral and spiritual. Faith or belief is necessarily the result of evidence. When men believe, (or rather profess to believe,) they know not what, nor for what reasons, their blind persuasion has not the sanc

tion of reason, and bears not the impress of truth. The state of mind which they call faith, has nothing in common with rational conviction, and owes its existence to influences of an extraneous character. Very different from this was the dispassionate testimony of John: it was a rational ground of faith.

The light of the gospel is moral and intellectual. It is capable of being conveyed to us, and received by us, through the various provisions of our intellectual constitution. We are acquainted with no other legitimate means by which it can be imparted. "The grace of God" in the gospel, which confers eternal life through Jesus Christ, is to be viewed as the means of enlightening and influencing the mind. Nothing else, independently and exclusive of its natural operation, is to be regarded as the efficient cause of its saving influence. Grace is not, as it has too often been represented, of so sovereign and almighty an efficiency, as to supersede the volitions of the mind, or to operate independently of them; but, by the grace or gift of God, we are supplied with evidence," that we might believe," and with motives, that we might receive, that light of divine truth, which, according to the provisions of our rational nature, is capable of enlightening "every man that cometh into the world." Titus ii. 11. "For the grace of God, that bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared,* teaching us, &c."

* This is the marginal and correct translation.

:

VERSE THE EIGHTH.

He was not the light, but that he might bear witness of the

light, q

P John was not the revealer of the light of the gospel.

4 That he might give his attestation to the person of Jesus Christ, the true revealer of the light.

COMMENTARY.

"He was not the light."-Jesus is here called "the light" as in verse fourteenth he is called "the word"; not as a personal or proper name, but officially as the revealer of divine truth dispensed in the gospel, the effect being put for the cause,-instances of which frequently occur in the scriptures. John xiv. 5. "I am the way, the truth and the life." Christ is called "our hope,” (1 Tim. i. 1,) and "the hope of glory," (Colos. i. 27.)* According to this mode of speaking, Christ is our" wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption," (1 Cor. i. 30.) All such instances are a kind of indirect personification, expressive of the character, office, &c., of him to whom they are applied; but they are in no case to be understood as personal titles, or of the import of proper names; because for this they are not, and cannot be, substituted in ordinary use. It is true that official names are not unfrequently put for proper names, as the Baptist for John, Saviour, Son of God, &c. for Jesus; but this arises from the notoriety of the characteristic, to which reference is made.

* On the contrary, the cause is sometimes put for the effect:— Christ is often used for his doctrine; Ephes. iv. 20, "But ye have not so learned Christ."

If "the light" were here intended to represent a person who was properly God, whence arose the necessity of advertising us, that John was not the person meant? Was there the remotest danger of mistaking John for the supreme Deity, or one of the divine persons of the Trinity?

God, the supreme Father, alone is essentially "the light, in whom there is no darkness at all." Jesus Christ is the light in a secondary sense, because through him is reflected the ineffable uncreated light through him the light was made manifest. "He was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person," or subsistence. See Heb. i. 3. It is to be remarked, that the true explanation of this term, and of many other terms also, as applied to secondary or subordinate instruments, developes an important principle of interpretation; namely, that that which in the highest sense is to be ascribed to God essentially, in and of himself, may also be ascribed, in an inferior sense, to those who were commissioned by him to act on his behalf. Thus, the Father alone is God supremely and essentially, "and there is none else"; but the appellation God was also conferred on those who acted in a pre-eminent capacity of authority or power under God, as our Saviour himself has expressly affirmed: John x. 36, “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came; and the scripture cannot be broken, &c." We have another apposite instance in the word Saviour. This, in the most absolute sense, belongs only to God, even the Father; but in an inferior sense it has been applied to others; and in a very appropriate, though