blish this proposition, that Christ" made the worlds." The word worlds' being in the plural, agrees with the Jewish notions; for they made mention of three; first, the upper world, or habitation of God; secondly, the middle world of the air; and thirdly, the lower world of the earth. CHAP. I. 2. Gill. relationship. I did incline to the opinion of those, who Christ's assumed maintain, that " by whom" does not apply to Christ's assumed relationship, but simply, that he, who had assumed these relations, had made all things. The only Begotten, or Son essential, being the Word in creation, John i. the first Begotten, or constituted Son, being the Word in new creation; but I am now convinced, that here is implied what else where is affirmed: that all things were brought forth into being by the Word virtually as Eph. ii. 9. "Jesus Christ," for as all the other clauses of the introduction relate to the God-man, it is most reasonable to infer, that this does "The same person which was the Son of God to be incarnate, is now the Son of God in carnate."-Dick son. also; and I hope to shew, that the proof of Chap. i. 10. this clause must rest upon the idea of the dependence that all things have upon Jesus Christ, as God-man. or actual. That there is a double influence, virtual and Influence, virtual actual, which causes have to their effects, is evident from Christ being styled the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, &c. And as there is a double influence, so answerably a double existence may be conceived of him; a virtual existence is affirmed of him, chap. xiii. 8, " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." So the Son of God, existing actually only as Son of God, but virtually as the Christ, instrumentally created all things; and this agrees with the sentiments of the Jews, who ascribe the creation of all things to the Word of God,' as the Targumists and Philo the Jew witness. &c. Ver. 3. "Who being the brightness of his Glory," Two things appear to have stumbled the Jews; indeed, there might be three causes of doubtfulness to the Hebrew brethren, as to whether Jesus really were the Messiah. 1. His being a man, and yet making himself God, equal with God. II. His suffering a shameful death; "a crucified Christ" being to the Jews a stumblingblock, which, for the time, appears almost to have destroyed the hopes of our Lord's own followers; "We did hope, that he is the one about to redeem Israel." III. His prolonged absence, and not returning to restore the kingdom, which, they evidently supposed, would immediately take place: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" Upon all these, the Holy Ghost appears to me to touch, by allusions to Old Testament Scriptures, which foretold them. 66 By the expression, " The brightness of his Glory," the Apostle is supposed by any to allude to the Shekinah resting on the ark, as being the material type of Christ. suppose it to refer more directly to Ezekiel's vision of "The Glory of the God of Israel," chap. xliii. 2, who appears evidently a person; Ez. xliil. 2. the vision was similar to that related in chap. x. 4, where he is styled "The Brightness of E. x. 4. Jehovah's Glory." "* And chap. i., in the nu- Ez. i. 26, 28. cleus of vivid intense light was the appear 66 ance of a man; ver. 26, the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Jehovah;" v. 28, the beaming forth in the man of the glorious nature of Him, who dwells in light inaccessible; or light inaccessible, passing through the prism of the Saviour's humanity; for in "The Brightness of his Glory," is used of the Divine being in the Chaldee paraphrases, (Gill;) and, I think, “The Glory of Jehovah" is not an uncommon title of Messiah in the Old Testament; for example, Isa. xl. 5, "The Glory of Jehovah shall be revealed," or rather, "shall reveal himself." So also, perhaps, chap. iii. 8, "To provoke the eyes of his Glory." I think there is a remarkable instance, Ex. xxiv. 16, "The Glory of Jehovah tabernacled upon Mount Sinai ... and he called unto Moses," &c. This vision appears similar to Ezekiel, (comp. v. 10;) to this, also, I suppose John refers, chap. Ex. xxiv. 10. i. 14, "The Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father," &c. Bloomfield, together with Slade, refers us for a similar expression to Wisdom vii. 25, 26, “A spiration of the power of God; an outflowing of the Glory of the omnipotent; an effulgence of eternal light; a mirror of the energy of God; an image of goodness;" and he thus concludes an interesting note on this and the following clause: "The meaning, then, is, that the Glory of the Father was reflected on the Son, and the Hypostasis of the Father was impressed on the Son, so that the Son represented it, as an impression represents the seal, forming a perfect representation of God's person and attributes, i.e. of the perfections subsisting in God." C CHAP. 1. 3. him we see, and by him we approach, the invisible and inaccessible. Engraved charac ter. Καράκτηρ καὶ εἴκων Θεσ. Life in Doddridge. Nun. xii. 8. "And engraved character of his subsistence." Philo calls the Logos "Karakter kai icon Scott's Christian Theou;"* by which it appears, that the term might have been familiar to the Jews, before the Apostle wrote; indeed, I think it has its origin in the Old Testament Scriptures; and this clause, taken in connection with the former, appears to be a reference to Num. xii. S. The Jews gloried much in Moses; the great privilege, however, which he enjoyed over other Prophets, was, "beholding the similitude of the Lord;" the word here translated similitude," is the same as that rendered in Exodus xx. 4, likeness," which is in connexion with the expression "graven image.” Thus it appears to convey much the idea of the expression in this Epistle, Engraved Character.' Moreover, the term similitude of the Lord,' is, in the Septuagint, rendered Glory of the Lord;" so the Apostle appears Num. xii. 8. Ex. xx. 4. In Thomson's translation it is rendered" He hath actually seen the Glory of God." 66 66 66 * The illustrious Moses has compared the form of the rational soul to no created being, but has said, that it is the genuine impression of that divine and pure Spirit, stamped and moulded by the seal of God, of which The Eternal Word is THE EXPRESS IMAGE.-Philo in Pye Smith, p. 581. + The Jews observed the difference of persons in Ex. xx. Comp. v. 6 and 7, "me" and "his," which led them to declare that the one was "The Word;" this I think quite correct, and 'El Kana,' a jealous El, perhaps betokens the relation of husband, and the jealousy is not of being represented, but of an idol being made instead of him, the only "Similitude of Jehovah," and thus we see, how Idolatry is constantly set out by Adultery,' in Scripture. to lay hold of both the Hebrew and the Sep- “The Effulgence of the Glory" may denote that which is displayed of the Godhead, and the subsistence of GOD is that which he essentially is; but "his subsistence" I should conceive to imply, what God the Father personally is, or that incomprehensible subsistence, which makes him to be regarded in the relation of Father, by which he is personally distinguished from the Son, however Amyraldus conceives otherwise.† * Beza refers "The Brightness," &c. to the humanity of Christ, because that must needs be here meant, whereby we come to know the Father by the Son, and this is not by his divinity, but by his humanity; for, in the Son taking flesh, God is revealed to us, and not in his naked Divinity; but, with Meyer, we must understand it to embrace both natures; For," says he, "take him as man only, he is no such Brightness; take him as God only, and to us he is not such Brightness." 66 "It may be doubted whether Person' exactly conveys the intention and emphasis of the word used by the Apostle, for he does not express himself thus, "The Son is the engraved mark or imprint of the Father,' but The engraved mark of the subsistence of God.' The term, The Father,' not being in any of the preceding words, but only that of God,' now, it is certain, he who says Son,' obliges the intellect to reflect on the relation of Father; but you will allow, that, since he has expressed himself by the term ' God,' rather than that of Father, it appears, that he preferred suggesting the idea of Deity, surrounded with its marvellous attributes, eternal essence, and infinite majesty, to that of the relation of Father, by which he is distinguished |