ascribed to stone in the bladder, and considered incurable. By means of a strict regimen, however, and other precautions, he was enabled to alleviate his complaint and to procure long intervals of ease. At length his hour came: violent fits of pain, with very short intermissions, became his lot; and though, during these paroxysms, drops of sweat ran down his face, yet he never uttered a cry or a complaint, or displayed the least marks of peevishness or impatience, but during the short intervals of relief which occurred, smiled and conversed with his usual gaiety and cheerfulness. Such were the last days of Sir Isaac Newton. A century of discoveries has, since his day, been added to science; but brilliant as these discoveries are, they have not obliterated the minutest of bis labours, and served only to brighten the halo which encircles his name.

The social character of Sir Isaac Newton was such as might have been expected from his intellectual attainments, He was modest, candid, and affable, and without any of the eccentricities of genius, suiting himself to every company, and speaking of himself and others in such a manner that he was never even suspected of vanity. His modesty arose not from any indifference to the fame which his discoveries conferred, nor from an ignorance of his place as a philosopher, but from a comparison between what he had learned and what remained unknown. "I do not know," he finely said, a short time before his death, "what may appear to the world; but to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." What a lesson to ordinary men! to the vanity and presumption of philosophers! to those especially who have never even found the smoother pebble or the prettier shell! What a preparation for the latest inquiries and the last views of the decaying spirit for those inspired doctrines which alone can throw a light over the dark ocean of undiscovered truth!

Newton was too deeply versed in the Scriptures, and too much imbued with their spirit, to judge harshly of other men who took different views of them from himself. He cherished the great principles of religious toleration, and never scrupled to express his abhorrence of persecution even in its mildest form. Immorality and impiety he

never permitted to pass unreproved; and when Dr. Halley ventured to say any thing disrespectful of religion, he invariably checked him, and said "I have studied these things you have not." His generosity and charity had no bounds; and he used wisely to remark, that they who gave away nothing till they died, never gave at all. Though his wealth had become considerable by a prudent economy, yet he had always a contempt for money, and he spent a considerable part of his income in relieving the poor, in assisting his relations, and in encouraging ingenuity and learning.

The habits of deep meditation which he had acquired, though they did not show themselves in his intercourse with society, exercised their full influence over his mind when in the midst of his family. Absorbed in thought,

he would often sit down on his bedside after he rose, and remain there for hours without dressing himself, occupied with some interesting investigation which had fixed his attention. Owing to the same absence of mind, he neglected to take the requisite quantity of nourishment, and it was therefore often necessary to remind of his meals.

wwwwwwwww.

On the Introduction to St. John's Gospel.

(Continued from p. 15.)

G. C. S.

A third instance of distinction may be deduced from the 11th verse: "He came unto his own." That is, the Word came unto his own. Here, then, it may be observed, that the Jewish people were strictly the property of God. They were his, as he was their Creator" the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob." (Exod. iii. 16.) They were his, as "he chose them to be a special people unto himself, above all the people that were upon the face of the earth." (Deut. vii. 6.) They were his, as "he redeemed them from Egypt, from their gods," and "from the hand of their enemies," "for a people unto himself." (2 Sam. vii. 23; Mich. iv. 10.) Thus, they were his "peculiar treasure above all people." (Exod. xix. 5.) But Jesus Christ was himself one of this very people. He was the promised seed of Abraham, &c. in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. (Gen. xxii. 18; Gal. iii. 16.) He was raised up by the Lord God from among the Jews, to be

a prophet like unto Moses. (Deut. xviii. 15; Acts iii. 22, 23.) He was, as the Evangelist informs us in this chapter (45th verse), "Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write." And Jesus himself declared, that he was one of their own nature and race, when he said, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." (John xx. 17.) In proportion, then, to the distinction between the possessor and the possession, the Creator and the creature-so is the distinction between the Word and Jesus Christ. The Word came to his own people. Jesus Christ was one of this very people. Therefore, there must necessarily be distinction between them.

Besides, we have the plain testimony of the Scriptures, that it was not "Jesus Christ," strictly speaking, who came to the Jewish people, or to the human race; but "God," by him. Jesus was the prophet of God, "mighty in deed and word before God and all the people." (Luke xxiv. 19.) And agreeably to his prophetical character, "he came in the name of the Lord;" (Matt. xxi. 9; xxiii. 39;)" he came in his Father's name;" (John v. 43;) and "in his Father's name" did he execute the purposes of his divine mission. (John x. 25.) Accordingly, when he restored to life the widow's son at Nain, "there came a great fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and that God hath visited his people." (Luke vii. 16.) Thus, it was God that visited his people, not Jesus Christ; and for his gracious visitation, they glorified God. And to the same effect we are informed, that " God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." (Heb. i. 1, 2.) It was on the same principle on which he spake to the fathers by the prophets, that he spake to the people in the fulness of time by his Son Jesus Christ. In both instances, he himself came to the people; and the prophets and Jesus Christ were only his servants, or mediums of communication. Hence, our Saviour said, "He that sent me is with me; the Father hath not left me alone." (John viii. 29.) "The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me." (John xiv. 24.) And hence also his declarations on various occasions:" He that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent

me." (Matt. x. 40.) "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me." (John xii. 44.) "And he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.' (Luke x. 16.) As God was with Christ and in Christ, it was to God, properly speaking, that the obedience or disobedience of the people was manifested. And this idea, that God is the only originating cause, and the only efficient power of the Gospel, runs through the Scriptures. It was "God who preached peace by Jesus Christ." (Acts x. 36.) It was "God who gave us his grace by Jesus Christ," and "called us to the fellowship of his Son.” (1 Cor. i. 4, 9.) It was "God the Father who blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." (Eph. i. 3.) It was "the Father who delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." (Col. i. 12, 13.) It was "God who appointed us to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ." (Thes. v. 9.) In fine, as "all things were of the Father," so "all things were by Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. viii, 6.) And accordingly, as God is the Source of all, and the Operating Power of all, "our faith and hope are to be in God." (1 Peter i. 21.)

Thus it is clear, that it was not Jesus Christ who came to his own, but God. And, therefore, Christ must be distinct from God, the Word, who came to his own.

A fourth instance of distinction is deducible, I think, from the following passage, in the 14th verse: "And the Word dwelt among us." Does the Evangelist here mean, that the Word dwelt among us Jews? It is very unreasonable, I think, to suppose, that he would make so useless a remark, as that a Jew dwelt among Jews. Does he mean, that the Word dwelt among us human beings, in this world? The following words, I think, prove that he does. Verse 10, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." If such be the meaning of the Evangelist in the above passage, it is unlikely he would say, that a man dwelt among men upon earth. What so natural, as that a human being would dwell among human beings? and a Jew among Jews? There appears, therefore, no propriety in the expression, but on the supposition that he alludes to a Divine Being, dwelling upon earth, in condescension and goodness, with his dependent creatures. This would be worthy of observation; and it is in perfect accordance with the

design of the Evangelist, in ascribing the Dispensation of Grace, and all that had been done in reference to it, to the one God and Father of all. The Word, then, is a Divine Being. But Jesus Christ is mentioned in this chapter, by the Baptist, who "bare record" of him, as a human being. Verse 30th, "This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me.' We have, therefore, another proof of distinction between the Word and Jesus Christ. The one is divine; because declared to be God. The other is human; because declared to be man. And surely, deity and humanity cannot be the same. There must be distinction between them, if things of opposite natures are dissimilar.

A fifth proof of distinction may be deduced from the 14th verse: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth." The only begotten of the Father, is evidently Jesus Christ. And, I think, it is equally evident, that the glory here spoken of is the glory of the Word; because it was that that was made flesh (that entered into and tabernacled in flesh), whose glory they beheld. What, then, does the Evangelist mean by the words, "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father?" In my opinion, his meaning may be thus expressed, or in language somewhat similar: "The glory which we beheld, so completely encircled Jesus Christ, and shone so brightly around him, that it appeared to us as though it were really his. But it was not his; it was the glory of that Word, that Power that descended upon him—that acknowledged him as his beloved Son-that entered into him-that tabernacled in him, and thus dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." Were we to suppose that the Word and Jesus Christ were the same Being, we should make the language of the Evangelist unintelligible. It would stand thus: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of him." Why, it would be his glory; and having said so, it would be unnecessary and ridiculous to add, "as of him." But it is very proper to say so when making a distinction between two beings that are mentioned together, and both intimately united-the one imparting glory and the other receiving it.

The following passages will more fully develope the Evangelist's meaning:-2 Peter i. 16-18, " For we have