"He came into his own," among those very men whom he had made, and yet " his own received him not." verse 11.

"But as many as received him, to them he gave power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name." He who is the eternal Son by nature, raised them to the dignity of Sons by adoption.

"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us: and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." verse 14. Behold here the same Word" that was in the beginning, that from the beginning was with God, and that was God," the same Word by whom "all things were made," by whom "the world was made," who was the "true light," the original light of all that is, who had for his forerunner the greatest amongst the sons of men; the same Word, I say, is made flesh, that is to say, man, and thus made visible in our nature," he dwelt amongst us ;"" and we have seen his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;" that is to say, such a glory as would become none but the only-begotten Son of God; and such, indeed, was the glory of Jesus Christ present amongst us, as is manifest from the illustrious testinonies which he received from God his Father at his baptism, and in his transfiguration, and from the Supreme Power which he exercised over all nature, death, and hell itself.

What has the profane reasoner to oppose here? The Unitarian finds himself here in wonderful straits, and placed between the Scylla and Charybdis, is at a loss what way to steer his course he says and unsays, owns and disowns, takes up and lays down, and all to no purpose; because, in the final analysis he discovers, that all his schemes serve no other end than to convince the world, that this part of St. John's gospel is proof to every kind of attack.

Shall we be told again that the Word, indeed, is styled God, but only in that inferior sense in which the same title is applied to angels, to Moses, the prophets, &c.? To this last resort of a desperate cause, I answer, first, that I should be glad to know the reason why the name of God, in the first

member of the sentence of the above Gospel, signifies the Supreme God, and not in the second, although enounced in the same definite and unqualified manner? Why should we change the meaning of words, and disbelieve our own eyes, to gratify the silly fancies of men? Next, let me ask our mighty sophisters, whether He was a God of an inferior grade, by whom "all things were made, and without whom nothing was made that is made ? " Was it by a half God" the world was made?" In the third place, let the Unitarian point out any passage in the sacred writings, in which what is here said of the Word, may be found to be said likewise of Moses and the prophets, viz: "In the beginning was Moses or the Prophets, and Moses or the Prophets were with God, and Moses or the Prophets were God." But it is scarcely less degrading to answer such miserable shifts, than it is to resort to them. Hence the Unitarians, by rendering, in their improved version of the New-Testament, the text of the Evangelist thus: "And the Word was a God," is an impiety little less revolting than that of which Wakefield stands guilty, by carrying his audacity so far, as to substitute in the very text the term wisdom for the term Word. This is one of the thousand adulterations of the sacred text, of which the translation of this bold writer is teeming.

But perhaps there is no question at all here of a subsisting Person, but only of a divine attribute? Wakefield is so certain of this, that he by an unparralleled attempt substitutes in the very text the word wisdom to the Ayos or Word, used by the Evangelists.

Men in danger catch at straws: and Unitarians bewildered by the difficulties into which the part of the Gospel under consideration throws them, speak extravagances. For assuredly there can be no greater extravagance than to advance that by the Word, in the beginning of this Gospel, nothing else is intended than an abstract attribute, for instance, wisdom.

For, in the first place, what, pray, could be, on this supposition, the meaning of the Evangelist, when he said, "In the

beginning was the Word, (according to the Unitarians, wisdom,) and the Word (wisdom) was God. Was there any need for telling us this? And does not reason itself teach us that wisdom, in conjunction with all other divine perfections, was always in God; nay, that it like every other divine attribute is God himself? Would we not have known, without St. John's telling it, that God was infinitely wise, before he created the world? and why should he mention wisdom in preference to any other attribute? Were not power, mercy, truth, holiness, &c. as well with God in the beginning, as wisdom? And were they not God himself, as well as wisdom? The literal sense is hard, but of nonsense you can never make good sense.

Next, if the Word is no more than an attribute, what, I ask, can be made of these phrases, "He was in the World," "The World was made by him, and the World knew him not," "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." Is all this, can all this be said of an abstract attribute, of wisdom? What! an attribute of God, living in the world, unknown to the world-coming unto his own, and rejected by his own! If wisdom is here meant, the Evangelist says nothing: since the wisdom of God was despised long before the Gospel, before Moses, before the Flood-from the beginning.

If the Evangelist, by the term " Word," intended to designate nothing more than a divine attribute, how does it come, that through the whole chapter, "The Word" is spoken of as a subsisting person, and that it is expressed by personal pronouns he-him-by him, &c.?

In the third place, what sense shall we make of these words: "As many as received him, to them he gave power to be made the Sons of God, to them that believe in his name?" Shall we say that an abstract attribute of God gave to men power to be made the sons of God, and that we are to believe in the name of a divine attribute? Words may signify many things, but nothing like this.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us." What! an attribute of God made flesh, and dwelling amongst

us!

This would be new language indeed! intelligible only in the Unitarian school.

"And we saw his glory, the glory of the only-begotten of the Father." Here is a hard bone to gnaw, again, for the Unitarian interpreter. Will that abstract attribute, after having created the world and all things therein, be likewise the onlybegotten of the Father? Wisdom, abstractedly considered, to be the only-begotten of the Father, is a phraseology more unintelligible than any that ever figured in any christian creed. Next, I should be glad to know, how with our bodily eyes, we could see the glory of God's wisdom, since it is invisible? You mistake, the Unitarian replies; it is the glory of the man to whom wisdom communicated itself, the Evangelist is speaking of, not the glory of his invisible wisdom. This may satisfy children, that know nothing more than their a, b, c, but not men that have yet a spark of common sense left. For it is clearer than noon day that the Word, and not the man, is the subject of all that is said here, from the first to the fourteenth verse inclusively. To make the Word the subject of the former propositions, and not of this last one, would be exactly as if I were to say: "Rev. J. Sparks came from the east some years ago, he was appointed first Unitarian minis ter in Baltimore: his letters against Rev. Dr. Wyatt are elegant as to style, but very incorrect as to reasoning. The same was chosen chaplain of Congress, in the year 1822," and were to maintain in the same breath, that this last proposition is not to be understood of Rev. J. Sparks, who was all along the subject of the discourse, but of some other minister.

Next, let us give a specimen of the language which the Unitarians ascribe to the Holy Ghost, by metamorphosing the subsisting Word of God into an attribute of God, for instance, into wisdom. Let us say of Rev. J. Sparks," His wisdom was not at Washington City at the beginning of Congress, but it arrived there on such or such a day, and took up lodgings in such and such an hotel: it comes every other week to Congress it at times preaches," &c. &c. Would this be rational language? It is that, however, which the Unitarian ascribes to the pen of the Holy Evangelists.

IV. Demonstration.

From I. John, v. 20.

"We know that the Son of God is come, and has given us understanding, that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and eternal life." Here the emphatic article is prefixed, the true God therefore is meant; but the Son of God is that true God; therefore, &c.

င်

V. Demonstration.

From the Epistle to the Romans, IX. v. 5.

"Of whom (the forefathers of the Jews) is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen." The Apostle here omits nothing to break the obstinacy of the Jews, who refused to acknowledge Christ as their God. Every word of this text goes to prove, that the question here is of the true God. For first, Christ is called God, with the emphatic article prefixed.os. Next, "God over all things," that is, supreme, in which sense it is said to the Ephes. iv. 6. "One God and Father of all, who is over all.' Thirdly, “Blessed God," which praise is given him in St. Mark, xiv. 61, but especially the addition of the word "forever," compared with the II. Corinth. xi. 31, and the clause "Amen," compared with the Epistle to the Rom. i. 25, clearly show that the Apostle means to speak of the true and supreme God. Jesus Christ therefore, is man, because descended from the Fathers (the Patriarchs) according to the flesh, and true God, because he is "over all, God blessed forever. Amen."

VI. Demonstration.

From St. John, xx. 28.

St. Thomas solemnly proclaimed the divinity of his loving master, when at his sight after his resurrection he broke out into the short but comprehensive exclamation, "My Lord and my God," with the prefixed article:" Kupiós μa, xai ó ☺ròs e." St. Thomas, therefore, meant the true and supreme Vol. II.-No. VIII,

5