ginning of the gospel of St. John, the meaning which Unitarians affix to it, would ever present itself to the mind of any man, unless he had been previously made acquainted with the Unitarian system? I ask, whether any man in his senses could ever imagine, that, in reading the following phrases, "The Word that was with God and was God-He, by whom all things were made-He, in whom was the life and the lightHe, before whom St. John, his precursor, was sent, to give witness of him, as he actually did, according to the same chapter-He that was the light, that enlightens all men-He who was in the world, and by whom the world was made, and yet the world knew him not-but as many as have received him he gave them power to be made the children of God-and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.-John beareth witness, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spake :He that shall come after me, is preferred before me, because he was before me," &c. Could any man reading this, I ask again, possibly imagine that all this is said, not of a subsisting person, but of some abstract attributes of God, viz: his power and wisdom? Can abstract attributes be said to have made the world? Can it be said of them, " In him was life-he was in the world-he came unto his own-he gave power to be made the sons of God to them that believe in his name? Can it be said of the attributes of God that they were "made flesh and dwelt among us," and that we saw their glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father? Of whom did John bear witness? Was it of the abstract attributes of God? Was it not of Jesus? Of Jesus, therefore, must be understood all that he had said to the 15th verse, at which he says, "John beareth witness of him ;" of him necessarily refers to him of whom he had just now been speaking. Jesas therefore is the Word, that was in the beginning, that was with the Father, the Word that was God, and that was made man." To put on this chapter the Unitarian construction, would be a shocking insult to the common sense of men, and a perversion of human language unpa

ralleled in any work that ever was penned by men. And from this one instance, among a thousand, the reader may infer what store he is to set by those bombastic professions of the Unitarians, viz that those creeds are best which keep the very words of scripture, and the faith is best which admits of the greatest simplicity;* that they admit no other creed but the words of the Lord Jesus and his apostles, that their doctrine can be expressed in their very words without addition or comment, in fine, that they are sure to take always the scriptures in their plain, obvious, and natural sense, &c.!! If this be taking the word of God in its plain, obvious, and natural sense, then I make bold to assert that there is no cause in the world so desperate of which any counsellor at law ought to despair, for in taking the code of the civil law in its plain and obvious meaning after the Unitarian fashion, he is sure to make it speak whatever he pleases. Let us now turn our attention to Mr. J. S's comments on the beginning of St. John's gospel.

First, Mr. J. S. sets out by observing, that one of the principal designs of St. John in writing his gospel was to prove that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God." What then? Does it follow from this, that he did not mean to prove him to be true God? The contrary is manifest from the evidence of St. Iræneus and St. Jerom, who bear witness that the principal end of St. John in writing was to establish the divinity of Christ. Next, the very words of St. John, produced in the form of an objection, prove the same to a demonstration. For, let me ask Mr. J. S. what clearer or stronger phraseology could St. John possibly make use of in order to prove Christ to be the true God, than by styling him so repeatedly and so definitely "the Son of the living God, the only-begatten, the only-begotten Son of the Father, the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and whom the Father has begotten out of his womb before the morning star?" Did St. John intend to give us to understand by these extraordi

See the title page of the Unitarian Miscellany.

+ See the Christian Disciple, and other Unitarian publicatious passim.

nary titles, that Christ was nothing more than what he (St. John) thought himself to be, viz: an adoptive son of God? What mortal, what saint, nay, what heavenly spirit ever arrogated to himself such a name as that of the only-begotten Son of God? Who else but the true and natural Son of God, and God himself, could, when juridically interrogated whether he was the Christ, the Son of the living and blessed God, definitely answer: I AM ?*

That St. John sat down to write his gospel with a view of opposing the errors of the Platonic philosophers, of the Cerinthians, and the Gnostics, I readily grant; but I deny what Mr. J. S. asserts in the third place, viz: "That almost all early converts to Christianity belonged, before their conversion, to one or the other of these philosophical sects." For, I ask, what do the common mass of the people in our days know of the philosophical systems of a Cartesius, of a Coppernic, a Newton, a Locke, a Kant, &c.? As little did the generality of the people in the age of St. John know about the jarring systems of the Pagan philosophers. If it be further urged, that at least the primitive Fathers had imbibed, prior to their conversion, those philosophical opinions, I refer the reader to the appendix to this work, where this objection is fully answered, and I beg him moreover to take notice first, that whenever those Fathers assert the divinity of Christ, of the Holy Ghost, the mystery of the Trinity, it is to the scripture evidences they refer, and never to the philosophy of Plato, much less to the absurd and extravagant systems of the Gnostics or Cerinthians. Secondly, that not only they do not appeal to the Platonic principles in matters of religion, but positively declare against them, reject them as full of vanity and error and undeserving attention, so little were their minds tinctured or prepossessed by such principles !

4th. "The object, therefore, of the apostle was to show that Logos is not a person or a being."

If such was the object of the apostle, then he no doubt intended that we should read him backwards. For, as we have just * Mark, xiv. 62,

remarked, in reading his first chapter and the remainder of his gospel just as it stands, it is undeniable that there occurs scarce one single sentence that does not irresistibly imply that Christ, or the Logos, is a person, a subsisting being, true God and true man, "And the word was God, and the word was made flesh," or man, without ceasing to be the word.

To maintain that the object of the apostle was, "to show that the Logos was no person, no subsisting being," is to impeach, not only the divine inspiration, but the very common sense of the apostle. For were I to undertake to show, on the one side, that the Logos is no person, uo subsisting being, and should prove all along, on the other side, that the Logos is a true person or subsisting being, and ascribe to it all such personal qualities which cannot be given but to a true and real person, the world, no doubt, would deservedly judge me only fit for a lunatic asylum. Now, such would be exactly the mode of proceeding of St. John. For, if we credit Mr. J. S. his principal object, on the one hand, was to show that the Logos was no person or being, and on the other, he says all he can to convince the world, that the Logos is a true person or being distinct from the Father. God." Existing from all eternity. Word." A true divine person. This Word came into the world: the world was made by him the Word was made flesh.-St. John beareth witness

of him "

"And the Word was with "In the beginning was the "And the Word was God."

In a word, in this and the remaining chapters, St. John ascribes to the Word such works and attributes, which, unless we entirely change the native signification of words, cannot possibly agree, but with a true subsisting person. If, there. fore, St. John, as Mr. J. S. pretends, intended to show that the Logos is no person, or subsisting being, he ought to have said exactly the reverse of what he has said; and he might, with one word, have refuted the errors of the time, by saying, that there was no such intermediate Logos as they imagined; that the Logos in God was nothing more than his power and

wisdom. But St. John pursued another course, as is obvious from his Gospel.

"The Apostle, therefore, intended to show, that there was no such intermediate being, as was designated by the different sects of that period, under the name of Logos."

Here Mr. J. S. is partly right; for St. John shows, that the Logos, who "was with God in the beginning, and by whom the world was made, and without whom nothing was made of what is made," was by no means an intermediate or subordinate being, as those sects imagined; but, that he "was God," the "only-begotten of the Father," and, of course, of one and the same indivisible nature with him. This is what St. John teaches, against those sects that denied the divinity of Christ, as well as his incarnation; which error he for ever proscribes, by these sacred and emphatic words: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us." And the vindication of these two mysteries, formed his chief object in writing his gospel.

5thly. "There are many instances, Mr. J. S. observes, both in the Old and New Testament, in which the term Word or Logos, is personified, although in those passages, it does not signify a subsisting person."

The argumentation is similar to this: The word God, in many instances, signifies angel, prophet, judge, &c. therefore, it does not denote the supreme God in this passage: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Mr. J. S. will, no doubt, justly reply, that, although, at times, the word God, may signify no more than excellent creatures, still, the subject-matter and the context, sufficiently determine the word God, in the text quoted, to the signification of the Supreme Being, the only true God. The reply is just, but if it be so in his case, be cannot but admit its justness in our's. For, in all the instances in which the Logos is personified, without being styled a person, the meaning is so self-evident and unequivocal, that not even the completest dunce can mistake the meaning. So, though it be a common expression, to say, the law speaks, decides the bench of the judges has given judgment—the Bible rays so and so there is no man so destitute of common sense,