it not. It came to its own land, and its own people received it not. But as many as received it, to them it gave power to become the sons of God, even to them who believe on its name.”—“ And wisdom became man, and dweltamong us," &c. Now, without entering into the merits of the above, considered as a translation, the sentiments expressed are strictly correct, and it proves, if any thing can prove, the doctrine we are advocating. "In the beginning was wisdom," as the manifested form of that God whose inmost nature is love as the operating Divinity. But this wisdom, which was "in the beginning," was not a mere abstract principle, a quality without a substance, but a real divine person, for it was God himself that "was wisdom." By this divine manifestation or form,this eternal wisdom, "all things," both on earth and in heaven, "were made," and "without it was nothing made." "In it," as the fountain," was life, and this life," proceeding from it, was the light of men," the divine truth illuminating the understanding, and dispelling error. This Divine Wisdom, or, more properly speaking, the God, who was Wisdom, was in the world, manifesting himself in "the things which were seen,” and shewing forth in nature "his eternal power and godhead ;" but the world knew it not. And this God, who was wisdom, "became man and dwelt among us."

Such are the truths laid down in this new translation, and which cannot be denied without destroying the passage. For if it be said, that the wisdom here mentioned was a mere quality, and not a person: then God must be a mere quality and not a person, since whatever this wisdom was, it was God himself" God was wisdom." And again, if it be allowed, according to the words, that this wisdom was the Divinity;then this personal wisdom, this Divinity, "became man and dwelt among us." And this man who dwelt among us-this Divinity in human form, was Christ himself, of whom John said, “he that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he is greater than I.”* Whichever way we turn the words of the lead to the same conclusion, that the Divinity in his wisdom assumed a human nature, and appeared among men as "Jesus Christ our Lord."

evangelist, they still

It was on account of his being the wisdom of God, thus manifested, that our Lord so frequently calls himself "the light

* Unitarian New Test.

66

of the world—the way, the truth, and the life :" and asserts that the Father, the divine, essential Love, the inmost principle of Deity, dwells within him. The case is similar in man.— The will, the seat of his love, acts by his understanding or wisdom, and this wisdom again, clothes itself in outward forms. So the Father acted by wisdom, and this wisdom became man and dwelt among us. Yet as the love and the wisdom of man, exerting themselves in his bodily form, are still but one human individual: so the Father and the Word, united with and operating in a human body, constitute but one Divine Person; and this Divine Person is " Immanuel, the Great God, with

us."

Thus the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (whether Paul or not is immaterial,) declares,-" God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past to his servants by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed (or constituted) heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." This passage is exactly similar in its meaning to the one before quoted. The Word or Wisdom of God, (here called the Son, on account of his union with the human nature,) made or created all things. This Wisdom or Son of God, is the medium of communication between the infinite God and his creatures. "God speaks to us by his Son." And this Son, as the manifested form of God, "is constituted heir of all things;" because truth or wisdom is that power by which all is brought into order and subjection. God as love only, without wisdom, could neither manifest himself nor operate, for love cannot act by itself alone: wisdom is the active form of love, and the divine wisdom as the active form of the divine love, can alone "subdue all things to himself.” Hence God manifesting himself as truth, subjects and brings into order all things, whether things in heaven or things on earth; and thus having conquered possesses all. The Father and the Son, in this passage, cannot be understood of two divine beings, but as one undivided Deity, manifested in different principles of his nature: according to the passage formerly noticed, “In the beginning was the Logos"-the Word or Wisdom. This "Wisdom was with God," and yet it did not exist separate from himself, for God himself was this Wisdom.

From what we have already said we may therefore justly conclude-1st. That against the fact of the miraculous con

ception, there lies no objection that can be substantiated by proof. 2d. That the creation of all things, and the preservation of all, are attributed to Christ, consequently omnipotence and omnipresence, two inalienable divine attributes, are ascribed to him. 3d. That the God who in the beginning was the Word, ΟΙ "Wisdom," " became man and dwelt among us. And 4th. That God thus dwelling in our nature was the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

In addition to the proofs already given, we will adduce a passage or two more, which tend to confirm the doctrine.—We need scarcely have noticed the confession of Thomas, "My Lord and my God," had it not been seized upon by the opponents of the Saviour's Deity, and turned most palpably from its original signification. It is, say they, an exclamation: as though Thomas struck by the sudden appearance of his master, had expressed himself as many at the present day, do on occasions of surprise "my Lord!" "my God!" equivalent only to "how surprising! how unaccountable!" This interpretation we observe is evidently false, for, first, the Jews were especially guarded in pronouncing the name of God; they were not in the habit of using it as a mere exclamation; and however such a practice may have prevailed among persons calling themselves Christians, it did not prevail among the Jews. Thomas was a strict and moral professor of Judaism, and it is not at all likely that he would commit an act which he himself, being a Jew, viewed as profanation. Secondly, however habitual the use of God's name in common discourse may have become in modern times, it is most certainly a violation of the divine command. If Thomas therefore used it merely as an exclamation, he was guilty of a breach of the law of God. But our Lord neither intimated his fault, nor reproved him for it; on the contrary, he rather praised than condemned him; a piece of conduct this, at variance with the whole tenor of the Saviour's life; for on a far less occasion he very sharply reproved Peter. Thirdly, the words themselves were accepted by our Lord as an evidence of the faith of Thomas. But if they were a mere exclamation, what becomes of this evidence? They neither prove his faith in one thing nor another: all they prove is that Thomas was astonished, which he might be without being convinced. On this ground, therefore, they are no evidence that he had faith at all. An unbelieving Jew, on the appearance.

of the Saviour, might have used the same exclamation, though he had believed that appearance to be a phantom. Fourthly, supposing, however, we admit that they did prove that Thomas believed the fact of the resurrection, how does this accord with our Lord's words, "Because thou hast seen me thou hast believed; blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed"? Now the very thing which Thomas believed on seeing his Master, is that which renders those blessed who believe without seeing. And what is this? Not the mere fact that Jesus had risen. A belief in this fact alone, however firmly fixed in the mind, can render no one blessed. It is only a firm and steadfast faith that Jesus is, as Thomas declared him to be, his Lord and his God, that can entitle a man to the epithet of blessed or happy. We have therefore every reason to conclude, that the words of Thomas were not a foolish and unmeaning exclamation, but an expression of his real sentiments, arising first out of the fact of the resurrection, and again out of the knowledge of his thoughts which he perceived the Saviour to possess.

Again, in the Acts of the Apostles, Stephen having been condemned by his accusers, and led out to execution; in the moment of death committed his soul into the hands of the Redeemer. "They stoned Stephen, calling upon God and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit..' A piece of presumption this, which we should hardly have expected in a Christian convert, and more especially in a man "full of the Holy Spirit." Nothing could exceed the imprudence of it, if Christ be merely man; for with what confidence, or on what ground of hope, can any man in the hour of death, commit his spirit to the power of a creature as weak and dependent as himself? Such an address, to a mere human being, is inconsistent and idolatrous. If Jesus be a mere human being, Stephen acted thus inconsistently-or if Stephen did not act inconsistently, then the person addressed was not a creature: and if Jesus whom Stephen invoked was not a creature, he must be the "Creator of all things," the "Father of the spirits of all flesh.”*

* The true rendering of the passage should be "They stoned Stephen invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." The word God is not in the Greek, and it is evident that the person, "called upon, or invoked, was the Saviour himself.

The opponents of our Saviour's divinity, are on this passage forced to admit, that Stephen did thus pray to his Master; but, say they, "this address of Stephen to Jesus when he actually saw him, does not authorize us to offer prayers to him now he is invisible." This is very true, if Jesus be merely man; but on the same ground it follows, that we shall do right to offer prayers to him, if at any time he should become visible :— that is, we have a right to commit our spirits by solemn prayer into the hands of a creature, provided only that creature be visibly present. Excellent doctrine this, and very consistent with the divine command, "Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

One passage more we will quote, and then conclude this part of the subject. The Apostle tells his converts, that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever;" and he tells them this in order to strengthen their confidence in him.But that Being who is ever the same, without " variableness, or shadow of turning," possesses immutability-and he who possesses immutability is divine. All creatures, however high, however holy, are variable and subject to change. There is not a man upon earth, nor an angel in heaven, who is constantly the same: their thoughts and feelings are in constant fluctuation, either advancing in perfection, or retrograding towards evil. If the Saviour be man only, he too (like all finite creatures) must be mutable; but the Apostle declares he is immutable, "the same—for ever" Therefore the Saviour is not man only.

We might, if space would permit, go through the whole of the passages in which the nature of Christ is spoken of, or where his works and operations are declared, and shew that each of them most decisively asserts the doctrine of his absolute Godhead. As it is, perhaps enough has been said to prove that he is omnipotent, omnipresent, and immutable.— That he was prayed to by Stephen, and acknowledged as his Lord and God by Thomas. That he was that God, who in the beginning was Wisdom, manifested in the form of man. That he made all things, and that the creation of all things was for him alone; and that as these things can never be predicated of man, he must be the eternal God. In noticing the passages we have, at the same time, brought forward the arguments by which the objectors to the doctrine support their opinions;-it only remains, therefore, that we notice a few objections which