his rod; for my heart is made to feel, that it is in love that he corrects me, to refine and purify my soul. And not only this--but I see the effects which his chastisement towards me produces on the minds of some, who are witnesses of it, in leading them to acknowledge and recognise the great power,' the allsufficient grace, and unchanging faith fulness of the Lord; who, in the substantial supports, and solid consolations, which he bestows upon his people in the needful time of trouble, manifests bimself to be the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.' ...

"Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me, bless his holy name!' And O, forget not the chiefest of His benefits, in that he forgiveth all thy sins!' a far greater blessing, than the removal of any bodily infirmity, or the restoration of bodily health, which might be (as in former days it has been) perverted by my sinful heart, and might prove injurious rather than profitable to the best interests of my never-dying soul!"

There was one particular which the writer of this paper remarked in this pious and excellent character; namely, that she ever entertained a truly filial and reverential fear of God; and seemed impressed with peculiar solemnity of mind, whenever, in anticipation of her departure, she spoke of appearing in the presence of so infinitely holy a Being. But this solemn regard and veneration of God, were far from causing any gloom, or exciting a doubt in her mind, as to her future happiness. No: she knew "whom she had believed;" and she possessed and rejoiced in a "hope full of immor

tality:" and, when rendered by such thoughts of God most serious, she would at the same time manifest a lively faith in the atoning merits and righteousness of Christ, "who," (as she has said, on such occasions with much emphasis) "is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."

Perhaps few persons have had more earnest desires for holiness than the individual of whom I am writing. She was a fervent supplicant for larger measures of grace to purify and sanctify her heart: she truly "hungered and thirsted after righteousness:" she longed to be “made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light;" to "perfect holiness in the fear of God." Her end was peaceful and happy.

These observations are not intended in the way of eulogy upon her character, however estimable; but as à brief memorial of a Christian, in whom was manifested, in a conspicuous manner, the power of the grace of God; and who, in her necessary seclusion from the world, and in much "weariness and painfulness," afforded an example in many respects deserving of notice and imitation. She is now in possession of the end of her faith, and of her affliction," the salvation of her soul;"> "the far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." Having "washed her robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb," she is now "before the throne of God, serving him day and night in his temple." May we also “be followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises! " Worcester, March 23, 1818.

No. 197.]

For the Christian Observer.

CURSORY REMARKS ON UNITA

RIANISM, AND THE ARGU

ALLY SUPPORTED.

M

(Continued from p.210.)

No. V.

R. Wright bestows some reasoning upon Micah v. 2: Out of thee shall he come forth to me that is to be the Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlast ing. He remarks: "As the person spoken of was to come forth at a future time, and to be of the Jewish nation, and of the family of David, it is most natural to understand the Prophet to mean, that his goings forth had been appointed or described from of old, &c. The word translated everlasting, means an indefinite time, not absolute eternity."-I am ready to grant, that, were this text the only one to be cited for the pre-existence of Christ, it would not be sufficiently distinct to establish that momentous truth. Yet in connexion with others it certainly favours that doctrine; and in its literal construction confirms it. Compare with it, for instance, John xvii. 5, "Now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

The author comments on the passage in Zech. xiii. 7 ; in which the Messiah is called the "Fellow" of the Lord of hosts. The expression here used does not prove Christ to be equal to God; but it is very suitable to one who is so, and is applied to none but Christ; for the word applied to AbraCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 197.

with his theory; and a very unaccommodating passage he has found it. He begins with this remark: "When the writer of a book declares his design in writing it, if difficult passages be found in the book, they ought to be explained agreeably to his declared design. John has explicitly stated with what view he wrote his Gospel (chap. xx. 31): These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.' Agreeably to his declared design in writing, ought the introduction to his narrative to be explained. As he wrote to establish the important facts, that Jesus is the Christ, and that eternal life is communicated through him, what could be more natural than for him, in the very outset, to state the Divine origin and authority of the Gospel; that every thing in Christianity was

ham, is different, and means one beloved, not a companion or fellow. It is said (Isa. xlvi. 5), “To whom will ye liken me and make me equal?" In this place it proves, that Jesus, though a man, was yet, by reason of his Deity, a fellow or companion of the Father, who is not a man: and thus it conveys the same truth which is gathered from John i. 1, 14. From the other passage cited a similar proof may be collected, that believers, though men, are fellows or companions to Christ, because, though he be God, he is man also; but it cannot demonstrate them to be companions to the Fa ther, because he is not a man.

20

in the first verse of St. Mark's Gospel it limits itself to the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In 1 John i. 1, there is no such limitation; and there we understand the phrase as we do here. The author next proceeds:

"Logos, translated Word, in many places of Scripture, means, what God hath been pleased to reveal and communicate of his mind and will; the message she hath sent to men, especially the gracious message of salvation and eternal life communicated by his Son Jesus Christ. I can perceive no reason for departing from the usual acceptation of the word in this place; nor for supposing it to mean a person here, any more than in other places, in which no one has imagined it to be the name of a person. The Evangelist, by saying, In the beginning was the Word,' teaches that Christianity did not originate in the wisdom of man, was not of human contrivance, but came from God, commenced with Divine communications, was introduced by a message from Heaven."

By what method or contrivance the author is to make the proposition, "In the beginning was the Word," mean that Christianity came from Heaven, I cannot perceive. It is true that λoyos often signifies a word spoken, whether by God or man; but that in this place it means something more than this, that it actually denotes a person, is countenanced by the philosophical notions then current, in opposition to which St. John is supposed to be writing, but demonstrated by the two clauses, soon after added, "The Word was God," and "the Word was made flesh."

The next assertions, that the Eternal Word was with God (that is, chez Dieu, in the continual presence of God), and that he was himself God, are incapable of any other translation, consistently with the genius of the Greek tongue. Nothing seems to be better esta

blished, in that accurate and philosophical language, than that, whenever two nominatives stand on each side of a substantive verb, one of which has an article and the other not, the nominative which has the article is the subject of the proposition, and must therefore come before the verb in English; while that which is without the article is the predicate, or position asserted concerning it, and must consequently be taken after the verb. The version, "God was the Word," is therefore totally untenable; and without it the doctrine of the essential Deity of the Divine Word is incapable of being evaded. Even with it, how the phrase can be made to signify that God spake by his Son, unless the Word means the Son; or how the Word is to mean the message of God, or Christianity, unless Unitarians will be contented to assert that God was the message, or God was Christianity, does not appear.

On the third verse, Mr. W. observes: "Logos being in the masculine gender, the masculine pronoun would of course be used in the Greek; but Word, in our language being in the neuter gender, the neuter pronoun it, is its proper substitute, and I conceive should be used instead of him in the translation. However, the mere personification of the Word cannot prove it a real person, any more than the personification of wisdom, folly, and charity, proves them to be real persons. The Greek word translated were made, never occurs in the New Testament in the sense of create. It means, to be, to come, to become, to come to pass: also, to be done or transacted."

If the Logos be not a person, I grant that the right English pronoun is it, and not he. If the Logos be a person, Mr. Wright must ac knowledge it to be he, and not it. In regard to the mere import of the verb, I will concede that it proves nothing as to the act or work of creation. The idea, how

ever, cannot be excluded from the verse; which may be translated quite literally in these words: "All things come into existence by means of him; and not one thing, which has existed, came into existence without, or independently of, him." We use him for the pronoun, being convinced that the Logos is clearly proved to be a person; otherwise the pronoun would be it. But whether it or he, the idea of the creation or original formation of all things is alike suggested, and a sentiment awakened, which can in no way bear out the author's unsubstantiated assertion, that "John's design was to shew that every thing in Christianity rests on a Divine basis, and is of Divine authority." How can such a sentiment be extracted from words which import, according to the author's own construction of them, that every thing in Christianity was done or transacted by the message, and that without it was not any thing done that was done?

These remarks may be repeated on the tenth verse, where it is said, that the world was made by him -or more literally, the same verb being used as before, the world came into existence by means of him-which could not be said if he was not its Creator. Our author, indeed, reasons upon it in such a manner as to furnish a singular instance of the danger of explaining away the force of clear language. He is on the look-out for any other way of rendering the passage than that which is most obvious, and taxes his ingenuity to see if it cannot, to use his own expression, by some fair construction receive a different interpretation; and this phantom search, as might be expected, has strangely misled him. Having rendered the Greek words, "The world was by him," instead of “was made by him," he perceives that these English words, owing to the ambiguity of the preposition by, may be made to mean "the world was near him;" and, without recol.

lecting that the Greek words cannot possibly bear the same sense, he improves upon this discovery, and paraphrases the passage accordingly: "The world had opportunity of hearing his doctrines, of seeing his miracles, and of judging of his pretensions. They were placed so near him, and in contact with him, that they might have formed a correct judgment of his character, and have secured to themselves the benefits he came to dispense." What, then, becomes of this truly novel exposition, when it is discovered that the original phrase signifies, not "The world was near him," but, "The world was by means of him?"--But, further, the expression in the third and tenth verse is exactly the same, except that in the one the nominative is rá mála, "all things;" in the other, doues, "the world." Ta παντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγενεῖο. Ο κόσμος δι' aulo Eyevelo. Would it not strike an unprejudiced reader, that these two sentences must import the same truth, and refer to the same subject; that the relative, which occurs in both, must have the same antecedent-the same at least in meaning, even if different in words? Accordingly our translators have rendered the first passage, "All things were made by him," namely, the Word; and the second, "The world was made by him," namely, Him who was the true Light that enlighteneth every man coming into the world. But our author is obliged to vary his language, to translate them differently in words and sentiment, and refer them to antecedents altogether incompatible. According to him, the meaning of the first is, that all things relative to the Gospel dispensation were appointed by Divine revelation; of the second, that the world-or, as he virtually corrects and limits that interpretation, the Jewish people-had opportunity of hearing the doctrines, seeing the miracles, and judging of the pretensions of Jesus Christ. Can any one seriously believe that