"The Ebionites were a division of the Naz arenes. The name of Ebionites, according to Origin and Eusebius, is derived from Ebion, a poor and despicable man, from the mean opinion they entertained of Christ. Besides their adherence to the Jewish law, Theodoret ascribes to them other opinions. They contended, it is said, most strenuously, for the unity of the Godhead, in the Person of the Father, asserting that Jesus was a man, born after the common course of nature, of human parents, Joseph and Mary; but that the Holy Ghost descended upon him, at his baptism; and continued to actuate and inspire him, till his death.”

Of Cerinthus, the same writer observes,* that he was one of the earliest and most distinguished seceders from the Church. He allowed, indeed, that the Creator of the world was the Lawgiver of the Jews; and a being endued, at first, with the greatest virtue; and asserted, that he derived his power from the Supreme God; and that he had, by degrees, fallen from his native dignity and virtue. In order to destroy his corrupted empire, the Supreme Being had commissioned one of his glorious Eons, whose name was Christ, to descend upon the earth; that he entered into the body of Jesus, which was crucified; but that Christ had not suffered, but ascended into Heaven." However these differed in some respects; yet in one point, and that was a leading one, they were agreed, which was a denial of the Deity of Christ. Both denied the miraculous

Page 59.

conception and Irenæus, as quoted by Dr. Jamieson, asserts, that both denied the truth of our redemption. In these respects some modern Unitarians agree with both. Those are allowed to be seceders from the Church; and history informs us, that these sects appeared while John was yet alive. By attend ing to his Gospel, and Epistles, we may see a particular design to expose and confute these Heresies.

It appears, that God had manifested himself to the Old Testament Saints, by his Word, or Wisdom. According to the testimony of Justin Martyr, and Philo the Jew, it was the received and common opinion of the Jewish Church, that this Word was not an attribute of God, but a distinct Person; for the latter, who must be supposed to know what was the opinion of the Jews, speaks of the Word, as a "second God."

It will appear, that they had reason to believe the Word was a Person, and not an attribute, when we consider some of the manifestations to the ancient saints. And the Lord appeared again in Shiloh; for the Lord revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh, by the Word of the Lord.* It is abundantly evident, that there was a personal appearance to Samuel; and further, that this manifestation was by the Word of the Lord. To go back to an earlier age, there was a person who appeared to Abraham, and was called the Word of the Lord;

1 Sam. iii. 21.

After these things, the Word of the Lord came in, or by, a vision, saying, Fear not, Abraham, I am thy shield. The reader will recollect, that the Father never appeared, in any form, to men. John says, No man hath seen God, at any time. But to Abraham there was a personal appearance; for it talked with him. The inspired writers, when rehearsing God's gracious covenant with his people, did not use such high personification, as to say of an attri bute, that it appeared and talked.

The Word is expressly called that Jehovah who brought Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, verse 7. He enters into covenant with Abraham, verse 18; and Abraham calls him Jehovah.

Again, the Word of Jehovah is tried: he is buckler to all t those that trust in him.* Ac cording to the usual construction of sentences, the pronoun he refers to the Word.

St. John, evidently referring to these appearances, and to the ideas which the Jews had entertained respecting them, begins his Gospel, by describing the character and properties of this Word. They who oppose the doctrine of Christ's divinity, appear to have found the introduction to John's Gospel a very great diffi culty. Sometimes they have denied the authenticity of so much as relates to the Word. At present, they evade the evidence resulting from this, by alledging that the Apostle does

↑ Gen. xv. I.

Psal. xviii. 30.

not describe a person, but an attribute: for they appear to be sensible, that if a proper person be the subject, such properties are ascribed to him, that he must be the true and eternal God. We have the testimony of Justin Martyr, and Philo, as already observed; and likewise some of the Paraphrasts, that the Jews had understood this Word to be a person. By attending to John's description of the Word, we shall see, that he has in view a person; and this person has the properties of the self-existent God: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. It might be said of an attribute, that it was in the beginning with God; but can we suppose, that the Apostle would, in this solemn and formal manner, undertake, and that in the commencement of his history of Jesus Christ, to inform the world of something, which all knew before, who knew any thing about the divine character? If by the Word, he meant the wisdom of God, it was unnecessary to prove that this was with -God; for all who believe that God is infinitely wise, believe he was so at the beginning. What follows cannot, in any propriety of lan"guage, be said of an attribute," And the Word was God." If he were describing an attribute, it is still more improbable that he would repeat the assertion, "The same was in the beginning with God."

Verse 3, "All things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Words cannot make it more plain, that he, the Word, was the Creator of

all beings, and things that have been made. He is not mentioned as an instrument in the work of creation; but the words naturally lead us to suppose he was the principal, or supreme Creator. If nothing was, made, but by him, the conclusion is unavoidable, that he was not made, or created; and therefore he is: God over all.

Verse 4, It is said, " In him was life; and -the life was the light of men." If we supposethat an attribute, wisdom for instance, is here the subject of discourse, we shall meet with an insuperable difficulty. Shall we e make the Apostle say, In wisdom was life? This would be a refinement in personification, to which that plain Apostle was by no means accustomed. No, he evidently speaks of a person, and this person is the Source of life; or life is in him, as its original fountain.

Mankind cannot become the property of any -creature. The people of Israel, are however called the property of the Word, verse 11, "He came unto his own, and his own receixed him not." Can we join with those who I say, not that a distinct person, but an attribute of God, is the subject of discourse? If we do, we must admit that the Apostle used singular freedom with language, to say of an attribute, "He came unto his own." "Mankind must be the property of some Being; and that Being is God over all; otherwise they are under obligations to a creature, which are inconsistent. with that undivided love and universal service. which God requires..