be more frivolous than their manner of avoiding it. Some said that the glory of the second Temple consisted in its continuing ten years longer than the first. But can we believe that the following lofty expressions of the Almighty pointed only at ten years longer duration of an edifice: “For thus saith the Lord of hosts, yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land.......... And I will fill this house with glory.... The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former."* Others suppose that this promise relates to a third temple which shall be built hereafter. But this idea involves a manifest absurdity, as the text is speak ing of a second temple which they were actually building at that time. Let us, then, adopt some more sublime interpretation, and more becoming the elevated phraseology of the Prophet. Let us say, without hesitation, that the glory of the second house was transcendently greater than that of the first, inasmuch as it was favoured with the precious and inestimable privilege of receiving the Messiah, the Son of God, and the desired of all nations, within its walls. He truly, by his divine presence, filled it with glory; and there it was that he delivered the sublime lessons of salvation. It was this glorious event, which the Prophet had in view, and of which St. John declares the accomplishment, in the text. The incarnation, therefore, of the Word, or the Logos, and his dwelling among us, are the two prominent objects presented to our minds in the text. At present, we will confine our reflections to the first of these objects, namely, the incarnation of the Logos, or Word of God, reserving the consideration of his dwelling among us, to a future discourse.

I. The Word was made flesh. In treating on these words, we will consider, first, who he is that is designated by the

* Haggai, ii. 6, &c.

Word, or Logos; and, afterwards, treat briefly of the mys tery itself.

By the Word, or Logos, St. John undoubtedly means Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, or as the text has it, "the only begotten of the Father." The precise reason, why he is styled the Word of God, is not quite certain. Some think that the name alludes to the first chapter of Genesis, where God is represented as creating all things by his word. "He said, let there be light, and there was light." They contend that St. John clears up in this passage, the mysterious meaning of Moses, who intended to assert the co-operation of the Son of God in the creation of the universe. It might not be advisable to reject this interpretation, but it does not appear entirely satisfactory. We should rather be inclined to the opinion of those, who conjecture that St. John styles Jesus Christ the Word, for the two following reasons. The first is, that the Jews very frequently designate the Messiah by this name. Thus the Chaldaic Paraphrast, explaining these words, "The Lord said unto my Lord,"* uses this paraphrase: "The Eternal said to his Word, or Logos, sit thou at my right hand." Another reason for adopting this word might have arisen from a desire of exposing and refuting the absurdities of the Gnosticks, who about this time, as some learned men suppose, began to disfigure the Christian doctrine by mixing up with it the crude imaginations of certain Platonic philosophers, or Cabalistic Jews. These heretics had indulged in a conceit that there existed a genealogy of subaltern divinities, proceeding from each other, and which they denominated Eons. Among these Eons, they imagined the principal to be the Life, the Word, the Light, the Only begotten, and the Plenitude. This absurd doctrine, St. John thought fit to dissipate by the rays of sober truth, and declares that there is no other Word, except that which was in the beginning

* Psalm xc.

with God, and was God; that in "this Word was life, and the life was the light of men; and in him is the fulness of grace and truth." That this Word, or Logos, is the real Messiah, uniting in himself all the glorious titles which the Gnosticks bestowed on their imaginary Æons. But whatever may have induced St. John to bestow this appellation on Christ, certain it is, that he is designated by it.

1. Let us pass on to more important considerations. In the first place, we may remark, that the Word which was made flesh, implies evidently a Person, so that no interpretation of the text can be more forced and unnatural, than that of Socinus and his followers, who pretend that the Word, or Logos, was merely an attribute of the Deity. It is, say they, the reason, or the wisdom of God, which in an abundant measure, was communicated to Jesus Christ; or, according to others, it was in a metaphorical sense, the heavenly doctrine of the Gospel, which Jesus Christ, as the interpreter of the divine will, taught and published to the world. But can, indeed, such a meaning be supported? Can it be made to harmonize with the express declaration of St. John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God?" Can this expression be supposed to signify, that in the beginning the intellect and wisdom of God was with, or in God? Can any person be ignorant, that God always possessed intelligence and wisdom, or could he have existed without these perfections? Is it possible that the Apostle should have been at the pains of mentioning a truth so plain and obvious? Besides, is it correct to say, that the intelligence and wisdom of God is God himself? His attributes, indeed, are inseparable from his essence; but neither of them can be styled the Eternal Godhead, much less can it be said, that any divine attribute was incarnate and was made flesh.

But they say, moreover, that when St. John tells us "in beginning was the Word," he means only the beginning

of the Gospel, which being the Word of God, was hidden in him before Christ was commissioned to announce and manifest it to the world. Alas! to what absurdities does a departure from the obvious meaning of the Scriptures, and an obstinate adherence to a system, give rise! "In the beginning was the Word. All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made." Now, who will say that these words do not refer to the creation of the world? Who can imagine that a divinely inspired writer would thus have expressed himself: "In the beginning of the Evangelical doctrine, this doctrine was ?" In a word, was this doctrine God himself? Did it become incarnate? Was it made flesh, and did it dwell among men? Evidently, then, all these expressions refer to a Person, and by no means to a simple attribute of the Deity, or to a word assuming a metaphorical meaning.

2. We may observe, secondly, that this Word, or Person, who was thus made flesh, existed previously to his incarnation. St. John tells us that he was in the beginning, and this beginning means the creation of the world. Besides, when it is said, that the Word was made flesh, does not this necessarily imply a previous existence of this Word? Here is conclusive evidence that Jesus Christ, here designated by the Word, or Logos, had a real existence before he was born of the Virgin Mary; and he assures us himself, that before Abraham, he was; or as St. Paul expresses it, before "taking the form of a servant, he was in the form of God." Holy Scripture, therefore, clearly informs us, that "his goings forth are from everlasting."

3. We remark, in the third place, that the Word, which was in the beginning, and was made flesh, is not a created Being, but a divine Person. St. John says expressly, the Word was God. To him he attributes the creation of the universe: "All things were made by him. He was life, and the life was the light of men; the true light, that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the

world, and the world was made by him." Now could all this be said of any but a Divine Being? Could the holy Evangelist have expressed himself, in these terms, concerning Christ, had he been only a man, or an angel? Would he not have led us into a fatal and inevitable error, by investing him with all the attributes, by ascribing to him all the glory belonging to the Deity?

4. Finally, we may observe, that the Word which was made flesh, is the second Person of the adorable Trinity. The ancient and modern disciples of Sabellius, who pretend that no distinct Persons exist in the Godhead, that God is called the Father in heaven, the Son on earth, and the Holy Ghost, when he communicates his gifts to man, depart very essentially from the express language of Scripture, which in many passages speaks decidedly of three distinct and divine Persons, exercising distinct powers in the economy and government of the universe. They are mentioned so explicitly, that one of them can never be said to be the other. We acknowledge that the human mind cannot point out in what this distinction consists, nor pierce the veil that hangs over this awful mystery. But we know, that Christ said to his disciples,* "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter." And again,†“ when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. Here we clearly perceive a manifest distinction between the three divine Persons, for never can it be said, that he who proceedeth, and is sent, can be the Person who sends and produces this procession. With respect to the Father and the Son, this distinction of their persons, appears also evident from the text, "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth." Now the only Son of