How was it possible that Jesus, the founder of truth and true religion, should have disavowed the charge of making himself God by representing himself, as the Son, honoured with sanctification by the Father, and sent by him to this world, if he were the true living God, possessed of everlasting sanctification, independently of another being? From this and all other local evidence, the Pharisees and chief priests, though inveterate enemies of the Saviour, accused him to Pilate of having made himself the son of God and King of the Jews; but relinquished the charge of making himself equal to God, or having ascribed to himself divine nature; although the latter (i. e. making himself God) was better calculated to excite the horror of the people. Vide John, ch. xix. ver 7: "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die; because he made himself the Son of God." Vide Matthew, ch. xxvii. ver. 37: “And set up over his head his accusation written, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." 43: "HE TRUSTED IN GOD; let him deliver him now, if he will have him for he said, I am the Son of God." That the epithet God is frequently applied in the sacred Scriptures otherwise than to the Supreme Being, as pointed out by Jesus, may be shown by the following, out of many instances to be found in the Bible. Deut. ch. x. ver. 17: "For the Lord your God is GoD OF GODS, and Lord of Lords," &c. Ch. xxxii. ver. 21; "They have moved me to jealousy with that

66

which is not God." Exodus, ch. xii. ver. 28: “Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the ler of thy people." Joshua, ch. xxii. ver. 22: "The Lord God of Gods knoweth." Psalm lxxxii. ver. 1: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty he judgeth among the Gods." 6: "I have said, Ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Ps. cxxxvi. ver. 2: "O give thanks unto the God of Gods." Isaiah, ch. xli. ver. 23: "Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are Gods." Psalm xcvii. ver. 7: " Worship him, all ye Gods." Zephaniah, ch. ii. ver. 11: "He will famish all the Gods of the earth." Exodus, ch. iv. ver. 16: "God said to Moses, that he should be to Aaron instead of God." Ch. vii. ver. 5: "See, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh." Also 1 Corinth. ch. viii. ver. 5: "As there be Gods many and Lords many ;" and the verse already quoted from John, ch. x. vers. 34, 35: "Jesus answered, Is it not written in your Law, Ye are Gods? If he call them Gods, to whom the word of God came," &c. In none of these instances is it in any degree admissible, that by the epithet God it is implied, that the human beings to whom it was attached were thereby declared to be a portion of the Godhead. Moses was to be as a God to Aaron and a God to Pharaoh, by the express command of the Almighty; but no Christian will thence argue the equality of Moses with the Father of all things. On what

66

principle, then, can any stress be laid in defence of the deity of the Son on the prophetic expression quoted in Hebrews from Psalm xlv. ver. 6, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;" especially when we find in the next verse, words that declare his subordinate nature; "Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows ?" We cannot allow much weight to the phrase "for ever," as establishing literally the eternal nature of the power of the Son, this phrase being often found metaphorically applied in the Scriptures to other created beings as Proverbs, ch. xxix. ver. 14: "The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever." Deut. ch. iv. ver. 40" And that thou mayest prolong thy days in the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for ever." Similar to this is the remarkable expression of Jesus to Mary after his resurrection, and therefore, at a time when no design can be conceived to have existed that could have been advanced by his any longer withholding the knowledge of his true nature, if any thing remained unrevealed during the previous period of his mission on earth. John, ch. xx. ver. 17: "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."

After a slight attention to the terms Lord and God being often applied to men in the Sacred Wri

tings, can any weight be allowed to the exclamation of the astonished disciple, John, ch. xx. ver. 28, "My Lord and my God;" especially as the apostle who relates the circumstance, within a few verses concludes by saying, ver. 31, "These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;" but nowhere desirest he readers of his Gospel to believe that Jesus is God? Does not common sense point out the inferiority and subordination of a being, though called God, to one who is at the same time declared to be his God, his Father, his Sanctifier, and his Promoter to the state of exaltation?

The passage, John, ch. i. ver. 1, "The word was God, and the Word was with God," which contains the term God twice, may, according to such use of the term, be interpreted without involving inconsistence with itself, or the contradiction which it apparently implies with another most decisive passage in Deut. ch. xxxii. yer. 39, where Moses representeth God as declaring, that with him there is no God: "See now that I, even I am he; and there is no God with me;" if it should be understood to signify in both instances the Supreme Deity. Should we follow, on the other hand, the interpretation adopted by Trinitarian Christians, namely, that the Godhead though it is one, yet consists of three persons, and consequently one substance of the Godhead, might abide with the other, both being equally God; we should in that case be forced to view the God

head in the same light as we consider mankind and other genera, for no doubt can exist of the unity of mankind-the plurality of men consists in their persons; and therefore we may safely, under the same plea, support the unity of man, notwithstanding the plurality of persons included under the term mankind. In that case also Christians ought in conscience to refrain from accusing Hindoos of Polytheism; for every Hindoo we daily observe confesses the unity of the Godhead. They only advance a plausible excuse for their Polytheism, which is, that notwithstanding the unity of the Godhead, it consists of millions of substances assuming different offices correspondent to the number of the various transactions superintended in the universe by Divine Providence, which they consider as infinitely more numerous than those of the Trinitarian scheme.

The Saviour in his appeal, "If I do not the works of my Father believe me not," John, ch. x. ver. 37, meant of course the performance of works prescribed by the Father, and tending to his glory. A great number of passages in the Scriptures, a few of which I have already cited, and the constant practice of the Saviour, illustrate this fact beyond doubt. In raising Lazarus after he had died, Jesus prayed to the Father for the power of bringing him to life again, and thanked him for his compliance. John, ch. xi. ver. 41: "And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father,