"They are the sons o! God;" and to numerous passages of a similar description, whence the Editor may judge whether Israel was superior to the brutes only, or to the rest of mankind. The third question is, "If other gods die like men, must Jehovah, who made heaven and earth, whose throne is forever?" My answer must be in the negative, because Jehovah is not a man-god that shall die; but he, as the God of all gods, and the Lord of lords must regulate the death and birth of those who are figuratively called gods, while he himself is immutable. Deut., x. 17: "Jehovah your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords." John, xx. 17: "To my God and your God." Psalm, xlv. 7: "God, thy God, hath anointed thee."-Let us now again refer to the context of John, x. 34. In ver. 33, the Jews assign it as the reason for their attempting to stone Jesus, that he made himself equal to God, by calling himself the Son of God, as they supposed, in a real sense, which was, according to their law, blasphemy: Jesus, therefore, pointed out to them, in ver. 34, that even the term "god" is found figuratively applied to the chiefs of Israel, in scripture, without meaning to imply thereby, their equality with God; in ver. 35, he reminds them of their applying, according to the Scriptures, the same divine term to those chiefs; and lastly, he shews their inconsistency in calling their chiefs gods, and, at the same time, rejecting Christ's declaration of his being the son of God, in the same metaphorical sense, as being "sanctified" and "sent" by God. Is not this argument, used by Jesus, an evident disavowal of his own deity, and manifestation of his having called himself "the Son of God," only in a metaphorical sense? I am sorry to observe, that the Editor seems to have bestowed little or no reflection upon these texts.

In answer to my observation on the attempt of orthodox Christians to prove the deity of Jesus from 1 Cor., x. 9, "Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted," the Editor quotes first, an observation of my own, to wit, "How far cannot prejudice carry away men of sense! Are we not all, in common with Jesus, liable to be tempted both by men and Satan? Can the liabilty to temptation, common to God, to Jesus, to Abraham, and all mankind, be of any avail to prove the divinity and unity of those respective subjects of temptation?" He then declares, that I was not correct in the statement of my opponent's doctrine on this subject, and denies any one's, "having As is evident from the reply of Jesus, (ver. 36,) "Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God."

attempted to prove the deity of Christ merely from his being tempted." To shew the accuracy of my statement, however, I beg to refer the Editor to Mr. Jones's work on the nature of Christ. The Editor lastly asserts, that "it is the apostle's declaring that Christ was he who was tempted in the wilderness, and hence, the Most High God, described by the Psalmist as tempted, which is here adduced." But I do not find in the verse in question, nor in any preceding or following verse, "the apostle's declaring that Christ was he who was tempted by Israel in the wilderness." If the Editor has met with such a declaration elsewhere, he should first point it out, and then build his argument upon it. But unless he first shew, that being tempted by the devil, and being tempted by Israel, mean the same thing, I cannot admit any relation between the declaration of the apostles and that of the Psalmist.

Relative to Psalm cx. 1, "The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool," I observed, in my Second Appeal, (p. 223,) that "this passage is simply applied to the Messiah, manifesting, that the victory gained by him over his enemies, was entirely owing to the influence of God!" To this the Editor replies, "After the Son had humbled himself, so as to assume our nature and be appointed to the combat, it was not to be expected that the Father would forsake him. But that Jesus had no might of his own which our author would fain prove, is not a fact." Is it not most strange, that the Son whom the Editor considers the immutable, almighty God should be supposed by him again to have humbled himself, and to have been appointed by another to a combat, in which that other assisted him to obtain success? Are not these two ideas quite incompatible with each other? If such positive disavowal of his own power, by Jesus himself, as "I can of mine own self, do nothing," "All that the Father giveth shall come to me," has failed to convince the Editor that Jesus had no power of his own, no argument of mine, or of any other human being, can be expected to make an impression upon him.

The Editor afterwards endeavours to prove the omnipotence of Jesus by quoting Isaiah, lxiii. 5 : Mine own arm brought salvation unto me," and Rev., i. 8: "I am Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the end, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Supposing these two last-mentioned passages to be actually ascribed to Jesus, conveying a manifestation of his own omnipotence, would they not be esteemed as directly contra

dictory to his positive disavowal of omnipotence, found in the foregoing, and in hundreds of other passages? How then, are we to reconcile to our understanding the idea that the Author of true religion disavows his almighty power on one occasion, and asserts it on another? But, in fact, we are not reduced by the texts in question to any such dilemma; for the passage quoted from Isaiah (lxiii. 5) has no more allusion to Jesus than to Moses or Joshua. Whence, and under what plea, the Editor and others apply this passage to Christ, I am quite at a loss to know. The prophet here speaks of the destruction of Edom and Bozrah, under the wrath of God, for their infidelity towards Israel. These places were inhabited by the sons of Esau, (the brother of Jacob,) who was also called Edom. Gen., xxv. 30: "And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with the same red pottage, for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom." So Jeremiah prophesies the destruction of Edom and Bozrah (xlix. 7, 8): Concerning Edom, thus saith the Lord of hosts; Is wisdom no more in Teman? Is counsel perished from the prudent? Is their wisdom vanished? Flee ye, turn back, dwell deep, O inhabitants of Dedan; for I will bring the calamity of Esau upon him, the time that I will visit him." Ver 13: "For I have sworn by myself, saith the Lord, that Bozrah shall become a desolation, a reproach, a waste, and a curse; and all the cities thereof shall be perpetual wastes." And also the whole of Obadiah's prophecy foretells the slaughter of Edom by the wrath of God. I quote here only one or two verses (8, 9): "Shall I not in that day, saith the Lord, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau? And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter." Ver. 11: "In the day that thou stoodest on the other side; in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gate, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them." What expression does Isaiah make use of in chap. Ixiii., that the passage can be interpreted as speaking the language of Jesus? Nothing of the kind that I can perceive. It contains rather such denunciations as are considered totally inconsistent with the office and character of the meek and lowly Jesus, the messenger of peace on earth, and good-will in heaven towards men. Can the following expressions, "I will tread them in my anger," "Their blood shall be upon my garment," (ver. 3,) be ascribed to Jesus, who so far from treading down the inhabitants of

Edom and Bozrah, or of any other land, and sprinkling their blood upon his garment, came to reconcile them to God, and laboured in behalf of them, and of all men; even suffering his own blood to be shed, rather than refrain from teaching them the way of salvation? What particular connexion had Jesus with the destruction of the Sons of the children of Edom, to justify the Editor in referring chap. lxiii. to the Messiah? I should expect to find such language as is used by Isaiah in that chapter referring to God; for in the poetical language of the prophets, similar expressions are abundantly ascribed to the Most High in an allegorical sense. Isaiah, lix, 15-17: "And the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor : therefore his arm brought salvation unto him, and his righteousness it sustained him. For he put on righteousness as a breast-plate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak." Dan., vii. 9: "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow."

66

As to Rev., i. 8, let us refer to the contexts, commencing with verse 4. In this, John, addressing the seven churches of Asia, says, "Grace be unto you, and peace from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ." He proceeds to describe Christ as a "faithful witness, the first-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth," adding, Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so. Amen." Having thus stated what Christ had done, and is to do, John reverts to the declaration of the eternity of God with which he commenced: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord; which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." All this appears so very plain; the eternal attributes of the Almighty, in verse 4, are so distinct from the description of the character and office of Christ in verses 5-7; the identity of the definition of God in ver. 4, with that in ver. 8, is so obvious, that I should have thought it impossible for any one not to perceive how totally unconnected verse 8 is with that

which precedes it, and how far it was from John's intention to declare the Almighty and his faithful witness, to be one. Moreover, we find the term "Almighty" in the book of Revelation mentioned seven times, besides in verse 8, and referring always to God; at the same time, notwithstanding the frequent mention of the Lamb or Jesus, throughout the whole book, neither the term Almighty," nor the designation "who is, and who was, and who is to come, equivalent to the term "Jehovah," is once ascribed to the Lamb. Let the candid reader judge for himself.

66

The Editor again introduces the subject of the angel of Bokim, (p. 565,) quoting Psalm, lxxviii. 13, "He divided the sea, and caused them to pass through, and made the waters to stand in a heap," &c. Whence he concludes that the Son was with Israel in the wilderness as their God. But what allusion this Psalm has to Christ, situated either in the wilderness, or in an inhabited land, my limited understanding is unable to discover. As I have already noticed the argument adduced by the Editor respecting angels, in the beginning of this chapter, I will not renew the subject but beg my reader's attention to that part of my treatise.

The Editor quotes Psalm, xcv. 6, 7, "For Jehovah is a great God, and a great King above all gods. O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before Jehovah our Maker; for he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand;" and justifies the application of this passage to Jesus, upon the ground that, in John, i. 3, Jesus is declared equally with the Father to be the Maker of all things. I wonder at the Editor's choosing this passage as being applicable to Jesus, on such a basis; for should this reason be admitted as well-founded, all the passages of the Old Testament, in which Jehovah is mentioned, would be interpreted as referring to Jesus without selection. As I noticed this verse of John, i. 3, and one of two similar verses in p. 82, I will not recur to them here.

Having also noticed Psalm ii. 12, (Pages 77, 78,) "Blessed are all they who trust in him," I will abstain from reiterating the same subject, though I find the Editor repeating his arguments here in his usual manner.

To my great surprise I observe that the Editor again quotes John, x. 30, "I and my Father are one," to shew that God and Jesus, though they are two beings, yet are one, without any attention to all the illustrations I adduced to explain this passage in the Second