simply a higher degree of inspiration and communion with God than other prophets. The New Testament does not seem to me to justify either of these extremes.

A thousand questions may be raised here; a thousand difficulties suggested, which no reflecting man will undertake to answer. The history of past ages exhibits an appalling picture of disputes about the person of Christ; all springing from the denial of facts revealed in the New Tes tament, or from the unhallowed curiosity of men who desired to know what God has not revealed. The very last age witnessed a dispute in Germany between the theologians of Giessen and Tubingen, whether the humiliation (EV) of Christ consisted "in abstinence from both the direct and reflex use of divine majesty ;" or in the "occultation of divine majesty;" a dispute which agitated the Lutheran Church to the very centre.

The humble inquirer after truth, who once is brought clearly to see the boundaries of human knowledge, will shrink from disputations of such a nature; and pour forth his earnest supplications to God, that the simple verities which the Scriptures reveal, may be believed on the authority of God; while the manner in which the facts revealed for our credence exist, is left with him "whose ways are unsearchable and whose judgments are past finding out."

I have used the freedom of letter-writing, in this discussion; I can hardly call it digression, as it is so nearly connected with the explanation of the text which I am examining. Will you now permit me to repeat, that the version, which would correspond best with the real meaning of the passage in question, must express the following ideas; "Who being of divine nature, or condition, did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on himself a hum\ble condition," &c. In this way, and in this only, does the passage appear to be consistent with the apostle's argument and design, at least appropriate to them; and in this way only, can the Greek be fairly and grammatically rendered.

With the passage that has now been considered, seem to me to agree, in general import, several others; John v.19. "Whatsoever things he (the Father) doeth, the same de eth the Son likewise;" i. e. he has the same power as the

Father. And when it is said in the context, "The Son doeth nothing by (or of ano ap') himself, except he see the Father do it ;" I understand the meaning to be, that the Jews had no reason to believe that Christ had any disposition to blaspheme God, (of which they had so frequently accused him,) for he acted in entire concert with the divine purposes and commands, and had no separate interests of

his own.

John v. 21-23. "For as the Father raiseth the dead and restoreth them to life, so also the Son restoreth to life whom he pleases. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men might honour the Son, even as they honour the Father."

Is there not here an equality of power and honour, ascribed to the Father and Son? The Son is indeed introduced as "head over all things;" but could he be such a head, could "all judgment be committed to him," if at the same time he was not also divine, and consequently omniscient? It is perfectly plain that in so far as the "committing of judgment to the Son" is concerned, it must be to the mediatorial person; to one who in respect to office is subordinate to God. But in so far as qualifications, requisite to perform the duties which that commitment requires, are concerned, the Saviour is divine; and the honour to be claimed by him, is the same with that which the Divinity himself claims. It matters not whether you interpret this of obedience to be rendered to the Son, or of homage to be paid to him. Multitudes of prophets, as commissioned by God, have borne his messages of mercy and of judgment to his people; but to whom among them all, did he grant the privilege of being honoured as himself? Or to what created being shall the glory of the blessed God be rendered, without infringing upon the fundamental principles of both the Jewish and the Christian religion?

In fact, I cannot well conceive how our Saviour could have used the words aboye quoted without having expos ed himself to renewed and just accusations of the Jews for blaspheming, unless he were really divine. The Jews had accused him of violating the Sabbath, because he had on that day healed the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, The reply of Christ to them was; "My Father worketh

hitherto and I work :" which, if I understand the argument, must mean; My Father has never ceased to work on the Sabbath, in carrying on all the operations of the natural and moral world; he supersedes the law of the Sabbath. I have the same right. "The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath." The Jews then sought to slay him, because, as they affirmed, "he had violated the Sabbath, and said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. In reply to their bitter accusations, Jesus made use of the language above cited; telling them that he did whatever the Father did, and was entitled to the same honour. Was this relinquishing his claim to the equality with God, which the Jews had charged him with assuming? Or was it speaking out plainly, that he wrought on the Sabbath by the same right that the Father did, and was entitled to the same deference? Can his words, interpreted without regard to any preconceived theory, be made to signify less than this?

You will expect me, perhaps, to adduce John x. 30. "I and my Father are one." It is a clear case, that the Jews here seem to have understood Christ, as claiming equality with God, or rather claiming to be God, (See verse 33.) But I am not satisfied, that the manner in which they often expounded his words, is a sure guide for our interpretation of them at the present time. The malignant disposition which they frequently displayed, may well lead us to suspect, that they would, if possible, put such a construction on his words, as would subject him to the imputation of blasphemy, or rebellion against the Roman government. I would expound the words of Christ therefore, independently of any construction which his embittered enemies put upon them. And in the present case, it seems to me, that the meaning of "I and my Father are one," is simply, "I and my Father are united in counsel, design, and power."

So in John xvii, 20, 21, Christ prays that "all who shall believe on him may be one. A thou, Father," continues he," art in me, and I in thee; so they also may be one in us;" i. e. that the disciples may have the ", same mind which was in Christ Jesus;" may copy after his example, and be united in the temper of their souls to him, as he is to God; may be one with the Father and with him,

So also, in Gal. iii. 28, Christians of different ranks and nations are said to be one in Christ: and 1 Cor. iii. 3, he that planteth and he that watereth are one; i. e. they have the same affections, and designs; they are united to accomplish the same object. In the same manner, Cicero say, Unus fiat e pluribus," many constitute one, when persons are united in temper and pursuits. (De Offic. l. i. c. 17.)

From the consideration of those texts, which ascribe, in a general sense, equality with God, or divine power and honours, to Christ; lét us now turn,

III. To the examination of those, which assert or imply, that particular divine attributes, or works, belong to him. I. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ.

Matt. xi. 27. "All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

If in this passage, the same omniscience be not ascribed to the Son as to the Father; I am unable to make out satisfactorily what the meaning of it is. In the latter clause of the verse, men are declared to be entirely dependent on the Son for that knowledge of the Father which is revealed; i. e. he only makes this revelation. "No man bath seen God at any time; the only begotten who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him." John i. 18. At the same time I concede, it is possible, that the knowledge here spoken of, may be merely that which is intended to be revealed in the gospel.

John vi. 46. "Because that no man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." The word wpaxe here, does not mean to see with bodily eyes, but with the mental eye, i. e. to know. What but omniscience could be adequate to the knowledge here predicated of Christ? And is it a satisfactory explanation of the text to say, that the knowledge, here meant, is simply that which is conveyed in the instructions of the gospel?

In the same manner, the knowledge of the most intimate secrets of the human heart is ascribed to Christ. John ii, 24, 25. "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them because he knew all men; and needed not that any should

testify of man; for he knew what was in man." John vi. 64. "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."

Acts i. 24. "And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen." That Lord (Kugios) here means Christ, seems to me very plain from verses 21 and 22, (compare verse 6) of the context. Besides, this is the common appellation of the Saviour, in the Acts of the Apostles. The appeal made in this case, respects the choice of an apostle. "Shew, Lord," say the apostles, "which of these two THOU hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship." Is there any room to doubt here, that the apostles did appeal to the same Lord who had chosen them, to designate who shall fill the vacancy occa,sioned by the death of Judas?

1 Cor. iv. 4, 5. "For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." That Lord (Kupios) here means Christ, is plain, both from the office of judging ascribed to him, and from his coming to judgment. Without citing numerous other passages, which confessedly represent Christ as the final Judge of all the human race; permit me here to ask, Is it possible for any being who is not omniscient, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures? Can he for thousands of years, (possibly of ages,) be present every where, and know what is transacted; can he penetrate the recesses of the human heart; can he remember the whole character and actions of countless myriads so diverse in talents, temper, circumstances and situation; and yet be finite? be neither omnipresent nor omniscient? God claims it as his distinguishing and peculiar prerogative, that he knows the secrets of the human heart, (Jer. xvii. 10;) what then must he be, who knows the secrets of all hearts at all times, and in all worlds? If he be not God, the proof that the Father is God, is defective too; and we have the question again to dispute with the Mani