Upon the same account, when Jesus Christ himself says, that he cannot do all things of himself, nor knows all things, and makes no reserves in his words, we may conclude he also denies his being supreme God; else, if it be a just way of speaking in him, it cannot be unjust in us to imitate him, by denying him, indefinitely, to be what, in any one nature, he is not; i. e. that he is not God, without adding any thing more. After this way of speaking, which they attribute to Christ, one may say, I believe that Jesus Christ was not conceived of the Holy Ghost, or born of the Virgin Mary; I believe that he was never crucified under Pontius Pilate, nor was dead or buried; that he never rose nor ascended, nor will return; for his divine nature (which it is pretended he had) was not capable of those things. And, since they say the personality is divine here seems more warrant to be bolder in denying indefinitely, of the person, what belongs not to the divine nature, whose the personality is, than in so denying, of the person, what only belongs not to the human nature."

5. Finally, it weighs something with me, in opposition to this way of interpretation, that the Evangelists never take any occasion (when they had so many) to subjoin any caution against taking Christ's words in their obvious sense, saying, he spake this of his human nature, when he says he did not know the hour, that he could of his own self do nothing, &c.-But here is not one caution given, though we find there often was about less matters. No doubt it was because they would have the thing understood as it fairly lies; not thinking of any such secret reserve in Christ, of a divine nature in his person, to be tacitly excepted, when he had denied such perfections of his person indefinitely."

HERE we might desist from treading over the ground of our opponents. But, lest it be thought they have not as yet, had a full and ample hearing, we proceed to give audience to certain miscellaneous testimonies, adduced in support of the doctrine of Christ's supreme deity.

SECTION XI.

NEITHER let us tempt Christ as some of them als tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.* The argument is this. The Apostle refers to a remarkable occurrence, when Israel was in the land of Edom. They tempted God, and were destroyed by serpents. The Apostle, it is said, considers tempting Christ to be tempting that God, who was tempted, by the Israelites. Wherefore Christ must be the God of Israel.

THE premises we have no objection to acknowledge; but the conclusion we deny. The Israelites tempted God, by tempting Moses, his messenger. But does it hence follow, that Moses was the God of Israel? God considers that, which is done to his commissioned servants, as done to himself. It is recorded, And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron, saying ye have brought us forth into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.† This murmuring against Moses and Aaron was, in effect, murmuring against God, who commissioned them. Accordingly, it is said so to be. The Lord heareth your murmurings, which ye murmur against him: And what are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord. To tempt Christ, therefore, is to do as the Israelites did, in murmuring against Moses and Aaron. It is tempting God, by whom he is commissioned.

This is no new or strange doctrine. Nor has it become obsolete. It is expressly taught us by Christ himself. "He, that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he, that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me," Pray, would it be good logic to infer, because despising the Apostles is despising Christ, the Apostles are Christ? or, because despising Christ is despising him who sent him, that Christ is God, the Father? or, because the lying of Annanias and Sapphira, to the inspired Peter, was lying

*I Cor. x. 9.† Exod. xvi, 2. 3.

- Exod. xvi. 8.- -§ Luke, x. 16.

unto the Holy Ghost, therefore Peter is the Holy Ghost? Yet this is exactly the conclusion of the advocates for the supreme divinity of Christ, from the passage before us, and indeed from a multitude of others.*

I AM Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is and which was, and which is, to come, the Almighty.† With no propriety is this distinct and separate declaration considered, by our opponents, as relating to Jesus Christ. They are undoubtedly the words of the Angel, speaking in the name of that God, who, in verse 1, is said to have given this revelation to Jesus Christ, to show unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass, and, in compliance with which duty, Jesus Christ is said to have sent and signified them, by his Angel, unto his servant John. Of this we are certain; for the supreme God is distinguished in verse 4, from Jesus Christ by the title who is and was and is to come. And these words are spoken in the name of the supreme God, to afford assurance to all men that his purposes are unchangeable, and that he has power to accomplish the predictions declared in this revelation. In confirmation of this, are also the Alexandrine, Ephrem, and no less than seventeen other MSS noted by Wetstein; the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic and Coptic versions; a number of the Fathers; and some respectable editions of the Greek Testament;‡ who add EOS God, after Lord, thus; I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending saith the Lord God, &c.

The title, Alpha and Omega, is never given to Jesus Christ. The first part of verse 11, which runs thus in our present copy, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last and" is well known to be an interpolation. These words are wanting in the most respectable and most ancient manuscripts, in the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Arme

* The Alexandrian manuscripts and the Ethiopic version read ɛov instead of xosor, which reading Wakefield follows. The Arminian, Syriac, and Coptic and some of the Fathers read Kugoy. If either of these be the true reading, all shadow of argument from this passage concerning Christ vanishes at once.

Rev. i. 8.- - Wetstein and Griesback in loco.

nian, and Ethiopic Versions; are rejected by Dr. Mill and Griesback and others have omitted them in their edi. tions.*

And, though Jesus Christ is, in several instances, represented as saying I am the first and the last, yet we are certain, that he does not use this style to denote his eternity, for he himself explains what is to be understood by it; to wit, that he is first as to his resurrection, and the last as to his ignominious death. "I am the first and the last." I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive forevermore: Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Again.-These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive; On the cross he was the last, the very off scouring of all things, crucified as though he were a malefactor. In his resurrection he is exalted far above all principality and power and every name that is named, and is therefore first of all. This is the interpretation which our Lord himself gives of his be ing the first and the last; and no argument can arise in favor of his being the supreme God, because the latter uses these expressions in a different sense.

AGAIN. "If ye had known me, ye should have own my Father also; and henceforth ye know him and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. And Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then shew us the Father.||

But is this passage really proof, that the disciples saw the King eternal, immortal and invisible? Was the Lord Jesus in his person God the Father? Or, are we to acknowledge, that he who is styled the Truth, contradicts here, what he had previously.asserted?§ Strange that men should choose the sound, rather than the sense. What mean these scriptures? "The only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."¶ "We know that the Son of God has come, and given us an un

*Wetstein and Griesback. 7-9. John v. 37 and vi. 46.

Rev. i. 17, 18.

-‡ Chap. ii. 8.—|| John xiv.

¶ Chap. i. 18.

derstanding that we may know Him that is true."* Yea, why should we quote a passage of peculiar phraseology and pay no attention to the explanation of it, which our Lord proceeded immediately to render? "Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that

I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake." Has any one studied the scriptures with so little attention, as not to know the meaning of the representation of one dwelling in another? When the apostle John says "He that keepeth his (God's) commandments, dwelleth in him, and he (God) in him,”‡ does he mean to assert the divinity of the obedient? Did he mean to assert this, when he says; "Hereby know we that we dwell in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his spirit." "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God." On these passages Dr. Mc. Knight very judiciously observes, that "the expressions of dwelling in God, and God's dwelling in him, must be understood differently according to the characters of the persons to whom they are applied. If spoken of teachers, their meaning is, that these teachers are faithful to God in teaching the true doctrines of the gospel and are assisted and beloved of God. But if spoken of private persons, they mean one's abiding in the belief of the doctrines and in the practice of the precepts of the gospel and his enjoying the love of God." Christ was the great Teacher sent from God. He spake the words and did the works, which God commanded him to speak and gave him to perform. By so doing, he became an exhibition of God. Those that beheld him, saw the wisdom of God and the power of God, manifested in the doctrines which he delivered and the miracles which he wrought. This was all that Philip saw. And this is what Christ explains himself to mean, by his declaration, that he had seen the Father. "Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak * John v. 20.- -+ John xiv. 10, 11.—————— - Joba iii. 24.- - John i. 4, 13, 15.

P