tion of doctrines quite at variance with the tenor of the rest of the Scriptures, I should have had no hesitation in submitting indiscriminately the whole of the doctrines of the New Testament to my countrymen ; as I should have felt no apprehension that even the most ignorant of them, if left to the guidance of their own unprejudiced views of the matter, could misconceive the clear and distinct assertions they every where contain of the unity of God and subordinate nature of his messenger Jesus Christ. Many of these have been already quoted; to which may be added the following: John, ch. xvii. ver. 3: "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Here Jesus in addressing the Father declares, that the means to be afforded for eternal salvation, were a knowledge of God, and of himself as the anointed messenger of God. Also, ch. xix. ver. 17, Christ saith, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God." Here Jesus, pure as he was and without reproach, thinks it necessary to check the man who applies to him an epithet justly due to God only. Ch. xiv. ver. 1: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God; believe also in me." In these words Jesus commands his disciples to put their trust in God, and further to believe in him as the Messenger of God; and thus plainly distinguishes himself from the Godhead. Nor can it for a moment be understood by the following passage, John, ch. xiv. ver. 9, "He that hath seen me hath

seen the Father," that God was literally and materially visible in the Son-a doctrine which would be directly contrary to the spirit of the religion taught by Jesus, and by all the prophets of God. Vide John, ch. iv. ver. 24: "God is a Spirit." The Apostles also maintained a belief of the immateriality and invisibility of God. 1 Tim. ch. vi. ver. 16: "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." 1 John, ch. iv. ver. 12: "No man hath seen God at any time." Besides, Jesus explains himself in the two passages immediately succeeding, that by the phrase," He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," he meant only that whosoever saw him and the works performed by him, witnessed proofs of the entire concord of his words and actions with the will and design of the Father, and ought therefore to have admitted the truth of his mission from God. John, ch. xiv. ver. 9: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. How sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" Ver. 10: "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." Ver. 11: "Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake." We have already seen in what sense the expression "dwelleth in me" must be understood, unless we admit that all true followers of Christ are admitted as portions of the Godhead. John, ch. vi. ver. 56: "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,

dwelleth in me, and I in him." 1 John, ch. iv. ver. 12: "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us,”

very

For my conviction, and for the satisfaction of those who consider the Precepts of Jesus as a guide to peace and happiness, his word, "They may be one as we are," John, ch. xvii. ver. 11, in defining the nature of the unity between God and Jesus, fully suffices. Disgusted with the puerile and unsociable system of Hindoo idolatry, and dissatisfied at the cruelty allowed by Moossulmanism against Nonmoossulmans, I, on my searching after the truth of Christianity, felt for a length of time much perplexed with the difference of sentiments found among the followers of Christ, (I mean Trinitarians and Unitarians, the grand divisions of them,) until I met with the explanation of the unity given by the divine Teacher himself as a guide to peace and happiness. Besides, when the Jews misunderstood the phrase used by the Saviour, "I and my Father are one,' and accused him of blasphemy, (ch. x. ver. 33, " But for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God,") Jesus, in answer to the accusation, denied having made himself God, saying, vers. 34-36, "Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" How was

99

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 shewn 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 which

is not God." Exodus, ch. xxii. ver. 28: "Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the ruler 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: "Shew 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. 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 principle,