The second position advanced by the Reverend Editor is, that "Jesus ascribes to himself a knowledge and an incomprehensibility of nature equal to that of God, and peculiar to God alone;" and in attempting to substantiate this point he quotes Matthew, ch. xi. ver. 27, "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." Here the Editor seems to rest on two grounds; 1st, That God is incomprehensible to man; 2ndly, That incomprehensibility of nature is peculiar to God alone:-whence the Rev. Editor draws his inference, that Jesus knowing the nature of God, and being himself possessed of an incomprehensible nature, is equal with God. Now I should wish to know if the Editor, by the term "incomprehensible," understands a total impossibility of comprehension in any degree, or only the impossibility of attaining to a perfect knowledge of God. If the former, I must be under the necessity of denying such a total incomprehensibility of the Godhead; for the very passage cited by the Editor, declares God to be comprehensible not to the Son alone, but also to every one who would receive revelation from the Son; and in this case the latter part of the passage," He to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,” must be acknowledged as conveying an exception to the assertion made in the former part of the sentence, "Neither knoweth any man the Father," &c.

We find also the following passages in John, ch. xiv. vers. 16, 17: " And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him;"— wherein Jesus ascribes to his disciples a knowledge of the Holy Ghost, whom the Editor considers one of the persons of the Godhead, possessed of the same nature with God. But if the Editor understands by the passage he has quoted, the incomprehensibility of the real nature of the Godhead, I admit the position, but deny his inference, that such an incomprehensibility proves the nature of the object to be divine, as being peculiar to God alone: for it appears evident that a knowledge of the real nature even of a common leaf, or a visible star, surpasses human comprehension; how then can a simple assertion, setting forth the incomprehensibility of an object, be considered as establishing its identity with God? In Mark, ch. xiii. ver. 32, " But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father," we have a passage, which, though it affirms in a stronger manner an ignorance of the day of resurrection than that already quoted does of God, yet will not, I presume, be considered by any one as conveying the slightest insinuation of the divine nature of that day; though time is a common object of adoration amongst idolators. In treating of this point the Editor quotes

another text, Matthew, ch. xi. ver. 28, " Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest:" wherein Jesus declares his power of affording rest, which the Editor considers as peculiar to God. All the prophets, as well as Jesus, were from time to time sent by the Almighty to afford mental rest to mankind, by imparting to them the comforts of divine revelation; and by so doing they only fulfilled the commission given them by God: but no one ever supposed that in so doing they established claims to be considered incarnations of the Divine essence. Proverbs, ch. xxix. ver. 17: "Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto thy soul." Revelation guides us to a sure belief, that it is God that affords peace of mind, effects cures of the body, and bestows all sorts of comforts on his creatures. "I thank thee," (says Jesus, Matthew, ch. xi. ver. 25,) “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Both our perceptions, indeed, and sacred authorities point out, that he lavishes all these gifts on us through prophets, physicians, and other physical causes, that are not considered by any sect as of a divine nature.

The third position is, that Jesus exercised in an independent manner, the prerogative of forgiving sins, which is peculiar to God alone; and the Reverend Editor quotes the passage, Mark, ch. ii. ver. 5, "Thy sins be forgiven thee;" and the 9th verse,

"For whether is it easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, Arise and walk?" Taking those texts as the grounds of his position, I therefore beg to call the attention of the Editor to the passage almost immediately following, in which the evangelical writer intimates, that this power of forgiving sins, as well as of healing men, was given by the Almighty: But when the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men." Does not this passage convey an express declaration, that Jesus was as much dependent on God in exercising the power of forgiving sins and healing the sick, as the prophets who came forth from God before him? The apostles, who witnessed the power of forgiving sins in the Saviour, were thoroughly impressed with a belief that it was the Almighty Father who forgave sins through the Son. Acts, ch. v. vers. 31, 32: "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things." Ch. xiii. ver. 38: "Be it known, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man, (meaning the Saviour,) is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." I know not how far religious zeal in the breasts of many of the followers of Christ may excuse them in encroaching upon the prerogatives which revelation and reason ascribe to the Divine Majesty alone; but Jesus himself clearly avows, that the power of forgiving sins had its source and origin

in God alone, as appears from his petitioning the Father to forgive those that were guilty of bringing the death of the cross upon him, the greatest of all imaginable crimes. Luke, ch. xxiii. ver. 34: "Father, forgive them," (says Jesus,) "for they know not what they do ;" and from his directing all those that followed him to pray the Father alone for forgiveness of sins. Luke, ch. xi. ver. 4: "And forMatthew, ch. vi. ver. 14: " If ye trespasses, your heavenly Father

give us our sins." forgive men their will forgive you."

The fourth position advanced by the Editor is, that "Almighty power is also claimed by Jesus in the most unequivocal manner." In endeavouring to demonstrate this, the Editor notices three passages of John, (ch. v. vers. 21-23,) "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." A candid inquirer after truth must, I think, feel surprised and disappointed, that in quoting these texts, the Editor should have overlooked the force of the words, in which the Son declares that he hath received the commission to judge from the Father: "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." I am ready to admit, indeed, that, taken simply as they stand, the words, " As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quicken