Lord; and the Lord delivered them into the hand of the Philistines forty years."

99

In the second place, were we to admit the truth of this argument, we must, upon the same ground, as far as reason suggests, esteem a good act, done for the honour of the commandment of the infinite God, or a prayer offered to propitiate the Divine Majesty, to be also worthy of infinite reward as its effect. Under these circumstances we cannot help observing, that among those that believe in any revelation, either true or received as true, there is, probably, no man that has not performed, at least, one single righteous act during the whole period of his life; but as he is a mortal and imperfect being, he cannot be supposed to have escaped every sin in this tempting world: every man, then, must be both guilty of infinite sin and an agent of infinite virtue. If we suppose that this very person is to be punished for eternity, according to the Editor, for the infinite sin he has committed, there will be no opportunity of his enjoying an infinite reward for his good work; but according to the position, he must be either rewarded for his good or punished for his evil actions for eternity, while justice requires that he should. experience the consequences of both. Would it be consistent with the perfect nature of the just God, to afflict one with eternal punishment for his guilt, leaving, at the same time, his good deeds unnoticed entirely, though performed with a view to the glory

of God? Is it not, therefore, scriptural as well as reasonable, that all men should be judged, after death, according to their good and evil works; and, then, that through the intercession of one who stands as a mediator between God and man, those who have, through Christ, truly repented, shall be admitted to enjoy infinite beatitude by the free bounty of the Father of the universe, to which they are not entitled by their own merit?

As to such phrases as everlasting fire, or everlasting punishments, found in the English version, I beg to refer my readers to the original Greek, in which the term alwvios, being derived from awv, denotes, frequently, duration or ages; that is, "durable fire,” or" durable punishments." Besides, they may find the term "everlasting," when applied to an object not divine, implies long duration. Gen. xvii. 8: "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession," &c. xlix. 26: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors, unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills," &c. Hab. iii. 6: "He stood and measured the earth: He beheld and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, and the perpetual hills did bow." Vide Note in the Second Appeal, page 277.

CHAPTER III.

INQUIRY INTO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

SECTION I.

The Pentateuch and Psalms.

I NOW proceed to examine the doctrine of the Trinity, a term which, although it is frequently introduced both in orthodox writings and conversation, as the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, yet is not once found in any part of the sacred books.

The first position the Editor advances, in support of the deity of Jesus, (page 556,) is, that the angel, who is said, in Gen. xlviii. 16, to have redeemed Jacob, was Jesus himself, as he appears, "in the Scripture, distinct from the Father and able to redeem," and that the same redeeming being was the angel who spoke to Jacob in a dream, "I am the God of Bethel," (Gen. xxxi. 13,) and appeared to Moses "in a flame of fire, out of the midst of an unconsumed bush," (Exod. iii. 2,) and who came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, "I made you go up out of Egypt," &c., (Judges ii. 1,) and called unto Abraham, out of the heaven, and said, "Thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me," (Gen. xxii. 12,) whence the Editor concludes, that Christ being the redeeming angel, and that redeem

ing angel being the angel that spoke of himself as God in other instances, Christ is God. The Editor, although he fills more than two pages with this argument, yet never thinks of producing a single authority for his inference, that the angel who redeemed Jacob, was Christ, or for his identifying that angel with those angels whom the Editor considers as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The only reason he assigns for his first supposition is, that the angel appeared "distinct from the Father and able to redeem;" hence he was Christ who is represented as the redeemer of his people. Can the circumstance of the performance of similar acts, by two persons, identify one with the other? If so, we must, on the same ground, identify God with the human race, the Scriptures having ascribed to them both, such attributes as mercy, wrath, reward, and punishment; and we also, on the same principle, must maintain the identity of Jesus with all those that are said in the sacred books to have redeemed people at different times. Isaiah lxiii. 9: " In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them, and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old." Ruth iv. 14: "And the woman said unto Naomi, Blessed be the Lord who hath not left thee this day without a redeemer,* 1,

In the English Bible the term kinsman is here employed. This, however, is inaccurate, which will appear by referring to the context. It is thereby made evident, that, before the birth

that his name may be famous in Israel." Neh. v. 8: "We, after our ability, have redeemed our brethren the Jews, who were sold unto the heathen.”

Were we to admit for a moment, that the angel who redeemed Jacob was indeed Jesus, it would necessarily follow, according to the Editor, that there was Christ-man-Jesus, God-Jesus, and Angel-Jesus; that is, that Christ is possessed of a three-fold nature, and that he is to be esteemed as an obedient servant in his human capacity, as a faithful messenger in his angelical nature, and as an independent master and employer in his divine essence!

If it be alleged that the term angel is here only figuratively applied to Jesus, I shall reply, that we find nothing in the verse that can prevent the application of the term "angel" to the angel of God, in its literal sense; no one, under such a circumstance, can be justified in adopting a metaphorical meaning; nevertheless we will, in conformity to the spirit of the sacred writings, maintain the opinion that God is the only true redeemer, and that his Christ, his angels, and his prophets, are redeemers in a secondary sense; that is, they are the instruments in the hand of God in his works of redemption. If the Scriptures do not scruple to call angels, like Jesus,

of this son, Ruth and Naomi had Boaz and others as their kinsmen, and therefore the expression, "who hath not left thee this day without a kinsman," cannot have reference to the child then born. Besides, the synonymous term, "restorer of thy life," used in verse 15th for the child, sufficiently determines the meaning.