preted as referring to Jesus without selection. As I noticed this verse of John i. 3, and one or two similar verses in pages 440, 441, I will not recur to them here.

Having also noticed Psalm ii., [12,] (page 435,) "Blessed are all they who trust in him,” I will abstain from reiterating the same subject, though I find the Editor repeating his arguments here in his usual manner.

To my great surprise I observe that the Editor again quotes John x. 30, "I and my Father are one," to shew that God and Jesus, though they are two beings, yet are one, without any attention to all the illustrations I adduced to explain this passage in the Second Appeal (page 162). I will, however, elucidate this passage still more fully in its proper place. I thank the Reverend Editor for quoting such passages as Psalms lxxxi. 9, 10, and lxxxiii. 18, which, in common with all other authorities of the sacred books, decidedly prove the unity of the Supreme Being, and that no other being except him, is worthy to be called Jehovah.

In the course of the quotation from the Psalms, the Editor cites Heb. iii. 3, 4: "For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house is worthy of more honour than the house. For every house is built by some man; but he who built all things is God." Upon which he comments, that it was Christ that built the house understood, (as he supposes,) from

the phrase "all things" in the verse in question. I will not prolong the discussion by pointing out the errors appearing in the English version. I only repeat verse 6, explaining what the apostle meant by the house of Christ, which the Editor omitted to mention; to wit, "But Christ as a son over his own house, whose house are we." Hence it is evident, that the house which Christ built by the will of the Father is the Christian church; and that God, the Father of Jesus and of the rest of the universe, is the author of all things whatsoever.

SECTION II.

The Prophets.

IN introducing the Prophets, the Reverend Editor commences with Proverbs; saying, "If in this book Christ be represented under the character of wisdom, as divines have thought, and as seems implied in Christ's saying, Matt. xi. 19, But wisdom is justified of her children;' and Luke xi. 49, Therefore said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets,' fresh proof is here furnished to the eternal deity of the Son." He then quotes Prov. viii. 1, 22, 27, 30: "Doth not wisdom cry? The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. When he prepared the heavens, I was there. I was

by him, as one brought up* with him: I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him." It is, indeed, astonishing to me how the strong prejudice of other learned divines, as well as of the Editor, in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity, has prevented them from perceiving that the identification attempted to be thus deduced by them from those passages of the book of Proverbs, instead of proving the "eternal deity" of Jesus, or his self-existence, would go to destroy his distinct existence altogether; for Christians of all denominations agree that wisdom, understanding, and all other attributes of God, have been from eternity to eternity in the possession of the almighty power, without either or any of them having been endowed with a separate existence; and were we to attribute to each of the properties of God self-existence, we must necessarily admit that there are besides God numerous beings, (his attributes,) which poesess, like God himself, eternal existence-a doctrine which would amount to gross Polytheism. But the expression, "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way," (ver. 22, quoted by the Editor,) proves that the wisdom there alluded to was considered as in possession of Jehovah, just as his other attributes are. If Jesus, then, be meant here by wisdom, he must, so far from being esteemed as Jehovah himself, be supposed to have been possessed

*

אמון

in the original Hebrew does not signify "brought up." It means "steadied," stabled, or established, as qualities with substances. See Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon.

by Jehovah as an attribute. If this doctrine be admitted as orthodox, how then are the primitive Christians to be justified in condemning Sabellius on account of his maintaining the same doctrine? We find that, consistently with the same prophetical language, the inspired writer of Proverbs directs us to call wisdom a sister, and understanding kins-woman, (vii. 4,) instead of bestowing on her such epithets as, Jehovah, the everlasting God, that are insisted upon by the Editor as properly applied to Jesus. In fact, the book of Proverbs meant only to urge, in the usual poetical style of expression, the necessity of adhering to wisdom, both in religious and social life, strengthening the exhortation by pointing out that all the works of God are founded upon wisdom. If such poetical personifications as are found in the Prophets, as well as in profane Asiatic works in common circulation, were to be noticed, a separate voluminous work would, I am afraid, fail to contain them. And if the abstract attributes of God, such as wisdom, mercy, truth, benevolence, &c., are to be esteemed as separate deities, on account of their being sometimes personified, and declared eternal, and associating with God, this mode of literal interpretation would, I admit, be so far advantageous to the cause of the Editor as respects the refutation of the doctrine of the unity of God, but would not be precisely favourable to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it would certainly extend the number of personified deities much beyond three. Take, for

example, the following passages, which personify the attributes of God, and ascribe to them eternity, and association with God. Psalm cxxx. 7: "With the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption." lxxxv. 10: "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Numbers xvi. 46: "There is wrath gone out from the Lord." Here we have mercy, redemption, truth, and wrath, all spoken of as separate existences. Are we, therefore, to consider them as persons of the Godhead? As abstract qualities are often represented in the Scriptures, and in Asiatic writings generally, as persons and agents, to render ideas familiar to the understanding, so real existences are intended sometimes under the appellation of abstract qualities, for the sake of energy of expression. In 1 John iv. 8, God is declared to be mere love. John i. 1, Jesus is called word, or revelation. 1 Cor. i. 24, 30, Christ is represented as power and wisdom, &c. 2 Cor. v. 21, true Christians are declared to be wisdom in Christ; and Israel is said to be an astonishment in Deut. xxviii. 37, and curse in Zech. viii. 13; Abraham to be blessing in Gen. xii. 2; and Jehovah is declared to be glory in Zech. ii. 5. But every unprejudiced mind is convinced that these allegorical terms neither can alter the fact, nor can they change the nature of the unity of God, and of the dependence of his attributes.

After this no further remark seems necessary on the passages quoted by the Editor, from Matthew