and though the waves toss themselves, yet can they not prevail?' This, however, is only a part of that work of creation ascribed to him, who, while on earth, exercised absolute dominion over the winds and the waves in no name beside his own." But what this passage of Jeremiah has to do with the divine nature of Jesus, I am unable to discover. The Editor might have quoted, at this rate, all the passages of the Old Testament, that ascribe to God the supreme controul over the whole world, as evidence in favour of the deity of Jesus, as he was sure to find always many persons of the same persuasion to applaud any thing offered in favour of the Trinity.

As to his position, that Jesus "exercised absolute dominion over the winds and the waves in no name beside his own," I beg to quote John x. 25, to shew, that whatever power Jesus, in common with other prophets, exercised over wind and water while he was on earth, he did it in the name of God: "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not; the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me." "And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.” I say Jesus in common with other prophets, because both Elijah and Elisha the prophets, exercised power over wind and water and other things, like Jesus, in the name of the Father of the universe. 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 44, 45; 2 Kings ii. 21; sometimes without verbally expressing the name of God; ch. v. 8-13, 27, ch. ii. 10.

Upon the assertion in my Second Appeal, that the "epithet God is frequently applied in the Sacred Scriptures to others beside the Supreme Being," the Editor observes, that "this objection Jeremiah cuts up, ch. x. 11: The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens;' which declaration sweeps away not only the gods of the heathen, but all magisterial gods, and even Moses himself, as far as he aspired to the godhead: but from this general wreck of our author's gods, Christ is excepted, he having made these heavens, and laid the foundation of the earth." Let us apply this rule adopted by the Editor respecting the prophets, to Jesus Christ. We do not find him once represented in the Scriptures as the maker of heavens and earth, this peculiar attribute having been throughout the whole sacred writings ascribed exclusively to God the Most High. As to the instances pointed out by the Editor, Heb. i. 10, and Col. i. 17, I fully explained them in pp. 447, 448, 452, as having reference to God, the Father of the universe. Moreover, we observe in the New Testament, even in the same book of Hebrews, that whatever things Jesus made or did, he accomplished as an instrument in the hands of God. Heb. i. 2: "Whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Ephes. iii. 9: "Who created all things by Jesus Christ." It would, indeed, be very strange to our faculties to acknowledge one as the true God,

and yet to maintain the idea that he created things by the directions of another being, and was appointed as heir of all things by that other. Again, in pursuance of the same rule of the Editor, I find that Jesus, like other perishable gods, both died and was buried, though raised afterwards by his Father, who had the power of raising Elijah to heaven, even without suffering him to die and be buried for a single day. My readers may now judge whether Jesus Christ be not included, in common with other perishable gods, in the rule laid down by the Editor.

To deify Jesus Christ, the Editor again introduces the circumstance of his being a searcher of hearts, to execute judgment, Rev. ii. 23, and also quotes Heb. i. 3. Having examined these arguments in pages 449 and 518, I will not return to them here.

He adds, in this instance, "We are hence assured that the Father, who perfectly knows the Son, did not commit to him all judgment so entirely as to judge no man himself, without knowing his infinite fitness for the work." It is evident that the Father did not commit to the Son all judgment so entirely as to judge no man himself, without qualifying him for so doing, that is, without giving him the power of knowing all the events of this world in order to the distribution of rewards and punishments. Matt. xxviii. 18: “ All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Notwithstanding this, the power of knowing those things that do not respect the execution of judgment by the Son, is not bestowed upon

him, and the Son, therefore, is totally ignorant of them. Mark xiii. 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." No one destitute of the power of omniscience is ever acknowledged as Supreme God by any sect that believe in revealed religion.

He quotes Heb. iv. 13, "Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do," in order to corroborate the idea that Christ knew all the secrets of men. Supposing this passage to be applicable to Jesus Christ, it does not convey any other idea than what is understood by Rev. ii. 23, which I have already noticed. But the Editor must know that in the immediately preceding verse, the word of God, or revelation, while figuratively represented as a twoedged sword, &c., is in the same allegorical sense declared to be "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." There is, therefore, no inconsistency in ascribing the knowledge of the intents of hearts to him through whom that revelation is communicated, and who is appointed to judge whether the conduct of men is regulated by them in conformity to that revelation.

The Editor says, (page 584,) that "in Ezekiel xxviii., God says, respecting a man who arrogated to himself the honours of Godhead, Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord

God;-Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God,-behold, thou shalt die the death of the uncircumcised,' &c. How different the Father's language to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever'! Why this different language to the prince of Tyrus and to Jesus?" Had the Editor attentively referred to the Scriptures, he would not have taken the trouble of putting this question to me; for he would have easily found the reason for this difference; that is, the king of Tyrus called himself God, as above-stated; but Jesus, so far from robbing the Deity of his honour, never ceased to confess that God was both his God and his Father. (John xx. 17.) Also, that the prince of Tyrus manifested disobedience to God; but Jesus even laid down his life in submission to the purposes of God, and attributed divine favour towards himself to his entire obedience to the Most High. Rom. v. 19: "For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." John x. 17: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again." Luke xxii. 42: "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done." As the conduct of the prince and that of Jesus towards God were quite different, they were differently treated by the Father of the universe. As to the above verse, ("Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,") God does not peculiarly address Jesus with the epithet