CHAPTER IV.

On the Editor's Replies to the Arguments contained in Chapter II. of the Second Appeal.

To my inquiry, in the Second Appeal, "Have we not his (Christ's) own express and often repeated avowal, that all the powers he manifested were committed to him as the Son, by the Father of the universe?" the Editor thus replies in the negative (page 588): "No;-that he was appointed by the Father to act as mediator between him and sinners, we have already seen; for without this he could have been no mediator between his Father and his offending creatures." Every unbiassed man may easily pronounce, whether it is consistent with any rational idea of the nature of the Deity, that God should be appointed by God, to "act the part of a mediator," by "laying aside his glory, and taking on himself the form of a servant;" and may discern, whether it is not most foreign to the notion of the immutable God, that circumstances could produce such a change in the condition of the Deity, as that he should have been not only divested of his glory for more than thirty years, but even subjected to servitude. Are not the ideas of supreme dominion and that of subjection, just as remote as the east from the west? Yet the Editor says, that while he was stripping

himself of his glory, and taking upon himself the form of a servant, he was just as much Jehovah as before.

The Editor, in common with other Trinitarians, conceives, that God the Son, equally with God the Father, (according to their mode of expression,) is possessed of the attributes of perfection, such as mercy, justice, righteousness, truth, &c., yet he represents them so differently as to ascribe to the Father strict justice, or rather vengeance; and to the Son, unlimited mercy and forgiveness, that is, the Father, the first person of the Godhead, having been in wrath at the sinful conduct of his offending creatures, found his mercy so resisted by justice, that he could not forgive them at all, through mercy, unless he satisfied his justice by inflicting punishment upon these guilty men; but the Son, the second person of the Godhead, though displeased at the sins of his offending creatures, suffered his mercy to overcome justice, and by offering his own blood as an atonement for their sins, he has obtained for them pardon without punishment; and by means of vicarious sacrifice, reconciled them to the Father, and satisfied his justice and vengeance. If the justice of the Father did not permit his pardoning sinful creatures, and reconciling them to himself, in compliance with his mercy, unless a vicarious sacrifice was made to him for their sins; how was the justice of the Son prevailed upon by his mercy, to admit their pardon, and their reconciliation to himself, without any

sacrifice, offered to him as an atonement for their sins? It is then evident, that, according to the system of Trinitarians, the Son had a greater portion of mercy than the Father, to oppose to his justice, in having his sinful creatures pardoned, without suffering them to experience individual punishment. Are these the doctrines on which genuine Christianity is founded? God forbid!

If the first person be acknowledged to be possessed of mercy equally with the second, and that he, through his infinite mercy towards his creatures, sent the second to offer his blood as an atonement for their sins, we must then confess that the mode of the operation and manifestation of mercy by the first is strange, and directly opposite to that adopted by the second, who manifested his mercy even by the sacrifice of life, while the first person displayed his mercy only at the death of the second, without subjecting himself to any humiliation or pain.

"The

In answer to the Editor's position, that Jesus, even as a mediator, was possessed of every power and perfection that was inherent in his divine nature, I only beg to remind him of a few sacred passages among many of a similar nature. John iii. 35: Father loveth the Son, and hath GIVEN all things into his hand." Ch. xvii. 22: "And the glory which thou GAVEST me, I have given them," &c. Ch. v. 26: "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he GIVEN to the Son to have life in himself."

Luke i. 32: "And the Lord shall GIVE UNTO him the throne of his father David." Matt. ix. 8: "But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power to MEN." Ch. xxviii. 18: "Jesus came, and spake unto them, saying, All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth." On these texts I trust no commentary is necessary to enable any one to determine whether all the power and glory that Jesus enjoyed were given him by God, or were inherent in his own nature.

The Editor again denies Christ's having "possessed single power, perfection, or attribute, which was not eternally inherent in his divine nature;" and defies me "to point out one attribute or perfection in the Father, which from scripture testimony the Son has not been already shewn to possess." I therefore take upon myself to point out a few instances which I hope will convince the Editor that the peculiar attributes of God were never ascribed to Jesus, nor to any other human being who may have been, like Jesus, figuratively called gods in scriptural language. In the first place, the attribute of being the "Most High" or by which the supreme Deity is distinguished above all gods, is not found once ascribed to Jesus, though invariably applied to the Father throughout the scriptural writings. 2ndly. Jesus was never called almighty, or a term peculiarly used for the Deity. Nay, moreover, he expressly denies being possessed of almighty power, Matt. xx. 23: "But to sit on my right hand, and on my

left, IS NOT MINE TO GIVE, but to them for whom it is PREPARED OF MY FATHER." Ch. xxvi. 53: "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray TO MY FATHER, and he shall presently GIVE ME more than twelve legions of angels?" John xi. 41: "Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid; and Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me." He also denies his omniscience, 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." Any being if not supreme, almighty, and omniscient, and, more especially, one subjected to the transitions of birth and death, must, however highly exalted, even by the title of a god, and though for ages endowed with all power in heaven and in earth, be considered a created being, and, like all creatures, be in the end, as the apostle declares, subject to the Creator of all things. Besides, in the creed which the generality of Trinitarians profess, God is described as self-existent, having proceeded from none; but the Son, on the contrary, is represented as proceeding from the Father. Here even the orthodox amongst Christians ascribe the attribute of self-existence to the Father of the universe alone.

In my Second Appeal I observed, that "the sun, although he is the most powerful and most splendid of all known created beings, has yet no claim to be considered identical in nature with God, who has given to the sun all the heat," &c.; to which the