the sons of the Most High, Psalm lxxxii. 6); and this idea was so familiar among them, that Jesus also admitted them to be the particular children of the Deity. Mark vii. 27: "But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled," &c.

The Editor says, (page 597,) that "our author queries on what principle any stress can be laid on the prophetic expression quoted in Heb. i. from the Psalms, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.' We reply merely on this principle, that it is spoken by God, who cannot lie." Are not these words also, "Ye are gods," spoken by Him who cannot lie? Is not the very verse of Hebrews," Thy throne, Ọ God, is for ever and ever," applied originally to Solomon by Him who cannot lie, and, in an accommodated sense, to Jesus by the apostle? I will not introduce the subject again, it having been noticed in page 449. The Editor expresses his astonishment at what I say in the Second Appeal, that the phrase "for ever" must mean a limited time when referred to an earthly king or a creature, and therefore it carries no weight in the proof of the deity of Jesus when applied to him. The reason which he assigns for his surprise is, How could I take this phrase in a finite sense when applied to Jesus, the eternal Jehovah? Did not the Editor feel astonished at the idea that he employs the application of the phrase "for ever" in his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus, and then employs the circumstance of the eternal

deity of Jesus for the purpose of proving that infinite duration is understood by the phrase "for ever,"

when referred to Jesus?

As he admits that for ever," when referred to a creature, implies a limited time only; he, therefore, must spare this phrase, and try to quote some other term peculiar to God, in his endeavour to establish the deity of Jesus.

The Editor says, that the expression of Jesus to Mary, (John xx. 17,) "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God," was merely in his human nature. I wish the Editor had furnished us with a list enumerating those expressions that Jesus Christ made in his human capacity, and another shewing such declarations as he made in his divine nature, with authorities for the distinction. I might have, in that case, attentively examined them, as well as their authorities. From his general mode of reasoning, I am induced to think that he will sometimes be obliged, in explaining a single sentence in the Scriptures, to ascribe a part of it to Jesus as a man, and another part to him in his divine nature. As for example, John v. 22, 23: "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. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who [hath] sent me [him]". The first part of this sentence, “hath committed all judgment unto the Son," must have

been (according to the Editor) spoken in the human nature of Jesus Christ, since the Almighty, in exercising his power, does not stand in need of another's vesting him with that power. The second part of the same sentence, "all men should honour the Son, [even] as they honour the Father," must be ascribed by the Editor to Jesus as God, he having been worthy to be honoured as the Father is. And the last part, "who hath sent me, [him,]" relates again to Christ's human capacity, since it implies his subjection to the disposal of another. Is this the internal evidence of Christianity on which the orthodox divines lay stress? Surely not.

As to the exclamation of Thomas, (John xx. 28,) "My Lord and my God!" it is neither a confession of the supreme deity of Jesus by him, nor is it a vain exclamation, since it is evident, from verse 25, that Thomas doubted Christ's resurrection without any reference to his deity; and that, when he saw Jesus and the print of the nails, he believed it, and being struck with such a circumstance, made the exclamation, "My Lord and my God!" according to the invariable habits of the Jews, Arabs, and almost all other Asiatic nations, who, when struck with wonder, often make exclamations in the name of the Deity; and that Jesus, from these apparent circum"Bestances, and having perceived his heart, says, cause thou hast seen me, thou hast believed" (verse 29); by which Jesus acknowledges the belief of Thomas in the fact which he doubted in verse 25,

that is, his resurrection; for the subject in question, as it stands in the context, has no allusion to the deity of Jesus; and the form in which a confession is made, is totally different from that of exclamation, both in the Scriptures and in ordinary language. How can Thomas be supposed to have meant to confess the deity of Jesus in a mere exclamation,

My Lord and my God!" without adding some phrase conveying confession, such as "thou art" my Lord and my God, and "I believe you to be" my Lord and my God? I beg that God? I beg that my readers will attentively refer to the context, and to the common habits of Asiatics on occasions similar to this, and form their opinion respecting this subject. The Editor quotes Matt. v. 37, which, with its context, forbids all sorts of swearing; but what relation this has to the exclamation of Thomas, in John xx. 28, I am unable to discover.

The Editor quotes six passages from the Gospel and the book of the Revelation, four of which I have already examined, and I notice now the remaining two verses. First, John i. 1: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." By the first sentence, (" in the beginning was the word,") the Editor attempts to prove the eternity of the Son; by the second, (“the word was with God,") his distinct personality; and by the third, (" the word was God,") his deity.

Let us first take this verse in its literal sense, and ascertain whether or not it is, in that case, intelligi

ble.

"In the beginning"-i. e. in the first timewas the word"-i. e. existed such a sound as was

capable of conveying a meaning. "The word was with God"-i. e. this sound existed in the Deity, since no sound can exist of itself. "The word was God"-i. e. the word was the deity, or a deity, or being like other attributes of the deity—it was divine. The whole verse thus stands: "From the beginning the word of God, or Revelation manifesting his will and commandments, existed with him as God himself;" and by the same word God made or established all things; as the Jewish and Mohummudan, as well as Hindoo, theologians believe, on the authority of the works respectively acknowledged by them, that God made and established all things by his word only. (Vide Gen. i. 3, et seq.) And he communicated that Revelation to the world through Jesus Christ, (as testified beforehand by John the Baptist,) for the purpose of effecting the salvation of those that received and believed the authority of that Revelation. This is detailed throughout vers. 2—12.* In verses 13, 14, John expressly personifies word" in Jesus, as the bearer and deliverer of that Revelation: "The word was made flesh," (or the word 'was flesh,) " and dwelt among us," &c. To explain fully this metaphorical representation, John

"the

* The reason for the use of the masculine gender in these verses, both in the original Gospel and in the English version, is obvious, as the original word Ayos, signifying the "word," is masculine.