earth, (ver. 15,) does the circumstance of Elijah's being in heaven, and being with his servant Elisha on earth in spirit at the same time, prove the ubiquity of Elijah? 3rdly. The Editor asks, "If he (Jesus) was with Christians to guide them, has he left them now?" I reply, neither Jesus nor Moses and the Prophets have now forsaken those that sincerely search into truth, and are not fettered with earlyacquired human opinions. 4th. "How, then, can he be the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever?" My reply is, he has been the same in like manner as David has been, in "keeping the law continually for ever and ever." (Psalm cxix. 44.) 5th. "Does our author need to be told that this meant the writings of Moses and the Prophets?" I reply, that this expression means their words preserved for ever by means of writing as the statutes of God. Psalm cxix. 152: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever." Ver. 89: "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." And Deut. xxxii. 1, Moses exclaims, "Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak, and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth; my doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew," &c. 6th. "Did Jesus mean that they had his writings with them?" I reply, he meant, of course, that they had his lowly spirit, and his words, which were afterwards published and preserved in writing. 7th. "Where were the writings of Jesus at that time?" I said not a word of his writings in my Second Appeal. Why

the Editor puts this question to me, I know not. It is, however, evident, that Jesus himself, while on earth, like other prophets of God, never omitted to express his doctrines and precepts, which have been handed down in writing up to this day.

SECOND POSITION.

“If

The Editor quoted Matthew xi. 27, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him," to shew that Jesus ascribes to himself a knowledge and an incomprehensibility of nature equal to that of God. I consequently asked the Editor in my Second Appeal, "If he, by the term 'incomprehensible,' understands a total impossibility of being comprehended in any degree, or only the impossibility of attaining to a perfect knowledge of God?" If the former, we must be under the necessity of denying such a total incomprehensibility of the Godhead; for the very passage cited by the Editor declares God to be comprehensible not to the Son alone, but also to every one who should receive revelation from the Son; and in John xvi. 16, 17, Jesus ascribes to his disciples a knowledge of the Holy Ghost, whom the Editor considers one of the persons of the Godhead, possessed of the same nature with God. But if the Editor understands by the passage he has quoted, the incomprehensibility of the real nature of the God

head, I admit the position, but deny his inference that such an incomprehensibility proves the nature of the object to be divine, as being peculiar to God alone, for it appears evident that a knowledge of the real nature even of a common leaf, or a visible star, surpasses human comprehension. The Editor, although he filled one page (610) in examining that part of the reply, yet made no direct answer to the foregoing question, but repeats his inference from these passages, "that Jesus himself can comprehend the nature of the Father, and that his own nature is equally inscrutable;" but the verse in question does not convey one or other of these positions. As to the first, we find the latter part of the sentence (" neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him") declaring an exception to the general assertion made in the former part of it; ("neither knoweth any man the Father;") that is, the Son, and those to whom the Son reveals God, were the only individuals that knew the nature of the Father. Would not this exception be distinctly contrary both to the sacred authorities, and to common sense; as the scripture declares positively that the nature of God is incomprehensible to men? Job xxxvi. 26: "God is great, we know him not ;" and common sense teaches us every moment, that if the real nature of the works of God is incomprehensible to the human intellect, how much more must the nature of God himself be beyond human understanding! As to the second, if the circumstance of the

Son's declaring himself (according to the Editor) to be inscrutable in nature, be acknowledged as equalizing him with God, similar declarations by his apostles would of course raise them to the same footing of equality with the Deity. 1 John iii. 1 : "Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not," corroborated by John xvii. 25, "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee," &c. It is, therefore, evident, that neither can an impossibility of comprehending God, in any degree, be meant by this passage, the apostles having known God by revelation; nor can the comprehension of the real nature of God be understood by it, as such a knowledge is declared to be unattainable by mankind. The verse in question must be thus understood, as the meaning evidently is, "that no one but the Father can fully comprehend the object and extent of the Son's commission, and no one but the Son comprehends the counsels and designs of the Father with respect to the instruction and reformation of mankind. It is impossible that Jesus can be speaking here of the person and nature of the Father, for this he did not, and could not reveal, being essentially incomprehensible. Neither, therefore, does he mean the nature and person of the Son. What Christ knew and revealed was the Father's will;' correthat which the Father, and the Father only, knew, was the nature and extent of the

sponding to this,

THIRD POSITION.

As the Editor expressed his opinion that " Jesus exercised in an independent manner the prerogative of forgiving sin, which is peculiar to God," founding this opinion upon the authority of Mark ii. 5, Matt. ix. 2, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," I inquired in my Second Appeal, "Does not this passage, ('But when the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God who had given such power unto men,' Matt. ix. 8,) convey an express declaration that Jesus was as much dependent on God in exercising the power of forgiving sins, and healing the sick, as the other prophets who came forth from God before him?" To which the Editor replies, "We answer, only in the opinion of the multitude, who knew him not, but took him for a great prophet."

I feel surprised at the assertion of the Editor, that it was the ignorant multitude, who knew not the nature of Jesus, that made the following declaration, "who had given such power to men;" since it is the Holy Spirit which speaks by the mouth of the evangelist Matthew, saying, "when the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men."

I wonder how the Editor could allow his zeal in support of the Trinity so far to bias his mind, that he has attempted to weaken the authority of the holy evangelist, by ascribing his words to the ignorant