repeatedly, at the same time, his inferiority to and dependence on God, in so plain a manner, that the Jews who heard him, abstained from the measures of persecution that they had intended to adopt, although the Saviour continued to call God his Father, through the whole of the remaining chapter, in the hearing of the Jews. Nay, further, from the whole of his conduct and instructions, so impressed were the Jews with his dependence upon and confidence in the Father as his God, that when he was hanging on the cross they fixed upon this as a ground of taunt and reproach, saying, "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" Matt. xxvii. 43.

The Editor then proceeds to say, "This (charge of equality) Jesus neither denies nor corrects, but adds, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,' which must necessarily be the case, if, as our author affirms, the Father and the Son are one in will and design." I ask the Editor, whether this be the language of one who is almighty? If the Father and the Son be equally almighty, why should the Son wait until the Father acts, and then imitate him? If a subordinate officer, having been accused of equalizing himself with his superior, thus declares, "I cannot march a single step myself, but where I see him march, I do march,"-would this be considered an avowal of his equality with his superior? My readers will be pleased to judge. The Editor then says, that "Jesus

adds further, For whatever things he doth, these also doth the Son likewise;' a more full declaration of equality with the Father cannot be imagined. How could the Son do whatsoever the Father doth, if he were not equal to him in power, wisdom, truth, mercy?" &c. The Editor here omits to quote the very next line, " FOR the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doth," in which the preposition "for" assigns reasons for the Son's doing what the Father doth; i. e. since the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him his works, the Son is enabled to do what he sees the Father

do. To the Editor's query, "What finite being could understand all that God doth, if shewn him?” I reply, Divine wisdom will of course not shew any thing to one whom it has not previously enabled to comprehend it. How could the following passages escape the memory of the Editor, when he put the question: Amos iii. 7, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets;" Psalm xxv. 14, "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will shew them his covenant"? Did not they understand all that was shewn and revealed unto them? If they did, were they, in consequence, all infinite beings, as the Editor argues, from this circumstance, Jesus is?

The Editor proceeds to say, "Jesus adds, For as the Father quickeneth the dead, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.' Here, then, he declares

himself equal with the Father in sovereignty of will, as well as in almighty power." The Editor again omits a part of the sentence which runs thus: "So the Son quickeneth whom he will; FOR the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." Does not the latter part of the sentence shew clearly, that the power which the Son enjoyed, in quickening those whom he chose, was entirely owing to the commission given him by the Father? In order to weaken the force of verse 22, the Editor says, "The Father, however, whose it is equally with the Son, commits all judgment to the Son, as the incarnate mediator between God and man, because he is the Son of Man." My readers may observe, that if Jesus received all power of judging men in his human nature, he must have quickened whom he pleased, as the consequence of that power, in his human capacity; how, then, could the Editor infer the deity of Jesus from one circumstance, (quickening the dead,) which entirely de pends upon another, (the power of judging,) enjoyed by him in his human nature? Lest it should be supposed that individual instances of the dead being raised by Jesus is here meant, I may just mention that he exercised this power in common with other prophets.

As to his assertion, that the work of judging mankind belongs, by nature, equally to the Son and to the Father, I only refer the Editor to Matt. xix. 28, and Luke xxii. 29, 30, in which the apostles are re

FOURTH POSITION.

With a view to substantiate his fourth position, that almighty power is claimed by Jesus in the most unequivocal manner, the Editor thus comments on the passage, John v. 19-36, quoted by me in my Second Appeal: "Jesus, when persecuted by the Jews, for having healed a man on the sabbath day, said, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.' This provoked the Jews still more, because he had now said, that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." The Editor adds, "This observation shews us, that not only the Jews, but John himself, understood Christ's calling God his Father, to be making himself God." It would have been a correct translation of the original Greek, if the Editor had said, "making himself equal with, or like God," instead of "making himself God" (vide the original Greek). It is obvious, that one's calling another his Father, gives apparent ground to understand that there is an equality of nature or likeness of properties between them, either in quantity or quality of power in performing works. But to know what kind of equality or likeness should be meant in ch. v. 18, we have luckily before us the following texts, in which Jesus declares, that his likeness with God consisted in doing what he saw the Father do, and quickening the dead; avowing

repeatedly, at the same time, his inferiority to and dependence on God, in so plain a manner, that the Jews who heard him, abstained from the measures of persecution that they had intended to adopt, although the Saviour continued to call God his Father, through the whole of the remaining chapter, in the hearing of the Jews. Nay, further, from the whole of his conduct and instructions, so impressed were the Jews with his dependence upon and confidence in the Father as his God, that when he was hanging on the cross they fixed upon this as a ground of taunt and reproach, saying, " He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" Matt. xxvii. 43. The Editor then proceeds to say, "This (charge of equality) Jesus neither denies nor corrects, but adds, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,' which must necessarily be the case, if, as our author affirms, the Father and the Son are one in will and design." I ask the Editor, whether this be the language of one who is almighty? If the Father and the Son be equally almighty, why should the Son wait until the Father acts, and then imitate him? If a subordinate officer, having been accused of equalizing himself with his superior, thus declares, "I cannot march a single step myself, but where I see him march, I do march,"-would this be considered an avowal of his equality with his superior? My readers will be pleased to judge. The Editor then says, that "Jesus