not mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."

He perhaps hesitated to rely on the sophistry used by the orthodox, that Jesus denied being possessed of almighty power only in his human capacity. The Editor, it is possible, perceived, that as the gift of all power to Jesus, mentioned in Matt. xxviii. 18, is explained by the orthodox of his human capacity; the denial of almighty power could not, therefore, be understood of that very human nature in which he is said to have possessed it.

FIFTH POSITION.

The Editor says, that " our author's objections to the fifth position, that Jesus's having all judgment committed to him, proves his omniscience, have been so fully met already, that scarcely any thing remains to be added."

In answer to which, I have only to say, that the arguments adduced by the Editor having been previously noticed, it is therefore left to my readers to examine them, and to come to a determination whether they tend to prove the omniscience of the Son or not. The Editor, however, adds here, that omniscience is essential to the act of judging mankind. As I have already dwelt much on this subject in the preceding position, pp. 634, 635, and also in p. 511, I beg to refer my readers to them, wherein they will find that the Son's knowledge of the events of this

world extends no farther than as respects the office of judging mankind; that others are declared to be vested with the power of judging the world as well as the Son; and that the Son positively denies his omniscience in Mark xiii. 32. The Editor concludes by saying, that "his (Father's) giving him to have life in himself,' refers wholly to his being the mediator in human flesh." It settles the question at once, that whenever and in whatever capacity Jesus is declared to have had life, he had it as a gift of the Father; and the object of our inquiry and reverence is the Son endowed with life, and not one destitute of it.

SIXTH POSITION.

The Editor begins by observing, that "to the sixth position, that Jesus accepted worship due to God alone, our author objects, That the word 'worship,' both in common acceptation and scriptural writings, is used sometimes as implying an external mark of religious reverence paid to God, and at other times as signifying merely the token of civil respect due to superiors; that those who worshipped Jesus did not believe him to be God, or one of the three persons of the Godhead; and Jesus, in his acknowledged human capacity, never prayed to himself, or directed his followers to worship or pray to him.' Granting that worship' in English, and Tęоσxʊvéw in Greek, are sometimes used to denote

civil respect, and that the worship paid by the servant to his master, Matt. xviii. 26, and by the people to David, meant merely civil respect, still the position is not touched in the least degree." The reason which the Editor assigns for this position not being touched, is, that "whether the blind man, the lepers, the mariners, and others, knew what they did in worshipping Jesus, is not so much the question, as whether Jesus knew; for if he suffered them, even through ignorance, to yield him divine worship, when Peter did not suffer it in Cornelius for a moment; unless he were God, he must have had less discernment, or less piety and concern for the Divine honour, than his own disciples." P. 618.

As the Editor agrees that the term "" worship' in English, and pooxuvéw in Greek, are sometimes used to denote civil respect," it is of course necessary to ascertain whether the blind man, &c. knew what they did in worshipping Jesus; that is, whether they meant to bestow civil respect, or to offer religious reverence. But from all the local circumstances which I pointed out in the Second Appeal, page 193, it is evident that they, as well as Jesus, knew that they were manifesting civil respect only by worshipping him, in the same way as it is evident, from the circumstances of David's not declining to receive worship from the people, and Daniel from king Nebuchadnezzar, that the people and king intended merely civil respect to them. As to Peter's rejection of the worship offered him by Cornelius, it

may easily be accounted for, since, as Jesus was endowed with the power of knowing things connected with his divine commission, so Peter had the knowledge of secret events concerning his apostolic duty. From the language which the blind man and others used, and from his knowledge of their thoughts, the Saviour, like other ancient prophets, gave a tacit consent to the worship (or, properly speaking, civil reverence) offered by them; while Peter rejected the worship offered him by Cornelius, knowing that he meant it as an external mark of religious reverence, which was due to God alone, as is evident from the language of Peter, "I myself am a man." Having already noticed the exclamation of Thomas in page 594, and Heb. i. 10, in page 452, I shall not recur to the subject in this place.

The Editor says, "Was Stephen (ignorant) when he committed to him his departing soul in language similar to that in which Christ on the cross had committed his spirit to the Father?"

The language of Stephen alluded to by the Editor, and that of Christ, bears little resemblance. Among the many expressions attributed to Jesus on the cross, none of them resemble the invocation of Stephen, except that given Luke xxiii. 46, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit;" which is natural for every human being having any idea of God, or feelings of devotion on the approach of death. Stephen's exclamation (Acts vii. 59, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit") was merely an application

to Jesus in preference to the angels of death, whom he expected to receive his soul, and convey it to the bosom of the Divinity. The notion of angels of death receiving and conveying away the spirit at the time of dissolution, is familiar to the Jews, in common with other Eastern nations, as appears from their traditions, and from Prov. xvi. 14, "The wrath of a king is as messengers" (in the Hebrew, properly angels")" of death"-i. e. in a despotic country, the displeasure of the tyrant is equivalent to death. From Stephen's saying, that he saw "the Son Man standing on the right hand of God," we may easily perceive the notion which he had formed of the nature of Jesus Christ.

66

As to Christ's offering prayers and worship to the Father, and directing his apostles to do so, the Editor attributes them to the " state of humiliation in which his infinite love to sinners had placed him." If Jesus deemed it necessary, in his human capacity, to offer up prayers, thanksgiving, and worship, to God the Father alone, notwithstanding he was filled bodily with God the Son, (according to the Editor,) and [to] direct his apostles to follow his example, is it not incumbent upon us also, in following his pattern, to thank, pray to, and worship the Father alone, as long as we are human? But the truth is, that the assertion of the Editor, attributing Christ's devotion towards God to his human nature, is entirely unsupported by scriptural authority.

The Editor further says, that if Jesus were not