20, " Jehoshaphat stood and said, Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his Prophets, so shall ye prosper,"-wherein the names of Moses and the Prophets of God are associated with that of the Deity. Besides, I observed to the Editor, that "fire-worshippers, for instance, insisting on the literal sense of the words, in example of the Reverend Editor, might refer to that text in the 3rd chapter of Matthew, repeated in Luke iii. 16, in which it is announced that Jesus' will baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire;' and they might contend, that if the association, in the rite of baptism, of the names of the Son and Holy Ghost with that of the Father, be supposed to prove their divinity, it is clear that Fire also, being associated with the Holy Ghost in the same rite, must likewise be considered as a part of the Godhead." He keeps all these arguments out of view, and, according to his usual mode of reasoning, repeats again in his reply what he thought the purport of Heb. i. 10, Rev. ii. 29, and has recourse again to the angel of Bochim, &c., which, having no relation to the subject in question, and having been often examined in the preceding pages, I shall pass by here. His only remark concerning this last position is, that "had the passage" (respecting belief in God and his servant Moses) "quoted from Exod. xiv. 31, been that formulary, instead of being a part of a narrative, the omission in the baptismal rite of the clause his

servant,' would have been fatal to his objection. If, then, the phrase his servant,' marks the inferior nature of this messenger of God, the omission of it in the circumstances just mentioned, unavoidably proves the equality of the Father and the Son," &c. In the first place, it is too obvious to need proof, that every circumstance mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, even in the form of narrative, if approved of God, is worthy of attention, though not stated in the formulary of a religious rite. But, in the second place, the passage quoted by me from 2 Chronicles, is a commandment enjoining belief in God and his Prophets, even with the omission, so much desired by our Editor, of the term "his servants." Does this formulary, I ask, with the omission of the term "his servants," prove the equality of the Father and the Prophets, from the circumstance of their being associated with God in a solemn religious injunction?

In the third place, the term "Son," equally with the word "servant," denotes the inferiority of Jesus as plainly as any expression intended to denote inferiority can possibly do. But the Editor says, that "never was there a more humble begging of the question than the assertion that the epithet 'Son' ought to be understood and admitted by every one as expressing the created nature of Christ ;—why ought it thus to be understood and admitted?" I answer, because common sense tells us that a son, as well as a servant, must be acknowledged to be inferior to his father or master. Again, we find David called the

son of God, Solomon the son of God, Adam the son of God, and, in short, the whole children of Israel denominated sons of God; yet represented in scripture as inferior to God their Father; nay, moreover, Jesus the Son of God positively declares himself to be inferior to his Father,-" My Father is greater than I."

Our Editor puts again another query, (p. 622,) "Can he even prove that among men a son must be of a nature inferior to his father?" I reply by putting another question to him: Can the Editor ever prove, that among men a servant must be of a nature inferior to his master? If he cannot, are we to suppose Moses, a servant of God, equal in nature with the Deity? The fact is, that among men a servant, a son, and a grandson, are of the same nature with their masters, or fathers; but when creation is not effected in the ordinary course of nature, there need not be, and is not, an identity of nature between one who is called father, and another called son; so when service is performed by men to others not of their own kind, oneness of nature is not necessarily found between the servant and the person served.

The Editor concludes the proposition, saying that "Our author declines renewing the subject relative to Christ's declaration, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world,' which, however, we are not aware he has ever yet discussed." The fact is, in examining Matt. xviii. 20, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the

midst of them," which the Editor quoted to establish the ubiquity of the Son, I inquired in my Second Appeal, "Is it not evident that the Saviour meant here, by being in the midst of two or three of his disciples, his guidance to them when joined together in searching for the truth? We find similar expressions in the Scriptures, wherein the guidance of the Prophets of God is also meant by words that would imply their presence." Luke xvi. 29: « Abraham said unto him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." And upon the Editor's quoting Matt. xxviii. 20, "I am with you always, even to the end of the world," in all probability to establish the ubiquity of Jesus, I said in my Second Appeal, (p. 199,) “I will not renew the subject, as it has been already discussed in examining the first position;" having shewn there that by the presence of Christ, and that of other Prophets that may be observed in any part of the Bible, their spiritual guidance should be understood. My readers, therefore, may judge whether or not the purport of the last-mentioned verse is connected with the subject discussed in examining the first position. I entreat the Editor, however, to reflect on the last phrase of the verse in question, i. e. "always to the end of the world," which, so far from evincing Christ's eternal existence, implies that his influence over his disciples extended only to the end of the world, when he shall be himself subject to the Father of the universe. (1 Cor. xv. 28.)

CHAPTER VI.

On the Holy Spirit and other Subjects.

I EXPRESSED my surprise, in my Second Appeal, p. 227, at the Editor's having " noticed, in so short and abrupt a manner, the question of the personality and deity of the Holy Ghost, although the Editor esteems the Son and the Spirit as equally distinct persons of the Godhead." I feel now still more surprised to observe, that the Editor, in his present review also, has noticed, in the same brief manner, the personality of the Holy Ghost; as, while he fills more than a hundred pages in support of the deity of the second person, he has not allowed even a single page to the question of the third. He, at the same time, overlooks almost all the arguments I have advanced against his feeble attempt to prove the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, from pp. 227-241, and in many other places of the Second Appeal. The Editor, however, first says, that "If he, in whom dwelt all truth, has declared him (the Holy Ghost, in Matt. xxviii. 19) to be as distinct in person, and as worthy of worship and adoration, as the Father and himself, no further evidence is needed either to his personality or Godhead." Had the Editor thought the quotation of a single verse a sufficient excuse for avoiding the discussion of the