not declared the Son of God with power till after his resurrection.

66

Now, Sir, when the Jews, i. e. the doctors, demanded to know whether he were the Christ; and evidently with a bad design, he frankly avowed that he was the good shepherd, or Messiah of the prophets, as they might have understood, Isa. xl. 11. Ezek. xxxiv; that he laid down his life for his sheep; that he and his Father were one The Jews then took up stones, according to the law, to stone him for blasphemy. When he asked for which of the good works he had done, they were about to stone him; they replied, not for any good work, but because, "thou being a man, makest thyself God." The Lord replied, "Is it not written in your law, I have said, ye are gods?" John x. 24-36.

But our Saviour makes a farther reply to the same intimations of divinity which had dropped from his lips. "Every one therefore that hath heard, and learned of the Father cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God; he hath seen the Father. I am the living bread which came down from heaven." When the Jews strove about these words, and when many of his disciples murmured, whose minds were unprepared for a disclosure of his Godhead, he replied, doth this offend you? What, and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" John vi. 45. 62.

66

Our Saviour makes a third reply. " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." John v. 17. The irritated Jews instantly took up stones to stone him,

alleging in defence, "Because thou being a man makest thyself equal with God." Our Saviour made in reply, an appeal to his miracles, on account of which" all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." And if it had been given them to know the truth, which was obstructed by the obstinacy of their temper, they might have understood the distinction he made by calling himself the Son of God, and the Son of Man, who could of himself do nothing but authority was given him to execute judgment, because he was the Son of Man. Now, Doctor, if St. John really recorded, as you affirm, that Jesus was the carpenter's son, must he not have been a character lost beyond a name to record these three discourses without some mark of horror, or strong justification of the Jews in taking up stones? We must now leave the reader to judge whether your three apologies, or whether our Saviour's three defences, are most worthy of credibility.

P. 150. “My Lord, and my God.' John xx. 23. These words imply no more than that Thomas was now convinced of his Divine authority." Had Thomas then any doubts of our Saviour's Divine authority? Had he not confessed with Peter, that he was the Son of the living God? Matt. xvi. 13. This confession, as all the others, assuredly acknowledges the Divine authority, and Godhead of Christ.

P. 152. "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.' Acts xx, 28. Griesbach unhesitatingly reads, rou xugiou, of the Lord." Erasmus, who travelled over Eu

rope, and visited almost every seat of letters, has made no such alteration; and if he had, what would it avail? Could the carpenter's son purchase the church? Is this rational Christianity?

P. 153. "God was manifest in the flesh.' 1 Tim. iii. 16. Griesbach rejects Deos (God), and reads He was manifest in the flesh." It is likely that he had the authority of one or two of the old Arian copies for so doing; and I repeat the wish that he had left out the whole of the New Testament. Butlest this ignis fatuus should altogether misguide the student, let us go to higher authorities. Chrysostom says, Ητις εςιν εκκλησια Θεου ζωντος, σύλος και εδραιωμα της αληθειας, ουχ ως εκείνος ο Ιουδαικος. τουτο γαρ εςι το συνεχον την πιςιν και το κηρυγμα η γαρ αληθεια επι της εκκλησίας συλος και εδραιωμα ; That is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth; not as the Jewish church, for here are contained the faith and ministery; for truth is the pillar and ground of the church. It is added, according to the Talmudists, that the Jews had a double proof of the Divine Presence in the pillary cloud, and in the ark; and, where God is, there truth is, and where the truth of God is, there is the truth itself. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, Θεος εφανερώθη εν σαρκι, "God was manifest in the flesh." Now, Sir, few men I should think would be of opinion that Chrysostom had a spurious, and Griesbach a correct copy of the epistle before them.

P. 181. "Thou Lord in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are

the work of thy hands: they shall perish, but thou remainest. And they shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture thou shalt fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years fail not.' [But to which of the angels said he at any time sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy foot. stool?] Heb. i. 10. He here addresses a passage in which God is addressed as the Almighty, eternal, and unchangeable." Fie, Doctor, fie; the Father is addressing the Son, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever, and the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness." But here you make the Father address himself without one particle in the Greek to indicate a change of speakers!!! Perceiving your own weakness and fallacy, you father the blame on Mr. Yates. This passage is plied in current language by the fathers of the first three centuries to Christ; and justly too, for the whole of the 102d Psalm, from which the words are taken, is, as allowed by the Jews, a prophecy of Christ, and of the church, as prefigured by the earthly Jerusalem. In that Psalm, we have 1, The salvation and rebuilding of the church; ver. 13, 16, which agrees with other prophecies, Ps. xcviii, 3: Zach. ii. 11. We have 2, the calling of the Gentiles, ver. 15; "The heathen shall fear the Lord, and all the kings of the earth thy glory," so ver. 21, 22. We have thirdly, the creation of a new people; "The people which shall be created, shall praise the Lord," ver. 18. We here have proofs sufficient that Unitarianism has neither rock nor sands to build her hopes upon.

ap

P. 184. "These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God.' John xx. 31. In the Jewish idiom, Son of God means no more than a favourite of God, and peculiar eminence as a character." If this be all, what need then to write four Gospels to persuade us to this belief! almost every infidel believes that he was a good man ill used by the Jews. But had Satan no higher faith, when he said to him in the desert, "If thou be the Son of God," &c.? Had Nathaniel, had the Eunuch, had St. Paul no higher ideas? Had St. Peter, who rests the whole evidence of the Gospel on "the excellent glory," an Unitarian faith that Christ had only a peculiar eminence of character?

P. 187. "The only begotten Son of God." John i. 18. Perhaps we may add v. 14. The Glory as of an only begotten Son from the Father.' Were I grammatically to examine this change of the preposition, I should not care much whether a phrase read Water of the well, or from the well.' Yet I very much shudder at your AN; and I am totally at a loss to know what you can gain by it: for if the Logos be AN only begotten Son, then he is not a Son of the same order as angels and men, for they are numerous. But allow me, Doctor, to translate the annotation of Erasmus. "The Evangelist had said a few verses before, that those who received Christ were born of God: here, by way of distinguishing the ineffable generation of the Son, he is said to be in the bosom of the Father,' and

by consequence the only Being who could de

clare him."