names, which the seventy generally render Kurios? It is not manifest that the Scribes, to whom our Saviour here refers, would have assented to all you say above of David's illustrious descendant as agreeing with their expectations of a secular Messiah. But is it not fully manifest that the Saviour, totally dissatisfied with their expectations, put this grand question tacitly to avow that he was the Son of God, as well as the King of Israel ? Why then does it not cover you also with silence? Does not David call him God as well as Lord? Psalm, xlv. Do not Moses, and Job, xix, 25, and David, and the Prophets call him their N, Goel, Redeemer, Deliverer, Saviour, and Kinsman, as well as Lord and God? What then do you mean by this ambiguous superior ?'

"Cap. xiii. 32. ' Of that day or of that hour, none know no not the angels that are in heaven, [nor the Son] but the Father.' You here act with honour to put the disputed words in brackets, Jerome having affirmed that the Arians had interpolated ovde o vios, nor the Son. On consulting the opinions of the orthodox, I do not find that they have given themselves much trouble about this text. The veil of futurity must not be lifted up too far, lest men should be called off from present duties, and lest fallen angels should know too much of the mysteries of God. We have here but to draw the just line of distinction between what our Saviour knew as Elohim, and what he knew as the Son of Man. As man he grew in understanding, as well as in stature. It was given unto him to execute judg

ment, because he is the Son of Man. Divine things, were, in like manner, given unto the Holy Spirit. He who searches the heart, and tries the reins, Jer. xvii. 10; Rev. iii. 23; he who knew every circumstance of his second coming, could not, as God, be ignorant of the time of his second coming. If any one be not satisfied, he has but to turn to 1 Tim. vi. 15. Where the day and the hour of our Saviour's coming are called καιροίς ἰδίοις, his own times; and of his own times, as God, he could not be ignorant.

"Luke i. 1-4. Note. The remaining verses of this, and the whole of the second chapter are printed in Italics, as indicating that they are of doubtful authority.' Who told you that they are of doubtful authority? What father of the first ages doubted or accounted them doubtful. On the contrary, are they not often quoted in their writings? If the one hundred and twenty-six verses which you brand as of doubtful authority be really so, then the Evangelist introduces the hero of his history in such a way as was never done before or since. Cap. iii. 21. Now, when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heavens were opened: and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven and said, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.' If this gospel were put into the hands of a heathen, would he not, impressed with awe at so sublime a revelation, ask who this Jesus was? Is it any way likely that St. Luke, whose Greek has ever been accounted elegant, should.

have begun his gospel with an abruptness indicative of a man devoid of understanding?

"John i. 1. The word was in the beginning; that is, the beginning of the gospel dispensation. The word was with God; that is he withdrew from the world, to commune with God, and to receive divine instructions and qualifications previous to his ministry: The word as A god, that is, he received a commission as a prophet of the Most High, and was invested with extraordinary miraculous powers. The word was flesh, &c.'

"Your Dr. Nathaniel Lardner has repeatedly assured us, that the word was made flesh by Divine assumption; your Dr. Harewood, in his version, tells us, that the Word was a Divine Person.' Now, unable to endure the word of a brother, you say The word was flesh!!! Where

do

you mean to stop? What is to be the last declension of a degraded faith? This sinking lower, and lower, and lower, has by no means a pleasant effect on the mind. Did any Jew, or proselyte, did Philo, or Plato, or even Arius, ever understand the word to mean flesh? We ask again, did any christian, or even any christian reputed heretical, ever understand the word beginning to mean the commencement of the gospel dispensation, except yourselves. If the words of Moses, Genesis i. 1. do not satisfy you, the manner in which St. John begins his epistle ought at once to settle the point. nv an agxns, That which ὅ ην απ' was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled the Word of Life; for the life was manifested,

-that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.' THAT, the neuter gender is frequently used by the Greeks to designate the Divinity by a sublimer idea.*

"You add, The word was with God when he withdrew from the World to commune with God.' What occasion had St. John to tell us as a first principle, that the Word was with God in devotion? Does any one doubt it? But Solomon had higher ideas, when he says, 'The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before his works of old-I was with him-I was daily his delight.' Prov. viii. 22, &c. Eccles. xxiv. The son of Syrac adds, I came out of the mouth of the Most High-I dwell in high places, my throne is in a pillary cloud. He possessed, begot, or created me from the beginning, before the world.' Do not the fathers, with common consent, follow St. Paul in applying these passages to the Lord Christ? Does the academy at Hackney, assume a superiority over those ancient colleges ?

"The word was A god.'-A god-A god-A god-would it had been, Ah! God! O tempora ! O mores! We know, we all know, that kings are called gods, but they are of an order of men who die like the poor. If the WORD really was of this order, invested as you add, "With extraordinary miraculous powers,' he was the most irreverent

* L'ETRE Suprême, pere de tout ce qui existe, sera du genre masculin, cependant comme cette idée est relative à celle de feminin, et qu'en Dieu il n'y a nul raport pareil, quelque peuples feront la Divinite du genre qui n'annonce ni masculin, ni feminin, afin d'en donner une idée plus sublime. Gram, Univ. par Gebelin, p. 74, Ed. Paris, 1781.

messenger that heaven ever sent to men. Haggai, speaking of the desire of all nations, and on his account foretelling the greater glory of the second temple, four times repeats the hallowed phrase, ، Thus saith the Lord. But in the gospel, this Joseph's legitimate son;' this A god' of yesterday uses as favourite phrases, But I say unto you love your enemies.'-I say unto you that ye resist not evil-thy sins are forgiven.—In a word, every miracle he wrought, and every apostle he commissioned, were absolutely done in his own

name.

"Verse 3. "All things were done by him, and without him was not any thing done that has been done.' Note. youas occurs 700 times in the new testament, but never in the sense of create.' Had you meant to frighten us with your Greek, you should have rendered the verb in its proper infinitive form to create, and not create. On this point we solicit a fair attention; all men having equal interest in their researches after truth.

"In the New Testament, designated to set forth the wisdom of God in the redemption of man, we do not expect a history of the formations of nature, of earth, air, seas, and the orbs of heaven ; we expect, as you yourselves fully allow, that Jesus Christ should be there set forth as the creator of the ages; and of thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers.

،، 2. Nevertheless, we complain here, that you are not ingenuous in the quotation of this verb. You do not say to the reader that the verb morew, facio, I make, I create, used five times by the seventy,