those high attributes which our poor conceptions may forget to ascribe to him, and often also, in the way of argument, to keep up in our recollection the warning truth, that we do not sin unseen, and can harbour no evil thoughts without discovery. These considerations, indeed, are sometimes amplified beyond the compass of a few epithets, as in Ps. xciv. 7-10; "They say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.” "Take heed, ye unwise among the people! O ye fools, when will ye understand? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? or he that made the eye, shall be not see? or he that nurtureth the heathen (it is he that teacheth man knowledge), shall not he punish?" If, therefore, the adjectives alone were superfluous, these descriptions must be much more so. In the same way, in which the author degrades the scriptural notion of the name GOD to something unworthy of Godhead, he also degrades the name Word of God and Spirit of God, as the reader will immediately perceive. "The Word and Spirit are not personal subsistences in God; but what he has been pleased to manifest and communicate to man. The Word of God seems, generally, to mean the manifestation of his character, perfections, mind, and will, whether in his visible works, by peculiar revelations, such as the prophets received, or in any other way and Christ is called the Word of God, because by him God hath spoken to us in these last days. The Spirit of God intends the Di vine operations and influence, which are perceivable throughout all his works; but in the New Testament by the Spirit is chiefly meant those extraordinary gifts and miraculous powers, which were communicated to Christ, the Apostles, and first Christians: some times indeed it may mean godlike tempers and dispositions. But what has all this to do with the Word and Spirit being distinct per. sons in the Godhead?" Nothing, certainly, if this representation of the matter be correct. But let us bring it to the test, by substituting, in one or two instances, the definition for the thing defined. The proem to St. John's Gospel I shall have further occasion to consider. At present I will only translate the first verse of it into our author's language. It would run thus:"In the beginning was the mani. festation of the Divine character; and the manifestation of the Divine character was with God; and the manifestation of the Divine character was God;"—and a few verses after; "The manifestation of the Divine character was made flesh." It is generally understood, indeed, that The Word is the same in this passage with The Son in others. Let us consider, then, according to this doctrine, what will become of the baptismal form if our author's interpretation be taken of it. The Apostles are commanded to baptize in the name of God, and of the manifestation of his character, and of the extraordinary gifts vouchsafed in the first ages of Christianity. Nay, we have these extraordinary gifts, in Rom. viii, 26, making intercession for us. We are directed not to grieve these extraordinary gifts, (Eph. iv. 30), and are told that they were seen descending like a dove (Matt. iii. 16), and resting upon our blessed Saviour. Our author, indeed, escapes from some of these applications of his exposition, by admitting that the Word and Spirit are sometimes personified. Nothing is easier in general than to distinguish a per sonification in any clear writer from a plain description. The personification of Wisdom in the Proverbs and Book of Job has misled no one. But I can see nothing like this in any of the descriptions of the Word and Spirit in either Testament; nor has the author pointed out any such instances, Till this is done, there can be In reference to Mr. Wright's remark on the title "Word of God," as applied to our blessed Saviour, I readily grant to the author, that this title, simply considered, by no means proves that Christ was more than man. But, though the title by itself will not prove this, the declaration of St. John, that the Word was God, will prove it fully: and in whatever sense, or for whatever reason the title was ascribed to him, it is given to him as a partaker of both natures: for it is written, "The Word was God; and the Word was made flesh." The next title to be noticed is "the Lord from heaven;" on which the author says, "This title is given to Christ simply as man; for Paul says, The second man is the Lord from Heaven: therefore it cannot imply that he is more than man, only that he received his dignity immediately from God." neither force nor appropriateness son of man." But if as son of man of application in his remark. he was a human person, and as Son of God, a Divine one, there is meaning in the confession, and the testimony is sufficiently important to account for the following answer: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (ver. 17.) To this it is replied, that "if the name, Son of God, meant the union of the human and Divine natures in the person to whom it is given, this must be its meaning when applied to other persons as well as to Jesus, to his followers, who are called Sons of God." The inference, however, is not quite correct; because he is distinguished from all other persons to whom that name is given, by being called the only begotten Son of God. I by no means design in this observation to affirm, that the name, as applied to Christ, means the union of the Divine and human natures, but only to deny the inference thus deduced from that union. That as applied to Christ, it included his Deity, I venture to affirm on the authority of his own words (John v. 21); “ As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will: what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." I am supported in this opinion by the sense in which the Jews, who heard him, understood his pretensions. John v. 18: "The Jews sought to kill him, because he said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." I am farther strengthened in it by the uncontradicted inference of the high priest, from his assumption of that title in Matt. xxvi. 63-65: "The high priest answered and said unto him. I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said. Nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, I cannot easily conceive a greater solecism in reasoning than for the strongest expression, that could well be used to shew that Christ was more than man, to be thus construed into a declaration of the contrary. Yet I agree that it cannot imply this doctrine; for it asserts it; and the words of our Lord himself are the best commentary upon it. "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." (John iii. 13.) The same kind of argument is repeated on the title, "the Son of God." "This title is given to Christ as the Son of man, Matt. xvi. 13, 16: therefore cannot prove that he is any other than a human being." Yet what sense does the author understand to be conveyed in the confession of St. Peter, to which he alludes in his reference to St. Matthew? According to him, this means no more than, Thou, the Son of Man, art the and coming in the clouds of hea ven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy." The argument, therefore, that he who is the Son of God, must himself be God, does not apply to those who are sons of God by adoption, as the Father is said to have predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself (Eph. i. 5); or to those who are sons of God by creation, as it is written, "The morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy;" but only to Him who is em phatically distinguished from them all, as the only begotten Son of God, nor even to him simply on account even of that peculiar de siguation, but in respect of the high claims with which his assumption of it is accompanied. Thus, to refer to a passage lately quoted, to do the same works which the Father doeth, and to do them according to his own will and pleasure are attributes too high for a creature, and therefore never assumed by any creature without blasphemy. The peculiar manner and circumstances, in which our Lord called himself Son of God, were such as to lead the Jews, who yet said of themselves, "We have one Father, even God," to accuse him of blasphemy for saying, “I am the Son of God." (John x. 36.) Their testimony is therefore in favour of that peculiarity in his claim of Sonship, for which I contend. It need only be observed further, that our Lord calls God his Father in a sense that is plainly peculiar to himself. Hence he always says, "my Father," or "the Father," where others say "God." Moreover he does not allow to others the privilege of calling God their Father, unless they did the works communicated by God. John viii. 42; "If God were your Father, ye would love me:" whereas, on the other hand, he himself not only did the works which the Father com, mauded, but the works which the Father does. (John v. 19.) And, again, "My Father worketh hither to and I work.” (John v. 17.) The term, "only-begotten," is ap plied to Christ exclusively, to distinguish him from all other beings. They, it is true, are in some sense the children of God. But he is "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father." (John i. 18.) In what mysterious sense this term is applied to him con. cerns us not. It is sufficient to perceive, that it is a distinguishing title of the Lord our Saviour, who alone is essentially begotten of the Father, To all these reasonings on the names of Deity which are given to Christ in Scripture, the author replies, that Moses and the Judges of Israel are called gods likewise. To establish the parallelism in these instances, it should be shewn that Moses and the Judges of Israel are called gods in the same way, and under the same circumstances, as Christ is. Let us examine, then, the texts which are cited in proof of this alleged similarity. The first passage is Exod. vii. 1; "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh." Now, surely, no man in his senses could imagine that this passage ascribed proper Deity to Moses, but only in his relation to Pharaoh, and that too for a particular purpose. The particle "to," expressive of relation, excludes the positive idea altogether; and it would be as natural to suppose, that the king's house of Judah was the land of Gilead, because it is said (Jer. xxii. 6.), "Thou art Gilead to me," as to believe Moses to be a god, because it is said, "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh." The next passage cited is Psal. lxxxii. 6; "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High;" a testimony, the whole force of which is taken away by the words which follow. (ver. 7.) "But ye shall die, like men, and fall like one of the princes." The sentence, taken in the connexion earth. Ver. 1. 8; "God standeth ་་ in which it stands, amounts to a strong description of the glory to which wicked men may be for a time exalted; so as even to seem like gods, and be accounted the children of the Most High, although they must soon die, like men, and fall like one of the princes who have fallen before them: nor can we imagine that any one even for a moment supposed that proper Deity was ascribed to any persons of whom it is immediately affirmed, "Ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." Compare with this Exek. xxviii. 9; "Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? But thou shalt be a man and no god in the hand of him that slayeth The plain and natural meaning of the passage from the Psalm in question, as it would strike any casual reader, is, "I once was inclined to look upon you as gods, the children of God; so great was your glory and prosperity." So David says in Psal. xxx. 6; "I said in my prosperity, I shall never be moved;" and in Psal. cxvi. 11; "I said in my haste, All men are liars." "But that delusion will soon pass away: for ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." Indeed it would be impossible, it would be impious, to suppose, that the persons here meant were intended to be described as real gods, or even as children of God, in any scriptural sense of that term, after the account which had been given of them just before. Ver. 2.5; "How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? They know not, neither will they understand. They walk on in darkness." The whole Psalm is apparently a song of encouragement to the oppressed saints, perhaps under Saul's government; designed to convince them, that the reign of iniquity would be short, that God should judge the judges, and was higher than the princes of the in the congregation of the mighty. He judgeth among the gods. Arise, O God! Judge the earth! For thou shalt inherit all nations." But none of these remarks apply to the name of God, whenever it is given to our blessed Saviour. Indeed I feel persuaded from a comparison of the last verse of the Psalm with Psal. ii. 8, and other places, that the God who is here described as judging among the pretended gods of the earth, and destined finally to inherit all nations, is no other person than our blessed Saviour himself, the Son of the Father; to whom we shall find as we go on, that the name, God, is repeatedly applied both in the Old and New Testament without any such qualifying or explanatory ac companiment as that by which the phrase, "I have said, Ye are gods," is surrounded on all sides in this Psalm. Nevertheless, this is a favourite text with the author; and the perpetual repetition of it betrays the weakness of the cause which it is adduced to support. These remarks are also applicable to the only remaining passage cited (John x. 35), which is, in fact, only a quotation of the same place on which I have just remarked. But are these solitary phrases, the sense of which is obvious and undisputed, to be compared with the long stream of testimony, which is brought for the Deity of Christ? "His name shall be called Wonder, ful, Counsellor, the Mighty God." (Isa. ix. 6.)— " They shall call his name Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us." (Matt. i. 23.)-" The word was God." (John i. 1.)-"Thomas answered and said, My Lord and my God!” (John xx. 28.)-"Christ came, who is over all, God, blessed for ever." (Rom. ix. 5.)-Christ Jesus, "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (Phil. ii. 6.)-To these texts none of the foregoing remarks can apply. They are plain, direct, une quivocal, and bear with their whole force, without any abatement, upon the question in hand; nor can I see any reason to qualify them. (To be continued.) To the Editor of the Christian Observer, I WAS much struck lately, in read- How striking is it to compare with such a passage, the fact which has been thus forcibly stated by a celebrated author:-"It has been by means of this one despised nation (for Jesus the Founder of the Christian Religion was of it), that the knowledge of the one true God has been preserved and propagated in the world to this very day. All nations that have not been, directly or indirectly, taught by them, are at this day idolaters." That the nations should thus receive their religion from the de * Some suppose that the Jewish is here confounded with the Christian name, and that the blessed Jesus is intend ed: but I think it much more natural to understand it, as Gesner does, of Moses. spised Jews, is well known to have been a subject of constant prediction. As Mr. Scott observes (Sermon on Zech.viii. 23), “Who could have imagined that these Romans especially would have become disciples to the Jews in the grand concern of religion?" This, howthose days it shall come to pass, ever, is predicted in the text. In that ten men shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you; for we have heard that God is with you.-The conquerors and destroyers of the Jews have be come the worshippers of the God of the Jews. Jehovah has superseded Jupiter, and all the other pagan deities, through the vast dominions of the Greeks and Romans; not to dwell on the utter extinction of the ancient idolatry of Chaldea, Persia, and Egypt. The Lord hath famish ed all the gods of the earth; and men worship him, every one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen. (Zeph. ii. 11.) I cannot but add, that what has been done should greatly raise our hopes as to what shall be done in future. J. S-. H. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I HAVE received much pleasure from the attempts which have been lately made by Mr. Cooper, in his excellent volume of Letters, as well as in your Review of that work, and by your correspondent INGENUUS, to conciliate those pious persons, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, still main tain some degree of hostility as Calvinists and Arminians. That the Christians who choose to adopt these titles of distinction, should be brought to a uniformity of sentiment, respecting those doctrines on which they now differ, is not to be expected. But that the animosity, which has been too often excited by their difference, may be abated, |