positive terms in 1 Cor. XV. 24, 25. "Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the the father, when he shall have laid down all rule and all

authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet: (28.) And when all things shall be subdued unto him then shall the son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in al" Here the apostle declares that Jesus will in the end deliver up his kingdom to God the father and not to God composed (as the Editor maintains) of the father, the sou, and the Holy Ghost; and that the son himself, unlimited to any particular capacity whether meditorial, human or divine, shall be subject to the father, that God alone may be ali in all. Is there in this passage or in any other part of the scriptures any authority for saying that the sou's mediatorial throne alone shall be delivered up to the father? on the contrary neither he nor any one can in a mediatorial capacity exercise a kingdom; but Jesus as the king of our faith, the anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, has a kingdom and throne, and that kingdom only can he deliver up in the end of the world that God may be all in all. Besides the above verse 28, asserts that he, as the son,

the highest title

that Jesus is honored with,

will be subject to him who has exalted him above all creatures. No one, besides, unbiassed by early prejudice, can ever venture to pronounce such an opinion as that a being can löse his kingdom in any capacity whatsoever and yet be unchangeable.

As some orthodox divines had attempted to prove the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of the term "shepherd" being applied to God in Psalm XXIII. and to Jesus in Johu X. 16. I pointed out (page 146 of the Second Appeal) that the same term "shepherd" is used for Moses (in Isaiah LXIII. 11. "with the shepherd of his flock") and for the leaders of Israel (Jerimiah XXIII. 4. "I will set up shepherds over them") yet that none of those persons is supposed to have been united with God.

The Revd. Editor altho' he acknowledges the accuracy of my above assertion yet tries to draw from it an argument against me by means of one or two strange questions, one is (page 562) "but did he (the author) never read of a chief shepherd, who when he shall appear will give the under shepherds a crown of glory?" The other is "But was our author ignorant that David was also one of Christ's fold, and

Moses and Abraham?" In answer to which I must confess that I am ignorant of David Moses and Abraham having been of Christ's fold; and although Jesus is styled "a chief shepherd" yet such avowal of his superiority above other messengers of the Deity neither places him on a level with Jehovah nor does it prove his unity with the most high God. Can a chief among the generals of a king be ever supposed equal to or identified with the king his employer? With respect to the argument founded on referring to Jesus Christ Ezek. XXXIV. 23 "I will set one shepherd even my servant David", I observed in my Second Appeal (page 147.) that even in this case they must still attribute his shepherdship over his flock to divine commission and must relinquish the idea of unity between God the employer and the Messiah his servant" to which the Editor makes reply, we must relin quish a unity of nature between the divine father and the Messiah whom he sent just as much as we do between Cyaxares, and Cyrus employed to lead his armies, between Vespassian and Titus, between George the Third and his son, now George the Fourth." In this passage it must be confessed that we have some thing like a clear definition or exposition of the nature of the Trinity in which the Edi

66

tor professes his belief; that is he conceives the Godhead to constitute a genus like angel, man, fowl, fish &c. God the son being of the same nature with God the father just as the man George the Third is of the same nature with the man George the Fourth, though of a separate will, inclination, and passion, and distinct existence. A conception which is certainly compatible with an idea of unity of nature between the father and the son but which is entirely inconsistent with that of coevalty between them; and implies that as the difference of existence &c between man and man is the origin of the plurality of mankin so, the dif ference of existence &c between God and God must cause plurality ia the Godhead. Can there be any polytheistical creed me clear and more gross than this? Yet the Editor will take it amiss if charged with polytheism. It is worth observing that the ortodox so far from establishing the unity of the Messiah with God by means of the above passare, "I will set one shepherd over them even my servant David" can at most but prove unity between the Messiah and Messiah and Goa's servant David.

In the course of this argument the Editor says that he had adduced many other pas

66

sages in which the son is called Jehovah." I wonder at this assertion: I find hitherto only two places in which he applies the word Jehovah to Jesus" thy throne O God!" &c. " And thou Lord in the beginning" &c. The Editor takes upon himself to use the term Jehovah instead of "God" in the former and instead of Lord" in the latter instance, as before noticed, and now he gives out his own perversion of those texis as authority!

66

. Mr. Jones having attempted to deduce the deity of Jesus by a comparison of Ephesians IV. 18. with Psalm LXVIII. 18. "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, yea for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them", I observed (page 153. Second Appeal) that" from a view of the whole verse, the sense must, accoding to this mode of reasoning, be as follows. The person who ascended on high, and who received gifts for men, that the Lord God might dwell among them, is the Lord God; an interpretation which, as implying that the Lord God ascended, and received gifts from a being of course superior to himself, in order that he might dwell among men, is equally absurd and unscriptural" The Editor entirely omits to notice the forego