“ and 32. "the father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgement unto the son"; aud Matthew XVI. 27. For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father, with his an. gels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works." To weaken the force of my argument the Editor says (page 573.) "these passages, however, do not in the least affect the question, which is not, by what authority Christ rewards, but whether he be the person described as rewarding; and this, these very passages confirm, particularly Rev. XXII. 12." If in the adminstering of judgement and of reward, as well as in the performance of miracles, the authority by which these things are done should be considered as a matter of no consequence, the almighty power of Jesus and that of several others might be established on an equal footing. Is it not therefore a subject worthy of question whether Joshua ordered the sun and the moon to stop their motions by the authority of God or by his own power? Is it not a question worth determining whether Elijah raised the dead by the authority of the most high or independently of the almighty power? But if we consider it incumbent on us to believe and to know that those prophets performed works peculiarly ascribed to God by the authority of his divine majesty; why should we not deem it also necessary to ascertain whether the authority to judge men and to reward them accordingly, as well as the power of performing miracles were vested in Jesus by the omnipotent God or exercised by him independently of the father of the universe? In point of fact we find the following positive avowal of Jesus himself" the father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement unto the son."—" As I hear I judge; and my judgement is just because I seek not mine own will but the will of the father who hath sent me." Here the Editor offers the following explanation, saying, that "all power as to providence and final judgement is committed to him, not merely as the son, but as the son of man, the mediator, because he made himself the son of man." This amounts to the doctrine of the two fold nature of Jesus, the absurdity of which I have often noticed. I may however be permitted to ask the Editor whether there is any authority for the assertion that Jesus as the son of man was dependent on God for the exercise of his power; but as the son of God was quite an independent Deity? So far from meeting with such authority we find that Jesus in every epithet that he was designated by is described to be subject to and dependent on God. Acts XVII. 31. Z z "Because he hath appointed a day in which HE will judge the world in righteousness by that MAN whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that HE hath raised him from the dead." John VIII. 28. "Then said Jesus unto them when ye have lifted up the SON of MAN then shall ye know that I am he and that I do nothing of myself; but as my father hath taught me I speak these things" XVII. 1. and 2. "Father, the hour is come: glorify thy son that THY SON also may glorify thee: As thou hast given HIM power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. Hebrews I. 8. and 9. Thy throne O GOD is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom: Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God even THY GOD hath annointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." The Editor says," His glory he (the son) may for a season lay aside, but his divine nature he can never change. I wish to be informed what kind of divine nature it was that could be divested of its glory and power, even for a season. To my understanding such divinity must be analogous to matter without space or gravity, * John XVII. 5. and 22. + John XVII. 2. Acts X. 38. or sunbeam without light, which my limited capacity I must confess, cannot compre hend. The Editor finally argues that " as the father's committing to the son the entire work and glory of being the final judge of all, judging no man himself does not change his glorious nature, so the son's laying aside his glory and becoming man in no way changes his original nature and godhead." It is true that God's committing to the son the authority of judgement, bestowing on the sun the power of casting light upon the planets round him, and enabling superiors to provide food and protection for their dependents, do not imply any change in his glorious nature; for it is ordained by the laws of nature that nothing can be effected in this visible world without the intervention of some physical means; but that the son's or any other being's laying aside his glory and becoming a man must produce at least a temporary change in his nature is a proposition as obvious as any that can be submitted to the understanding. I have of course omitted to quote John V. 23. during this discussion in my Second Appeal, because it has no relation to the subject and because I noticed it fully in another part of that publication page 45. I will also refrain from noticing in this place Hebrews I. 12. alluded to by the Editor as I have already considered that passage as fully as possible in the preceding chapter page 122. The Editor next comes to Isaiah XLIV. 6. "Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel and his redeemer Jehovah of Hosts, I am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no God" comparing it with Rev. I. 8. and XXII. 13. This argument has been already replied to in my Second Appeal it shall be again adverted to shortly. He then endeavours to prove that Jesus cannot be meant as prohibiting John from worshipping him in verse 9th, saying that"in this book five persons address at different times: two of the elders around the throne, two angels, and he who is the grand speaker throughout the book-whom he after the first chapter often introduces without the least notice, while he previously describes every other speaker, with the utmost care." The Editor however has quoted only instances in which John describes the two elders and the two angels in a distinct manner, but |