Then the informers debated among themselves, saying, "Why do the judges acquit some of those innocent persons whom we have accused?" And one of them said, "It is because not only the persons are innocent, but the offences of which we accuse them purely imaginary and fictitious. Let us henceforth accuse them of real offences, and our difficulty will be less." And another said, "What, if we commit the offences ourselves, and then accuse them of them?" Then all the informers cried out, "Thou hast well said, and we will do even so, for not only will the conviction be more sure, but the bloodmoney also being the reward of a double crime, will be sweeter." And they did so, and from that time forward the craft of the informer throve and flourished exceedingly among the Christians of those islands.

And the people of those islands said, "Our system of giving bribes for informations against offenders worketh well, and no disciple of Christ can doubt but the Lord approveth of it; let us therefore extend it to our peaceofficers." And they did so, and rewarded their peaceofficers in proportion to the number of persons whom they informed against, and whom they brought before the judges for judgment, and whom they convicted.

But after some time it was observed, that notwithstanding all the measures which had been adopted to secure the conviction of offenders, considerable numbers of them still escaped conviction; so the people of those islands complained again, and said, "What availeth it that our brethren in Christ are informed against and brought to judgment, if they are not also convicted and punished?" And they asked Justus, saying, "Canst thou tell us why there are not more convictions in proportion to the number of informations and accusations?" And Justus replied, "It is because the witnesses are disinterested persons, and their testimony does not always support the charge against the accused, but, on the contrary, oft-times proves it to be false." Then all the peop e cried out, "Would to God that we had witnesses who would always be of one accord with the informers and accusers, so should no guilty brother in Christ_escape the punishment due to his iniquity." Then Justus said, "There is one way by which ye may ensure a perfect agreement between the accuser and the witness, so that

whatever the accuser says, the witness will certainly swear to." Then all the people cried out again, "Show us that way, and we shall be happy, and thou shalt obtain a great name for thyself among all Christian nations." Then Justus answered, "What more have ye to do but to make the same person both accuser and witness?" But the people objected and said, "If no one accuses but those who may happen to be present at the time, and see the offence actually committed, convictions will indeed be more certain, but informations and accusations will be proportionably fewer." "That will certainly be the case,' replied Justus, "if ye depend, as hitherto, on chance witnesses. Such witnesses indeed may answer tolerably well among heathen and semi-barbarous nations, but are totally unsuited to the wants of a highly civilized and Christian society. Ye must therefore no longer depend upon them, but employ hired persons, whose duty it shall be, first, to witness the offence; secondly, to inform against the offender and accuse him before the judge; and thirdly, to prove the truth of their own charge by their own oath on the holy book of our religion.' Then all the people cried out, "Behold the Christian Aristides! behold the Christian Aristides !" And while they vied with each other who should praise Justus most, Liber said, "Justus hath indeed spoken well, and what persons are so fit and proper to perform the double office of informer and witness as our peace-officers, for they are already practised in the first of those offices, and it is easy for them to learn the second? Let us therefore greatly increase their number, and let us station them in all our streets, and at the doors of all our houses, and let them watch what every man does, and where every man goes, and let them listen to what every man says; and then, if any man commit an offence, there will be ready on the spot not only an accuser and a witness, but also an officer to take him into custody; so shall no man escape. "And still further," said Clemens, "the peace-officers being the servants of the judge, and bound to obey his orders in all things, ye shall by this arrangement give the judge that salutary control over both the accuser and the witness, which is indispensable to the due administration of justice, and especially to the conviction and punishment of accused persons.'

وو

(To be concluded in our next.)

وو

MRS. DANA'S LETTERS.

["Letters Addressed to Relatives and Friends, chiefly in Reply to Arguments in Support of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Mary S. B. Dana. Boston, 1845."]

LETTER II.

THE TERMS GOD AND LORD.

MY DEAR FATHER:

By

The words God and Lord do not, I suppose, necessarily denote absolute supremacy, although they do denote dominion and power. In studying the Scriptures, we ought to bear in mind the common sense in which certain terms were used by the common people at the time the Scriptures were written; because we know that, in the course of time, words do very much change their signification. In the Bible we have the term God applied in various ways. In regard to its use among the Greek and Roman philosophers and poets, who lived about the time of our Saviour, we are informed by the history of that period; we know that the term was used with very extensive latitude; and it is natural to suppose that the writers of the New Testament, who were chosen from the people, used their terms as they were used by the people, and intended to give a meaning which would be readily understood by the people. The early Christians used the word God in relation to different degrees of superiority or power, and not as it is now used, in an absolute sense. And I wish these facts to be borne in mind while you peruse this letter. I am free to confess, that, as a general thing, the term should not now be applied to any but the Supreme Being, because now it has an absolute and definite meaning; though, in considering those passages of Scripture where it is applied to subordinate beings, it must still be used, but always with the fact of its different use in another age of the world kept steadily in view.

In this sense I do admit that the Saviour of the world, the Messiah, may be called a God; and I know that he is constantly called Lord; and why should he not be, when his Father made him both Lord and Christ? But it is concerning the term God that I wish to write. It is then, I think, a relative term, a name for a being who has dominion. Now, we are expressly told that the Supreme Being gave Christ all power in Heaven and on earth. Likewise, because the Father loved the Son, he gave "all things into his hand." He crowned Him with glory and honour, and did set him over the work of his hands. And, "in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.” Thus, it appears to me, in the sense which I have before explained, a sense which was well understood when the Scriptures were written, our Heavenly Father made his well beloved Son a God over us, and over all the works of his hands; as he made Moses a God to Pharaoh-and as he called them Gods to whom the word of God came-and as he commanded his people not to revile the Gods. Thus, truly, there are Gods many and Lords

many; yet to us there is, in an absolute sense, but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, &c. Christ is then made a God to us, under Him, who is "the blessed and only Potentate-the only wise God-who only hath immortality."

This view of the subject explains to my mind all those passages where Christ is called God and Lord, even as they stand in our common version, though most of them are said to admit of a different translation. " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever"* —that is, that throne which God had given to his Son, which must mean the seat of power in the mediatorial kingdom. It does not follow that he who occupies the throne by permission of the Father, who obtained it by the gift of the Father, existed from all eternity. The assertion is concerning the throne, or dominion, which is to endure for ever; though, when cometh the end, it is to be delivered up to God the Father. In this way I can also understand how Peter called his master Lord of allpreaching peace by Jesus Christ, (he is Lord of all.) "+ For when he lifted up his voice on the day of Pentecost, he closed his noble address to the men of Judea, and all that dwelt at Jerusalem, with these words: "know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Nor am I startled at that passage where Christ, according to Trinitarians, is said to be "over all, God blessed for ever." For we are expressly told how this can be. If all things were put under him, he certainly is "over all," and consequently a God; though let us never forget how "manifest" it is that "He is excepted which did put all things under him."

I will now tell you, my dear father, how my mind has been satisfied in regard to those texts which you have proposed for my consideration. The first is Is. vi. 1-10, compared with John xii 41. They do not appear to me at all to favour the doctrine of the supreme deity of the Son of God. The purposes of God are constantly spoken of as having been accomplished long before they literally were. It is a common mode of speech in the Bible, and implies the certainty of the fulfilment of God's designs. Thus we read of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. As the Messiah, Isaiah foresaw Christ's glory. To give you my own ideas of what may be the meaning of these passages, I cannot do better than to quote the remarks they have drawn forth from Trinitarian commentators. I will now quote from the 361st page of Wilson's Concessions of Trinitarians.

"These things said Isaiah, when, by the spirit of prophecy, he saw his glory, i. e. foresaw the glorious appearance of Christ on earth in respect of the excellency of his doctrine and greatness of his miracles, and spake of him, i. e. prophesied of Christ.-WELLS. [Similarly, ERASMUS, Op. vii. p. 600; GROTIUS, BAXTER, and HAMMOND.]

"His glory; that is, according to the application of the evangelist, the glory of Christ; though Isaiah spoke of the Father.SIMON. [According to the Racovian Catechism, p. 116, CHRY+ Rom. ix. 5.

* Hebrews i. 8. † Acts x 36.

SOSTOM, THEOPHYLACT, GUIDO PERPINIAN, MONOTESSARO, and ALCAZAR, maintained that it was the glory of God the Father which appeared to Isaiah.]

... .

"AVTOV, his, refers to God. MORUS justly observes, that Isaiah, in chap vi., did not speak of the Messianic kingdom.-J. G. ROSENMULLER.

“Eide, he saw, either signifies he foresaw, as in chap. viii. 56, so that avrov (his and him) refers, in both clauses, to the Messiah; or rather, it has respect to the description of the glory of God, in Isa. vi. 1, sqq. The words OF HIM, may, however, probably relate to the Messiah, inasmuch as the antecedent here is not more remote than in other passages.-Vater.

"The pronoun autov, his, should be referred to Lord (namely God) in ver. 38; .. and the passage has respect to Isa. vi. I. sqq. where the prophet describes à vision, and affirms that he saw Jehovah sitting on a throne, &c.-KUINOEL. (SO BLOOMFIELD)."

I will merely remark, my dear father, that these and similar explanations of this passage never fell in my way till long after my own mind was settled on the subject, and I had come to the conclusion that it contained no proof whatever of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

The next passage, Rom. ix. 5, I have already noticed.

The next, Phil. ii. 6. 7, even as it is translated in our common version, so far from presenting any difficulty to my mind, is, in my view, a strong Unitarian text. "Who, being in the form of God" -that is, the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person-made so by Him who also created man in his own image-" thought it not robbery to be equal with God." He came as the Messenger of God to man, as God's vicegerent on earth, and in that sense it was no robbery to proclaim himself equal with God, and to demand equal obedience from mankind. He who refuses to obey Christ, refuses obedience to the Father, for the Father spake to the world through him. If we read on, we shall see how it was that he demanded that men should honour him even as they honoured the Father. "God," says the Apostle, "hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of JESUS every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God THE FATHER." The whole passage, it seems to me, even when read as it is in our English Bibles, is a clear and satisfactory explanation of the grounds on which our Master thought it not robbery to be equal with God; and seems intended to fill our minds with the most exalted ideas of the dignity and authority of the "one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." But you are undoubtedly aware that many Trinitarians have contended for a different translation of the passage. And many likewise contend that the expression, "being in the form of God," does not convey the idea of Christ's own proper deity.

The next passage you mention is found in Rev. i. 6. I will quote the text, with a portion of the fifth verse. "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath