respect to both the Father and the Son. Had these ideas been duly considered and applied by Mr. Jones, a great part of his inferences and conclusions would probably have never appeared in print. But by disregarding such analogies, he compelled the BIBLE to speak his mind.

LETTER V.

The Son of God not the same Person as the God of

Israel.

REV. SIR,

MUCH time and labor have heen expended, and much ingenuity displayed, in attempts to prove that Jesus Christ is the very Person who is called the God of Abraham, and the God of Israel, in the Old Testament. That he was the Angel of God, and the Medium of Divine manifestations, has been already admitted; but that the Angel of God and the God of Israel mean the same Person, is not admitted. For the phrase the Angel of God as clearly presents to the mind two distinct Beings, one of which is sent by the other, as the phrase the Messenger of David. Besides, the God of Israel said respecting this Angel, "Beware of him, provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in HIM." In these words, the God of Israel is, in the most decided manner, distinguished from the Angel of his Presence, as another Being or Agent.

That the Son of God is not the same Person as the God of Abraham, or the God of Isfael, may appear from the following considerations:

1. It was the God of Israel who gave the promise of the Messiah. He never promised that he would be the Messiah; but the Messiah was to be a Son whom the God of Israel was to raise up.

2. The title given to Christ as the Son of God, will naturally lead us to the same conclusion. It was the God of Israel who proclaimed from heaven respecting the Messiah, "This is my beloved Son." As Christ was made known to the Jews as the Son of God, would they not naturally be led to conclude, that if he were the Son of any God, he was the Son of the God of Israel? And if you, sir, suppose that he is the very Person who was called the God of Israel, please to inform me of what God he was the Son. Will it not follow inevitably from your hypothesis, either that Christ was not the SON OF GOD, or that the God of Israel was the Son of some OTHER GOD? 3. We have the most decided testimony, both of Christ and his apostles, that the Person who is called the God of Abraham and the God of Israel, was the FATHER OF CHRIST. In John viii. 54, we have the testimony of Christ himself "Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing; it is my FATHER that honoreth me, of whom ye say that He is YOUR GOD." What God, sir, did the Jews say was their God? Was it not the God of Israel? If so, then the God of Israel was the Father of Christ. And is not this testimony of Christ sufficient to overbalance all the arguments on your side of the question? And unless you can persuade yourself, that Christ might be both the Father and the Son of HIMSELF, must you not either relinquish your hypothesis, or call in question his veracity?

Moreover, from this portion of Christ's testimony, we may learn, that when he spake of God, he meant

his FATHER; and when he spake of his FATHER, he meant the GOD OF ISRAEL. Therefore, whenever he spake of God, or his FATHER, his language implied that he himself was not the Person who had been I called the God of Israel.

1

Let us now listen to the language of Peter, Acts iii. 13. "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus." This testimony is too plain to need any

comment.

Paul, in his address to the dispersed Israelites, whom he found at Antioch in Pisidia, said, "The GoD of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people where they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt." He then rehearsed a number of events between that period and the days of David; and having mentioned David as a man "after God's own heart," he added, "Of this man's seed hath God, according to his promise, RAISED unto Israel a SAVIOR, JESUS." [Acts xiii. 23.]

In the first verse of the epistle to the Hebrews, we read that "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers, by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to uS BY HIS SON." Was it not the God of Israel who spake by the prophets? If so, Christ was the Son of the GOD OF ISRAEL.

In support of the idea now before us, a very considerable part of the New Testament might be quoted; for at the very foundation of the gospel this idea is laid, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the God of Israel ; and this idea runs through the writings of the evangelists, and the sermons and epistles of the apostles. The matter is so clearly and so abundantly expressed,

that it is amazing that any one, acquainted with the Scriptures, should ever entertain the idea that JESUS CHRIST was the very Person who had been called the God of Israel.

In regard to the texts which have been relied on to prove that Christ is the very Person who was called the God of Israel, it may be observed, that the most of them would be easily explained, and the argument set aside, by only making a proper distinction between the ANGEL of God as the MEDIUM of Divine mani

festation, and the GoD who was manifested through that Medium; or by only observing that whatever God does by Christ, may be properly attributed either to God or his Son. Many of the principal texts of this class have been already examined; and it is hoped enough has been said to convince you, that the hypothesis that Christ is the Person who is called the GOD OF ISRAEL, is without any solid foundation in the Bible. But the circumstance, that this hypothesis has been so long and so generally admitted by pious Christians, may be considered as evidence t it has had advocates who were esteemed eminent for piety and ability. For it is difficult to conceive, how any thing short of distinguished eminence of character in its advocates could ever have given currency and popularity to an opinion so manifestly repugnant to the express declarations of CHRIST and his apostles, and to the general tenor of the gospel.

If you, sir, should be disposed to say, that you never implicitly denied that Christ is the Son of God, let me ask, Is not an attempt to prove that Christ is the very Person who is called the God of Israel, an implicit denial that he is the Son of God? Would not a serious attempt to prove that Isaac was the very person

who was called Abraham, imply a denial that Isaac was the Son of Abraham?

POSTSCRIPT.

NO one thing relating to this subject has astonished me more than the attempts of ministers to prove that Jesus Christ is the very Person called the "God of Israel." With just the same reason, and show of argument, you might attempt to prove that he is the very Person called "God the Father." Any argument by which you attempt to prove that Jesus Christ is the Person called the God of Israel is of the same weight to prove that he is God the Father. This circumstance, if duly considered, may give you reason to suspect that absurdity or sophistry is implied in all such arguments.

In Isa. xliii. 14, the Holy ONE says, "I am the Lord, and besides me there is no Savior;" and as Jesus Christ is called our "Lord and Savior," you infer, that Jesus Christ is the Holy ONE of Israel, who said, "Beside me there is no Savior." This is one of your strongest arguments.

Now all you here wish to prove is, that Jesus Christ is a Person in the one God; but if your argument proves any thing, it will prove that Jesus Christ is the God and Father of himself, or that God the Father is not a SAVIOR. For the Holy ONE did not say, besides us there is no Savior, but "besides me there is no Savior." Yet we have as full evidence that the title SAVIOR Originally belongs to God the Father, as we have that he is the SUPREME BEING, or the "God of Israel."

Besides, in your argument, a principle is assumed by which we can as fairly prove more than three