cred scriptures to others beside the supreme being" the Editor observes that "this objection Jeremiah cuts up ch. X. 11." "the Gods that have not made the heavens and the earth even they shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens;" which declaration sweeps away not only the Gods of the heathen but all magisterial Gods and even Moses himself as far as he aspired to the godhead: But from this general wreck of our author's Gods, Christ is excepted, he having made these heavens and laid the foundation of the earth." Let us apply this rule adopted by the Editor respecting the prophets, to Jesus Christ. We do not find him once represented in the scriptures as the maker of heavens and earth; this peculiar attribute having been throughout the whole sacred writings ascribed exclusively to God the Most High. As to the instances pointed out by the Editor Hebrews I. 10. and Col. I. 17. I fully explained them in page 117 and 122. as having reference to God the father of the universe. Moreover we observe in the new Testament, even in the same book of Hebrews, that whatever things Jesus made or did, he accomplished as an instrument in the hands of God. Hebrew I. 2. "Whom he hath appointed heir of all things by whom also he made the worlds." Ephesians III. 9. "Who created all things by Jesus Christ." It would

indeed be very strange to our faculties to acknowledge one as the true God, and yet to maintain the idea that he created things by the directions of another being, and was appointed as heir of all things by that other. Again in pursuance of the same rule of the Editor I find that Jesus like other perishable Gods both died and was buried, though raised afterwards by his father, who had the power of raising Elijah to heaven even without suffering him to die and be buried for a single day. My readers may now judge whether Jesus Christ be not included in common with other perishable Gods in the rule laid down by the Editor.

To deify Jesus Christ the Editor again intro duces the circumstance of his being a searcher of hearts to execute judgment: Rev. II. 23. and also quotes Heb: I. 3. Having examined these arguments in page 119 and 200, 1 will not return to them here.

He adds in this instance we are hence assured that the father who perfectly knows the son, did not commit to him all judg ment so entirely as to judge no man him, self without knowing his infinite fitness for the work." It is evident that the father

did not commit to the son all judgment so entirely as to judge no man himself without qualifying him for so doing; that is, without giving him the power of knowing all the events of this world in order to the distribution of rewards and punishments Matthew XXVIII. 18. "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Notwithstanding this the power of knowing those things that do not respect the execution of judgment by the son is not bestowed upon him; and the son therefore is totally ignorant of them. Mark XIII. 32. "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the father." No one destitute of the power of omniscience is ever acknowledged as supreme God by any sect that believe in revealed religion.

He quotes Heb, IV. 13. " Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do," in order to corroborate the idea that Christ knew all the secrets of men. Supposing this passage to be applicable to Jesus Christ, it does not convey any other idea than what is understood by Rev. II. 23. which I have already noticed : But the Editor must know that in the imme

diately preceding verse the word of God, or Revelation, while figuratively represented as a two-edged sword &c. is in the same allegorical sense declared to be "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." There is therefore no inconsistency in ascribing the knowledge of the intents of hearts to him through whom that Revelation is communicated, and who is appointed to judge whether the conduct of men is regulated by them in conformity to that Revelation.

The Editor says (page 584) that " in Ezekiel XXVIII. God says respecting a man who arrogated to himself the honors of Godhead, 'son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, thus saith the Lord God, because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said I am a God-behold thou shalt die the death of the uncircumcised &c.' How different the father's language to the son thy throne O God is for ever and ever.' Why this different language to the prince of Tyrus and to Jesus?" Had the Editor attentively referred to the scriptures, he would not have taken the trouble of putting this question to me; for he would have easily found the reason for this difference; that is, the king of Tyrus called himself God, as above stated, but Jesus so far from robbing the Deity of his ho

nor, never ceased to confess that God was both his God and his father. John XX. 17, Also that the prince of Tyrus manifested disobedience to God, but Jesus, even laid down his life in submission to the purposes of God and attributed divine favour towards himself to his entire obedience to the Most High; Rom. V. 19. " for as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." John X. 17. "therefore doth my father love me because I lay down my life that I might take it again:" Luke XXII. 42. " father if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: neverthe less not my will, but thine be done." As the conduct of the prince and that of Jesus towards God were quite different, they were differently treated by the father of the universe; As to the above verse, ("thy throne O God is for ever and ever,”) God does not peculiarly address Jesus with the epithet God, but he also uses for the chiefs of Israel and for Moses the same epithet.

The Editor quotes 1. Cor. IV. 5. "judge nothing before the time until the Lord come; who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the coun sels of the heart; and then shall every man