such as OMNIPOTENCE, OMNISCIENCE, and SELF-EXISTENCE, were not only never ascribed to him, but, upon his own authority, did not exist in him; notwithstanding which, without invalidating my arguments, you repeat the same assertion, with as little ceremony as at first.

But as you still seem to rely upon names and titles, I shall avail myself of it to present you with an additional list of names given to a variety of persons in the Old Teslament, some of them exactly resembling names you suppose to have been given to Christ, and to prove him to be God; from which names so given to these persons, it might be proved that each of them also was God, and possessed of divine attributes; and that any one of them, was any one of the others, precisely in the same manner as you propose to prove, from the ascription of names to our blessed Lord, that he was God, that is, the SUPREME BEING himself. These could not be included in the catalogue I have already submitted to your consideration, as that was necessarily confined to names containing the word Jehovah, or one of its abbreviations.

In 2 Sam. v. 16, we find the name Eliphalet, that is The God of deliverance,' given to one of the sons of David. In 1 Chron. xii. 5, Eluzai, which is God my strength,' given to one of David's mighty men. In Isaiah vii. 6, the father of the prince whom Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, combined to raise to the dignity of king of Judea in the place of

Ahaz, whom they intended to dethrone, is stated to have been called Tabeal, that is 'A good God.' In 1 Chron. xii. 20, one of the captains of thousands, who revolted from Saul to David, appears to have been called Elihu, which means 'He is my god.' In Job xxxii. 2, the reprover of Job's three friends is also called Elihu, ‘He is my god,' and his father, Barachiel, which is, if possible, still stronger, meaning The very God.' In Isaiah xxii. 20, the son of Hilkiah appears to have been called Eliakim, meaning 'God ariseth.' In Ruth i. 2, the husband of Naomi is called Elimelech, that is 'My God the king.' In Nehem. xi. 7, the father of Maaseiah is called Ithiel, which signifies 'God with me.' In Numb. xxvi. 8, one of the descendants of Reuben is called Eliab, that is My God the Father.-I shall close this list with two or three instances of the name 'God' having been given to places and things. Thus, in Gen. xxxii. 30, Jacob called the name of a place Peniel, that is, 'The face of God.' In Gen. xxxv. 7, it appears that Jacob built an altar at Bethel, and called the name of the place El Bethel, that is The God of Bethel.' In Gen. xxxiii. 20, it is related that Jacob erected an altar, and called the name of it El-elohe-Israel, that is God, the God of Israel.'

·

This, and the previous enumerations which I have furnished, of names given to different persons, calling them Jehovah, and God, and seemingly ascribing to them his divine attributes, many of them as high and

L

lofty as any ever imagined to have been given to our Saviour, will, I presume, be deemed ample to convince us, that no such names, no not all of them together, if all had been conferred upon him, would have been sufficient to prove him to have been really Jehovah.

After stating that every divine name, title, attribute, work, and honour, is ascribed to our Lord in the Scriptures, you subjoin; "All this Jesus knew;" but do not inform me where he has told us so. You have thought proper to say it for him; but he has never said it for himself. On the contrary, he has denied the fact, as I have proved already, and shall therefore make but a single addition here, to the titles and attributes I have before shewn him neither to have claimed, nor to have been possessed of. The title Пavτongaτup, usually translated Almighty,' so often given to the Father, and which includes one of his highest attributes, is never in the whole compass of Scripture given to our blessed Lord, but to the Father only; and the Christian fathers of the three, if not the four, first centuries seem to have considered it as his peculiar and exclusive designation.

Your next observation is, "that though our Lord is magnified as a model of humility, for voluntarily concealing honours that were his own, rather than snatching at what was not his due; yet he speaks of himself in such terms, as brought upon him alone, of all the inspired messengers of Heaven, the charge of blasphemy, for making himself equal with God." Now

it really appears to me, my dear Sir, even if you were quite certain of this being the nature of the charge, that nothing can shew the weakness of the Trinitarian cause so much, nor so effectually expose the nakedness of the land, as to endeavour to prove what our blessed Lord is, by the charges of his enemies against him; of enemies the most malignant and inveterate; of enemies who were capable of making false charges, and suborning false witnesses to effect their purpose. What would be your own feelings, what your sentiments of the justice or propriety of judging of you, in the same manner as you propose to form a judgement of the character and conduct of your Saviour and your King; that is, by the charges exhibited against him by his bitterest enemies?

Let us investigate, however, the nature of the accusation preferred against him upon this occasion by his Jewish opponents, together with his own observations in reply to it; and we shall soon see that this illustrious Teacher stands as free from the charges made against him by the Jews, as he does from other Trinitarian sentiments imputed to him by his own zealous, though, as I conceive, very mistaken followers in subsequent times. I agree with Mr. Belsham, (Calm Inquiry, p. 161,) that Jesus never claimed equality with God, and that the Jews did not mean to charge him with it; but only accused him of justifying his own violation of the Sabbath, by the authority and example of God; in this respect making himself like

God. See Clarke (No. 580), and Grot. in loc. This rendering of 'like God,' the original, 100 Tw ew, will admit of, as well as that of 'equal with God;' and as our Lord so often represented himself to be inferior to God, few perhaps will feel inclined to adopt the former without necessity. Supposing it, however, to have been what the Jews intended to impute to him; let us see whether it was not a false charge; let us inquire whether he, who was the subject of it, assented to it in the smallest degree; whether his answer to it furnishes a particle of evidence, that he considered himself equal with the Father, which is what his enemies are supposed to have imputed to him. Does not the very first sentence, which this most excellent, and amiable, but truly humble preacher of divine truth uttered in reply, acknowledge the most marked inferiority; "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself; but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise ?” Is this the language of one who considered himself equal with the Father; or that of an humble imitator, who could do none of the things spoken of, but such as he saw the Father do, and even these not of him

self? He proceeds thus: Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth:" plainly intimating, that he knew them not of himself, till they were shewn to him by the Father; and also why the Father shewed them to him, namely, because he loved him, which if he had not done, non constat,

"For the Father loveth the