indifferently either to one or two persons; and nearly the same words are employed without the article in reference to two persons, Philipp. i. 2, and Philem. ver. 3, except that in the latter passages the word "Father" is substituted for "great." So also 2 Pet. i. 1, "Through the righteousness of [our] God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Here the repetition of the pronoun μv without the article, as it is read by some of the Greek manuscripts, shows that two distinct persons are spoken of. And surely what is proposed to us as an object of belief, especially in a matter involving a primary article of faith, ought not to be an inference forced and extorted from passages relating to an entirely different subject, in which the readings are sometimes various, and the sense doubtful,-nor hunted out by careful research from among articles and particles, nor elicited by dint of ingenuity, like the answers of an oracle, from sentences of dark or equivocal meaning, but should be susceptible of abundant proof from the clearest sources. For it is in this that the superiority of the gospel to the law consists; this, and this alone, is consistent with its open simplicity; this is that true light and clearness which we had been taught to expect would be its characteristic. Lastly, he who calls God "great," does not necessarily call him supreme, or essentially one with the Father; nor, on the other hand, does he thereby deny that Christ is "the great God," in the sense in which he has been above proved to be such.

Another passage which is also produced is 1 John iii. 16, "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us." Here, however, the Syriac

version reads "illius" instead of "Dei," and it remains to be seen whether other manuscripts do the same. The pronoun he, exɛivos, seems not to be referred to God, but to the Son of God, as may be concluded from a comparison of the former chapters of this Epistle, and the first, second, fifth and eighth verses of the chapter before us, as well as from Rom. v. 8, "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The love of God, therefore, is the love of the Father, whereby he so loved the world, that "he purchased it with his own blood," Acts xx. 28, and for it "laid down his life," that is, the life of his only begotten Son, as it may be explained from John iii. 16, and by analogy from many other passages. Nor is it extraordinary that by the phrase "his life" should be understood the life of his beloved Son, since we are ourselves in the habit of calling any much-loved friend by the title of life, or part of our life, as a term of endearment in familiar discourse.

But the passage which is considered most important of all is 1 John v. part of the twentieth verse, - for if the whole be taken, it will not prove what it is adduced to support. "We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, (even) in his Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God, and eternal life." For " we are in him that is true in his Son,"—that is, so far as we are in the Son of him that is true; "this is the true God"; namely, he who was just before called "him that was true," the word "God" being omitted in the one clause, and subjoined in the other. For he it is

that is "he that is true" (whom that we might know, "we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding"), not he who is called "the Son of him that is true," though that be the nearest antecedent,

for common sense itself requires that the article this should be referred to "him that is true," (to whom the subject of the context principally relates,) not to "the Son of him that is true." Examples of a similar construction are not wanting. See Acts iv. 10, 11, and x. 16; 2 Thess. ii. 8, 9; 2 John, ver. 7. Compare also John xvii. 3, with which passage the verse in question seems to correspond exactly in sense, the position of the words alone being changed. But it will be objected, that, according to some of the texts quoted before, Christ is God; now if the Father be the only true God, Christ is not the true God; but if he be not the true God, he must be a false God. I answer, that the conclusion is too hastily drawn; for it may be that he is not "he that is true," either because he is only the image of him that is true, or because he uniformly declares himself to be inferior to him that is true. We are not obliged to say of Christ what the Scriptures do not say. The Scriptures call him "God," but not " him that is the true God"; why are we not at liberty to acquiesce in the same distinction ? At all events he is not to be called a false God, to whom, as to his beloved Son, he that is the true God has communicated his divine power and glory.

They also adduce Philipp. ii. 6, "Who being in the form of God." But this no more proves him to be God than the phrase which follows "took upon him the form of a servant" proves that he was really a ser

vant, as the sacred writers nowhere use the word "form" for actual being. But if it be contended that "the form of God" is here taken in a philosophical sense for the essential form, the consequence cannot be avoided, that, when Christ laid aside the form, he laid aside also the substance and the efficiency of God; a doctrine against which they protest, and with justice. "To be in the form of God," therefore, seems to be synonymous with being in the image of God; which is often predicated of Christ, even as man is also said, though in a much lower sense, to be the image of God, and to be in the image of God, that is, by creation. More will be added respecting this passage hereafter.

The last passage that is quoted is from the Epistle of Jude, ver. 4, "Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Who will not agree that this is too verbose a mode of description, if all these words are intended to apply to one person? or who would not rather conclude, on a comparison of many other passages which tend to confirm the same opinion, that they were spoken of two persons, namely, the Father the only God, and our Lord Jesus Christ? Those, however, who are accustomed to discover some extraordinary force in the use of the article, contend that both names must refer to the same person, because the article is prefixed in the Greek to the first of them only, which is done to avoid weakening the structure of the sentence. If the force of the article is so great, I do not see how other languages can dispense with them.

I proceed to demonstrate the other proposition announced in my original division of the subject, namely, No. 236.

VOL. XIX.

5

that the Son himself professes to have received from the Father, not only the name of God and of Jehovah, but all that pertains to his own being, that is to say, his individuality, his existence itself, his attributes, his works, his divine honors; to which doctrine the apostles also, subsequent to Christ, bear their testimony. John iii. 35, "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things unto him." xiii. 3, "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things unto him, and that he was come from God." Matt. xi. 27, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father.”

But here perhaps the advocates of the contrary opinion will interpose with the same argument which was advanced before; for they are constantly shifting the form of their reasoning, Vertumnus-like, and using the twofold nature of Christ developed in his office of mediator, as a ready subterfuge by which to evade any arguments that may be brought against them. What Scripture says of the Son generally, they apply as suits their purpose, in a partial and restricted sense; at one time to the Son of God, at another to the Son of Man, now to the Mediator in his divine, now in his human capacity, and now again in his union of both natures. But the Son himself says expressly, "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand," John iii. 35, - namely, because he loveth him, not because he hath begotten him, and he hath given all things to him as the Son, not as Mediator only. If the words had been meant to convey the sense attributed to them by my opponents, it would have been more satisfactory and intelligible to have said, "The Father loveth Christ," or,

-