other god but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many), yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." I have cited several verses, for the sake of introducing the context. From this it is plain, that the one God, the Father, is not here placed in opposition to Christ, but to the lords many and gods many of the heathen. If you insist that the one God is in opposition to Christ, or excludes him, then, as Christ is the one Lord (εis xúqios), you must insist that he is so named in opposition to the Lordship (xvoióτns) of the Father, and of course that this denies the Lordship of creation in respect to the same Father. It is plain, however, at least according to my apprehension, that God and Lord here are mere synonymes. (See v. 5, where 2ɛyóuevo Oɛo is explained by Θεοὶ πολλοί and κύριοι πολλοί). Nothing is plainer than that Xúquos is a common title of God, both in the Old Testament and the New.

Moreover, that which is predicated of the one God and one Lord here is the same, viz. that they are the author and preserver of all things. The use of the preposition diά, in cases of this nature, has already been the subject of remark.

The nature of the whole case shows, that the apostle places the object of the Christian's worship, in opposition or in contrast with, the heathen or idol gods. What then is that object? The one God the Father, and the one Lord Jesus Christ, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things. The passage evidently holds out Christ to be the object of the Christian's worship, in the same manner as the Father is. And as the apostle seems to me simply to assert the unity of God in opposition to idols, I am not able to perceive how the divinity of the Saviour is impeached by it, any more than the lordship of the Father is impeached by making Christ the one Lord. To embrace my view of the whole passage in a brief paraphrase: Idols are nothing; there is but one God. There

are indeed among the heathen such as are called gods (λezóμɛvo Oɛoi), who comprise gods and lords many; yet Christians have only one object of worship-one God and Lord.'

John 10: 35, 36, "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said that I am the Son of God?" Christ had previously said: "I and my Father are one." At this the Jews took up stones to stone him, "because being a man, he made himself God." It is perfectly clear, that the Jews frequently understood, or at least pretended to understand, his affirmations respecting himself, as amounting to assertions that he was truly divine. In this case, however, it is said that Jesus repelled such an interpretation of his words, by an explanation which shows that he applied to himself the word God only in an inferior sense.

I am not satisfied that the passage requires this exegesis. The reply of Jesus is evidently argumentum ad hominem. “If the Old Testament, [the divine authority of which you admit], calls them gods to whom the word of God was addressed (Ps. 82: 6), i. e. if it calls the magistrates of the Jews gods, is it not proper that I, whom the Father bath sanctified and sent into the world, should call myself the Son of God?" That is, if you are not offended, when your Scriptures bestow the title of Elohim upon civil magistrates merely, much less is there reason to be angry, when I, whom God hath distinguished from all others and made preeminent above them, and sent into the world on the designs of mercy, should call myself the Son of God. V. 37, 'If I prove not the truth of these assertions by miracles; then disbelieve them.' V. 38, 'But if I do, believe the proof exhibited by my miracles, that the Father is in me and Iin him. Now wherein did Jesus explain away anything which he had before said? The expression that the Father is in him and he in the Father, I do not understand as here asserting his divine nature in a direct manner. It is a phrase, which is used to express the idea that any one is conjunctissimus cum Deo, i. e. most nearly and affectionately united with

God. (See 1 John 4: 16, where it is applied to Christians; also vs. 12, 13.)

It appears plain to me, that Jesus has not asserted anything, in the whole passage, which could not be predicated of himself as sustaining the office of Messiah. He had called God his Father; and as the Jews supposed, or seem to have supposed, in a peculiar and appropriate sense. But it did not follow, that by using this term he meant here to assert his divine nature. Rather the contrary appears: "Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world,” i. e. say ye of the Son of God, etc.? Jesus does not undertake, then, to answer the question here whether he is truly divine, but simply to vindicate the language he had used against the accusations of the Jews. If your magistrates are called Elohim, is it presumption in me to call myself the Son of God? This leaves the question unagitated as to his divine nature, while it vindicates the language which he had used against the malignant aspersions of the Jews, by an argument drawn from their own Scriptures.

It shows indeed, that the phrase "Son of God" does not appropriately and necessarily designate Christ as divine, but only as the incarnate mediator-as him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world. As Mediator, as Messiah, Christ was sent into the world; as Son he filled, and acted in, a subordinate capacity; how then can his being Son in such a sense, prove him to be divine? Son of God indeed, by usage, has become a kind of proper name; and in this way it is used to designate occasionally a distinction in the Godhead which I believe to be eternal. In this manner we very commonly use the term now; and in this way the apostles sometimes use it; see Heb. 1: 1-3. But this is only an occasional and secondary use of it in the Scriptures. Commonly and appropriately it designates the incarnate Messiah, as born in a manner supernatural (Luke 1: 35, comp. 3: 38); as the special object of divine love, (Matt. 17: 5. Col. 1: 13. John 3: 35); and as exhibiting the best and highest resemblance of the Father, (Col. 1: 15. Heb. 1: 3. John 1: 14. 10: 38.

14: 10). Would theologians keep these ideas in view, I cannot help thinking they might be able to understand each other better, and to reason more conclusively.

I have thus summarily touched upon the principal texts, which are employed by Unitarians, to oppose the doctrines which I have been endeavouring to defend. Whether I have violated the laws of exegesis in doing this; and whether you or I depart most from them, in explaining the texts which seem to be at variance with the opinions that we defend; must be discussed in another letter.

I must observe, however, before I close this letter which concludes what I have at present to advance in regard to the support of your views from the Scriptures, that I do not omit making observations on some other doctrines of your Sermon, because I accede to all which you profess to believe, or approve of the mode in which you have represented the sentiments of Trinitarians. The manner in which you accuse us of treating the moral attributes of God; your appropriating to yourself and your party the exclusive belief in all that is amiable and excellent in the Deity, (pp. 15-18); your assertion, that the reproaches which you are obliged to encounter, are occasioned chiefly by your zeal to vindicate the dishonoured goodness and rectitude of God (p. 18); the manner in which you state our views of the atonement, and appropriate to your party only many important things in which we all agree, (pp. 18-21); the appropriating also to Unitarians only many views respecting the love of God, rational zeal in religion, and the benevolent virtues; and the intimations that we are opposed to all that is excellent, and rational, and worthy of belief; all this and more of the like kind, I must be permitted to say, do not seem to me well adapted to conciliate, nor very consistent with your declaration (p. 24), when you say: "Charity, forbearance, a delight in the virtues of different sects, a backwardness to censure and condemn . . . are virtues ... which we admire and recommend." But, my dear sir, I will not trust myself one moment on this ground. I am sure that a sober review of your discourse, in prospect of your

accountability to God for the manner in which you have represented and treated so large a portion of the Christian community in this country, (some of whom at least are accustomed to think and reason for themselves, although they cannot agree with you);—a review after the heat of the occasion is past that prompted such representations, and induced you to place us in an attitude so debasing and repulsive-will give you more acute sensations than anything which I can say would inspire, or than I could even wish. I do not know but I may betray excitement, in my remarks. But if I have attempted to hold up you, or Unitarians, to ridicule; if I have misrepresented your sentiments; if I have charged you with treating Jehovah as the heathens did Jupiter; or endeavoured to frame my arguments so as to captivate and lead away the unwary and unthinking; or made any effort to use the argumentum ad invidiam; or appealed to human authorities to decide the question between us; or appealed to anything but the sober rules of exegesis; then I desire to know it, and be humbled for it. I will not say that I have not transgressed in any of these particulars; for who that knows the human heart does not know that it is deceitful? But I can say sincerely, I did not mean to transgress; and that, with all my heart, I will thank the man, who in the spirit of Christian love will point out my errors, and show me wherein I have written in such a way as to endanger or render repulsive the cause which I am advocating. That cause I believe to be just; and I should regret to employ any devices, management, stratagem, or unfairness to defend it. What other real interest have we, but to know the truth? And what but simple, unimpassioned argument can lead us to know it?

I retire, then, for the present, from the field of review which the remainder of your Sermon presents; for the pressure of my official duties is so great, that I am compelled to relinquish the idea, which I at first entertained, of pursuing the investigation of the topics presented by that remainder.