It will not be contended, that our Lord ever announced himself to the Jews in express terms as the supreme, self-existing Jehovah. Those who believe in his proper Deity, do not hold that he taught this doctrine in direct and explicit terms, but only that he used such expressions in regard to himself, as must necessarily have led his hearers, to consider him as the supreme God. It appears then, that so far as concerns the Jews of our Saviour's day, the doctrine that he is the selfexisting Jehovah, was not a doctrine of express revelation, but only one of inference. Now this appears to me to raise a very strong presumption against its truth. Jehovah had announced himself to the Jews as the one and only God. Ex. xx. 2, 3, we read: "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." When therefore a personage, to all outward appearance a man like other men, came and claimed to be received as the supreme God, it would be necessary that his claims should be set forth in the most express terms, as otherwise they would be liable to be misunderstood or disregarded, by a people to whom the worship of any other than the one God had been so strictly prohibited, and who had been so often and so severely punished for their departure from this command.

But before I enter on the main subject of my inquiry, permit me to stop for a moment, to examine some of the leading passages in which Christ is supposed to teach his proper Deity. The first to which I shall refer, are those which are thought to teach his pre-existence before his advent into the world. Thus we read: John iii. 13. "No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

John vi. 38. "For I came down from heaven."

John vi. 62. "What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before."

John viii. 58. "Jesus said unto them: verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am."

John xvi. 28. "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world, and go to the Father." John xvii. 5. "And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

I shall not stop to inquire, whether these texts do not admit of an explanation, different from the meaning given to them by Trinitarians. I will take them in that meaning, and what do they then teach us? That Christ claimed to be the supreme

God? There is not a word in them which has even the semblance of such a claim, but on the contrary, there is that in them which is totally irreconcilable with it. Then it would be an insult to the human mind to attempt to prove, that the being who came from God, and who had glory with God, cannot be the God from whom he came, or with whom he had glory. The utmost which these texts prove, is that our Saviour existed previously to the creation of this world; but as it is our common belief that angels and celestial spirits also existed then, the proof of Christ's pre-existence would not in the slightest degree tend to prove his proper Deity.

But the Jews declared some of the expressions of our Saviour to be blasphemous,* and it is supposed that in these he avowed himself to be God, in the highest sense of that term. Let us now examine the passages at which the Jews took offence.

Matt. ix. 2, 8, we read as follows: "And behold they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed; and Jesus seeing their faith, said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee. And behold certain of the scribes said within themselves, this man blasphemeth. And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said, wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier to say; thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, arise and walk? But that ye may know, that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, then says he to the sick of the palsy, arise take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose and departed to his house. But when the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power

unto men."

On this passage I would observe; that it does not say one word of our Saviour's claiming to be God. It states, that on his assuring a sick man that his sins were forgiven, the scribes pronounced it blasphemy, because, in their opinion, according to St. Mark, † no one could pronounce the forgiveness of sin but God. Jesus to convince them, that the power to remit sin can as well be delegated as the power to heal diseases, cures the man of the palsy, expressly in proof of his possessing the power to forgive sin. And now, how were the by

* It may be necessary to observe that the Jews used the term blasphemy in a much lar. ger, and more indefinite sense than we do. With us it is always an indignity offered to the Deity himself. But in the New Testament, we read also of blaspheming against Moses, Acts, vi. 11. and in the same passage the prediction, that Jesus should destroy Jerusalem, and abolish the Jewish ceremonial law, is called a blasphemy.

† Mark, ii. 7.

standers affected by this miracle? Did they consider it as wrought to prove that Jesus was God? No such thing. They considered it merely as an exertion of Divine power, of which our Saviour was the agent; and they glorified God, who had given such power to men. Should any one in spite of the miracle wrought by Christ to prove the contrary, still insist that the forgiveness of sin cannot be delegated, I would refer such to John xx. 23, where this power is delegated to the Apostles.

In the 5th chapter of John we read, that Jesus had cured a helpless cripple at the pool of Bethesda, on the Sabbath. day, and had told him to take up his bed and go home. At this, the bigotry of the Jews took offence. In the 16th verse we are told: "Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day." Verse 17, 18, "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his father, making himself equal with God."

That the calling God by the name of Father was not by the Jews considered as an act of impiety, or as an assumption of equality with God, is abundantly clear from the sacred scriptures. The prophet Malachi asks, Mal. ii. 10, "Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?" John viii. 41, the Jews themselves say to Jesus; "We have one father, even God;" and our Saviour constantly called God his Father, without ever thereby giving offence to the Jews. But, what then, it will be asked, do the Jews take offence at in this case? It is, at the connexion in which, and the purposes for which, Jesus calls God his father. Our Saviour had cured a cripple on the Sabbath day. This the Jews consider a gross and criminal violation of the Sabbath, for which they persecute Jesus, who justifies himself by the conduct of his heavenly father, whose acts of beneficence are not intermitted on the Sabbath. Now the Jews did certainly not understand our Saviour as asserting either that he was the Supreme God, or that he was equal to God. This is an extravagance with which we have no right to charge them. But they considered the right which Jesus claims to be active in doing good on the Sabbath, because his father's agency on that day is not interrupted, as such a putting of himself on a footing of equality with God, as is unbecoming a man. That such is the correct explanation of this passage is clear from the very next sentence, in which Jesus tells the Jews; "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." That in all this there is nothing like a claiming of proper Deity, or of equality with God, will appear still more from the following illustration.

Let us suppose that in this country, in which we also have our laws and our traditions respecting the observance of the Sabbath, a person should spend the Sabbath in distributing provisions to the poor, that he should be arrested for doing it, and on being arrested should endeavor to justify his conduct by saying: My heavenly father feeds the poor on the Sabbath and so do I. Now no doubt some would think such a justification highly irreverent and reprehensible, as placing him who made it, too much on the same footing with God. But I am sure that no one would think of attributing to such a man the idea of being either God himself, or of being equal with God. In the 10th chapter of John's gospel, from the 24th to the 36th verse, we read as follows: "Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, how long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not; the works that I do in my father's name, they bear witness of me. But But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father which gave them to me is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand; I and my father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them; Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying; for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them; Is it not written in your law; I said ye are Gods? 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 has sanctified, and sent into the world; thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Here many Trinitarians think that a passage is found in which Christ avows himself to be the Supreme God. But certainly he does not do so in express terms, and it appears to me, that we cannot give to his language this meaning, without adopting a construction more forced even than that given to it by the Jews, and in direct opposition to his own explana

tion of it. Let us consider this passage a little more in detail, in the connection in which we find it.

In the earlier part of this chapter, Jesus announces himself as the good shepherd, and speaks of his care for his sheep. His discourse is interrupted by the Jews, who ask him, whether he be the Christ. He avows himself such, and then continues his discourse, in which he rests the safety of his sheep, on the power of his heavenly Father, out of whose hand none can pluck them; and he then adds, I and my Father are one, meaning by this oneness with God, not an identity of person, but of purpose and co-operation. Neither do the Jews mistake the import of this expression, but they are offended at the close communion in which our Saviour claims to stand with God. This they declare to be blasphemy, and call it a making of himself God, using the term God, not in the absolute sense in which we now use it, but in that qualified and subordinate sense, in which this term was sometimes used by the Jews. Jesus answers them, that even if he had called himself God, in this subordinate sense of the term, it would not have been blasphemy, as that term, which in their own scriptures was applied to those to whom the word of God came, must necessarily also belong to him, whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world. But he denied that he had called himself God. He had only called himself the Son of God, that is, the Messiah, or Christ, for these are convertible terms, having all the same meaning, as we shall see more fully hereafter.

If any one should ask, why I reject the meaning which Trinitarians attach to the phrase being one with the Father, and assign to it that of a unity of design and co-operation, I answer, that the former involves a manifest impossibility and contradiction. It teaches that two beings, perfectly distinct, and of which the one had sent the other, are yet indentically one and the same being. We meet with the phrase, being one in other places in the New Testament, and there, even Trinitarians assign to it the same meaning which I do here. Thus John xvii. 20, 22, we read: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me, through their word; that they may all be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." Here our Saviour prays, that the same oneness which exists between the Father and him, may exist among the disciples. Now it certainly was not his in