derived therefore, their nature cannot be specifically the same."*

Mr. Bickersteth says, Christ "assumes the incommunicable co-eternal name, I AM.' But when some said of the beggar, whose sight had been restored, "This is he," and others said "He is like him," he himself said, "I am," èyà eiμì. In order that the words of Christ, in John viii. 58, should be identified with Exod. iii. 14, they should have been "I Am the I Am." The Septuagint has éyw eiμì ó dv, I am the Existing One. But this does not very accurately give the meaning of the Hebrew. Here, however, I cannot do better than quote the words of Dr. P. Smith : "Some suppose that, in using the expression 'I am,' our Lord intended a reference to the divine appellation announced to Moses, 'I am that which I am.' But it is to be remarked that the words of that passage are in the future tense, 'I will be that which I will be,'t and most probably it was not intended as a name, but as a declaration of the certain fulfilment of all the promises of God, especially those which related to the deliverance of the Israelites. There does not appear, therefore, sufficient ground to sustain the idea of an allusion to this. It may be thought that, in this instance, as in several others of

*Notes appended to Solemn Address.

To shew the fallaciousness of arguing from the mere identity of words, let us observe that, in both the Greek and the Latin idiom, the answer to such a question as, Who has done that? Who is there? (which we make in our language, by the third person, 'tis I, c'est moi;) is by this very phrase, I am, èyà eiμì, ego sum. For examples in the N. T. see Matt. xiv. 27; xxv. 22, 25. Mark vi. 50; xiv. 62. Luke xxiv. 39. John iv. 26; ix. 9.

the same form, our Lord purposely suppressed the predicate of his proposition; leaving it to be supplied by the minds of his hearers, under the impression of that evidence, by which they might all have been convinced of the justness of his claims, had their dispositions been candid and upright. So, in this very discussion with his opponents, Jesus says, 'Except ye believe that I am;-Ye shall know that I am ;'— and to his disciples, 'That ye may believe that I am.' In his prediction of false Messiahs, as given by the Evangelist Mark, the same use of the phrase occurs; 'Many will come in my name, saying I am;' the parallel place to which, in Matthew, supplies the omitted predicate, 'the Christ.'"*

On the omnipresence of Christ two texts are adduced, viz., "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them ;" and "Lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."+ It is said there may be worshippers in ten thousand places at the same time, therefore Christ must be omnipresent. But, surely, if God have made him the head of the Church, no capacity for the office will be wanting. Besides, shall we who are here, as one has expressed it, "in the body pent," determine what is possible to the free spirit of God's own Son? St. Augustine says "the soul is more where it loveth than where it liveth." Though, therefore, we do not find here evidence that Christ

† Alv means age, not world; but in this instance I know not that the change would make any difference in the practical application of the passage.

is the Supreme Being, we yet cherish the promise of his presence in the heart of the faithful disciple, and in the company of earnest worshippers, as a hope on which our souls are never weary of feeding. Mr. Bickersteth quotes the remark of Scott, "there I am, not there I will be." The idiom is referred to in Winer's Grammatik des Neu Testamentlichen Sprachidioms, where it is shewn that the present tense is used for the future when the author speaks of something, which will certainly take place, which is unchangeably determined, as "Ye know that after two days is the Feast of the Passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified;" Matt. xxvi. 2. "If I go and prepare a place for you I come again (epxoμai); John xiv. 3. "Elias is first come (eрxerai);" Matt. xvii. 11., etc., etc.

In support of the immutability of Christ, two passages, both from the Epistle to the Hebrews, are brought forward. The first is, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," by which we understand nothing about his essential nature, but that those who look to him for Christian truth and Christian life will be saved from the fluctuations of mere human opinion. The antithesis is between being carried about with divers and strange doctrines and being firmly established in Christ. "To believe in Christ," says Clement, "is to be one with him; unbelief is to be in a state of dissension and separation." Hence, to preach Christianity is to preach Christ himself, and not any mere system of doctrine and practice. I believe there is vital truth in the declaration of the Rev. F. Maurice, that "the Church of

Christ has erred in nothing so much as in preaching faith in a proposition, instead of faith in a person." With regard to the second passage adduced under this head, Heb. i. 10, 12., Mr. Yates says "the author of the Epistle introduces two quotations from the Psalms, as referring to the authority of Jesus. The first describes the stability of his throne and the equity of his government. The second represents the eternity and immutability of Jehovah, his God, as a pledge of the firm foundation of his kingdom."*

Is Christ omnipotent? The evidence adduced is, first, "all things were made by him (the Word),” John i. 3. Here it is assumed that Christ was the

* Mr. Yates says, In the Common Version, the beginning of ver. 8, chap. i. of the Epistle to the Hebrews is translated, "Unto the Son He saith." But the preposition Pros, here rendered unto, often signifies with reference to, or concerning. It is so used, for example, by Paul, in Rom. viii. 31, where he asks "What shall we say to these things?" The meaning evidently is "What shall we say concerning these things?" To determine whether Pros is so used in the clause translated, "Unto the Son he saith," it is only requisite to go back to the preceding verse, in which the same preposition is used in the original, and certainly in the same sense, v. 7, " And of the angels he saith," that is concerning the angels, or with reference to the angels. Without fear of being contradicted by any accurate scholar, I affirm that the exact sense, and only allowable translation of the inspired author's words is as follows:-Kaì μèv (ver. 7.) And, on the one hand, πpòs toùs ¿yyéλous concerning the angels, Aéyer he saith (ver. 8). Aè But, on the other hand, πpòs тòv vióv, concerning the Son, etc. I find myself supported in this translation by a multitude of the most approved Scriptural critics, both orthodox and Unitarian. Since the last edition of this work appeared it has been given by Dr. J. P. Smith (S. Testimony, 2nd. edition, v. i. 335, 336), Tholuck, Bloomfield, Stuart, Edgar Taylor, Samuel Sharpe, and Dr. Robinson.-Yates's Vindication, p. 196, 197.

Word before the Word was made flesh, and that the Word was not instrumental and subordinate. On these two questions I must refer the reader to what has been said on the Proem to St. John's Gospel. But I would observe that the original Greek, translated in our Common Version "by him," is dử avтoû, and therefore refers to the instrument, not the original cause. In Matt. i. 22. the distinction is exemplified, "All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of (or by vπo) the Lord through (Sià) the prophet." Olshausen says "the precise usus loquendi of Scripture is not to be overlooked, viz., the Father created the world through the Son, or the world is from or by the Father through the Son; never Christ created the world." I have purposely avoided entering into the question, whether the Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ created the material universe. My reason is that Arians, no less than Trinitarians, answer this question in the affirmative. Assuming the phrase "the first-born of all creation" to be rendered, as Mr. Bickersteth suggests, "Begotten before the worlds," I see in the fact of his being begotten rather a proof that he is not, than that he is, the Supreme God. Do Trinitarians usually agree with our author in representing not only Christ, but also the Holy Spirit, as Almighty Creator of all things? (p. 103.) The second argument is the declaration, "by him all things consist." Here the original is not vπo but év, in him, Col. i. 17. Whether by this passage and its context be understood the material, or the new creation, the instrumentality of Christ must, I think, be recognized. The paragraph begins thus, "And He, the Father, hath delivered us from the power of dark