ness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son." In ver. 18, Christ is described as head of the Church, the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence, for it pleased (the Father) that in him should all fulness dwell, and having made peace through the blood of his cross, through him to reconcile all things to Himself." In connection with the whole passage, there are some phrases, such as "things in heaven" and "things in earth," in which the reader will require critical help from some able Commentary. Again, it is alleged that "universal government" is ascribed to Christ because he said "all authority in Heaven and earth is given to me." But would the Omnipotent have his authority given to him? We are further reminded that our Lord says "What things soever the Father doeth these also doeth the Son likewise:" John v. 19. But immediately before these words we read "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do;" and in the 30th verse of the same chapter he says, "I can of mine own self do nothing." Elsewhere, in many instances, which will be dwelt on later in this Treatise, the Father is represented as the source of Christ's power. With regard to the epithet "Almighty," in Rev. i. 8, I have already stated Griesbach's correction of the text, "I am Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God-the Almighty." "As is generally agreed by the Christian fathers of the first four centuries, the word (tavтoкρáτwp) here translated Almighty is the peculiar designation of the Father."* Is Christ omniscient, or in Mr. Bickersteth's words

*Yates's Vindication, p. 207.

Incomprehensible, while comprehending all things?" One of the alleged grounds for answering this in the affirmative is that Christ says of himself, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him," Matt. xi. 27. But surely the blessed Jesus would not have been sent to reveal the Father without himself first knowing Him. And the declaration is immediately preceded by the words, "all things are delivered unto me of my Father." Another text on which stress is laid is John x. 14, 15, which I need only quote with Griesbach's punctuation, "I am the good Shepherd and know my (sheep), and am known of mine, as the Father knoweth me and I know the Father." The unsearchable riches of Christ, his love which passeth knowledge, are next adduced, but these all Christians, of whatever denomination, I trust recognize and feel. A fourth proof given is Col. ii. 3., "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." But Griesbach omits the last words of the preceding verse, "and of the Father and of Christ," and thus renders the passage irrelevant to the present object; for in this case "whom" does not apply to Christ. The strength of the argument is left to rest on John xxi. 17., "Lord, thou knowest all things." Now Távтa is a phrase frequently used to signify a great number, or all things in relation to a particular object. Hence we have the expression used in reference to Christians themselves, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things," 1 John ii. 20. If it be said that, in reference to Christ, the phrase must be taken in its absolutely un

limited sense, the answer is, that this is to assume the very point intended to be proved. But our reverence for Christ might lead us to agree with our Trinitarian brethren in this interpretation, were it not that he himself says elsewhere, "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father," Mark xiii. 32. St. Matthew omits "neither the Son," but has "my Father only." Thus Christ is excluded, and the knowledge of a certain time is expressly confined to the Father. Our Lord also says, "My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me," John vii. 16. "The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me," John xiv. 24. "I have not spoken of myself, but the Father who sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak," John xii. 49.

That Jesus should be called "the good Shepherd,” "the good one," "the Holy one and the just," "the sinless," "the righteous," that he should be even the instrument of the Heavenly Father in the material creation, that he should be constituted the judge of mankind, and that he should have that inward knowledge of the human heart which is essential to righteous retribution, do not require examination as proofs of his Supreme Deity. Whose instrument was he in the Creation? Who appointed him judge of all men? Who but that Eternal Father Himself, who is above all, and through all, and in all? When it is said "there is none good but one, that is God," and "there is none holy save Jehovah," it cannot be intended.

that the words good and holy are never to be applied to others, but that they are used in reference to Him in the highest possible sense, so that even the holy one of God said, "Why callest thou me good?"*. Thus, it seems to me, that the Sacred Writings by no means justify Mr. Bickersteth's concluding remark under this head, "Here then we have all the essential attributes of Godhead ascribed to Christ; and this, not in one or two obscure passages, but by a general consensus of those holy men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

THE ARGUMENT FROM ELOHIM, ETC.

Mr. Bickersteth says he should be doing injustice to his own convictions, if he did not state that he believed this language "was intended to foster when kindled, and awaken when dormant, the persuasion

The

"I am he who searcheth the reins and hearts," Rev. ii. 23. Without a perfect knowledge of the inmost souls of men Jesus could not be our Judge, God could not "judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ," as St. Paul tells us He will. Stress is sometimes laid on the expression "I am he that searcheth." want of the present tense in Hebrew verbs is supplied by the participle, following the pronoun, agreeing with it in number and person, and having sometimes the definite article prefixed. From the Hebrew this construction has been transferred into the Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament. For example, the expression, "I am he that came (it should be cometh) out of the army" ('Eyw eiμɩ ô ǹkwv èk tîs Tapeμßóλns, 1 Sam. iv. 16.), means only "I come out of the army." In like manner, "I am he that searcheth" ('Eyw eiμ ó èpevvŵv), signifies nothing more than "I search ” (Εγώ ἐρευνῶ). "This form of expression is what critics call a Hebraism, and no book in the whole New Testament has so many Hebraisms as the Apocalypse" (Marsh's Michaelis, chap. xxxiii. 26). Yates's Vindication, p. 212.

that there subsisted a mysterious plurality in the essential unity of Jehovah." To this I reply by a quotation from Wilson's Hebrew Grammar; "Words that express dominion, dignity, majesty, are commonly put in the plural." This is called pluralis excellentiæ. Master and owner are in the plural, as Exodus xxi. 4, 6, 29, 34, 36. Heaven, salvation, wisdom, and a very large number of words are found in the plural when emphasis is intended. Sometimes the plural is used where only one can be meant; for example, Judges xii. 7, 66 'towns of Gilead." In Ezekiel xxix. 3, we read, "Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers." Here dragon is in the plural in the original. If the word God in the plural teach a Trinity in Jehovah of the Hebrews, it does so also of Dagon of the Philistines, and in other instances in which it is applied to others beside the Supreme Being. Generally, singular adjectives and verbs are used with the plural of excellence, but not invariably. Stress has been laid by Dr. Pye Smith on this circumstance. If, however, occasionally a plural verb or adjective is used, and not a singular, in reference to God, we have the same form in reference to the Golden Calf, worshipped by the Israelites in the Wilderness.* This calf was called gods, and a plural verb is used in connection with it. In Ps. xlv. 6, 7, the word God is, according to Trinitarians, used once with regard to Christ, and twice with regard either to the Father or

* Kennicott maintains that the three instances of plural verbs annexed to the name of God are, unquestionably, corrupt readings. See Yates's Vindication, p. 135.