solitary, as furnishing this particular proof of it, which is not given elsewhere: but the learned writer ought to recollect, that the omniscience of both is in effect equally negatived; and upon the same authority, in John xvii. 3, where our Lord, in conformity with his previous language in the tenth chapter of the same evangelist, (shewing that he did not claim to be God at all, but only the Son of God,) says, in his prayer to the Father for his disciples, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent:" thereby expressly affirming the Father, and the Father only, to be the true God, and excluding both himself, and the Holy Ghost, from any participation in the Godhead; which, as omniscience, as well as omnipotence, and omnipresence, are essential attributes of true Deity, and of true Deity only, negatives the possession of omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence, by either of them. I have no conception, my dear Sir, how it is possible, in the face of this text, that your opinion, that our Lord claims true Deity, can be maintained for a moment. To this may be added, if necessary, another text equally conclusive, which, if any one should say, that it does not rest upon the same authority, must be allowed by all, to rank the very next in order to it, and to be at all events infinitely superior to that of all the fathers, councils, and synods, put together: I mean, I Cor. viii. 4-6, where the apostle Paul says, "We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one; for though there be that are called gods, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but unto us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are

t

all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we in him." Here the apostle declares to us, that there is but one God, and informs us who he is; namely, the Father; and that there is but one Lord, or master; and also informs us who he is, namely, Christ; excluding from the Godhead, (as he our Lord and master had himself done,) both Christ, and the Holy Ghost; and affirming, that the Father was that one God; which is exactly the same as saying in the words of our blessed Lord, that the Father was the only God, or the only true God; which is the same thing. Now if the Father be the only true God, as our Lord declares; if there is but one God, and that one God is the Father, as the apostle Paul declares, it follows as clearly as if written with a sun-beam, that neither our blessed Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, (that is, the Trinitarian Holy Spirit considered as a distinct person,) can be God; and that neither the one, nor the other, can be possessed of omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence, which are the essential attributes of God, and of God only.

It is of the greatest consequence to remark likewise in this place, that neither our Lord, in either of the texts quoted from St. John, nor the apostle Paul, in that quoted from the first epistle to the Corinthians, can possibly be practising the double dealing, which has been so unjustly imputed to the former, of speaking of himself generally, as an entire person, and yet, without any notice or intimation of it to his hearers, saying, what he knew was only applicable to one of his two supposed natures; for the language used in all three of these passages would as effectually exclude his

divine nature, if he had any such, and also the Holy Ghost, if considered to be a person, as his human nature. It being impossible therefore to impute to him, or to the apostle, any such double dealing in either of the three texts in question, why should he, without any proof or presumption, be supposed to have practised it upon other occasions where his words are clear and manifest, and there is no allusion whatever to any second nature? as in John xiv. 28, "If ye loved me ye would rejoice, because I said I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I;" and the like. If the Trinitarian, misled by an ardent though honest zeal for his system, which cannot stand without adopting this interpretation, objectionable as it is in itself, and destitute as it is of all authority, can make up his mind to embrace it, he must excuse the Unitarian, who, in the equallyhonest exercise of his judgment, has arrived at the opposite conclusion, from following his example.

In answer to my quotation from John xvii. 11, to shew that our Lord did not intend to assert any unity of nature with the Father, because he prayed that his disciples might be one, as he and his father were; you take it for granted I shall admit, that this expression in many places means not equality, but humble imitation of a grand model. I admit most readily, that it does not any where mean equality with God; but I am not aware of any places where it is used to denote humble imitation of a grand model, though possibly there may be such. The text you cite, "Be ye

perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect," appears to me to be not at all in point; for when we exhort one person to be perfect, as another is perfect, whether the latter be understood to be God or man, we obviously mean, that the former is inferior to, and less perfect than, the latter but when we desire that A may be one with B, the only object of our wish is, that he may unite with, or join him; and there is nothing in the expression itself indicative either of equality, or inferiority; for one person may join, or unite with, another person who is his equal, for the accom→ plishment of some great purpose, which they both have in view, as he may with another who is his su perior, for the like purpose; for which reason, if there be nothing else to shew, that one of them is superior to the other, the expression of itself proves nothing. But if we concede for a moment that it means an humble imitation of a grand model, applying your own standard in both instances, it will follow, that Christ's being one with his Father implied his humble imitation of the Father as his grand model; and consequently his inferiority to the model he proposed to himself for his imitation, and that he prayed that his disciples, who were inferior to him, might imitate him as theirs, in like manner.

If to the eleventh verse, which I quoted before, you will have the goodness to add the twentieth, twentyfirst, and twenty-second verses of the same chapter, they will still more strongly illustrate the nature of

Christ's union with the Father. In these verses our Lord prays, that not only his immediate followers, but that all who might be converted by their means, might be one; that as his Father was in him, and he in his Father, they also might he one in his Father, and himself; and for this purpose, that the world might believe, that the Father had sent him, that is, might believe his Gospel; meaning, (as it appears to me,) that all should be one, or united, in publishing the joyful tidings of the Gospel to the world. Then he says, that the very same glory which the Father had given him, (meaning, I conceive, the glory of preaching and spreading the Gospel, or the good tidings of the Father's gracious designs towards mankind,) that very same glory he had delegated to them; that they might be one ;—that is, united in this great work,-as he and his Father were one, or united in the same work; for it is the very same union that is ascribed to both. From the whole taken together, the meaning seems to me to shine forth with unclouded lustre, and to be hardly capable of being mistaken.

I cannot discover in the Scriptures any proof of an union between the Father and the Son, which springs (as you term it) from identity of substance; and you have not cited any authorities for this kind of union. To the best of my remembrance, there is not in the whole compass of the sacred writings, any thing like identity of substance between them, asserted or alluded to. This notion came into the Church, I believe,