intercedes with him in behalf of Sodom. Now, if the other two angels had real human bodies, so also had the Angel of the Covenant. The evidence in both cases is the same. If, then, our Saviour had a real human body in the patriarchal age, the absurd conclusion follows-that he has had two bodies, and has been twice incarnate! If the ideas of Arians respecting the human nature of Jesus be antiscriptural and unphilosophical, still more untenable are their opinions respecting his Divine nature; they are directly opposed by almost every page of the sacred volume.

Dr. B. asserts, "that the instances in which the title "God is applied to Christ are very rare." With all due deference, I assert, that they are very numerous—almost innumerable. The principles laid down by our author himself will clearly evince the truth of this assertion. He lays it down as a principle-a principle in which I fully acquiesce-that when God is represented as appearing, conversing, &c. the Lord Jesus Christ is intended. For no man hath seen God (the Father) at any time. No man hath seen him, nor can see him. He is the King eternal, immortal, invisible.-It is only Jesus Christ, but not God the Father, that has ever become the object of our senses. Now, if it was the Son of God that appeared to the patriarchs and Old Testament saints-if it was he that conversed with them and conducted the patriarchal and legal economies-if it was he that chose the Israelites, brought them out of Egypt, led them through the wilderness, drove out the Canaanites from before them, and put them in possession of the promised land-if it was he that was called the Angel of the Lord, the Angel of his Presence, the Angel of the Covenant-if it was he that was denominated Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God of Bethel, &c.-if Dr. B. grant all this-and all this he fully grants--with what consistency can he maintain, that "the instances in which the Redeemer is called "God are few ?" Are not God and Jehovah the common appellations by which that glorious personage is designated? The attentive reader of his Bible will find that it is not in a few, but in hundreds of instances, that those epithets are applied to our blessed Redeemer.

In the very commencement of the Bible-in the third. chapter of Genesis, our blessed Saviour is represented as conversing with our first parents, and is styled the LORD GOD, OF JEHOVAH GOD, at least eight times.-In the thir

Why askThe epithet

teenth chapter of Judges, the Lord Jesus Christ is ten times styled the Angel of the Lord-or the ANGEL JEHOVAH, according to the original-and in the 22d verse he is expressly called GOD. "And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen GOD." That the glorious personage who appeared to Manoah and his wife was the Redeemer, admits of no rational doubt. In conjunction with the circumstance of his appearing, the names ascribed to him sufficiently prove it. He is not only styled GOD and JEHOVAH, but Wonderful (verse 18), “ "est thou after my name, seeing it is secret. translated secret, should have been rendered WONDERFUL. It is so rendered by the Septuagint in this place, and by our translators themselves in Isaiah, ix. 6, " His name shall be "called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Ever"lasting Father, and Prince of Peace." To point out all the instances in which our Redeemer is styled GOD and JEHOVAH, would fill a volume. The reader may consult at his leisure those passages where he is represented as appearing to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to Moses, Joshua, the seventy elders, and other patriarchs. He will then be fully convinced, that the glorious personage, who appeared to them, and conversed with them, is, in multitudes of instances, called God and. Jehovah-and Dr. B. himself will tell us, that the person who thus appeared was not God the Father (for he never appeared)—but God the Son, our blessed Redeemer.

Should not our author have paused?-Should he not have read his Bible with a little more care, before he risked the bold and groundless assertion-that the instances in which the title God is applied to Christ are "very rare?"

The Doctor proceeds to make other assertions equally groundless. P. 112 and 113, he writes thus: "In the

Hebrew tongue there are several terms denoting, some, "the Supreme God, and others, subordinate spirits, invest"ed with authority and power. From the poverty of our lan"guage, in this respect, we are obliged to translate them

all by the word God. The same deficiency exists in "Greek, the original language of the New Testament. "Hence arises the use of the word, God, in different senses, "and the common opinion, that this term always signifies "the Supreme Being."

What, I ask, are those Hebrew terms, some of them denoting the Supreme God, and others subordinate spirits,

which, from the poverty of our language, we are obliged to translate by the same word God? Let our author produce them if he can. He will find the task difficult. Why? There are no such terms. There is no such poverty, either in our own or in the Greek language. The Doctor's assertion is groundless, and calculated to mislead the English reader.

It

"Hence

His next assertion is still more palpably erroneous. is as inconsistent with fact as with grammar. " arises the use of the word, God, in different senses, and "the common opinion that this term always signifies the "Supreme Being."-What! Common opinion! There is no such common opinion. When the Deity tells Moses, that he made him a God unto Pharaoh; is it the common opinion that Moses was the Supreme Being? When angels and magistrates are called gods, is it the common opinion that angels and magistrates are the Supreme Being? When the Devil is styled the god of this world, is it the common opinion that Satan is the Supreme Being? With all due deference to Dr. B. I would take the liberty of asserting, that on this subject, common opinion is as correct as his own.

That our blessed Redeemer is in Scripture called God, Dr. B. and other Anti-trinitarians readily admit. They cannot deny it. But they maintain that the word is used in an inferior sense, and that our Saviour is only a delegated God. They tell us, that angels are called gods-that magistrates are called gods-that idols are called gods-and that even the Devil is called a god.-I know, indeed, that angels are called gods, but I know, also, that they are all. commanded to worship the Redeemer. (Psal. xcvii. 7,) "Worship him, all ye gods."(Heb. i. 6,) "When he "bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And "let all the angels of God worship him."-Let Dr. B., if he be able, quote one single portion of Scripture, where any person is commanded to worship angels. He will find, on the contrary, the worshipping of angels condemned in that same word of God, which enjoins those spirits to worship the Redeemer. (Col. ii. 18.)

I know, again, that magistrates are called gods; but I know, also, that there is no temptation held out in the sacred volume to make them the objects of religious worship, or to confound them with the living and true God. I know, that in the very same portion of Scripture where they

are denominated gods, they are represented as weak and dying creatures. (Psal. 82. 6.)" I have said ye are gods; "and all of you are children of the Most High; but ye shall "die like men, and fall like one of the princes." In speaking of the Redeemer as God, the language of Scripture is very different. (Heb. i. 8.) " But unto the Son he saith, "thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." "Thou art

"the same and thy years shall not fail.”

Once more I know well that idols are called gods, and that Satan is styled the god of this world-but I know also, that in the very same Scripture, (Psal. xcvii. 7.) where all the gods are commanded to worship the Redeemer, it is likewise written, "Confounded be all they that serve graven "images, that boast themselves of idols." I know the Redeemer has bruised the serpent's head, that he will bind Satan, thrust him down into the bottomless pit, and set a seal upon him." I know that the idols he shall utterly "abolish."

That Jesus Christ is an inferior God-a subordinate God -a delegated God-is a doctrine which our author may have received by tradition from his fathers, but it is not taught in the sacred oracles. The Scriptures teach the very opposite doctrine: they teach us, that Jesus Christ is not an inferior God, but the MIGHTY GOD. (Is. ix. 6.) "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and "the government shall be upon his shoulders; and his "name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty "God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.'

The Scriptures teach us that Jesus Christ is not only the Mighty God, but the ALMIGHTY GOD. (Gen. xvii. 1.) "The LORD (JEHOVAH) appeared to Abraham, and said "unto him, I am the ALMIGHTY GOD." (Exod. vi. 2, 3,) "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am JEHO"VAH, and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto "Jacob, by the name of GOD ALMIGHTY"-(Gen. xlviii. 3,) "And Jacob said unto Joseph, GOD ALMIGHTY appeared "unto me at Luz, in the land of Canaan, and blessed me." (Gen. xxxv. 9, 11,)" And God appeared unto Jacob again, ' when he came out of Padan-aram, and blessed him.• And God said unto him, I am GOD ALMIGHTY."-Now, who was that Great Being who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the name of GOD ALMIGHTY? Doctor Bruce will answer the question. He will tell us, that it was our blessed Redeemer; for God the Father, he candidly

grants, never appeared-never became the object of human senses. Jesus Christ, therefore, Dr. B. himself being witness, is GOD ALMIGHTY.-He is so represented, not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New. (Rev. i. 8,) "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, "saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is "to come, THE ALMIGHTY.”

From pages 95, 97, 103, 104, 107, 110, 117, 134, 139, 144, 148, &c. it appears that ALMIGHTY is that very epithet, which our author has selected to mark the distinction between our Lord Jesus Christ and the Supreme Being; and yet it does not mark that distinction; for, as we have seen above, not only God the Father, but Jesus Christ his Son, is in Scripture denominated GOD ALMIGHTY. It is also remarkable, that, in page 95, the Doctor asserts, that the ALMIGHTY cannot become an object of human senses; and yet we have seen that the ALMIGHTY has become an object of human senses— —his Arianism betrays our learned author into all these errors. In opposition to the plain declarations of Scripture and his own concessions, he takes it for granted that Jesus Christ is not THE ALMIGHTY.

The Scriptures teach us, that Jesus Christ is not a little GOD, an inferior deity, but the GREAT GOD, (Tit. ii. 13,) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appear. "ing of the GREAT God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ." Dr. Bruce cannot deny that our Saviour, in this text, is THE GREAT GOD. He cannot deny it on two accounts-1st, He cannot deny it without a violation of Greek grammar. According to Grenville Sharpe's rule, had Great God and Saviour referred to different persons, the Greek article would have been repeated before the latter noun-2dly, He cannot deny it without denying what he formerly grantedthat God the Father never appears, nor can appear. The glorious appearing of the GREAT GOD, must therefore mean, not the appearing of the Father-for he never appears-but the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. It follows, of course, even upon the Doctor's own principles, that JESUS CHRIST IS THE GREAT GOD. Now if Jesus Christ is the Great God, as the Scriptures declare him to be, why should Doctor Bruce-why should Socinians and Arians, persevere in their vain attempts to degrade him to the character of a creature-to the character of a manor to that of an angel?