his saying that God was his Father, and that he was the Son of God, was claiming to be equal with God. For they had before sought to kill him for saying, that God was his Father, which in their apprehension was making himself equal with God, as was before observed, John v. 18. His reply to the Jews was so far from intimating that they wrested his words, that by say ing that he was the Son of God, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, he said what he knew they understood to be a making himself God. And he further explains his meaning to be that he is the Son of God, and one with the Father, in such a sense, that he is in the Father, and the Father in him. See John x. 30, 38-This passage of Scripture, I think, should be weighed with special attention. The oneness of the Father and the Son asserted in this place is evidently very different in its nature from the union of Chris tians with Christ, and one another, which is mentioned and compared with it in John xvii. 21. And it is very improper, yea handling the word of God deceitfully, for men to measure and explain the one, as exactly similar to the other.

Here it seems worthy of remark, that though Christ was repeatedly charged with making himself God, and equal with God, because he said he was the Son of God; yet he never in any of his answers to those, who accused him, intimated that they wrested his words, or misrepresented his meaning; but his answers tended to confirm them in the persuasion, that he meant as they had conceived. How shall we ac

count for this, if we suppose him to be a mere creature? If a blasphemous meaning had been put upon his words maliciously, ought not a regard to the honor of God to have moved him to disown it? If it had been by ignorance and mistake, ought he to have been willing that so horrid a scandal should have been fastened upon his character, and that the disaffection of the people to him and his doctrine been thereby confirmed and increased? His answers and conduct on these occasions seem most unaccountable, unless we suppose that he was not misunderstood, but did indeed assert his own dignity as a divine person.

But it is further said, that Christ's answer shews what sort of God he is, and in what sense only he said he was the Son of God, viz. that he was called to a higher office than magistrates, on whom the Scripture bestows the title of gods, and children of the Most High, John x. 35, Psalm lxii. 5.

I answer, Christ declared him. self to be the Son of God, and one with the Father, in that sense which is peculiar to the Messiah, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, v. 36. In what peculiar sense the Messiah is the Son of God has been shewn from his names, titles, attributes, works, and the worship due to him. The Jews understood, that the Messiah, as described in the word of prophecy, according to the interpretation and application of their own approved rabbies, was to be called Immanuel, Jehovah our righteousness, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Angel of the covenant, the Lord of the temple, whose

goings forth have been of old, even from everlasting, as has been noticed before. They understood Christ's saying, that he was the Son of God in this sense, to be making himself God as has been shown. And therefore they who believed not, accused and put him to death for blasphemy. But that Christ has the title of God merely, because he was honored with a commission from the Father, is a groundless assertion. The truth is, magistrates in the Hebrew Theocracy had the title of gods, because they were types of Christ, who is truly God. The Hebrew Theocracy was formed by God to be a type and figure of the kingdom of heaven. And its officers, particularly its kings, and priests, had high, even di. vine titles, which in their proper and full import, did not belong to mere men. They were styled gods, and children of the Most High, as types of Christ the King, and High Priest of the heavenly Theocracy, who is truly God, and the only begotten Son of the Most High. The title is given to the typical gods only in an inferior and figurative sense but it belongs to Christ in truth, in its highest and most proper sense. He is really, and in truth, what they were nominally, and in figure. If this be If this be considered, we shall see the great force and propriety of Christ's reply to the Jews, which is to this effect, "If officers of the carthly Theocracy are called gods, as being types of the Messiah, surely it is no blasphemy for me, who am the Messiah himself, that divine person whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world: it is not

blasphemy, I say, for me to assert that I am the Son of God, in that high sense in which you understand my words, as importing that I am God, and one with the Father. And if you will not believe this upon my testimony, yet my works, which are evidently the works of God, ought to convince you that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: that is, as I said before, that I and the Father are one.”

It appears then that Christ's having authority given him as the Messiah, was not what made him God, that is, a mere God by office, as some pretend; but it proves that he is God by nature, since the Messiah is described in the prophecies concerning him to be a divine person.

That the Father and the Son are one, even the same God, appears further from the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. "We know that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

These words have been brought as a proof that as there is but one God, so the Father only is God. That Christ is not the one God, but is distinguished from him by the title of Lord, which, it is said, is a title inferior to that of God, though it be included in it.

But the apostle does not say, nor do his words imply, that the Father only is God, exclusive of the Son; but that the Father is the one God whom Christians

acknowledge. This is what all Christians profess to believe. But since the Son of God is also God, and has this title given to him in the Scriptures, as has been shewn, and as such is to be worshipped, as is acknowledged even by many Unitarians, he therefore is also the one God. For it is agreed that there is but one true God. Consequently the Father and the Son are one, as Christ has said. They are the one God whom we are to acknowledge and worship.

That this was the meaning of the apostle seems evident. For as it is certain that the Father is Lord, as well as the Son, so it is no less certain that the Son is God, as well as Lord. The Father is often styled Lord, even when he is mentioned in express distinction from Christ, Rev. xii. 15. The kingdoms of the world are become the kingdom of the Lord, and his Christ. And in other places. Christ also is Lord, and is acknowledged by all Christians as their Lord. So that either we have two Lords, the Father and the Son, the one Supreme, the other inferior, (which would be directly contradictory to the apostle, who says that to us there is but one Lord) or we must say that the Father, and the Son are that one Lord, to whom Christians pay religious homage.

Again, It is certain that Christ is our God. This is acknowledged even by those who pretend that he is only God by office. Thomas will support us in confessing Christ to be our Lord, and our God. Now since the Father is also our God, we must either (in express contradiction to the apostle) say that we have

two gods, even the Father and Christ: or (since there is to us but one God) that the Father and Christ are this one God, the only object of our religious worship.

This reasoning is confirmed, since we find that Christ is as plainly distinguished from, and opposed to the many gods and lords in the world, as is the Father. But if he had been only God and Lord by office and title, he would have been one of those many, who are gods and lords by title and office.

If it be thought that Lord is a lower title, included in that of God, it may be also said that Deity is implied in the title of Lord, in the sense in which it is given to Christ, since it has been shewn, that no one who is less than God, is fit to sustain, and able to exercise, that authority which is committed to him as Mediator, and God's anointed King.

It is objected that God and Lord, are not two characters or titles of the same divine Being, for they are plainly distinguished Ep. iv. 5, 6. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, &c.

I answer, That the same divine Being has the titles of God and Lord, and also that Christ is most certainly God as well as Lord. And if Christ is sometimes distinguished from God the Father by the title of Lord, this is no objection to his being truly God. We grant, yea we contend, that the Son of God is distinguished from the Father. Nor is the distinction merely in title, but a real difference is signified by those titles or characters which are appropriated to each of them respectively. Christ is distinguished from the Father,

as the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, the second, not the first subsistence, in the blessed Trinity. Christ is also distinguished from the Father as the Messiah, the Mediator, God and man in two distinct natures and one person, and as such having a delegated lordship from the Father. It is on account of this derived authority chiefly, that I conceive he is dis. tinguished from the Father by the apostles with the title of Lord. But, as was said before, he would not have been competent to execute the office to which he was appointed by the Father, if he had not possessed divine perfections. And as the Father has not divested himself of the title and rights of Lord by his making the Son, Christ and Lord, as Mediator; so neither is the Son divested of the title and perfections of God, by receiving the offices of Messiah and Lord from the Father. The Father is God and Lord, and the Son is Lord and God. Though they are distinguished by appropriate titles and characters, yet they are the one God and Lord whom we acknowledge, as the only proper object of our worship. The fulness of the Godhead dwells in them. The Son is in the Father, and the Father in him. Thus far we seem to be supported by the Scriptures. To comprehend, or explain how three are one, and one is three combined we pretend not.

But

that any contradiction, or evident absurdity, contrary to right reason, is implied in the doctrine of the eternal Deity of the Son of God, as revealed in the Scrip. tures, we have never seen proved. Some of the most subtle and

plausible objections we shall consider in our next number.

A Christian of the Old School.

(To be continued.)

REPLY TO E. H.

(Concluded from page 489.) "TELL it to the church; and if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man, and publican." The church is here represented as first and last in the process. The brethren hear, judge, and decide. If any doubt should possibly remain, whether this be really the mind of Christ on the subject; it seems as if Paul's construction of it would be sufficient to remove all ground of hesitancy.

It will be admitted, that they, who are commanded to execute discipline, and who are blamed, if it be not done, have the power to execute it. Who then had the power of discipline in the church of Corinth? Was there a court of elders in that church, "abiding, competent to the trial of all cases, that occurred, and responsible for doing it ? Did Paul, in the case of the incestuous man, exhort such a court to their duty? or hold them responsible for the consequences of neglect? or, if the church had not a plurality of elders; did he consider the church as incompetent to the work? The case is plain. He understood the words of our Lord on the subject in their most obvious meaning. He consider. ed the power, as vested in the church; and the church as responsible for managing the process, and bringing matters to an issue. What can be more express and plain, than his words?

Unto the church of God,

of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together; -purge out the old leaven; do not ye judge them that are within; Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." The church obeyed the apostle. The censure 66 was inflicted by many." In the same style on the same subject, he addressed the church at Rome. "Now I beseech you brethren, mark them, who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them."

And

also in his Second Epistle to the church of the Thessalonians, he adds, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly.-And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, mark that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy: but ad monish him as a brother."

If Christ had set pastors in every church, whose joint, official duty it was to execute discipline, and who were held responsible for doing it; is it not very strange that the apostle has passed over them in silence, and in every instance, addressed the brethren, as responsible? Do not these circumstances prove that no such councils were instituted in the apostolic churches? This theory it is presumed, cannot be relieved, by appealing from Paul to John, in his epistles to the seven churches of Asia. The addresses of Paul are plain: those of John are in a degree mystical.

The plain parts of the Scriptures must be used to explain the mystical.

the churches, and not exclusively to the elders; so that if he be understood in a literal sense, his letters will establish the power of discipline in the church.

We conclude then that the church has the authority in respect of all cases of discipline; and therefore that a plurality of pastors are not needed in a church, unless it be to teach, exhort, and ordain. But Mr. E. H. does not seem to suppose, that the gospel order of a church requires a plurality of them, considered as teachers. And who can adduce evidence, either from the letter, or from the spirit of the gospel, to prove that every church should be at the expense of supporting several pastors for the sake merely of performing the work of ordination, which may as well be done by the fellowship of churches in the usual way i y?

Since, therefore, neither the sacred history of the christian churches; nor the consideration of their judicial authority; nor any other obvious circumstance, offers any satisfying evidence in favor either of a plurality of gospel ministers, or of an authoritative council, as necessary to the complete order of a church; our author's piece on church government leaves our churches on the strong ground where it found them. They appear to know their Master's will. Their great infelicity is, that they exceedingly fail in doing it; on this prac. tical part of the subject, they need reproof and exhortation.

On supposition that his theory of ecclesiastical government were adopted and carried into practice by our churches; Mr. E. H. thinks, "It would not be