well as the children of Israel, are honoured in the sacred writings with the name of "Sons of God." Job, ch. i. ver. 6: "There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord." Genesis, ch. vi. ver. 2: "The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair." Hosea, ch. i. ver. 10: "Then it shall be said unto them, ye are the sons of the living God." Yet the epithet "Son of God," with the definite article prefixed, is appropriated to Christ, the first-born of every creature, as a distinct mark of honour which he alone deserves.

The Saviour having declared that unity existed between the Father and himself, John, ch. x. ver. 30, "I and my Father are one," a doubt arose with regard to the sense in which the unity affirmed in those words should be accepted. This Jesus removes by defining the unity so expressed as a subsisting concord of will and design, such as existed amongst his Apostles, and not identity of being: vide ch. xvii. ver. 11, of John, "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." Ver. 22: "The glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." Should any one understand by these texts real unity and identity, he must believe that there existed a similar identity between each and all of the Apostles ;-nay, even that the disciples also were included in the Godhead, which in that case would consist of a great many times the number of persons ascribed to the Trinity. John,

ch. xvii. vers. 20-23: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word-That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.-That they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one." I know not how it is possible for those who profess obedience to the word of Christ to overlook the explanation he has here so clearly given of the nature of the unity existing between him and the Father, and to adopt a contrary system apparently introduced by some Heathen writers to suit their polytheistical prejudices; but I doubt not the Editor of the Friend of India will admit the necessity of giving preference to divine authority over any human opinion, however prevailing it may be.

ye

The Saviour meant unity in design and will by the assertion also, that he was in God, or dwelt in God, and God in him. John, ch. x. ver. 38: "That ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him,” as evidently appears from the following passages :-John, ch. xiv. ver. 20: "At that day shall know," (addressing his Apostles,) "that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." Ch. xvii. ver. 21: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may one in us." John, ch. vi. ver. 56: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." 1 John, ch. iv. ver. 15: "Whosoever

be

well as the children of Israel, are honoured in the sacred writings with the name of "Sons of God." Job, ch. i. ver. 6: "There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord.” Genesis, ch. vi. ver. 2: "The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair." Hosea, ch. i. ver. 10: "Then it shall be said unto them, ye are the sons of the living God." Yet the epithet "Son of God," with the definite article prefixed, is appropriated to Christ, the first-born of every creature, as a distinct mark of honour which he alone deserves.

The Saviour having declared that unity existed between the Father and himself, John, ch. x. ver. 30, "I and my Father are one," a doubt arose with regard to the sense in which the unity affirmed in those words should be accepted. This Jesus removes by defining the unity so expressed as a subsisting concord of will and design, such as existed amongst his Apostles, and not identity of being: vide ch. xvii. ver. 11, of John, " Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they be one, as we are." Ver. 22: "The glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." Should any one understand by these texts real unity and identity, he must believe that there existed a similar identity between each and all of the Apostles ;-nay, even that the disciples also were included in the Godhead, which in that case would consist of a great many times the number of persons ascribed to the Trinity. John,

may

ch. xvii. vers. 20-23: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word-That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.-That they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one." I know not how it is possible for those who profess obedience to the word of Christ to overlook the explanation he has here so clearly given of the nature of the unity existing between him and the Father, and to adopt a contrary system apparently introduced by some Heathen writers to suit their polytheistical prejudices; but I doubt not the Editor of the Friend of India will admit the necessity of giving preference to divine authority over any human opinion, however prevailing it may be.

The Saviour meant unity in design and will by the assertion also, that he was in God, or dwelt in God, and God in him. John, ch. x. ver. 38: "That ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him," as evidently appears from the following passages:-John, ch. xiv. ver. 20: "At that day ye shall know," (addressing his Apostles,) "that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." Ch. xvii. ver. 21: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." John, ch. vi. ver. 56: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." 1 John, ch. iv. ver. 15: "Whosoever

shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God-God dwelleth in him, and he in God." There appear but three modes in which such passages are capable of interpretation. 1st, As conveying the doctrine that the Supreme Being, the Son, and the Apostles, were to be absorbed mutually as drops of water into one whole; which is conformable to the doctrines of that sect of Hindoo Metaphysicians who maintain, that in the end the human soul is absorbed into the Godhead; but is quite inconsistent with the faith of all denominations of Christians. 2dly, As proving an identity of nature, with distinction of person, between the Father, the Son, and the Apostles ;-a doctrine equally inconsistent with the belief of every Christian, as multiplying the number of persons of the Godhead far beyond what has ever been proposed by any sect: or 3dly, As expressing that unity which is said to exist wherever there are found perfect concord, harmony, love, and obedience, such as the Son evinced towards the Father, and taught the disciples to display towards the divine will.-That the language of our Saviour can be understood in this last sense solely, will, I trust, be readily acknowledged by every candid expounder of the sacred writings, as being the only one alike warranted by the common use of words, and capable of apprehen- . sion by the human understanding. Had not experience, indeed, too clearly proved that such metaphorical expressions, when taken singly and without attention to their contexts, may be made the founda