"First. Mr. Wardlaw maintains," says he, "that the ❝ NAMES AND TITLES belonging exclusively to the true God, "are in the Scriptures ascribed to Jesus Christ.' He in

6

"forms his readers, that, agreeably to the plan of selection "which he has prescribed to himself,' he will confine their "attention to two of these, viz. GOD and JEHOVAH. He "seems to forget, that, even by his own subsequent con❝cessions, GOD' is not a name which belongs exclusive"ly to the Supreme Being." (Page 167.)—It is not a very auspicious circumstance for a reasoner, when the first step he takes in his argument is a quibble. Mr. Yates was surely quite well aware, that when I mentioned the names God and JEHOVAH, I meant the former (as I have always said) in its proper, or its highest acceptation. There was no "forgetting" in the case. My expressions throughout, are such as to keep the sense in which the name is understood, constantly present to the reader's mind.

Of the inferior sense of the name ALEIM-God-Mr. Yates produces from the Old Testament Scriptures seventeen instances. This number, however, may be very considerably reduced.—On Gen. iii. 5. see p. 101, 102. of this volume. Exod. vii. 1. "I have made thee a God to Pharaoh," means, "I have made thee GOD to Pharaoh ;" its import being evidently the same with that of the 16th verse of the ivth chapter of the same book, where God says to Moses respecting Aaron, "He shall be to thee instead of a "mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God."-Exod. xv. 11." Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the GODS." In this passage, as in many others, idols are called gods, agreeably to the appellation given them by their deluded worshippers. The comparison is between the only living and true God, and the false gods of the heathen;—a com

parison very often made in the Holy Scriptures.-Exod. xxi. 6. "Then his master shall bring him unto the Judges," literally" unto the GODS." But is this clearly right? Parkhurst says " Then his master shall bring him to the Aleim, "i. e. to Jehovah Aleim, to the door of the sacred taber"nacle. So the LXX. #gos so ngirngiov Tou cou, to the tribunal "of God." See Lex. on the word ALEIM.-The same dubiety attaches to Exod. xxii. 8, 9. where the very same phraseology occurs, and where the Seventy render it in the same way.Exod. xxii. 28. "Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse "the ruler of thy people." In introducing this as an instance of the inferior sense of the name Aleim, it is taken for granted, that "the ruler of thy people" is explanatory of "the gods." But we ask, with Parkhurst, "Why should not ALEIM here "retain its usual meaning, and the text be understood as "nearly parallel to that of Saint Peter, 1 Ep. ii. 17. "Fear "God, honour the king?"-Deut. x. 17. Psal. xcvii. 9. In these passages it is used of the idols, or false gods of the hea then-to all of which the infinite superiority of Jehovah is emphatically affirmed.-1 Sam. ii. 25. "If one man "sin against another, the judge (literally, the God) shall "judge him." The comment of Parkhurst is :-"‘If man "sin against man, the Aleim' (i. e. GoD) shall judge "him: but if a man sin against Jehovah, who shall in"treat for him? Is not this very good sense, and much "to the purpose?"-Psal. lxxxii. 1. "God standeth in the

66

congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." "The Aleim stand in the congregation of God, (i. e. in "the assembly of Israel; compare Numb. xvi. 3: xx. 4: "Josh. xxii. 16.) in the midst (of this congregation name"ly) the Aleim will judge, or judgeth. So Symmachus, « Ο Θεος κατέστη εν συνοδῳ Θεου (in coetu Dei, Hieron.) εν μέσοιχ

σε Θεος κρινων. Parkhurst. In these instances, then, it is at least dubious, whether they are at all to Mr. Yates's purpose. There remain 1 Sam. xxviii. 13. where the name is applied to Samuel; "I saw gods (or a God) ascending "out of the earth:”—Psal. lxxxviii. 6. " I said ye are gods;" where it signifies magistrates, the Jewish rulers-Psal. viii. 5. "Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels," literally, "than the gods;" where it is used for created angels, as we learn from the quotation of the words by the apostle, Heb. ii. 6:-Psal. xcvii. 7. " Worship him, all ye gods;" which the same inspired writer teaches us to interpret in the same way.-I feel myself, therefore, still warranted in affirming, that the clear and decisive instances of the inferior sense of God, are few in number, as well as of a kind that can never mislead the most careless reader.

But, in proof of the fact that the term God is used in an inferior sense, "Unitarians," says Mr. Yates, "appeal "to no less an authority than that of Jesus Christ himself, "who affirms that in the Scriptures those persons are called “gods, unto whom the word of God came, John x. 35." He then adduces the seventeen passages which have just been noticed, as instances in illustration of our Lord's words. Having done this, he proceeds in the following terms:

"Here are seventeen cases (and I think it probable that "there are more) of the use of the word God in the sense "affixed to it by our Saviour. It is therefore undeniable, "that the name may be given, agreeably to the practice "of the sacred writers, to all persons, whether angels, pro"phets, or judges, to whom the word of God comes, or, "who are authorized, commissioned, and inspired to declare "the will of God to mankind. In this sense all Unitarians "admit and maintain, that Jesus Christ was A GOD. The

"mere application to him of this title consequently proves nothing. As a learned Unitarian author observes, ، The

66

question is not, whether Christ is called God in Scrip"ture, for that is undeniable; but in what sense the word "is to be understood.'* The established principles of cri"ticism require, that we should prefer that interpretation, "which is agreeable to the clear and universally acknowledged doctrine of the Scriptures, before that which is con"trary to any known truth, or which is attended with any con"siderable difficulties. Since, therefore, it is a fact, about "which there is among Christians no dispute, that Jesus was a 66 person 'unto whom the word of God came;' since we "know, that he vindicated the application to himself of "the title GOD, taken in this sense (John x. 34, 35.); "and since we do not know, until it be proved, that "the title belongs to him in any other sense; we ought "thus to understand it, wherever we find it applied to "him in the sacred Scriptures, unless there be some particu"lar circumstances in the mode of application, which point him “ out as THE SUPREME GOD, THE ONE LIVING AND TRUE GOD, "THE GOD OF GODS, OR THE GOD WHO IS ABOVE ALL." (Pages 168, 169.)

As the passage, John x. 34, 35. is the great support on which Mr. Yates here places his reasoning,-the fulcrum on which the whole power of his argument turns, the destruction of which will render the power inefficient; it will be necessary to enter somewhat fully into the consideration of its true meaning.

Our blessed Lord had just used, in conversation with the Jews, the following remarkable words:-"My sheep "hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

*H. Taylor's Considerations on Ancient and Modern Creeds, compared, p. 124,

S

"And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never pe"rish, neither shall any one pluck them out of my hand.

My Father who gave them me is greater than all; and "no one is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. "I and my Father are one."-The effect of these words was, the exasperation of the Jews, so that "they took up stones 66 again to stone him. Jesus answered, Many good works have "I showed you from my Father; for which of those works "do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good "work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because "that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." To this our Saviour made the following reply:-"Is it not written in 66 your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods "unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture "cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath "sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, be

cause I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works "of my Father, believe me not: But if I do, though ye "believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know "and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."The effect of this reply was, that "they sought again to "take him." John x. 27-39.

On this remarkable passage, I offer to the reader the following observations :

1. It is surely a very singular thing, on the Unitarian hy→ pothesis of Jesus being a mere human prophet, that his language alone, of all the prophets by whom "God, at sundry "times, and in divers manners, had spoken," should ever have misled the hearers of it into the conception of his claiming equality with God. In the case of Jesus, this took place on various occasions; and, so far as we learn, no such mistake was ever fallen into in the case of any other prophet whatso