28. Heb. i. 9. Isaiah ix. 6. Jeremiah xxxiii. 16. Phil. ii. 9.

A few other passages occur in which the name of God seems, at first view, to be applied to Jesus. Let us give them a fair examination.

In the first of John, you read-"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." At first sight, you might think the word meant the son. But you will be convinced that this is impossible, if you will put son in the place of word, and Father or Father and holy spirit, in the room of God. In the first instance, it will read-In the beginning was the son, and the son was with the Father, and the son was the Father. To say the son was the Father, is false and absurd. Try the other method. In the beginning was the son, and the son was with the Father and the holy spirit, and the son was the Father and holy spirit. This is still worse. To say the son was the Father and the holy spirit, is not only false and absurd, but nonsensical. You must therefore conclude the word cannot mean

the son in any sense. And this conclusion may be confirmed by other passages from the same gospel. Only a few verses below, John declares-" No man hath seen God at any time;" but the only begotten son had declared the Father. If the son was God, he had been seen by this very apostle. But he informs us-not that the son was God-or the Father; but that he had manifested the Father's perfections to the world; the Father's wisdom in his instructions, the Father's power in his miraculous works; and the Father's moral goodness in his character; so that whoever had seen the son, had seen all of the Father that could be manifested to mortal

eyes; but the son was not himself that Father, and no part of that Father. John also said that he wrote his Gospel expressly that "ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God." If he is the Christ or anointed, he can be no part of that God by whom he was anointed; and if he was the son of God, he could not be the God and Father on whom he was dependent for existence. And you cannot think the apostle so inconsistent, as to suppose he would begin his history, by asserting that Jesus was God, and conclude, by saying he had composed his work to prove directly the contrary; even that Jesus was the anointed son of God? But the plain, unequivocal, assertion of Jesus, that his Father was the only true God, is sufficient of itself to dispel all doubt on the meaning of this passage. What then is the meaning of the "word?" It means the " power of God considered as in action; " that wisdom and power which have ever been with God, even an essential part of himself; and which were displayed in creation, in providence, in the Jewish dispensation; but especially, which dwelt in Jesus, and were manifested in his words and works and character. John i. 1, 18; xx. 31.

In the same Gospel, you find Thomas exclaiming, on seeing the risen Jesus-"my Lord, and my God." At first sight, you might think Thomas called Jesus his God. But imagine yourself in a similar situation. Suppose an endeared friend, whom you had committed to the grave, should stand before you in health? You would naturally exclaim-O my friend, and O my God; first expressing your surprise at seeing your friend invested with life; and then your gratitude to God who had wrought the miracle. This then affords an explanation of the sentence.

Thomas first exclaimed, my lord,

meaning Jesus; and then, my God, meaning the Almighty, who the apostles uniformly affirmed, had raised Jesus from the dead. And not once have any of them said that God was crucified, or that Jesus raised himself from death. Do you say that Thomas spoke directly to Jesus? So did Jonathan speak directly to David in these words. "And Jonathan said unto David, O Lord God of Israel, when I have sounded my Father." Does this prove David to be the Lord God of Israel? This you cannot admit. Can you then admit that Thomas, educated in the belief of one eternal, spiritual Father, believed that this Lord God of heaven and earth had been crucified, and laid in the grave three days? Why not be consistent; and exercise as much common sense in the former case, as in the latter? Then you will come to the conclusion, that the word God, in this passage, does not belong to Jesus in any sense. John xx. 8. 1 Sam. xx. 12.

In the book of Acts, you read these words" to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood." In this passage the word God, should be changed to the word Lord. For Lord is the true meaning of the original Greek word. You could not, however, be led into error by the verse as it now stands. For you would recollect that God is a spirit; and can have neither flesh nor blood. Especially would you remember that the infinite Creator could not be murdered by his dependent creatures. You would therefore conclude, either that the word God was applied to Jesus in an inferior sense, or was a mistranslation. Acts xx. 28.

In the Epistle to the Romans, you find this sentence"Whose are the Father's, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came; who is over all, God blessed, for

ever." At first sight, you might think Paul declared that Jesus was God. But you will be convinced to the contrary, if you look at the sense and connexion. Paul said Christ was a regular descendant of the Israelites. This is plain. Now could he say in the same breath, that THIS JEWISH DESCENDANT WAS GOD ALMIGHTY? Can you believe the inspired apostle would utter such an absurdity? Perhaps you will say that he spoke of his human nature, because he used the phrase-" as concerning the flesh." Very well. I take you on your own ground. In the verse but one above, Paul speaks of his "kinsmen according to the flesh." Had his kinsmen two natures? If you cannot admit this, you cannot consistently admit that this phrase means any thing more than natural descent. In this last sense, and in no other, is it ever used by the sacred writers. Now you must conclude, either that the apostle declared a regular descendant of the Jews was God Almighty--a shocking absurdity, or that he did not call Christ God? then is the true meaning of the sentence? train of thought the apostle was pursuing. speaking of the Jews, the favored people, who had received from God peculiar blessings, the adoption, the glory, the covenant, the services, the promises, the prophetic Fathers. In all these ways had they been blessed by God; the prophets, peculiarly blessed with miraculous powers; but Christ, a regular descendant, blessed above them all; Christ, who is blessed by God—or Godblessed, over them all, forever; OVER ALL, GOD-BLESSED, in being exalted to be a prince and a Saviour; and Godblessed FOREVER; for the time can never come when he shall be inferior to any created being; it having pleased the Father to give him the pre-eminence in all things.

What

Look at the

He was

In this way, the passage contains a rational, natural, consistent, important meaning. If, therefore, you would make the apostle consistent with himself and common sense, even in this one sentence, and especially with all his other writings, you must conclude the word God, in this place, does not mean Jesus. Rom. ix. 3, 6.

In an epistle to Timothy, you read these words" God manifest in the flesh." In this passage the word God should be changed to the words, "he who." This is the correct translation of the original Greek word. The sentence, however, as it now reads, would not lead you into error. For it asserts that the person who was manifested in the flesh, "was justified in the spirit ;" and also, "received up into glory." Now to say that God was received up into glory, is an absurdity. For he was never out of glory; he fills immensity; he is in all places, and in all places glorious and infinitely happy. You would, therefore, conclude, either that the word God was used for Jesus, in an inferior sense, or that it was a mistranslation. 1 Tim. iii. 16.

In the first epistle of John, you find this passage. "We know that the son of GoD is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true; and we are in him that is true-in his son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." At first view, you might think this referred to Jesus, and if so, he would be called the true God. But a moment's attention will convince you to the contrary. For by Him that is true must be meant God-the Father. Then if refer this to Jesus, you make him the true God; and you shut out the Father from being any part of God. This would be false and absurd. You therefore see that this cannot refer to Jesus; but, to him that is true—even

you