as is ever the case, you will find something, either in the form of expression, or in the context, or in both, that serves to distinguish him from that still greater being, whom he himself acknowledges to be his Father and his God.

Thus, whilst the evangelist tells us that “the word was God," he tells us plainly that "the word was with God." This would either have no meaning, or, in truth, would go to destroy "the divine unity, if he had meant to represent the word as the supreme God;-for what other God could the supreme God be with? At the 14th verse, he observes, “and the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory (not as of the supreme God, but) as of the only begotten of the Father." For if he had meant the supreme God, how then could he have said, as he has, at the 18th verse, "no man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Thomas's exclamation of sudden surprise"my Lord, and my God," and that, too, from a man who, but the moment before, was "faithless and unbelieving," and appears to have regarded our Lord as nothing better than an impostor, will surely not be able to overturn, in any thinking mind, the express testimony of our Lord himself, in the 17th verse of the same chapter--"I am not yet ascended to my Father;

but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."

Thus, also, in Hebrews, i. 8, when the Father saith unto the Son, "thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever-a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom;" a superficial reader might conclude him the supreme God. But let the most superficial reader look at the very next verse, uttered by the same sovereign being, and his conclusion falls to the ground:-"Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." If Christ were meant to be represented as the supreme God, who could there be that might be called his God? Who, in that case, might anoint him with the oil of gladness? Who, in that case, ought to be regarded as his fellows?

In this manner you will find the Trinitarian argument, derived from this title, directly overturned in the very passages in which it is found.

But it is proper farther to meet this argument by the following observations. The term God, as implying authority and dominion, is often in scripture applied to beings whom we should never think of confounding with the supreme God, Thus, Exodus, vii. 1, " And the Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh." Judges, magistrates, and civil rulers, are deno

minated Gods, in Psalm lxxxii. 6. Even the spirit of evil, who "blindeth the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them," is, in 2 Cor. iv. 4, styled "the God of this world." I might multiply examples, to show you that the mere application of this name affords no support to the Trinitarian hypothesis. But, without dwelling thereon, I observe farther, that our Lord Jesus Christ never, in so much as one instance, applied this title to himself. He never said either that he was God, or that he was equal with God— which, if the doctrine were true, would have been a most unaccountable omission. The Jews, indeed, at one time charge him (John v. 18,) with "making himself equal with God." But does he admit the charge? No! He repels it by a lengthened reply, commencing with these words" verily, verily, the Son can do nothing of himself;" declaring, that "authority was given him," and "judgment committed to him, by the Father;" and reiterating the assertion with which he sets out, "I can of mine own self do nothing." At another time, the Jews charge him with "making himself God.”—John x. 33. Does he admit the charge now? No more than before. "Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said, ye are Gods, (namely, the magistrates, or civil rulers.) 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, because I said (not that I am God, but) that I am the Son of God." We have, therefore, on this subject, not merely the silence of Christ, but we have his direct and positive disclaimer.

There are three other passages of scripture, wherein Trinitarians contend that the name of God is attributed to our Lord Jesus Christ.

The first is Romans, ix. 5, wherein, according to our translation, Christ seems to be styled "over all, God blessed for ever." This is no place for the introduction of Greek criticism. But those who are acquainted with the original, will perceive that the verse in which these words stand, might be so translated as to run thus:"Whose are the fathers, (the Apostle is speaking of the Israelites,) of whom, as concerning the flesh, is Christ; and whose is the God over all, blessed for ever." And this would be in close conformity with other similar enumerations by the same Apostle : for example, "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." But even if the translation here were correct, as I believe it is not, and that Christ is called "God over all," we must still say, with the same Apostle elsewhere, "When

all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him."

The second of these passages is 1st Timothy, iii. 16, where we meet with this language"great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh." The true reading of this passage in the original has not been well settled. With that, however, I shall not trouble you; but reading it as it stands in our translation, "without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached into the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory;"-let me only ask you, in what sense is it supposable, that the supreme God, who "fills heaven and earth," and is represented to us as unchangeable, could be "received up into glory?" We know with what ease and correctness this language applies to our Lord Jesus Christ.

The third and remaining passage wherein it is contended that Christ is called God, is 1st John, v. 20. In connexion therewith, read the 19th verse:-"We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And 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, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." The Apostle in this passage is