Christ to be God (which as respondent I have a right to suppose, especially after the arguments which have been adduced in proof of it) taking it also for granted that he was a man, it must now be plain and obvious that if one who is God and man shall own himself ignorant of any thing, he must mean not that he is ignorant of it as God, for God is omniscient, but that he is ignorant of it as man whose kuowledge is limited. Therefore they who believed that Christ is God and man, would be in no doubt what his meaning was, and that it was true in the sense obviously intended. It looks more like sophistical cavilling, than fair, candid reasoning for any to say that expressions are not true, when the intended meaning is true, and so obvious to those to whom they were addressed, that they could not be fairly misunderstood. A thing may be truly denied to a person though it belong to a part of him, when it is apparent, that the denial is meant only in respect of the part of which it may truly be denied. So when man is said to be im. mortal, this is denying mortality of him. Yet this is often said in respect of his soul, though in respect of his bodily part he is mortal. So Christ hath said, He that believeth on me shall never die, though all men are mortal.

3. It is further argued, If Christ had a divine knowledge, his disciples must be supposed to believe it, and then no doubt they directed their question to the dikvine knowledge, rather than the imperfect human capacity.

Answer. We willingly allow that Christ's disciples believed

that he, as God, was omniscient. They said they were sure that he knew all things. And therefore when Christ said that he knew not the time of his second coming, it must be so plain and obvious that this was not meant of his divine nature that there could be no room for doubt, or danger of mistake.

But I should think that Christ's disciples directed their question to him as their teacher, and were not so absurd as to expect to receive any information of which he, as man, was ignorant. If they directed their question to him as the omniscient God, yet the answer which Christ gave them shews that he did not answer them as God who knoweth all things.

4. It is further objected, that Christ says the Father only knows the day of his coming; which plainly excludes every other person. And as Christ is confessedly a distinct person from God the Father, this knowl. edge is denied to him by consequence. Yea, it is expressly said in Mark xiii. 32, that the Son knoweth not that day. And his saying that that day is not known to men, or angels, or the Son, shews that he speaks of the Son in his highest character, as superior to the angels and inferior to God alone.

Answer. If we look back to the 26th verse we shall see that Christ is here speaking of himself as Son of man, or in his human nature, which being personally united to the divine logos has a dignity superior to the angels, and inferior only to God.

Whereas it is said that the Father only knoweth the day of the coming of the Lord, whence

it is argued that Christ in his highest character knoweth it not. It may be answered that the title, Father, is not only attributed to the first person of the godhead, by way of distinction, but was also a common appellation given to the divine being, among both Jews and gen. tiles. Whoever was acknowledged as God was also styled Father. If the word Father be thus understood in these words of Christ which we are now considering, the purport of them will be that neither men, nor angels, nor even Christ himself, as man, knew the day of his coming, but God only, and so no person who is God is denied to have this knowledge. And if by the Father, the first person of the godhead, be more especially designated, yet the other divine persons, particularly the Son of God, who is in the Father and one with him, can. not reasonably be supposed ignorant of that which is said to be known to the Father only. The Father who is termed the Fountain of the Deity, or rather the original of the divine persons is here considered as representing the whole godhead. To conclude that the Son of God, as God, is ignorant of that which is said to be known to the Father only would be as unreasonable as it would be to conclude that the Father is not omniscient, because Christ says that "no one (oudeis) knoweth the Father but the Son," who is also said to have a name which no one know eth but himself. In short, there are so many examples in Scripture, in which universal expressions must be taken in a limited sense, that one is ready to wonder it should be so insisted on, that the excluVOL. II. New Series.

sive term only be taken without the restriction, when there are so strong reasons to the contrary

V. It is objected, that the way, in which we interpret this text will make the plainest speech uncertain and insignificant.

But this is said without reason. It is an approved rule of interpretation, that the meaning of expressions is to be determined, not only by the bare consid. eration of the words taken singly, but also by considering every circumstance, which may help us to discern what is the true intent of them. It is an approved rule of interpreting the Scriptures, to explain particular passages so, as to preserve consistency through the whole. Agreeably to these maxims we have endeavored to explain the text we have been considering; nor do we appre hend that any unreasonable, unallowable license has been taken by wresting and straining the words in a manner not warranted by parallel examples, as has been shown. And, upon the whole, the sense which we have given is not unobvious, when all circumstan ces are duly considered; and if it seem to any to be attended with any difficulty, it is as nothing compared with the absurdity of supposing such a person, as the Son of God is represented in the Scriptures, to be in his highest character and capacity, ignorant of the time of his coming, and the end of the world. And if the sense we have given appear sufficiently plain, obvious, and even necessary when all circumstances are considered, the objection, that the evangelists subjoin no caution against taking the words in the obvious sense, is obviated or superseded.

H

The words of Christ, Matt. xx. 23. Mark. x. 40, have also been urged as an objection to his proper divinity: "To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to those, for whom it is prepared of my Father." "But there is no foundation in the Greek text for any to pretend, that Christ disclaims a right to dispose of the honors and rewards of his kingdom, and assign to his servants their respective rank. For the words in the original are, "To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, save to those for whom it is prepared." What is added by the translators, by way of supplying a supposed ellipsis, rather obscures and perverts, then clears the sense of the words. Indeed, to say that it belongs not to Christ to assign his servants their rank, or the honors which they are to receive in his kingdom, would be contrary to so many plain and express Scripture testimonies that one might wonder that learned and ingenious men should ever suggest such a thought. Has not Christ said that He gives his sheep eternal life, John x. 28. That the Father hath given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as are given to him, John xvii. 2. Paul also expresses his assurance that there was laid up for him a crown, which the Lord, the righteous judge should give to him, and all who love his appearing, 2 Tim. iv. 8. In the epis tles, which Christ sent to the churches in Asia, how often do such expressions as these occur; to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life,

Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, &c. And again. Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me to give to every man according as his work shall be. More proofs to some purpose might be adduced, but these seem sufficient.

(To be concluded in our next.)

THE PECULIAR DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL EXPLAINED AND

DEFENDED.

[The following letter, from Noah Webster, Esq. to a friend in Boston, written for private use, is now published at the earnest request of some gentlemen of piety, who had read the original; the author having, on revision, made some alterations, and added a few remarks to elucidate particular points, Such parts as were of a more private concern are omitted. EDITORS.] New Haven, Feb. 23d, 1809. DEAR BROTHER,

I have read the little pamphlet, entitled a "Review of Hints on Evangelical Preaching," which you sent to me, requesting my thoughts on the subjects of which it treats. That the writer and the publisher of that review may have been actuated by very honest motives, I would not dare to question. Multitudes of respectable and intelligent men in this country, and probably in Europe entertain the same unfavorable opinion of what is called evangelical preaching. I once entertained similar opinions, though probably not to the full extent with the writer of the review. But I was opposed to every thing, that looked like enthusiasm in religion, and talked much about the propriety of being a

rational Christian. I am still opposed to enthusiasm, but I am now convinced that my former opinions were erroneous, and that I formerly included under that term, a belief in some of the fundamental, and most rational principles of the gospel.

That some preachers, who call themselves evangelical, may utter opinions which are not evangelical, is not at all improbable; nor is it to be expected that no man, who ministers in holy things should go too far in depreciating the moral duties. Minds, impelled by zeal, may acquire a momentum that may carry them beyond the gospel mark, at which they aim. But, if I understand the reviewer, he not only censures what may be really wrong in zeal, but aims to make the moral duties the essence of the gospel, which the publisher of the pamphlet calls the benevolent and moral religion of Jesus. And this I understand to be the creed of many respectable men in this country. I am probably as sin. cere a friend to the moral duties, as the reviewer; but that these constitute the groundwork of the gospel, I believe to be a fatal error, a rock on which perhaps more intelligent men are ship. wrecked than on any other. Were there no other defect in this creed, this alone would overturn it, that no man, destitute of a principle of holiness, or a supreme love and regard to his Maker, can perform the moral duties, in the manner which the laws of God require. His motives cannot be pure; they can. not spring from the right source; nor will any man, without a higher principle, than a mere regard to social happiness ever be

able to perform all the moral duties with steadiness and uniformity.

But let us examine this scheme of religion on other grounds. It is the principle of our religion, and of all true religion, that there is a God of infinite perfection, who is the Author of whatever has been created. This Being is man's Creator, and of course, his sovereign Ruler; and if his sovereign Ruler, he has a right to give laws to man for his govern. ment. From God's sovereignty, or his character as Creator and Governor of the universe, results necessarily his right tothe supreme reverence of all the rational be. ings he has created; and from this sovereignty, and from the perfection of his nature, as well as from his benevolence to man, in creating him, and supplying him with all the means of happiness, results God's right to man's highest love and gratitude; for nothing is more obvious than that supreme excellence is entitled to the first place in our esteem. Our first class of duties then respects our Maker, our Preserver, our Benefactor, and Redeemer.

These duties, I apprehend, are dictated by reason and natural religion, as well as commanded in the Scriptures. They result necessarily from our relation to the Supreme Being, as the head of the universe.

In the next place, men are made for society. Our natural propensities lead us to associate with each other; and society is necessary to the continuation of the species, as well as to our improvement, protection, and hap, piness. From this association of men, and the various interests involved in it, result numerous

social duties, which we comprise under the general term, morality. These constitute the second class of the duties of men. This distri bution of our duties is precisely that which Moses has made in the ten Commandments, which were originally divided and engraved on two tables. The first table contained our duties to God; the second, our duties to each other; and this distribution is expressly recognized by our Savior, who declares that the first and great commandment is to love the Lord our God with all the heart, with all the soul, and with all the mind; and that the second, which is like to it, is to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Now let me ask the advocates of a moral religion, with what propriety or by what authority, ean we dispense with the first table of the law, or even postpone it to the second? Are not the duties of piety as necessary and as positively commanded as the duties of morality? and more, are they not placed at the head of the list? The command, "thou shall have no other God before me," which enjoins supreme love, reverence, and adoration, as duties to the Creator of the universe, precedes all the other commands, not only in the order of arrange ment, but in the order of propriety, resulting from God's character and supremacy. The Scriptures inculcate this doctrine from beginning to end; and it is as consonant to reason, and the moral fitness of things, as it is to the Scriptures.

piness, tells them "I have the means of supplying you with every thing you can desire. I will build, for each of you, a house in my neighborhood, and I will send you every day, whatever you want or can enjoy, and you shall have no trouble in liv. ing, except in dressing and preparing the provisions and materials I shall send, to suit your owndesires. But to secure to yourselves the continuance of my favors, it is necessary that you comply with two conditions-the first is, that you shall treat me with the respect due to a parent, and call daily at ̧ my house to thank me for the benefits you receive. The second is, that you shall treat each other with the utmost kindness and justice." Suppose then that these children, placed in this eligible situation, and living in profusion on their father's daily supplies, do actually comply, a good degree, with the second condition, performing all their social duties, with tolerable, or even with strict punctuality; but pass thirty, forty, or fifty years without once calling upon their benefactor, to make to him their grateful acknowledgments, What shall we say to such base ingratitude? But suppose further, that these children, instead of a pious veneration, and daily expressions of gratitude to their kind father, should declare that they owe to him no immediate duties that to be kind and just to each other is all that is necessary to fulfil the conditions, on which they hold their estates and enjoyments, and some of them even reproach their father as a hard master, and treat him with open contempt! What can be said in vindication of such conduct?

in