"For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy one of Israel, thy Saviour," compared with 2 Peter iii. 18: "Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." The conclusion they draw from these passages is, that unless Jesus were God, he could not be a Saviour: but how futile this reasoning is will clearly appear from the following passages: Nehemiah ix. 27: "Thou gavest them saviours, who saved them." Obad. 27: "And saviours shall come upon Mount Zion." 2 Kings xiii. 5: "And the Lord gave Israel a Saviour, so they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime." Isaiah xix. 19, 20: "In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and a witness unto the Lord of Hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them." If this argument possesses any force, then it would lead us to acknowledge the deity not only of Jesus, but that of those different individuals to whom the term "Saviours" or "Saviour" is applied in the above citations. The phrase in Isaiah, "Besides me there is no Saviour," is easily accounted for by considering, that all those who have been instrumental in effecting the deliverance of their fellow-creatures from evils of whatever nature, were dependent themselves upon God, and only instruments in his hands; and thus all appearance of inconsistence is removed.

Again, Ps. xxiii. 1: "Jehovah is my Shepherd"-compared with John x. 16: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd." In the former text, David declared God to be his shepherd or protector; in the latter, Jesus represents himself as the one shepherd of the one fold of Christians, some of whom were already attached to him, and others were afterwards to become converts: but Trinita

rian writers thus conclude from these passages: If Christ be not one with Jehovah, he could not be called a Shepherd, and thus there would be two shepherds: but a little reflection on the following passages will convince every unbiassed person, that Moses is called a shepherd in like manner, and his followers a flock; and that the term "Shepherd" is applied to others also, without conveying the idea of their unity with Jehovah. Isaiah lxiii. 11: "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock?" Ezekiel xxxiv. 23, 24: "And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them. I the Lord have spoken it." If they insist (though without any ground) upon interpreting the name David as put for Jesus, they must still attribute his shepherdship over his flock to divine commission, and must relinquish the idea of unity between God the employer, and the Messiah his servant. Jeremiah xxiii. 4: "I will set up shepherds over them, which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord."

Psalm 1xxviii. 56: "They tempted and provoked the most high God"-compared with 1 Cor. x. 9: "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted." They thus conclude: The former passage declares the most high God to have been tempted by rebellious Isrelites, and in the latter, Jesus is represented to have been the person tempted by some of them; consequently Jesus is the most high God. How far cannot prejudice lead astray men of sense! Is it not an insult to reason, to infer the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of his being, in common with God, tempted by Israel and others? Are we not all, in common with Jesus, liable to be tempted both by men and by Satan? Hebrews iv.

15: "For we have not an high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Gen. xxii. 1: "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." Can the liability to temptation common to God, to Jesus, to Abraham, and to all mankind, be of any avail to prove the divinity and unity of these respective subjects of temptation?

We find Moses in common with God is spoken against by the rebellious Israelites. Numb. xxi. 5: “And the people (Israel) spoke against God, and against Moses." Are we to conclude upon this ground, that because God as well as Moses is declared to have been spoken against by Israel, that Moses therefore is God himself? In the same text quoted by them, we find the most high God provoked also-(they tempted and provoked the most high God)—so we find Moses and David provoked at different times. Numbers xxi. 1: "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David ;" and Psalm cvi. 32, 33: "It went ill with Moses for their sakes: because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips." Can any one, from the circumstance of Moses and David having been the subjects of provocation, in common with God, be justified in attempting to prove the deity of either of them?

Isaiah liv. 5: "Thy Maker is thine husband, the Lord of hosts is his name❞—compared with John iii. 29: "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom," &c. Eph. v. 23: "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church," &c. From these they infer, that as the Church is one bride, so, on the other hand, there is one husband, who is termed in one place God, and in another place Christ. My readers will be pleased to examine the language employed in these two instances in the one, God is represented as the husband of all his creatures, and in the other, Christ is declared to be the husband or the head of his followers; there is

therefore, an inequality of authority evidently ascribed to God and to Jesus. Moreover, Christ himself shews the relation that existed between him and his church, and himself and God, in John xv. 1: "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman."-5. "I am the vine, ye are the branches." Would it not be highly unreasonable to set at defiance the distinction drawn by Jesus between God, himself, and his Church, and to attempt a conclusion directly contrary to his authority, and unsupported by revelation?

Revelation xxii. 13: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last"-compared with Isaiah xliv. 6: "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God." From a comparison of these verses they conclude, that there is no God besides him who is the first and the last: but Jesus is the first and the last; therefore besides Jesus there is no other God. I must embrace this opportunity of laying before my readers the context of the verse in Revelation, which will, I presume, shew to every unbiassed mind how the verse in question has been misapplied; since the verse cited in defence of the deity of Jesus, when considered in relation to the passages that precede and follow it, most clearly declares his inferiority and his distinct nature from the Father. Revelation xxii. 6: "And he (the angel) said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true; and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. 7. Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. 8. And I John saw these things and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who shewed me these things. 9. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book:

worship God. 10. And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

If they ascribe verse 13 ("I am Alpha and Omega," &c.) to Jesus, and not to the angel mentioned in the above passage, they must also unavoidably ascribe to Jesus the passage coming immediately before or after it, including of course verse the 9th, "Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant," &c., for there is but one agent described by the pronoun "He" in the whole train of the verses above quoted, who is pointed out clearly by the repetition of the phrase, "Behold I come quickly," in verses 7th and 12th. In this case the passage, although it speaks of Jesus as Alpha and Omega, &c., yet must be considered as denying him the Divine nature, and ranking him among the chosen servants of God, (" For I am thy fellow-servant.") If they ascribe all the verses of ch. xxii. as far as verse the 16th to the angel, they cannot justify themselves in founding their conclusion with regard to the deity of Jesus upon the force of verse the 13th, "I am Alpha and Omega," &c., which in the latter case can bear no relation to Christ, since their system requires them to apply