this class of persons is, in all countries, comparatively small, and though the favored few may be diffident of their powers, yet the people of this country know, and should gratefully acknowledge, that there are those among us, who can write ably, and with decisive effect, on the most important subjects. Some individuals of this class can hardly be ignorant of the character and reputation of their writings. Others have yet to learn the full measure and extent of their responsibility, when they shall have engaged more extensively in this great labor of love. To all, who have the talent of writing for the benefit of mankind, we take the liberty of addressing, in the language of earnest intreaty, an admonition not to suffer that talent to lie buried and useless. We beseech them to consider the amazing importance of seizing present opportunities, of securing present advantages, and of bringing every possible accession of strength to the righteous cause, in the mighty conflict which now exists in the world. Let them duly estimate the value of the talent here referred to, and remember, that, though unnoticed and unknown on earth, every one, who shall convert a sinner from the error of his way, will save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins.

For the encouragement of the benevolent it is to be steadily kept in view, that probably no period has existed since the cre

ation of the world, when it was so easy to do good, on a large scale, as at the present day. This observation is meant to apply to those beneficent attempts only, which are made with a prayerful reliance on God. If the observation is correct, and we appeal to every competent judge that it is so, what an unusual weight of responsibility rests upon all who have wealth, influence, or mental endowments? With what energy and activity should the thought inspire all, whom their duty invites to study, or to public labors.

Finally; let every reader look to the state of his own soul, and examine on which side of the grand controversy he now stands. In relation to this controversy there can be no neutrals; and it is vastly important to every individual not to be found in the ranks of rebellion against God, and hostility to the best interests of man. The truth, as it respects the state and character of each person, will be known hereafter, and at no distant period. The character of each will soon be fixed for eternity. Are any of our readers losing opportunities of serving God? How amazing the loss! Let them become truly wise, and embrace the Gospel. Then happy will be their dismission from the body, though they should not live through the year which is now commencing, and unspeakably glorious their reward in heaven,

vine person, would not Jesus have defined or explained the question, before he took the oath? Would he not have declared it, had he not in fact been the Son of God, in the strict, or peculiar sense of that term? Especially so, when he did explain, and define the sense of the question put to him by Pilate, whether he was the King of the Jews, before he gave answer. Would

he not have done it when he was under an oath, which was too sacred and important, not to be strictly regarded? With such expressions before him, can any one mistake the intention of Jesus to be acknowledged as divine? Let them be uttered by any other person, and see if any doubt would arise, whether he meant to ascribe divinity to himself. The Jews, who were cotemporary with Jesus did understand him as claiming divine honors; a satisfactory proof, that his language in that day appeared to them, as it now does to us, to assert this claim. He hath spoken blasphemy, said Caiaphas, and then passed sentence of death upon him; Mat. xxvi, 65. Art thou greater than Abraham and the prophets? Whom makest thou thyself? said the Jews, and took up stones to stone him; John viii, 53. The Jews eagerly sought after him to kill him, because he made himself equal to God; John v, 18. For blasphemy, said they, will we stone thee, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God; John X, 33.

In the answer of Jesus, to this expression of the malice of the Jews toward him, which answer was intended to defend and vindicate himself, many sup

pose a disclosure is made, which shews that all his exalted expressions concerning himself amount merely to the cold position, that he was a teacher sent from God. It is somewhat peculiar, to be sure, that a single passage, and of this kind, should outweigh a multitude of other passages, and confine the sense of them. But as this passage is often urged, as an irrefutable argument against Trinitarians, and is much cried up as putting an end to the controversy in question, it may be proper to dwell with some degree of particularity upon it.

The answer of Jesus is as follows: Is it not written in 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, because I said, I am the Son of God? John x, 34-36. According to our Anti-Trinitarians, the meaning of this is as follows: 'In the Mosaic law, they are called gods, to whom a revelation was given by God, and whom he chose and commissioned as the extraordinary teachers of mankind; consequently, I, who am an extraordinary teacher endowed with more exalted and divine illumination, may lawfully call myself God, and the Son of God.' Now, in order to determine whether this be the meaning of the passage in question, let the following considerations be first duly weighed.

1. If Jesus attached to his expressions, which were judged to be blasphemy worthy of death,

only the assertion, that he was a divine teacher, did he not afford reason for the accusation to his face, that he denied his own clear, and express words? and must he not have expected it to be made? The controversy did not here respect the appellation of God, or Son of God, but the phrases, I give, (not I barely procure, but) I give to my followers eternal life; I and the Father are one.

2. Jesus shewed plainly, and quite intelligibly to his opposers, that he did not at all explain away the exalted meaning of his previous assertions, nor limit the elevated rank, which he had ascribed to himself, to the dignity of a person divinely commissioned, but still a mere man; for af ter this explanation of his meaning, as some will have it, the Jews still sought to take and kill him; John x, 39. Jesus does not say, To me the word of God has come; but, The Father hath sanctified me distinguished me with peculiar dignity-constituted and exhibited me as one more exalted, more holy, more worthy of respect than othersand sent me into the world. He adds, (v. 37, 38,) If I do not the works of my Father, then 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. These are words, which neither Moses, nor any other prophet, ever ventured to utter, or ever could venture to utter, respecting himself; much less to say, that nothing more was meant, than to assert, that he was a divinely commissioned teacher.

VOL. X.

3. If any one insists on translating the words of Jesus, thus; If then, he calls those gods, whom' God honored with his Revelations, &c. then he ascribes to him a palpable untruth; for Mo-, ses hath not called prophets gods. This might, indeed, pass without being discovered by the New Theologians of our day, many of whom have not studied the Mosaic revelation so much as to know, whether the passage in question be in it or Among the Jews, however, to whom the writings of Moses were all familiar, this circum stance could not have passed unnoticed.

not.

Ex. iv, 16, Aaron shall be instead of a mouth to thee, and thou shall be to him instead of God, does not constitute a proof to the contrary of what I have asserted. Here is a comparison of the connexion in which Moses and Aaron were mutually to stand, with the connexion of which one is reminded, with regard to a prophecy, between the Divini ty who gives the prophecy, and the man who delivers it. Moses is.likened unto God, not because he was a prophet, (for in comparison with Moses, this character was rather to be ascribed to Aaron,) but because he sent a man, who served under him, as a prophet serves God, by whom he is sent.

Still less does Moses use the word, gods, in the sense pretended, in those passages, Ex. xxi, 6; xxii, 28; which are the pas sages referred to in Ps. lxxxii, 6, from which last passage our Savior makes his quotation, For in these passages, not teachers, but magistrates, are called

2

To translate, then, the verses in question, thus: "In the law, they are called gods, to whom the divine Revelations were made," is undoubtedly an error, and expresses what is contrary to the true state of the fact. Those are called gods in the law, who are intended in the passage now in question, or to whom the words, Ye are gods are addressed, in the 82d Psalm; i. e. magistrates. The meaning of the passage may be rendered unequivocal, by translating it thus; If he called them gods, to whom this word or command of God came; i. e. if those are called gods, who are address ed in the passage cited from the Old Testament, Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, &c?

to

4. The design of Jesus was, plainly, to convince his Jewish hearers at that time in a brief manner, that his assertion, which had been so offensive to them, gave them no right to take away his life. The occasion did not permit his adducing formal proof, that he was truly God. Had he replied, 'I am equal with God, and, that this is the case, I will now produce the evidence;' they would have put him death, if they had acted agreeably to the frame of mind in which they then were, before he could have finished his reply. If ever a reply ad hominem, a contradiction of opposers on principles avowed and maintain ed by themselves, be allowable, it certainly may be, in such a ease as this. Every person, who proclaimed to the Jews any other God, except Jehovah, was

was the law of Moses. Jesus did, in fact, proclaim no other God; but he appeared to the Jews to be guilty of this crime. On the mere appearance of this guilt, the Jews charged him with blaspheming God, and sought to kill him on the spot, without even a trial. Appropriately to the occasion, Jesus answers, 'I have done no evil, which deserves death. Whether I am in fact a blasphemer of God, on whom the law pronounces sen. tence of death, is a question which should be seriously investigated, and not decided hastily from mere appearances: otherwise ye must adjudge Moses himself to be guilty of a like crime, for he calls magistrates Elohim, gods; not indeed with a design to proclaim strange gods, but you must admit that it has this appearance. A sentence of death hastily pronounced on me, would be as unjust as against Moses. Do you not inquire why he calls magistrates Elohim? And whether he does in fact oppose the unity of God? Inquire then, in like manner, with respect'to my expressions before you pass and execute your sentence.'

5. The kind of reasoning, which Jesus employs in opposition to his enemies, is very apparent. If the law styles those gods, to whom it says, Ye are gods, why should I be accused of blasphemy, because I said I am the Son of God? Because I said this, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world?'- -A conclusion, evidently, a minori ad majus, from the less to the greater! A kind of reasoning, which they must