In the same manner, precisely, the
Son knows the Father, i. e. knows
his will." Christ's own words ex-
press something mutual and equal in
the degree of knowledge which the
Father had of the Son, and the Son
of the Father. But in Mr. Belsham's
explanation there is nothing either
equal or mutual; for it amounts to
no more than this: As the Son knows
the Father's will, so the Father
knows his own will. For to know
the extent of his Son's mission, is
merely to know his own will, that is,
to know for what purpose He him
self had sent his Son into the world.
Any man, of the plainest understand-
ing, may see that in this there is
neither mutuality nor relation; and
therefore that Mr. Belsham's mean-
ing cannot be our Saviour's meaning.
But if we take the words out of the
"low, mean sense," affixed to them
by Mr. Belsham, and compare them
with the words of our Saviour, of
Isaiah, and St. Paul, before quoted,
they obviously denote the high and
ineffable origin of the Messiah; they
account for the silence of the Jews,
and shew, that the Scriptural evi-
dences of the Messiah embrace mys-
teries very remote, in their origin,
from common apprehension.

comparison
n of Melchisedec to the
Son of God: "Without Father, with-
out Mother, without descent, having
neither beginning of days, nor end
of life, but, made like unto the Son
of God, abideth a Priest continually."
(Heh. vii. 3.)—It was one of the
Scriptural marks of the Messiah, that
he was to “abide for ever." And
therefore when Christ spoke of his
death, the Jews not being able to re-
concile it with their expectations of
the Messiah, said, "We have heard
out of the law, that Christ abideth
for ever; how sayest thou, then, the
Son of Man must be lifted up?"
Another peculiarity, common to the
Messiah and to Melchisedec, and con-
nected with our Saviour's discourses
concerning himself, is expressed in
the original by the term ayevaλontos,
which Schmidius translates, cujus
origo generis memoriæ prodita non
est; and Schleusner, qui non a certo
aliquo genus ducit. In the passage
of Isaiah, relative to the Messiah,
which the Eunuch was reading when
Philip met him, the Prophet, as trans-
lated by St. Luke, says, T YEEZY EN-
Ynostal, who shall describe his gene-
ration? in which the term YEYE means
both origin and descent. (Acts viii.
33.)

The other characteristic common to the Son of God and to Melchisedec,-"having neither beginning of days nor end of life,"-marks still more strongly the indescribable origin of the Messiah, and applies to him, especially, as the WORD, the Creator of the World, who "was with God and was God."

Incredible incorrectness,

I must leave it to the reader to find a name for the kind of incorrectness, of which I am going to give him some instances. When Mr. Belsham contends, that Bishop Horsley was defeated in argument by Dr. Priestley, it is simply incorrect; it is merely a great error of judgment. When he says, that the From these evidences of the Mes- Bishop knew himself to be defeated, siah, we may account for our Saviour's this is an error of a different kind; words: "No man [no one] knoweth it is an instance of unexampled harwho the Son is, but the Father" and dihood; for it is contradicted by for his language to St. Peter, when every page of his acute and indig he bad confessed Jesus to be the nant animadversions. But when Mr. Christ" Blessed art thou, Simon Belsham maintains, and pertinaciously Barjona; for flesh and blood hath insists, that "the Bishop would have not revealed it unto thee, but my been the first to laugh to scorn the Father which is in heaven;" as well solemn Ignoramus, who should serias for our Saviour's words ou ano- ously profess to believe that the adther occasion: "As my Father know- vantage of the argument remained eth me, even so know I the Father." with him," repel it by the same (John x. 15.) Mr. Belsham, in his Calm Inquiry (p. 187.) puts a very inadequate meaning upon these passages. He says the former passage means, that" the Father alone knows the Son, knows the nature, the object, and the extent of his mission:

contradictory evidence; but for the kind of incorrectness I cannot find an adequate name. When Mr. Belsham pledges himself for the correctness of his statement of a part of this controversy, and I fiud four assertions out of five grossly incorrect, I

here