request to the utmost extent of his power, whether as God or mad; ver. 20, IVorshiping him and desiring a certain thing of kim; and ver. 21, Grant that they may sit. Christ also answers in reference to his whole nature, It is not mine to give; and lest for some reason they might still fancy the gift belonged to him, he declares that it was altogether out of his province, and the exclusive privilege of the Father. If his reply was meant solely to refer to his mediatorial capacity, it would have bordered on sophistry, which God forbid that we should attribute to him; as if he were capable of evading the request of Salome and her sons by the quibble which the logicians call expositio prava or equivoca, when the respondent answers in a sense, or with a mental intention, different from the meaning of the questioner."

As to "whatever Christ says of himself," to suppose, according to the common resource of orthodoxy, that he does not speak "with reference to the whole of his character, and in his entire person, except where he himself makes a distinction," is, in Milton's opinion, to " strip the discourses and answers of Christ of all their sincerity;" to "represent every thing as ambiguous and uncertain, as true and false at the same time;" for thus "it is not Christ that speaks, but some unknown substitute, sometimes one, and sometimes another." After quoting our Lord's devotional language, as recorded Matt. xxvi. 42, 53, Mark xiv. 36, Luke xxii. 29, John xii. 27, he adds, "If these prayers were uttered in his human capacity, which is the common solution, why does he petition these things from the Father alone, instead of from himself, if he were God? Or rather, supposing him to be at once man and the supreme God, why does he ask at all for what was in his own power? What need was there for the union of the divine and human nature in one person, if he himself, being equal to the Father, gave back again into his hands every thing that he had received from him?" On our Lord's conversation with "the young man," (Matt. xix. 17,) he remarks, that "it is evident that Christ did not choose to be considered essentially the same with that one God; for otherwise this would only have been disclaiming the credit of goodness in one character, for the purpose of assuming it in another."

Milton, having shewn how "Christ assigns every attribute of the Deity to the Father alone," goes on to quote a number of passages from the Epistles which prove that

"the apostles uniformly speak in a similar manner," ascribing to God the Father even those works which regard the Son himself, or which were done in him," especially in reference to our Lord's resurrection. On those " many texts wherein the Son is said to be raised up by the Father alone," Milton remarks, that "these ought to have greater weight than the single passage in St. John, (ii. 19,) Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up, where he spake briefly and enigmatically, without explaining his meaning to enemies who were unworthy of a fuller answer, on which account he thought it unnecessary to mention the power of the Father."

He proceeds to remark (p. 105) "with regard to divine honours," that "as the Son uniformly pays worship and reverence to the Father alone, so he teaches us to follow the same practice." This opinion he sustains by quoting at length those numerous passages of the New Testament which have been justly and generally adduced by Unitarians as most satisfactory authorities for their worship. We have here brought to our recollection, not only the precepts of Christ on the subject of devotion, but also the doctrine and examples of those whom he "led into all truth." On 2 Tim.i. 3, I thank God, whom I serve with my forefathers, it is well observed, and even learned Trinitarians (as remarked, XI. 389) have unequivocally admitted, that "the forefathers of Paul served God the Father alone."

66

In Milton's age, however, as in our day, it was strenuously urged on the other hand, that the Son is sometimes called God, and even Jehovah; and that all the attributes of the Deity are assigned to him likewise in many passages both of the Old and New Testament." In reply, our author considers it as " already shewn, from the analogy of scripture, that where the Father and the Son are mentioned together, the name and attributes and works of the Deity, as well as divine honours, are always assigned to the one and only God the Father." He therefore proceeds to demonstrate, that whenever the same properties are assigned to the Son, it is in such a manner as to make it easily intelligible that they ought all, primarily and properly, to be attributed to the Father alone."

In support of this opinion, Milton represents "the name of God" as 66 not unfrequently ascribed" to creatures, of various ranks, from "the only-begotten Son, the image

of the Father," to judges or other human dignitaries. I had occasion (p. 32) to anticipate his conclusions, drawn from a large enumeration of texts, chiefly found in the Jewish Scriptures. On the divine appearances there recorded, he remarks," that whoever was heard or seen, it was not God; not even where mention is made of God; nay, even of Jehovah himself, and of the angels in the same sentence." The following paragraphs (pp. 111-113) on three texts whose sound, at least, has been deemed most disparaging to the Unitarian doctrine, I beg leave to quote verbatim, as peculiarly gratifying to any of your readers who have not met with the Treatise itself:

"Even the principal texts themselves which are brought forward to prove the divinity of the Son, if carefully weighed and considered, are sufficient to shew that the Son is God in the same manner which has been explained. John i, 1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It is not said, from everlasting, but in the beginning. The Word, therefore the Word was audible. But God, as he cannot be seen, so neither can he be heard; John v. 37. The Word, therefore, is not of the same essence with God. The Word was with God, and was God, namely, because he was with God, that is, in the bosom of the Father, as it is expressed ver. 18. Does it follow, therefore, that he is essentially one. with him with whom he was? It no more follows, than that the disciple who was lying on Jesus' breast, John xiii. 23, was essentially one with Christ. Reason rejects the doctrine, Scripture no where asserts it; let us, therefore, abandon human devices, and follow the evangelist himself, who is his own interpreter. Rev. xix. 13, His name is called the Word of God, that is, of the one God; he himself is a distinct person. If, therefore, he be a distinct person, he is distinct from God, who is unity (a Deo, eoque uno). How then is he himself also God? By the same right as he enjoys the title of the Word, or of the onlybegotten Son, namely, by the will of the one God. This seems to be the reason why it is repeated in the second verse, the same was in the beginning with God, which enforces what the apostle wished we should principally observe, not that he was in the beginning God, but in the beginning with God; that he might shew him to be God only by proximity and love, not in essence; which doctrine is con

sistent with the subsequent explanations of the evangelist in numberless passages of his gospel.

"Another passage is the speech of Thomas, John xx. 28, My Lord and my God. He must have an immoderate share of credulity who attempts to elicit a new confession of faith, unknown to the rest of the disciples, from this abrupt exclamation of the apostle, who invokes in his surprise not only Christ, his own Lord, but the God of his ancestors, namely, God the Father. As if he had said, Lord! what do I see, what do I hear, what do I handle with my hands? He whom Thomas is supposed to call God in this passage, had acknowledged respecting himself, not long before, ver. 17, I ascend unto my God and your God. Now the God of God cannot be essentially one with him whose God he is. On whose word, therefore, can we ground our faith with most security-on that of Christ, whose doctrine is clear, or of Thomas, a new disciple, first incredulous, then suddenly breaking out into an abrupt exclamation in an ecstacy of wonder, if indeed he really called Christ his God? For having reached out his fingers, he called the man whom he touched, as if unconscious of what he was saying, by the name of God. Neither is it credible that he should have so quickly understood the hypostatic union of that person whose resurrection he had just before disbelieved. Accordingly, the faith of Peter is commended: Matt. xvi. 16, 17, Blessed art thou, Simon, for having only said, Thou art the Son of the living God. The faith of Thomas, although, as it is commonly explained, it asserts the divinity of Christ in a much more remarkable manner, is so far from being praised, that it is undervalued, and almost reproved in the next verse: Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And yet, though the slowness of his belief may have deserved blame, the testimony borne by him to Christ as God, which, if the common interpretation be received as true, is clearer than occurs in any other passage, would undoubtedly have met with some commendation; whereas it obtains none whatever. Hence there is nothing to invalidate that interpretation of the passage which has been already suggested, referring the words my Lord, to Christ-my God, to God the Father, who had just testified that Christ was his Son, by raising him up from the dead in so wonderful a manner.

"So, too, Heb. i. 8, Unto the Son, or, Of the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. But in the next verse it follows, Thou hast loved righteousness, &c.; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, where almost every word indicates the sense in which Christ is here termed God; and the words of Jehovah put into the mouth of the bridal virgins, Psalm xlv., might have been more properly quoted by this writer for any purpose than to prove that the Son is co-equal with the Father, since they are originally applied to Solomon, to whom, as properly as to Christ, the title of God might have been given on account of his kingly power, conformably to the language of scripture."

With these comments on "three passages" regarded by Milton as "the most distinct of all that are brought forward to prove the divinity of the Son," I conclude my present attention to the "Treatise on Christian Doctrine.'

SIR,

J. T. RUTT.

Instruction of Young Women by Ladies.

Newport, Isle of Wight,
Jan. 16, 1826.

OBSERVING in your Obituary of Phoebe Russell, of Bridport, in the last Number of the Christian Reformer, [XI. 433,] that she was indebted for much of her high state of moral attainment to her attendance at a week-day meeting in the Chapel Vestry, established by some ladies of the congregation with a view to promote the moral and religious improvement of young persons of their own sex, it would gratify a reader of your Miscellany to be informed of the mode of instruction there pursued. It is to be supposed that there are many excellent ladies in most congregations who would gladly assist in communicating religious knowledge if they were made acquainted with the means of carrying their wishes into effect. If any individual connected with this useful method of imparting information would take the trouble to answer the above inquiry, it would much oblige

A FRIEND TO THE PROMOTION OF EARLY PIETY.