and Son are but one being, then Christ prayed that the innumerable multitude of his followers might become one being. I may further observe, that the language of scripture must be understood according to some analogy known to men, or not be understood at all. But what analogy does the universe afford to justify us in supposing that the Son meant to say that he and his Father were one or the same being? If a king's son should use precisely the same language, in regard to himself and his father, who would even suspect that such was his meaning? As such a meaning is foreign to all analogy, we have great reason to believe that it is equally foreign to the truth.

AN AFTER THOUGHT.

Hypothetical contrasts are sometimes useful. I shall therefore exhibit one. The recorded language of Christ we have seen to be as follows:-" I came not of myself— I have not spoken of myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say-Of my own self I can do nothing-the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the work." Accordant with these declarations was the whole testimony of Christ concerning himself.

Let it now be supposed that, instead of the foregoing declarations, he had said—“I came of myself, I have spoken of myself, without receiving any commandment, authority, knowledge, or power from any superior. Of

mine own self I can do every thing-no one in me doeth the work." Suppose, too, that the whole tenor of his testimony had implied his personal independence, selfsufficiency, and all-sufficiency.

Suppose also, that the Unitarians had attempted to neutralize all this testimony, or to reconcile it to their hypothesis of the Son's dependence on God, by saying"When Christ used language which seems to imply personal independence, he is to be understood as speaking not of himself as a person, but of the DIVINE SPIRIT or miraculous wisdom and power with which he was endued by God-though he as a person was dependent, yet the Spirit of God, which was given to him not by measure, was independent, and could do every thing."

But

Now what would Trinitarians say to such a project for evading the force of our Lord's testimony? Would they not pronounce it impious? Might they not very justly affirm that when Christ used the pronouns I, myself, me, he spoke of himself as a person, and that his declarations unequivocally affirmed his independence and self-sufficiency? The case is so clear that I do not see any reply that a Unitarian could make to such a statement. if the supposed declarations of Christ respecting his personal independence would have been equivalent to saying "I am God, and there is none besides me," why should not his real and positive declarations respecting his entire dependence be regarded as equivalent to saying, “I am not the independent God?" Let prejudice keep silence while conscience answers the question as in the presence of the Lord.

BOSTON,

Press of I. R. Butts and Co.

CONVERSATIONS

BETWEEN A MINISTER AND A PARISHIONER, ON SOME COR

RUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

CONVERSATION I.

SUNDAY EVENING.

Parishioner. I could not have believed, if I had not heard with my own ears, that a minister of the gospel would speak of the Bible in the way you did in your lecture this evening. I hope you will not be offended if I tell you my mind plainly.

Minister. Certainly not ;-but you surprise me: I know not what you mean. I am not aware that I said any thing which could give offence to any one. I beg you will explain your meaning at once. Par. Why sir, you told us, at least so I understood you, "that there were some things in the Bible which ought not to be there; that this text had been altered, and that added without authority; and that a good many others were badly translated." Now I say, we may as well throw the Bible into the fire at once, as suffer it to be frittered away after this manner.