that THE FATHER hath sent me." "I seek not mine own will, but the will of THE FATHER who hath sent me." "My meat is to do the will of HIм that sent me, and to finish HIS work."

It is then manifest, from the predictions of the Jewish prophets, from the miracles which he wrought by the power of God, and from his own declarations, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the anointed, the sent of God: but if God anointed and sent him for the purpose of executing his will, in the recovery of mankind from error, sin and death, he could not be himself God: the anointed must be a person wholly distinct from the Anointer-the sent from the Sender.

2." IVhat think ye of Christ ?" That he was a man, a proper human being. It is evident that the apostles were of this opinion, for they never once addressed him as God, but uniformly as one of the human race. There is not a person in this assembly who could possibly have conversed so familiarly with the Supreme Being, as the apostles and first disciples conversed with their revered Master. They invariably treated him as a man; indeed, they occasionally went so far as to expostulate with and rebuke him; and when he was apprehended as an enemy to his country, they all forsook him and fled;" but never in one instance did they treat him as JEHOVAH, their Creator and Governor. Can any of you, my friends, conceive it credible, that they would expostulate with and rebuke the ALMIGHTY to his face; or that they would desert him, when under the pres sure of the most accumulated difficulties? Impossible!

Nor did they, after the resurrection of Jesus, ever entertain a different opinion of his person. The two disciples, when on the road to Emmaus, did not say to the supposed stranger, they had entertained the opinion that Jesus of Nazareth was God, but a PROPHET mighty in deed and in word before God and all the people; and that they "trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel;' i. e. delivered their nation from the Roman yoke, and made them a great and independent people; and though they -subsequently formed more correct views of the spiritual nature of the Messiah's kingdom, they did not alter their opinion of his proper humanity.

Our Lord's own language clearly shews that he considered his heavenly Father as a being entirely distinct from himself, and that he was inferior and subordinate to him. "No man," says he, "taketh my life from me, but I lay it

VOL. XII.

down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.' But was this power inherently his own? Certainly not; for he thus closes the sentence: "This commandment have I received of my Father.” This," says he, "is life eternal, that they might know THEE, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom THOU hast sent." "As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do." "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept MY FATHER'S commandments, and abide in his love." All things that I have heard of MY FATHER, I have made known unto you." "Whatsoever ye shall ask THE FATHER in my name, HE will give it you." "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but THE FATHER.' "To sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by MY FATHER."

If then there were things which Jesus did not possess, if there were future events the time of the fulfilment of which he was ignorant, if all that he had was given to him, and if the Father, to whom he prayed, was the only true, God, Jesus must necessarily have been a distinct being, inferior to his Father and subordinate to him and he himself positively declared, "My Father is greater than I." How can any person, therefore, with these plain passages before him in the New Testament, presume to assert that he and his Father are one being, and that he is equal to his Father in power and dignity?

Does not prayer, let me ask, imply dependence and want? But on whom can the SUPREME BEING be dependent? Or in what circumstances can he be placed to render the aid of another being necessary? We find, however, that Jesus prayed to God with as much humility and resignation as any of his followers, which he never would have done were he himself God. Why should one God pray to another God if they were both equal? Or why should God pray to himself? Or why should one-third of the Godhead pray to one of the other thirds, omitting entirely the remaining third? Or if it be said it was the human nature only of Jesus that prayed, why did it not pray to the divine nature with which (according to the popular creed) it was so intimately united? The very idea of Jesus praying to his Father destroys their supposed equality. When the Saviour was overwhelmed with afflic

tion in the garden of Gethsemane, we are informed that "there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him." But surely, my friends, GOD ALMIGHTY could not need the support, advice and consolation of an angel; nor could HE" in whom we live and move and have our being," suffer agony and distress! If we suppose this, we DETHRONE him, and make the Great EterNAL "such a one as ourselves."

In all the prophecies relating to the Messiah, he is uniformly spoken of as a man. His history by the four evangelists is the bistory of a man who atted under a divine commission. In all the sermons delivered by the apostles, they spoke of their Master as a proper human being: indeed their testimony, as recorded in the book of Acts, relates entirely to a man whom God raised from the dead and exalted to dominion and glory. Peter told his countrymen that Jesus of Nazareth was "a man approved of God, by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him;" that "this Jesus hath God raised up ;" and that "God hath made that same Jesus whom they had crucified both Lord and Christ," Paul told the people of Antioch, (speaking of David,) that " of this man's seed hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus." And," said he, "be it known unto you, men and brethren, that through THIS MAN is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." When addressing the Athenians, he informed them that "God hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom He hath ordained." In fact, though the Acts of the Apostles contains a history of the Christian Church for about thirty years, there is not a single word or even a hint given in it respecting Jesus Christ being God. Now, my friends, is not this truly astonishing if the doctrine of the Trinity be true? Had Luke (the supposed author of this history) been a Trinitarian, it is impossible that he could have thus written: he would undoubtedly, as other Trinitarian historians have since done, have made every thing bend to the support of his favourite system.

The plain, literal language of the apostles in their epistles, also, is entirely in favour of Unitarianism, for they write concerning their exalted Master as having been a divinely-commissioned human being.

Paul tells the Romans that Jesus " was made of the seed of David" that he was raised from the dead by

the glory of the Father;" that those who believe “that God hath raised him from the dead shall be saved." The same eminent Apostle declares to the Corinthians, that "Christ is God's," and that "the head of Christ is God." To the Galatians he says, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.' To the Ephesians, that God "put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to his Church." To the Philippians, that "God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name;" and that " every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord- -TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER." To the Colossians, that "it pleased the Father that in Christ should all fulness dwell;" and that he " now sitteth on the right hand of God." And to Timothy, that "there is ONE GOD and one Mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus." The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, that "in all things it behoved Jesus to be made like unto his brethren." Peter declares that "God raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be IN GOD;" and "that God in all things may be glorified, through Jesus Christ." And John says, 66 Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, (i. e. a proper man,) is not of God." The Apocalypse is styled the Revelation. of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him." In this book Jesus repeatedly designates his Father, MY GOD; he also affirms that he received power from his Father; and that he is set down with his Father in his throne. Wherever Christ is here introduced, he is spoken of as a man; and indeed throughout the Scriptures, every thing ascribed to him is consistent with his proper humanity.

It may be farther observed, in addition to this powerful Scripture evidence, that the great body of Christians, for the first two hundred years and upwards, were, in the strictest sense, believers in the proper humanity of Christ, or, in other words, they were Unitarians: I hesitate not, therefore, to maintain, with the fullest assurance, that our blessed Lord and Saviour was truly a man commissioned by God; and consequently, that Unitarianism is supported by the strongest proof that can possibly be adduced.

(To be concluded in the next Number.)

SIR,

Anecdote of the late John IVesley.

Chatham, March 14, 1826. THE following was communicated to me some years back by a pious gentleman, who received it immediately from Miss Perronet herself; its authenticity may therefore be safely asserted, while it adds another to the sum of Anecdote relative to the late Rev. John Wesley.

The celebrated John Wesley, being once on a visit at the vicarage house of the late Rev. Vincent Perronet, of Shoreham, in Kent, a clergyman of congenial sentiments with the founder of Methodism, was asked by the daughter of the latter, what was his opinion of Dr. Watts on the Preexistence of Christ, which he [Mr. W.] had been recently reading to which he gave answer, That having perused to a certain portion of the work, he threw the book away from him, adding, Had I proceeded further I should have become AN ARIAN.

:

On this retrograde effect of the Doctor's argument on the mind of Mr. Wesley, I had intended making some ob servations, but considering such conduct has coupled with it its own comment, I therefore subjoin no more.

Langlands, Baron of Wilton.

(From Wilson's History of Hawick.)...-

T. C. A.

An adventure of no ordinary description is related of one of the ancestors of this feudal chief. In the dark ages, ere John Knox had promulgated his doctrines of Reform, which overthrew the power and mummery of the Roman priesthood in Scotland, the laird of the Barony of Wilton went to loggerheads with mother Church.

The Baron's lands paid tithe to the Abbacy of Melrose. An account of this kind had been due by his honour for some time, which he refused to pay, on the plea of an overcharge; and at length a monk was despatched from Melrose to wait upon him, and to get matters settled without farther delay. The clerical messenger, on the morning after he had reached Hawick, was taking a walk previous to calling at the Mansion-house; and, about a mile from the town, near Heap, met the refractory debtor of the