Sermons, p. 253. E. Hicks says, "He, (Jesus,) was tempted in all points as we are. Now how could he be tempted if he had been fixed in a state of perfection in which he could not turn aside. Could you suppose as rational beings that such a being could be _tempted_? No, not any more than God could be tempted. Perfection is perfection, and cannot be tempted, it is impossible." Here is an evident perversion of the Scriptures; for we nowhere find that Jesus yielded to temptation; and it is a most irrational conclusion, that because there was a tempter he was subject to temptation; and so far from such attempts evincing that _he was not perfect and could turn aside_; the resistance and reproof of the tempter proves, (and was probably intended to prove,) the very reverse. It is one thing to be tempted, and another to yield to temptation, and E. Hicks could not have forgotten that the authority from which he drew his account of the temptations likewise declares that though Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are, _yet without sin_." Heb. 4. 15. By E. Hicks's erroneous construction of the sentence, he could with equal ease prove the fallibility of the Almighty, for the Scriptures in several places speak of His being tempted by the people. Footnote 37: Sermons, p. 50. You say you believe that the Scriptures were written by divine inspiration, and that Jesus did nothing "but as he received power and command from His heavenly Father;"[38] and these Scriptures tell us that when the Pharisees began to reason and said "who can forgive sins but God alone?" Jesus answered, is it "easier to say thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, rise up and walk? But that ye may know that the _Son of Man hath power upon earth to forgive sins_, he said unto the sick of the palsy, I say unto thee arise, and take up thy couch and go unto thine house: and immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house glorifying God."[39] Footnote 38: New York Sermons, p. 97. Footnote 39: Luke, chap. 5th.