ples, on my account, said he to the apostles, "I will accomplish it." John xiv. 13, 14. They appear to me to have understood this, as directing that he should be regarded by them as the special object of prayer. Hence, instead of finding few or no examples of prayer to Christ, in the history of the primitive Christians as exhibited in the N. Test., I find more of this nature than of any other.

When I have contemplated the precepts, which encourage prayer to Christ and the worship of him, both by the inhabitants of the heavenly world, and by the churches on earth; I then compare these things with the exclusive worship and trust, which Jehovah claims to himself. Is. xlv. 22, 23. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." Is. xlii. 8. “I am the Lord; that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." Jer. xvii. 5-7. "Thus saith the Lord, Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is." Matth. iv. 10. "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and HIM ONLY shalt thou serve.' I am ready now to ask, whether I can avoid coming to the conclusion, either that Christ is truly divine, in as much as he is so often represented as the object of worship; or that the sacred writers have mistaken this great point, and, led us to that, which must be considered as idolatry. And yet the worship of Christ is placed as it would seem, in opposition to that of idols. 1 Cor. viii. 46. That Christianity utterly and forever renounces all idolatry-all polytheism, in a word, every thing inconsistent with the worship of one only living and true God, is a point so plain and so universally conceded, that I shall not dwell for a moment upon it. Were it not that I fear becoming tedious, by detailing my reasons for believing in the divine nature of Christ, I

should add a great number of texts, which require us with all the heart to love him: to obey him; to confide in him and to commit ourselves to him; in such a manner as I can never persuade myself to do, with respect to any being, who is not God. The New Testament tells me that my consolation, my privilege-my happiness must be derived from trusting in Christ. But can I trust myself to a finite being, when I have an infinite, almighty, all-sufficient GOD, to whom I may go? Shall I be satisfied with a mite, when I

can have the mines of Peru?

I should also add those texts, some of which are very striking ones, where, in the New Testament, the very same things are applied to Christ, which in the Old Testament are affirmed of Jehovah. Some of these follow.

Is. vi. 5-10. Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar. And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips, and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I, send me.

And he said, Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Mal. iii. 1. Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in; behold, he shall come saith the Lord of hosts.

John xii. 37-41. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him; that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He bath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory and spake of him.

Mark i. 2. As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Ps. lxxviii. 56. Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies.

1 Cor. x. 9. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

It were easy to increase the number of such passages as these, but I shall desist. Instead of that want of evidence, in the N. Test., with respect to the divinity of Christ, of which you repeatedly speak, and in strong terms; I find evidence almost every where to illustrate and confirm the doctrine in question.

Thus have I endeavoured to show, that the N. Test. ber stows upon Christ the appellation of God, accompanied by such adjuncts as naturally, (not to say necessarily,) lead us to understand this word, in its highest sense; that it attri butes to him equality with God; that it represents him as the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the universe; declares his omniscience, his omnipotence, and his eternity; and both by precepts and examples, exhibits Christ as the object of prayer and divine worship, by the church in heaven and on earth. To these conclusions, do the plain rules of exegesis necessarily conduct me. I am sensible that allegations are frequently made, that we receive our systems of belief from the Creeds and Confessions of faith, which have descended from former unenlightened, and superstitious or philosophizing ages. That some of our phraseology has been derived from men, who sometimes speculated too boldly, and substituted names for ideas; I am ready to concede. I feel the embarrassments, that on account of this, are occasionally thrown in the way of inculcating truth, at the present time. Men are very apt to suppose, that if you throw away the old terms, or names, you reject the old ideas also. Yet it can be only superficial thinkers, who will soberly believe this. It is in general, therefore, a sufficient reason with me for dismissing phraseology, when it must almost of necessity, be misunderstood by the great body of men. Yet a sudden and entire revolution in the common technical terms of theology, would be very undesirable; because such a revolution must again lead, at first, to other misapprehensions. I am willing, therefore to retain many terms, which have become venerable for their antiquity, that I should reject without hesitation, if they were now presented de novo. I am not conscious of being led to the adoption of Trinitarian views, or to the ascription of true and proper Divinity to Christ, by any Creed or any human authority on

earth. Unless I am quite ignorant of myself, the only influence which Creeds and Confessions exercise over me, is to modify my phraseology. I take the language of theology as I find it; and do not venture upon the composition of a new nomenclature.

My sole business, these ten years past, has been the study of the Bible; and the study of it, in the daily use of those principles of exegesis, which you have for the most part, so briefly and so happily described. I began this study, as I believed, with a desire to know what the Bible has taught. I have pursued it with increased desire, with unabated ardour. I have limited my studies to no one class of writers; but have solicitously endeavoured to seek for truth, and to receive it thankfully, from whatever quarter it might come. In particular; at least three quarters of my time have been spent among writers of the Unitarian class, from whom I have received, with gratitude, much instruction relative to the philology, the exegesis, and the literary history of the Scriptures. I am accustomed to reject any explanation of the Scriptures, that is not founded upon the general principles of exegesis, which you have developed. Whether an orthodox or heterodox use can be made of any interpretation, is what I habitually endeavour to lay out of view, when I interpret the Scriptures. The simple question, which I desire to place before me is; "What has God said? What has Christ taught?" I aim at being guided by the fundamental principles of explanation in all writings, when I pursue these inquiries in the Scriptures. And when I come to a satisfactory answer, I regard this as of divine authority; as real orthodoxy, in the highest and best sense of the word.

I do not, indeed, regard the opinions of great and good men, in past ages, as unworthy of attention and even of reverence. If I read them with a proper temper of mind, there are few of them who may not be read with profit. The reasonings of Athanasius and Augustine, I can peruse with pleasure; so I can those of Calvin and Edwards. But I adopt no opinion because they adopted it. The reasons of their opinion are the object of my investigation; it is of but little interest to me, to know simply that they believed this or that doctrine. And with the very same object, I read the opponents of these great men. I can say with truth, that much more of my reading life has been spent among

the opponents of my sentiments, than among the friends of them. Can you make the same affirmation?

After all, it is a principle, by which, if I have any knowledge of my own heart, I desire forever to be guided, to "call no man master, on earth." I would place the deci sion of Scripture, fairly made out IMMEASURABLY ABOVE all human opinions. I regard the one as the decision of an unerring GOD; the other as the opinions of fallible men. It is with such views and principles of reasoning, that I have come to the conclusions, which have been developed in these letters.

And now, in concluding this letter, permit me to say, That as reason does not, and cannot decide against the doctrine of the Trinity, as explained in my second Letter; nor against the union of the divine and human natures in Christ; the question whether these are truths or not, rests solely on the decision of revelation. What then is that decision? This question I have endeavoured to answer.

I will now acknowledge, that I was induced to undertake the above examination, in consequence of the challenge which you make, [p. 9,] in the following words; "We chal lenge our opponents, to adduce one passage in the New Testament, where the word God....unless turned from its usual sense by the connexion, does not mean the Father." I have accepted this challenge, not I hope in the spirit of contest, but with the desire of contributing, so far as lies in my power, to develope what the New Testament does teach. I have laboured to show, that the very reason above all other reasons, why I believe Christ to be truly divine, is because the connexion, when he is called God, ascribes to him such attributes and works, as leave me no room to doubt, that the New Testament writers meant to assert his proper divinity.

After stating your apprehensions, in regard to the doc trine that Christ has two natures, the belief of which, you affirm, is "an enormous tax on human credulity;" you say, [p. 14,] "I am aware, that these remarks will be met by two or three texts, in which Christ is called God, and by a class of passages not very numerous, in which divine prop erties are said to be ascribed to him." Whether the number of texts, in which Christ is called God, amounts to no more than two or three, it would be superfluous now to inquire, when they lie before us, and can easily be counted. We can also judge, whether the "class of passages" is "not