prophets, which are read every Sabbath-day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.-(Acts. xiii. 27.)

From all these considerations, it fully appears, that the arguments against any part of our blessed Saviour's personal or mediatorial character, which are deduced from the ignorance of his countrymen respecting it, are manifestly inconclusive, because it is clear, beyond all contradiction, that they were unacquainted with his real character. None more positive and secure than they in the justness of their opinions; none more awfully mistaken. This consideration ought most certainly to moderate the confidence of flaming zealots of every description, and incline them to contend for what they judge to be the truth with fear and trembling.

Do what you can, says the Socinian, you must either sacrifice the Unity to the Trinity, or the Trinity to the Unity, for they are incompatible. But who says it? Certainly not our Lord, who commands all nations to be baptized into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And if Dr. Priestly says it, then he says it without knowing it; for speaking like a judicious philosopher, he has told us, that probably the Divine Nature, besides being simply unknown to him, most essentially differs from the human in many circumstances, of which he hath no knowledge at all.

And I am,

Rev. Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

VERAX,

A CATHOLIC LAYMAN.

POSTSCRIPT.

Permit me here to ask you, in sober sense, would not a man be justly charged with blasphemy, were he to apply to

St. Peter, for instance, the following names, characters, and works of Jesus Christ,-were he to call him, "The Lamb "of God, which taketh away the sins of the world-Our "King, Prophet, and Priest-The High Priest of our pro❝fession, and a Priest for ever after the order of Melchise"deck-The Prince of Peace-Immanuel-The Word"The Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last-The Lion "in the Tribe of Judah-The Saviour and Redeemer-The "Son of God, his own Son, and his only begotten Son."That St. Peter redeemed the Church by his own blood"That he bare our sins in his own body on the tree-That we have redemption through his blood, and are reconciled "to God by his death-That there is no name but that of "St. Peter, by which we must be saved-That St. Peter "is made unto us of God, wisdom and righteousness, sanc"tification and redemption-That St. Peter dwelleth in our "hearts by Faith-And that there is no condemnation to "them that are in St. Peter." Were any one thus to speak of this great Apostle, what would the Christian world say of him? They would certainly call him either a madman or a blasphemer. Nor would their indignation against his conduct be much abated, were they to hear him once and again acknowledge, "That Jesus Christ is greater than St. Peter; for they would boldly tell him, that, by such a declaration, he only contradicted himself, and tacitly confessed his blasphemy. Nor would it avail such a one to say, That the application he makes of the character and attributes, the grace and works of Jesus Christ, to Peter, is only by way of allusion and accommodation; for it would quickly be replied, Such allusions and accommodations are impious, are absolutely unwarrantable, are pregnant with blasphemy. If then an application of the principal characters, attributes, and works of our Lord to St. Peter, would be considered and treated by Christians as abominable

blasphemy, it must be a much higher degree of that malig. nant crime, to apply the names and titles, the attributes and works, of the Supreme Being to Jesus Christ, if he be not a Divine Person. Nor is it any wonder that the Jews should so consider it; for if the disproportion between Jesus and Peter be great, that which is between Christ and God is inconceivably greater, according to the principles of our opponents; the former being finite, the latter unbounded. Consequently, the blasphemy, in the one case, is infinitely greater than that in the other. Now, as the Apostles foresaw that false teachers would arise in future ages, and were able to describe their heretical doctrines, they could not be ignorant, that vast multitudes, professing Christianity, would so apostatize, as to put Jesus Christ, a mere creature, in the place of God. But if they knew and foresaw these things, ought not a zealous regard for the honour of God, and a tender concern for the souls of men, to have prevented their applying these oracles of the Old Testament, which express the glory of Jehovah in contradiction to that of his creatures, to Jesus Christ? Who then, on the principles of them we oppose, can justify the conduct of the Apostles in so doing? Who can exculpate Jesus himself, by whose command and inspiration they wrote? Who can justly condemn the conduct of the Sanhedrim, who arraigned him for blasphemy, and caused him to end his life on the cross, as an enemy to God and a deceiver of men? Or who can blame the modern Jews for continuing in their infidelity?

But I assert here, without fear of contradiction, that the very heathens, in the primitive age of Christianity, little as they knew about Christians, discovered that they made Christ an object of worship. So says Pliny in writing to Trajan (Lib. 10, Ep. 97): "Carmen Christo, quasi deo, Soliti essent (i. e. Christiani), dicere secum invicem."

Eusebius also (Eccl. Hist. v. 28), in writing against the Artemonites, appeals to the ancient songs of Christians thus: "Whatever Psalms and Hymns were composed by faithful brethren, from the beginning, praise Christ, the Word of God." Can any example of a church in the apostolic age which did not practice this be produced? Did not our Saviour himself give his disciples a general precept and encouragement to make him the object of prayer ?—“ If f ye shall ask anything in my name,"-i. e. as my disciples, on my account-said he to the Apostles, "I will do it." -(St. 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 New Testament, I find more of this nature than of any other.

LETTER XI.

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

ON THOSE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE WHICH EXPRESS THE IDEA OF DEPENDENCE IN JESUS CHRIST

UPON THE FATHER.

REV. SIR,

As our opponents object, with confidence, all those passages of Scripture which express the idea of DEPEN

DENCE, in Jesus Christ, upon the Father. They, therefore, frequently confront us with those texts which assert, that Christ does "nothing of himself; " that he does "those works which the Father gave him to do;" that "the Son knoweth not the hour of the last judgment; " that "the Father is greater than he;" and that "the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father," at the consummation of all things. On each of these, and on similar passages, they argue against us. But as they make, in reality, but one difficulty, we shall consider them altogether, and give them but one reply.

Here, then, it may be observed, that we frequently meet with such declarations in Scripture, as are, in appearance, directly opposite to these. There we behold our Lord acting according to his own will; acting with a sovereign authority; acting as absolutely independent. "Be it unto thee even as thou wilt.-I will, be thou clean.-Thy sins be forgiven thee." There also we are assured, that he is "one with the Father, and equal with God; " that he "knoweth all things, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Now, these passages, with many of a similar kind, appear contradictory to those on which our adversaries argue, but they are not, they cannot be so, in reality; because they were all indited by the same spirit, who is not liable to error and contradiction. Consequently, of two hypothesis, that which makes them clash and renders them irreconcileable must be false; and that which proves their consistency bids fair to be true, and is abundantly preferable. The former, I am firmly persuaded, is the character of the Socinian, the latter of our hypothesis.

By what medium, for instance, will the Socinians. shew me, that Christ is equal with his Father, and yet inferior to him? For, according to them, he is inferior, infinitely inferior to the Father by nature. Is he, then,