image of his (that is God's) perfon, and upholding all things by the word of his (that is God's) power, &c. fat down on the right hand of the majesty on high. It is plain from this paffage, that whatever Chrift is, he is by divine appoint'ment, whom he APPOINTED heir of all things.

A

Afterwards this writer proceeds to prove that Chrift is 'fuperior to angels, and at the clofe of this argument, he ' has these words, but concerning the fon he fays, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; or as it may be rendered, God is thy throne for ever and ever; that is, God will establish "the authority of Chrift till time fhall be no more. Sceptre of righteousness is the fceptre of thy kingdom. Thou haft loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. From this paffage nothing can be more plain, than that whatever authority belongs to Chrift, he has a fuperior from whom he derives it; God, even thy God, has с anointed thee. This could never have been faid of the one 'true God, whofe being and power are underived.

'

In verfes 10, 11, 12, the apostle quotes an address to 'God, as the great Creator and everlasting Ruler of the 'universe, but without any hint of its being applied to Christ, 'from Pfalm cii. 25, 27. And thou, Lord, in the beginning haft laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They fhall perish, but thou remaineft; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they fhall be changed: but thou art the fame, and thy years shall not 'fail. This quotation was probably made with a view to exprefs the great honour conferred on Chrift, on account of the dignity of the perfon who conferred it. For it immediately follows, ver. 13, But to which of the angels faid he, that is, the great Being to whom this description belongs, Sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy foot-flool. Or, fince this quotation from the ‹ Pfalmist describes a perpetuity of empire in God, it may 'be intended to intimate a perpetuity of empire in Christ

• who

'who holds his authority from God, and who must hold ' it, unless God himself be unable to support it.'

This, Sir, I hope, will be a leffon to you in your future attempts at controversy, and teach you not to write from imagination only, but to have some facts to go upon. What would you think of a judge, or jury, who should treat a criminal as you have done me, that is, condemn him not only without evidence, but contrary to evidence, and that of the plaineft kind?

I do not profess, any more than you do, in this correspondence, to enter into the controversy itself, but only to confider the principle, or ground, on which it proceeds. I cannot, however, avoid obferving with refpect to these quotations from the Pfalms, by the writer of the epiftle to the Hebrews (which you, I doubt not, think fo decifively in favour of the proper divinity of Chrift, that I must renounce all scripture authority before I can evade the force of them) that if your interpretation be juft, worfe confequences will follow than any of those which you have ascribed to my principles, and which it behoves you and your friends to confider. It is, that if the perfon here described by the characters of him who laid the foundation of the earth, the work of whofe hands are the heavens, who will even change them with as much ease as a garment, and who is for ever unchangeably the fame, be descriptive of Christ, there is no fuch person as God the Father at all. For, certainly, the Being who is thus defcribed by the Pfalmift was the only God that he acknowledged, or that is acknowledged in all the Old Testament, and confequently in the New. For make what you will of the word elohim, there certainly is but one Jehovah. And thus that great Being, to whom Christ himself prayed, as the only true God, John xvii. 3. will not only be no God at all, but an abfolute non-entity, and whose absence from the creation would not be miffed. Blafphemous and dreadful confequences are frequently afcribed to my opinions; but what are they, Sir, in comparifon of this? It is more than dethroning; it is no lefs than annihilating

annihilating, the Almighty Maker of all things, and setting up a mortal man (one who actually did die, and whom God raised from the dead) in his place.

There is another paffage of fcripture in the interpretation of which you exceedingly exult, viz. Pf. cx. 1. quoted by our Saviour as applicable to the Meffiah, calling any interpretation that I can give of it, p. 19, "the very extreme "of impiety, hoftile to the authority of the New Teftament, "and utterly inconsistent with his character who was en"dued with the holy Spirit without measure." You hereupon request my explicit answer to our Lord's question, If David then call him Lord, how is he his fon. "No doubt," you infultingly add, "your fuperior advantages of know"ledge, in this as in all other refpects, will effectually "fecure you from the embarrassment, and confequent "filence of those to whom the question was originally "propounded."

Now, Sir, I feel no embarrassment on the subject, and therefore no caufe for the filence to which you imagine you have reduced me. The Pharifees confidered their Meffiah as another David, viz. a great king and conqueror; nor does it appear that they had any idea of his being a perfon fuperior to David in any respect. It might, therefore, well puzzle them to find that David fhould call him Lord; as I think it must not a little puzzle you to make out how a God could be the Son of man, or how it should be neceffary that Jesus should have the Spirit of God without measure, to enable him to work miracles, if he had that power in himself, independent of this Spirit, or of that God whofe Spirit it is. Meanly as, in your idea, we Unitarians think of Christ, we confider him as a perfon greatly fuperior to David, and very juftly called his Lord and Mafter, as well as ours. When his proper kingdom takes place, he will be king over David himself. If you ask how came one man to be fo greatly exalted above others, I afk how came David, who was only a shepherd's boy, to be made so great a king?

Whether

Whether Jefus confidered the paffage he quoted as originally relating to himself, or whether he only argued with the Pharifees, as he frequently did, on their own principles, does not appear. I feel no embarrassment in consequence of either fuppofition, though I confider the passage as relating to David, or Solomon, only. But this fubject I have difcuffed elsewhere. What I have advanced is fubmitted to the judgment of the public, and I am willing that it should ftand or fall by its own weight.

I am, &c.

LETTER III.

Of the Reasons for appealing to Early Opinions concerning the Perfon of Chrift.

REV. SIR,

OUR account of the ground, or principle, of my en!

YOUR account of

quiry into the sentiments of the early Chriftians concerning the person of Christ appears as strange to me, as your account of my treatment of fcripture authority on the fubject. That fo very plain a bufinefs, and for which I have fo frequently given the plaineft reafons, could be fo greatly misunderstood, and misreprefented, is, I think, not a little extraordinary. "It has as often," you fay, p. 5, "as I have confidered the fubject, appeared to me in a "high degree prepofterous to advert to early opinions in proof of a doctrine, which, from its nature, can ulti"mately be determined by the fcriptures only. Difcuffions "of this nature," you fay, p. 6, "can do little more than "excite the fneer of infidelity, and are manifeftly incon"gruous and abfurd." Again, p. 28, you represent them

as

as "an ingenious attempt to bring the only decifive mode "of proof into difcredit," and call my arguments "me"diums of proof which in the determination of this con"troversy are little better than learned impertinences.

As it is evident that you have never read, or, which comes to the fame thing, have never confidered, what I have already advanced on this fubject, I shall once more place before you two of the paffages which fufficiently explain the reasons of my conduct. To the author of Primitive Candour I fay, p. 98, I am not a little furprized that this ' learned and ingenious writer should need to be informed, 'that, to ascertain the opinion of the chriftian world in the age immediately following that of the apoftles, cannot but be of great use in order to ascertain the opinion of the apoftles themselves, and confequently the true fense of their writings. There may be many caufes which at this dif 'tance of time may mislead us in our interpretation of their 'writings; but they must have been understood by those for whose use they were written, and who could have had • recourse to the writers themselves to explain their meaning, ' if it had been doubtful.

I have no doubt but that, if this writer himfelf could clearly prove, from independent evidence, that the com'mon people among the early chriftians, both Jews and Gentiles, were fuch Trinitarians as he is, he would make no fmall account of the fact, as being nearly decifive in proof of the apostles having been Trinitarians, and that the doctrine of the trinity is contained in their writings. 'I think that I can prove that the chriftians of the early ages were Unitarians, and this is one reafon, independent of my own interpretation of their writings, why I con'clude that the apostles were fo.'

с

In my letter to Mr. Barnard, I fay to the fame purpose, p. 83, You think it extraordinary, p. 334, that I should • have recourse to fuch guides as the fathers to fettle my opinion concerning the doctrine of the trinity, thinking,

I fuppcfe, that the ftudy of the fcriptures might render all ' other