P. 240. “No person acquainted with the original can lay any stress upon those passages of the public version which speak of the disciples and others as worshipping Jesus." You throw dust in our eyes, Doctor, by confounding the worship of Elohim, with the worship or homage paid to kings; whereas no men understood the distinction better than the scripture characters. Yet you are confident that "the worship paid to Jesus was merely civil homage." Fairness on the question of worship requires that you should have given Jesus, the Lord Christ, the only begotten, his full titles. You add on this subject, the real prayer of Paul.

P. 244. "I besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from me." 2 Cor. xii. 8. "He was visited with some painful disease, usually supposed to have been a paralytic affection, which rendered his bodily presence weak, and his speech contemptible. 2 Cor. x. 10. It appears to me clear that the apostle addressed his request to Christ." You told us but fourteen pages back, that "we have no direct information that Jesus now in any way, or at any time, directly influences the minds of his disciples;" yet you here fully grant that "Paul addressed his request to Christ to heal his body of the palsy, and deliver his soul from the buffetings of Satan's messenger!!!" I hardly expected this grant, and yet the truth extorted it. With regard to the Apostle's infirmity, I prefer, as before stated, the opinion of Theophylact, who says that the thorn in the flesh was capitis dolorem, a nervous head-ache;

and nervous people are most liable to strong temptations. No doubt, the angel of Satan often suggested that he was quite unfit to preach, and suffer in every place, and that he had better return to his own home. But with regard to his speech, it was the false teachers who placed any infirmity he might have in the strongest light. The priests of Lystra thought him a Mercury of eloquence. Acts xiv. 12.

The fact, Doctor, is indisputable that the Jews and Proselytes to whom the New Testament was read, were in possession of the Old. They knew the prophecy of Joel, that after the effusion of the Spirit, and during the destruction of Jerusalem, it was promised that whosoever should call on the name of the Lord should be saved; and that there should be deliverance for the praying remnant all of which, according to Eusebius, came to pass, when the Christians fled to Pello, beyond the Jordan. Now, Sir, was it prudent for the apostles daily to preach and write to the churches such words as follow, if they believed, as you do, that it is quite uncertain whether Christ now have directly or indirectly, any spiritual concern with the affairs of his kingdom? "Lord here he hath authority to bind all that call on thy name." "Wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." To write to "all that in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus." And to make the whole church say, "Even so, come Lord Jesus?" Acts ix. 14; xxii. 16; 1 Cor. i. 2. Rev. xxii. 20.

If you have, Doctor, the temerity to class the

four Evangelists as Unitarians, let us hear what the four say of the entrance of our Saviour into Jerusalem. John says, xii. 13, 17, 18, "that the people went to meet him because the Jews bare record that he had raised Lazarus from the dead." On seeing him on the ass's colt, "the multitude that went before, and that followed after, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; Hosanna in the highest!" Matt. xxi. 9. Mark xi. 9, 10. You are aware, Doctor, that these words are part of the great Hallel, or course of prophetic psalms, which the people sung to JEHOVAH in their feasts. See Psalm cxviii. 14-29. You are aware that this word of joyous acclamation is from ckihah-na, save now Lord, I beseech thee. are equally aware that the homage now paid to the Lord Jesus, being that which the prophets had paid, excited the utmost horror in the minds of the priests, who were all, like you, believers in "the simple humanity of Jesus." "Hearest thou," said they, "what these say!!!" Did he make the three-fold apology which we have just seen one make for him? Quite the contrary: he answered, "If these hold their peace, the stones will cry out." Luke xix. 40.

Hos-
You

Nor should it escape remark, that the Saviour having once received Divine homage as the Messiah and king of Israel, never ceased to speak and act like a king. He cleansed his father's house; he confounded all disputants, the Sadducees, the Herodians, the lawyers. He augured the obstinacy of his country; Behold I send you apostles and prophets, and some of them ye shall kill and

crucify. He sentenced his obdurate country to exile; Behold your house (or temple) is left unto you desolate. He mixed his vengeance with grace; Ye shall not see me henceforth till ye join the acclamations of the multitude which are yet sounding in your ears, and say, "Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord."

You are now down, Doctor, you are fairly down; the four evangelists whom you had claimed, have turned evidence against you. The four living creatures, the lion, the ox, the eagle, and the man put their feet upon you. The great Angel raises his hand to heaven, and swears by him that liveth for ever and ever, that you shall rise no more till you also join the choir, and sing "Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord."

Heb. Chap. vii. Your arguments in this chapter, against the pre-existence of Christ, can have little weight with any who are acquainted with the early writings of the church, or who have read the extracts in Bishop Bull's defence of the Nicean fathers. Many of the texts have already been illustrated; and they abound with the usual distortions, suppressions, additions, and changes in the time of the verbs. Ex. "The second Adam will be the Lord from heaven." This contradicts Romans v. 15. where the apostle says, "grace hath abounded," not will abound by one-Jesus Christ. There is some difference between saying, "A man hath paid the debt, and a man will pay the debt." Again: "Moses esteemed the reproach of the anointed people." Yes, sir, the Israelites

K

were anointed, and plentifully too, with clay at the Brick-kilns. Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ who had called him to be the deliverer of his people. Your gloss is quite unique. Chap. viii. I entered on this chapter, after hearing that Bristol was filled with cards, and tracts wrapped round the cards with proposals of lectures on the atonement, and after hearing an answer announced to Bishop Magee; I entered, I say, on this chapter with an expectation of something like argument. Here is, in short, all that I found. A string of texts, promising forgiveness by the Divine clemency without any atonement or satisfaction; carefully avoiding, at the same time, all those texts which connect such pardons with blood. Paul twice says, "We have redemption in his (Christ's) blood, the forgiveness of sins." "God hath set him forth to be a propitiation for sin through faith in his blood." Did not God meet Noah at the atoning altar? Did not Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, die by fire, when they presumptuously offered fire unconnected with the atoning sacrifices? Did not Uzziah, David's friend, die when he thoughtlessly touched the Ark? "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins."

How strange to a Christian's, or even to an heathen's ear, to find the following remarks, p. 362: "Men were purified from their sins by contemplating his (Christ's) suffering virtues :" p. 365, "His death was to seal the covenant of free mercy and forgiveness:" p. 374, "The sprinkling of the blood of Christ is a moral purification:"