two truths are established; from the following they may be inferred.

3. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the living and the dead. Rom. xiv. 9. To you, Admiral, and to every sensible man who dares to think for himself, it must be evident, that had Christ been GOD, co-equal to, and co-eternal with the Father, He was already, in his own divine right, Lord, both of the dead and the living; and that He had no occasion either to die, or rise again, in order to become so.

4. In speaking of GOD, St. Paul very generally calls Him the GOD, and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ. This expression presupposes the supremacy of the Father, and the inferiority of the Son. See 2. Cor. i. 3.—xi. 31.—Gal. i. 1.—Eph. 1. 3, 17. From what I have stated, the two Apostolical Truths will be established; and it will, I think, appear to you pretty certain that St. Paul knew nothing of the divinity of onr Lord, or yet of the fiction of two natures-the talisman of modern theologians, concerning which Scripture says not a word. What I have stated will also, I trust, further prove to you that this notable passage (1. Cor. viii. 6.) may be safely used as a Key for ascertaining the Genera! Testimony of Scripture. Adml. As far as regards the testimony of St. Paul, your inferences seem to be correct; but what say the other inspired writers on the subject? Capt. They all confirm the two truths of the Apostolical Key.

1. St. Peter (1. Ep. i. 3.) says Blessed be the GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ. See also 2. Pet. i 17.

2. St. James says (i. 27.) Pure religion and undefiled before GOD and the FATHER is this, &c. And, Therewith (with the tongue) bless we GOD, even the FATHER. James iii. 9. 3. St. John (1. Ep. ii. 1.) says, If any man sin, with the FATHER, Jesus Christ the righteous. Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from GOD the our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the FATHER.

we have an advocate And, (2. John 3.) FATHER, and from

4. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by GOD the FATHER, and preserved in Jesus Christ.

From all these texts, it will plainly appear to you that the writings of the other Apostles are in accordance weth the Key of St. Paul; and that, that Key may, therefore, be safely taken as a test for ascertaining what is the General Testimony of Scripture regarding the divinity of Jesus.

Adml. Here again, my friend, your inferences appear to be just; but, before I give my assent to them, I would wish you to lay before me the evidence of Jesus himself; for, should this evidence materially differ from that of his Apostles, in the state of uncertainty in which I now find myself, I should be inclined to doubt both parties.

Capt. You would be justified in so doing; but, happily for the cause of Christian truth, the testimony of Jesus is in the strictest agreement with that of St. Paul, and the other Apostles, as it regards the two truths to which I have so repeatedly directed your attention. As, however, the discussion of this subject will, necessarily, occupy some length of time, we

will, if you please, defer it till our next interview. In the interim, permit me to recommend you to read the New Testament with care and attention, as it regards the two truths in question; and with devout prayer to the Father of light, not only to open the eyes of your mind, and remove from you all prejudice and error, but to give you the apostolical courage boldly to defend, and proclaim those truths which you shall there find revealed. I should not, my kind friend, have presumed thus to advise you, but, from a knowledge that the orthodox in general, including the clergy, only study one side of the question. I would, therefore, further recommend to you, along with the Scriptures, to peruse the works of controversial writers on both sides of the question. Read the controversy between Bp. Horsley and Dr. Priestley. Read the Apology of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey on resigning the vicarage of Catterick, and the Sequel to that work; with a Scriptural Refutation &c. by Dr. Burgh. Read Dr. Wardlaw's Discourses on the Socinian Controvercy, with the Reply, and Sequel, by the Rev. Ja. Yates. I would also recommend to your attention the Controversy between Abp. Magee and Dr. Carpenter. After reading these, or only a part of them, I am inclined to think, your confidence in your long-cherished opinions will be shaken for, as I have just observed, the theological studies of the orthodox are directed to only one side of the question. This is the case with dissenting ministers, as well as with the established clergy: they may say, as Bp. Smallridge said to William Whiston, I dare not examine, I dare not examine. For if we should examine and find that you are right, the church has been in error so many hundred years.

Should you, Admiral, after due inquiry, arrive at the same conclusions I have done, and think it your duty to proclaim your opinions, you will not only lose many friends, but create many enemies. You will lose, what we all highly value, your good name. You will be held up to derision and scorn, as a man deserting the religion of your forefathers-as one given to change-denying the God that bought you. You will be pointed at, preached at, prayed at, as an infidel, a half-jew, half-mohammedan, a Socinian. All these epithets you will find in the columns of the Standard, or pages of the Quarterly, the Trumpeters of the Established Clergy. Added to all this, if you have any favour to ask at the Admiralty, for yourself, or your friends, your applications will avail you little; for their Lordships regard those who dissent from the Church as enemies to the State. If, Admiral, you can stand all this, you may proclaim yourself a Unitarian; otherwise, if your concience will permit, keep your religious opinions to yourself: this you will find the most conducive to your present ease and comfortthe most certain way to promote the prosperity, and respectabilty of your family. How few avowed dissenters, Admiral, do we find in the ranks of the noble and the great! Now, as in the days of the Apostles, we may truly say, "The friendship of the world is enmity with God."

On the use, and excellence, of THE KEY OF JESUS for opening the HOLY SCRIPTURES.

Adml. Since our last interesting conversation, I have thought much on the subject; and, if you have not persuaded me to adopt your religious opinions, you have done much to shake my confidence in the opinions I have so long cherished-opinions, which I cannot, without the greatest violence to my feelings, relinquish they were inculcated by parents and teachers, whom I truly loved and venerated. These opinions form, as it were, a part of myself-I have hitherto held them as almost too sacred to be doubted, or inquired into. I should, however, be glad to hear from you the testimony of Jesus concerning his own inferiority, and the ABSOLUTE SUPREMACY OF THE FATHER: for, as already remarked, it is on these two points that the whole controversy seems to hinge.

Capt. The Testimony of Jesus is in perfect accordance with that of St. Paul and the other Apostles. This will appear to be the case, because;

1. Our Lord directs-possitively directs-prayer to be addressed to the FATHER, When ye pray, say OUR FATHER. From this command, we may, with almost unerring certainty, infer that the FATHER is the only legitimate object of divine worship; and, consequently, that HE is the only supreme GOD—the GOD of GODS, (Ps. cxxxvi. 2.)—HE whose name alone is JEHOVAH. (Ps. lxxxiii. 18.) Our Saviour himself confirms this by his practise,-by his uniformly, in his wants and distresses, praying to the FATHER. If Jesus were God, or equal to, or of the same substance with the Father, nothing could be conceived more absurd, not to say hypocritical, than both the prayers, and command of our Lord; for, on the above supposition, we convict Jesus of praying to himself, or to his substance. As if, however, to guard men aganist such errors, and, at the same time to preserve his followers from the sin of idolatry, he tells them that true worshippers shall worship the FATHER in spirit and in truth, for the FATHER sceketh such to worship HIM. John iv. 23.

2. Our Lord confesses himself inferior to the FATHER in knowledge, when he says, Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark xiv. 32.

3. Jesus also confesses himself inferior to the Father when he says, To sit on my right hand and on my left hand, is not mine to give; Mark x. 40. And, Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray unto my FATHER, and HE shall presently send me more than twelve legions of Angels? Matt. xxvi. 53. In all the above passages we find the same Gospel truths-the absolute supremacy of the FATHER, and the positive inferiority of the Son.

Adml. But, my friend, may not this inferiority apply to his Human Nature only, and not to his Divine Nature?

Capt. Yon are now, my good friend, departing from the language of Scripture, and adopting that of priests and schoolmen-of men fallible and uninspired. You are making, not explaining, Scripture. Yon are assuming as true, that which never has been, and never can be proved from Scripture; viz, that Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of GOD-a man whom God raisedup—whom HE exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, was, at the very same time GOD. (Acts ii. 22.—v. 31.) Consider, Admiral, that this doctrine of yours assumes that this Jesus, whom GOD raised and exalted is himself, the very being so raised and exalted, also the very GOD—or of the same snbstance with that GOD-who raised and exalted him. Your doctrine assumes that he who was once a helpless child in swadling clothes, and laid in a manger; who was afterwards a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, was, all the while, the Supreme GOD, infinitely great and infinitely happy in heaven. He who can believe these things may bring himself to believe any thing, however contrary to his intuitive knowledge— to his internal perceptions of truth and falsehood. He need not boggle at the doctrine of Transubstantiation: for, that God whose power is infinitewho from the very stones can raise up children unto Abraham-can, with equal ease, transform himself into a wafer as into a man. In defence of this their favourite doctrine, the Catholics appeal to the very words of Jesus This is my body; but your doctrine has no such support. It is based on inferences-inferences alike weak and presumptuous. Not being able to reconcile those parts of Scripture which speak of Jesus as a man-a man like other men-with those that speak of him as God, theologians have invented the doctrine of two natures. I say invented, because this doctrine, the corner stone of Orthodoxy, is never once mentioned by either our Lord,' or any of his Apostles. Independently of this want of direct scriptural testimony, there are many weighty objections to this doctrine. On one of these, I beg to submit a few remarks to your consideration.

One of the main pillars by which the Christian edifice-one of the main evidences of the truth of Christianity—is the integrity of its divine Founder; the great end of his mission was that He should bear witness unto the truth. Once destroy the integrity of our beloved Lord-once convict him of falsehood, or deceit― you give a death-blow to the Christian Evidences. What, therefore, I would ask of you, and of all who maintain the supreme divinity of Jesus is, How you can reconcile this doctrine with the words of Jesus? For instance; when he says, I can of mine own self do nothing, Can we possibly suppose that He was GOD—or of the same substance with GOD? Could his disciples entertain any such belief? But the words of JESUS prohibit the belief of his two-fold nature; the expression mine own self, necessarily included his two natures, if such he possessed-it must mean his whole self. Can it, Admiral, I would respectfully ask you, be believed that, all this time, Jesus, (in his divine nature) was omnipotent, Almighty; without also believing that our Lord, if not guilty of direct falsehood, was chargeable with deception, with saying one thing, and meaning another. Thus, the orthodox, in their over great zeal to do honour

:

to the Saviour, and Redeemer of mankind, by attempting to prove his divinity, take from Him his integrity. Christianity has nothing to fear from open enemies; it is founded on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it but it has suffered much from injudicious friends : its foes have been those of its own household. The highest honour Jesus claimed was that of being the Messiah, the Christ, or the Son of God, terms of the same import. When Peter said unto our Lord, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God; Jesus said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon, Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matt. xvi. 16, 17. See also Mark viii. 29. Luke ix. 20. John xi. 27.-xx. 31.) These texts will shew, that Jesus never claimed supreme divinity. That his disciples did not entertain so preposterous a notion seems certain. They regarded the Messiah, (their Master) as a great temporal prince, in whose kingdom they hoped for honour, and distinction, -To sit one on his right hand, and another on his left, in his kingdom (Matt. xx. 21.) We find them, accordingly, after his resurrection, thus expressing themselves; We trusted that it was he which should have redeemed Israel. Luke xxiv. 21. Jesus, of his own self, as I have just observed, could do nothing; the great power he possessed was delegated, or given to him. Matt. xxviii. 18. It is impossible, Admiral, to reconcile these things with the notion of our Lord being perfect God, and perfect man—A notion, we may be sure, the Apostles never entertained; for they never preached it, or any thing like it. After the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was given to them, we have the following specimen of their preaching. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of GOD among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which GOD did by him. Acts ii. 22. And v. 22. This Jesus hath GOD raised up. If you read the book of Acts with attention, you will find the whole of the preaching of the Apostles in conformity herewith -strictly Unitarian. Concerning the divinity of our Lord, or his two natures, we find no mention of them in the book of Acts. Now, we can hardly suppose, that the Apostles, if they knew of these doctrines, were so negligent as not (like modern preachers) to proclaim them. On these subjects, after diligently reading the book of Acts, I leave you to form your own deliberate opinion.

Adml. I cannot but approve the Christian spirit in which you argue these matters; and I feel greatly obliged to you, my excellent friend, for your patience and forbearance with me. I came here in the hope of convincing you of the culpability, or impiety, you were guilty of in neglecting public worship; and, I must confess, you have not only exonerated yourself but, in some measure, inculpated me. I must, however, take a little time to meditate on these things, before I can bring myself to relinquish a form of worship from which I have derived so much satisfaction; and, I would hope, some profit. I would, therefore, my friend, beg of you to inform me if there is any particular text-any words uttered by Jesus himself; that, like THE KEY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL, clearly express the Two Apostolical Truths set forth in that KEY. These Trnths may be inferred from