"thy strength, and come and save us. Turn us again, O "God, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved. “O Lord God of Hosts, how long wilt thou be angry "against the prayer of thy people?" From this Psalm, compared with the ninety-first, and other portions of the Old Testament, it appears that it was JEHOVAH GOD OF HOSTS who was enthroned between the Cherubim; who there met with his people, appeared to them, conversed with them, and received their religious homage and adoration. Now, that JEHOVAH GOD OF HOSTS, who thus appeared to the Israelites, and was worshipped by them, Dr. B. himself being witness, could be no other than OUR BLESSED REDEEMER. Whilst the church was thus worshipping her Saviour, would Dr. B. have said, "See thou do "it not he is thy fellow-servant; worship God?"

By the New Testament church, from its very commencement, our blessed Redeemer has been uniformly worshipped. As soon as he was born, the Eastern Magi fell down and worshipped him. When he calmed the sea, and caused Peter to walk on the water, those who were in the ship worshipped him. A leper worshipped him-a ruler worshipped him-the Syrophenician woman worshipped himMary Magdalene and the other Mary worshipped him-the disciples worshipped him-Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit. Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." The Apostle Paul prayed to him three different times, that the messenger of Satan might depart from him. Praying to Jesus was the distinguishing characteristic of the primitive Christians. Their denomination was, "Those that call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." (Acts, ix. 14–21 : 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 22; Rom. x. 12.) Pliny, a heathen, in his letter to Trajan, (Anno Dom. 103,) describes the Christians as meeting on a certain day before daylight, and addressing themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, as to some God.' No less than twenty times we find the inspired writers imploring grace, mercy, and peace from our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as from God the Father. The Apostle Paul prays to the Redeemer, not only for the removal of the thorn in the flesh, but also for various blessings. Thus (1 Thess. iii. 11, 12): "Now God himself "and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our "way unto you. And the Lord make you to increase and "abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, " even as we do toward you." That such prayers as these

were only civil worship, Doctor Bruce, I presume, will scarcely venture to affirm. If all the prayers and praises addressed to our Redeemer amount to nothing more than civil homage, how are we to know when religious worship is performed? There is no stronger language expressive of the worship of God the Father, than that which expresses the worship addressed to the Son. The fact is, stronger language could not possibly be employed. (See Rev. i. 5, and v. 12.) How, then, did Dr. B. come to know that religious worship is due to God the Father, and only civil homage, or subordinate worship, to our blessed Redeemer ? He tells us, that corporations and magistrates are called worshipful, and accosted by the title of their worships; but what corporation or magistrate was ever worshipped as our blessed Saviour? Did God ever command to build an altar to a magistrate or corporation? Did he ever command all the angels of God to worship a magistrate or corporation? Samuel was one of the best magistrates that ever ruled; but would it not be blasphemy to say, "Make "an altar unto Samuel ?"-"Let Samuel that redeemed "me from all evil, bless the lads ?" Let all men honour "Samuel as they honour the Father ?"-"Let all the angels of God worship Samuel ?"

་་

The reader will now be able to judge, with what justice, truth, or candour, Dr. B. has made the following observations (p. 126): "There are, no doubt, several other texts, "on which very learned divines have relied with much con"fidence, and which have furnished matter for cumbrous "volumes, abounding with criticisms, which I should be "ashamed to expose to intelligent and unprejudiced men ; "for you could not refrain from smiling, when you heard "the nature of the Supreme Being, and the faith and salvation of Christendom, suspended on the transposition of "a letter, or the construction of a particle, the insertion of a dot, or the omission of some grammatical or rhetorical "mark."

Now, I grant, that the first Presbyterian congregation in Belfast might smile at all this. How could they avoid it? The description partakes largely of the ridiculous. But if they really imagine that there is any thing in nature to which the picture is like, they are much deceived; and whilst they are smiling at the supposed folly and stupidity of Trinitarians, the latter are probably prepared to smile at their credulity. What! The nature of the Supreme Being

suspended on the insertion of a dot!-the nature of the Supreme Being suspended on the transposition of a letter ! -the nature of the Supreme Being suspended on the omission of some grammatical or rhetorical mark!-And is it by exhibiting such a picture as this, that the grave and dignified Doctor Bruce hopes to raise the laugh against Trinitarians? Be it known to Dr. B.-be it known to the first Presbyterian congregation in Belfast-that, not upon dots, nor on letters, nor on the whole volume of revelation, nor on the heavens, nor on the earth, nor on any thing exterior to himself, do Trinitarians suspend the nature of God! Trinitarians maintain, that the Supreme Being is self-existent and independent. Whilst raising the laugh against our neighbours, we should beware of rendering ourselves ridiculous.

Again; I would ask our learned author, what divine ever suspended the salvation of Christendom on the insertion of a dot? How ludicrous the fiction ! What divine ever suspended the faith of Christendom on the insertion of a dot? With the ninth commandment before his eyes, how could our author write such a paragraph? By a careful perusal of the preceding pages, the reader, I trust, will be fully convinced that Trinitarians build the faith of Christendom, not on the insertion of dots, nor the transposition of letters, as Dr. B. ridiculously insinuates, but on the broad basis of divine revelation. They will not, however, look on as indifferent spectators, whilst Socinians or Arians disfigure, mangle, or pervert the word of God, by an arbitrary insertion of dots, or transposition of letters. By such licentious treatment, unrestrained, the sacred oracles might be so manufactured as to patronise the most abominable errors, heresies, and blasphemies.

Trinitarians are so far from being reduced to the necessity of suspending the faith of Christendom on the insertion of dots, &c. that if a hundred of those texts, which prove the Divinity of Christ, were blotted out of the Bible, the remaining hundreds would be abundantly sufficient to establish the doctrine.

SECTION V.

Antitrinitarian principles lead to consequences the most absurd and blasphemous.

1. If Jesus Christ be not the Supreme God, the blasphemous consequence follows, that he is not the true Messiah.

One distinguishing characteristic of the true Messiah is, That he should abolish idolatry. (Isaiah ii, 18.) "And "the idols he shall utterly abolish." Now, if Jesus Christ be only a creature, he has not destroyed idolatry. On the contrary, Christians have been almost universally idolators -they have almost universally worshipped the Redeemer, whom Antitrinitarians maintain to be only a creature. If Antitrinitarian doctrines be true, Christianity is false.-Instead of being a system from which idolatry is abolished, it is a most idolatrous system! Our blessed Redeemer, who was to abolish idols-I tremble as I write-is himself the greatest and most dangerous of all idols.-Nay,

2. From Antitrinitarian principles, the still more blasphemous consequence follows-that God himself has led his creatures into temptation—temptation to that very sin, which above all others he hates and abhors--temptation to idolatry! The Deity declares that he is " a jealous God;" that his "glory he will not give to another, nor his praise "to graven images." He most pathetically expostulates upon this subject, (Jer. xliv. 4.) Oh, do not this abomi"nable thing, that I hate." With what care does the Supreme Being guard against all temptations to idolatry? Lest the Israelites should worship the relicts of Moses, the Deity himself privately interred him, and "no man knoweth "of his sepulchre unto this day." The brazen serpent also was destroyed, lest it should lead the Israelites into idolatry, Now, if the Deity used such precaution to prevent men from worshipping the body of Moses and the brazen serpent, is it reasonable to suppose that he would use no precaution, where the temptation was infinitely greater? Is it reasonable to suppose that he would use no precaution, to prevent men from worshipping his Son, if only a creature? Reasonable, did I say? Is not such a supposition in the highest degree absurd and unreasonable? Not only

is there no precaution to prevent men; but there is every temptation to induce them to worship the Redeemer. The most glorious names of the Deity are given to him; the most glorious perfections of Deity are ascribed to him; the most glorious works of Deity are performed by him-those very works by which the being and attributes of God are proved-by which his eternal power and Godhead are manifested-and by which he is distinguished from all false gods. And, finally, he is every where represented as the object of the prayers of men, and of the united praises and adorations of all intelligent beings.-What temptations to idolatry, if Jesus Christ be only a creature! All the temptations to idolatry that ever existed, compared with these, were nothing and less than nothing. If the healing of the stung Israelites was a temptation to worship the brazen serpent, how much greater the temptation to worship him who has removed the sting of death which is sin? If the Jews were tempted to worship the inanimate brass, or the dead body of Moses, surely the inducements to worship the living Saviour are infinitely greater.

If the veneration attached to the memory of statesmen, patriots, and benefactors, proved a principal source of idoÎatry, how much greater the temptation to worship him, to whom we owe all the inestimable blessings of Creation, Providence, and Redemption? Jehovah is jealous of his glory. When, in praise of Herod's oration the people exclaimed, "It is the voice of a god and not of a man," he was eaten with worms, and gave up the ghost-why ? "Because he gave not God the glory." When Moses sanctified not the Lord before the people-when he arrogated a part of the glory of a temporal and typical salvation, saying, "Hear now, ye rebels, must we bring water out of "this rock ?"—he was ignominiously excluded from the promised land-his carcass fell with the rebels in the wilderness. With such instances of divine jealousy before his eyes, can any man believe that Jesus Christ, if only a creature, would be permitted to arrogate, with impunity, the glory of being not only the instrument, but the author, not of a temporal and typical, but of eternal salvation? The man who is able to believe all this, is surely more credulous than he who believes, according to the Scriptures, that his Redeemer is "Over all God blessed for ever." For-in a word: if Jesus Christ he only a creature, patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (shall I