to give the reader an idea of the superiority of this mode over every other. This is life eternal,' asserts our Saviour, that they might know Thee, 'JEHOVAH, the only true ALEIM, and Jesus Christ, 'whom Thou JEHOVAH ALEIM, hast sent'.' How does this simple elucidation cut up the misapplication of these words, so common to all the Anti-Trinitarian tribes. There are,' exclaims St Paul, Gods many, and Lords many, but to us One God (Jehovah) the Father, and One Lord (Adoni) Je'sus Christ. These two passages speak for themselves, while the light thus opened up to the reader's view, will direct him completely, how to apply these, and every other similar passage, with which the Scriptures abound.

1 St John xvii. 3.

2 1 Cor. viii. 6.

LET

LETTER XXI.

THAT I may not appear too sanguine of success, even with the youthful theologian, I am ready to acknowledge, that any appearance of deviation from what is currently received as the standard of orthodoxy-established by authority, and confirmed by long use-is a formidable objection to the plan, which I have taken up so much of the reader's time in enforcing. On this account, in addition to the charges already foreseen, and, I humbly trust, already obviated, I shall be accused of interpreting the Scriptures to my own purpose, and in conformity with my own conceit; the common refuge, it will be said, of every heretic. Nay, I shall have it boldly sounded in my ear, that, however plausible my arguments, and the plan of the Divine Economy' may be, both are contradicted in all the Creeds, and by all the Liturgies of the church.

The first part of this charge, I am bold enough to say, will be brought forward with a very bad grace, by any professing to be protestant. For, to ⚫the law and the testimony' only, according to the

pro

on the subject of law and the testi

protestant faith, does an appeal lie, heretical doctrine; and, by the mony' only, can such doctrine be confuted. I trust, therefore, that claiming the privilege of this appeal, and submitting to its award, will have the effect of ridding me of any such accusation as that of interpreting Scripture to suit my own purpose, and in conformity with my own conceit.

As to the other branch of the charge now before us, which would represent my arguments, and the plan of the Divine Economy,' as contradicted in all the Creeds, and by all the Liturgies of the church, this I must take the liberty of denying. It seldom happens, that the language of the Apostles' Creed is adduced on either side of this controversy. To the language of the Nicene Creed, I trust, I have already given a satisfactory interpretation; in addition to which, it need only be observed, that the mode of expressing the very first article, I ⚫ believe in ONE God,' &c. upon which Dr Bull and his followers do build what they term Prerogativam Patris, (the prerogative of the Father) does, by no means, imply any such exclusive idea; provided only, that we allow the compilers to have possessed common sense enough to make their composition consistent with itself. For, in the very next article, they require of christians to express their belief in ONE Lord Jesus Christ.' Yet, to shew, that by this mode of expression nothing exclusive is meant; and to shew that no Prerogativa

'Filii' can be, or ought to be built thereon, we have another LORD introduced, viz. the Holy Ghost, the LORD, and giver of life.' Surely this is enough to satisfy every impartial critic, that the Nicene Fathers never meant to countenance, by their use of the word ONE,' the conclusion which Dr Bull has so industriously drawn from it. In fact this ancient and venerable composition of theirs is conceived in terms so replete with the distinction betwixt na⚫ture' and' office,' that I refer it to any one, who attends to this distinction, whether the parts, relating to the Trinity, can either be comprehended, or properly adjusted, without the aid of the Divine

Economy,' of that Economy to which the Fathers themselves appealed; and without which, neither orthodoxy, nor an intelligible meaning can be 'discovered in this valuable production of antiquity.

With respect to what is supposed to be found in the Liturgies, as contradicting the plan of doctrine which I have laid down, I have no objection to be judged by the Liturgy of the English church; that Liturgy which, in common with the church, whose unworthy servant I am, I do most cordially receive, and which, for a period of fifty years and upwards, I have daily used, with the most sincere regard. But so far is the English Liturgy from countenancing any sort of opposition to my arguments, and to the grand scheme of the Divine Economy,' that, upon due investigation, it will be found, that this liturgy can neither be fully understood,

nor

nor consistently used, in all its forms, without our bearing in mind, as we go along, something of what the Scripture hath taught us respecting the plan of this Divine Economy.

As our public prayers are of more obvious importance, than even our public creeds, let me explain myself by a reference to them. I begin with the pattern, the foundation, and I may add, the very warrant of prayer, viz. the form taught to his disciples by Christ himself. The object of this sublime composition, I hope I am justified in terming ‘JEHOVAH ALEIM,' the Unity in Trinity, addressed under the endearing appellation of Our Father, which art in heaven.' In exact conformity, therefore, with our blessed Saviour's model, we are taught to commence our humble confession,' by addressing this our Almighty and most merciful 'Father,' in the full extent of Jehovah Aleim,' and not as either personally, or essentially restricted to One, to the first in the triune nature; which would indeed be nothing less than direct Arianism.

The next part of our admirable church service, which offers itself to our consideration, is that most comprehensive compilation known by the appropriate name of "The Litany." Here, in the introductory invocations, the economical plan' not only appears, but, in some measure, may be said to force itself on our immediate notice. The first invocation points directly to my view of the subFf

ject: