tles and the Saints and the Angels of the sin of Idol worship, it suffices to quote Matthew IV.10.

αυτῷ μονῳ λατρεύσεις. "Him only shalt thou serve." This commandment of the Father of the universe to be found in Deut. VI. repeated and communicated to Christians by the most exalted among the Prophets (who enjoins religious adoration to be offerred to the Father alone), sufficiently vindicates God and his Christ from the above charge. The apostles so strictly observed this divine communication through their master, under the Christian dispensation, that throughout the whole New Testament they applied exclusively to God alone this verb, atρeuw (rendered in the English Version "to serve") and not once to Jesus or to any other being in any book of the New Testament, while on similar occasions they used for him or others the verbs Show or Sianove rendered also in the English Version

66

to serve" which tends no less to vindicate them. They further pronounce those who serve (from the verb TρEU) any one except God, to be rebels and idolators: Rom. 1. 25. Act VII. 42. I now intreat the Editor to examine the subject and by following the example of the apostles and primitive saints glorify a religion intended to be raised far above the debasement of idolatry.

THE SEVENTH & LAST POSITION. The Editor having attempted to prove the Deity of the Son and the personality of the Holy Ghost from the circumstance of their names being associated with that of the Father of the universe, I observed in my Second Appeal that

66

a profession of belief in God is unquestionably common to all religions supposed to have been founded upon the authority of the Old Testament; but each is distinguished from the other by a public profession of faith in their respective -founders, expressing such profession in a language that may clearly exhibit the inferior nature of those founders to the divine Being, of whom they declare themselves the messengers." "The Jews claim that they have revelation rendering a belief not in God alone but in Moses also incumbent upon them. Exodus XIV. 31.

The people feared the Lord and believed the Lord and his servant Moses' (to which Jesus also refers in John V. 45. There is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust') "If baptism were administered to one embracing Christianity, in the name of the Father and Holy spirit, he would thereby no more become enrolled as a Christian than as a Jew or a Mohummudan; for both of them in common with Christians would readily submit to be baptized in the name of God or his Prevailing

influence over the universe."

I afterwards

added in the discussion respecting the HolySpirit that," God is invariably represented in revelation as the main object of belief, receiving worship and prayers that proceed from the heart through the first-born of every creature, the Messiah ( no man cometh unto the Father but by me') and leading such as worship him in spirit to righteous conduct and ultimately to salvation through his guiding influence which is called the Holy-spirit, (when he thes pirit of truth is come he will guide you unto all truth'). There is therefore a moral obligation on those who avow the truth of such revelatiou to profess their belief in God as the sole object of worship, and in the Son, through whom they, as Christians, should offer divine homage, and also in the holy influence of God, from which they should expect direction in the paths of righteousness, as the consequence of their sincere prayer and supplication. For the same reason also, in publicly adopting this reli❤ gion, it is proper that those who receive it should be baptized in the name of the Father who is the object of worship, of the Son who is the mediator, and of that influence by which spiritual blessings are conveyed to mankind, desig nated in scripture, as the comforter, spirit of truth, or holy spirit." And to prove the error of the idea that the association of names

of individuals with that of God in a religious profession or belief, which is more essential than any external mark of profession, could identify or equalize those individuals with God, I quoted Exodus XIV. 30. which I have just repeated and 2nd. Chro. XX. 20. "Jehoshaphat stood and said, hear me O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his Prophets so shall ye prosper," wherein the names of Moses and the Prophets of God are associated with that of the deity. Besides, I observed to the Editor, that fire-worshippers, for instance, insisting on the literal sense of the words, in example of the Rev. E litor, might refer to that text in the third chapter of Matthew, repeated in Luke III. 16. in which it is announced that Jesus" will baptize with the holy ghost and with fire" and they might contend that if the association in the rite of baptism of the names of the Son and Holy Ghost with that of the Father be supposed to prove their divinity, it is clear that Fire also being associated with the Holy Ghost in the same rite, must likewise be considered as a part of the Godhead.” He keeps all these arguments out of view, and according to his usual mode of reasoning, repeats again in his reply what he thought the purport of Hebrew I. 10. Rev. 11. 29. and has recourse again to the angel of Bochim, &e. which

having no relation to the subject in question, and having been often examined in the preceding pages, I shall pass by here. His only remark concerning this last position is, that "had the passage (respecting belief in God and his servant Moses) quoted from Exodus XIV. 31. been that formulary, instead of being a part of a narrative, the omission in the baptismal rite of the clause "his Servant" would have been fatal to his objection.-If then the phrase "his servant" marks the inferior nature of this messenger of God, the omission of it in the cir cumstances just mentioned unavoidably proves the equality of the Father and the Son, &c." In the first place, it is too obvious to need proof that every circumstance mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures even in the form of narrative, if approved of God. is worthy of attention though not stated in the formulary of a religi ous rite. But in the second place, the passage quoted by me from 2nd. Chronicles, is a commandment enjoining belief in God and his Prophets, even with the omission, so much desired by our Editor, of the term "his servants." Does this formulary, I ask, with the omission of the term "his servants" prove the equality of the Father and the Prophets from the circumstance of their being associated with God in a solemn religious injunction ?