a stumbling block, to this rebellious and gainsaying people,-would it be more rational to proceed at once to the conclusion, Therefore Christ is the Lord of Hosts? than to syllogize in a similar manner: Jupiter is a planet, and the earth is a planet, therefore the earth is Jupiter? How extraordinary it is, that this admirable reasoning should be rejected in astronomy, when it is adopted so generally, and so usefully, in religious controversy!

I shall prove with the greatest facility, from the Scriptures themselves, that the Jews had more stumbling blocks, or stumbling stones, than one. In Rom. ix. 31, 32, we have these words: "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law: for they stumbled at that stumbling stone," meaning the law. And thus the law appears to have been one stumbling stone; which also explains that the Lord of Hosts might figuratively be said to have been a stumbling stone to them by, or through, his law which he had given to them, and which they had stumbled at, and disobeyed. In Rev. ii. 14, are these words: "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornica

tion." Here we find that the children of Israel had another stumbling block. How many more they may have had, it is not material to ascertain.

Let us proceed in the next place to inquire, how far the apostles apply, as you inform me they do, to Jesus Christ, what Isaiah says: "Sanctify the Lord of Hosts, and he shall be a stumbling block to the house of Israel." It so happens, that neither of the apostles quotes at all the words "sanctify the Lord of Hosts." The apostle Paul, after having stated, Rom. ix. 31, 32, (which I have just cited,) that the Jews stumbled at the stumbling stone of the law, continues, ver. 33: "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone, and rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." By these additional words, which are not to be found in Isaiah viii. 13, 14, the apostle, if he designed to represent Christ as the stumbling stone that was laid, equally designed to represent God, or the Lord of Hosts, to have been the person who laid it, and consequently to have been different from the stone that was laid by him.

The apostle Peter, 1st Epist. ii. 6, says: "Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded:' which appears to be a quotation not from Isaiah viii. 14, but rather from Isaiah xxviii. 16, which is in these words: "Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold,

I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, elect, precious, a sure foundation. He that believeth shall not make haste." The apostle then says, in his own person, to the disciples to whom his epistle was addressed; "Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, is become the chief stone of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto they were appointed." Considering Christ to be here meant, nothing more follows from it, than this: Isaiah had said that the Lord of Hosts should be for a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, to both houses of Israel; and the apostle Peter says, that Christ had become a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; and each might have been a stone of stumbling to the Jews, without being one and the same: that is, the one under the old dispensation, and the other under the new; the one by the law which he had given, and the other by the gospel which he had preached to them: or the one, because they rejected him as their God, and went and served other Gods; and the other, because they rejected him also as their Messiah, and chose to continue under that inferior and burdensome dispensation, from which it was the object of his mission, and the design of his heavenly Father, to relieve them. Neither the prophet nor the apostles have intimated that

they were the same. The latter indeed say nothing about the Lord of Hosts, upon this occasion. This therefore supplies no proof of their identity. In fact, it is one of the most common occurrences in all writings sacred and profane, where one eminent person is mentioned, who in some points resembled another who preceded him, or who performed similar actions, or met with similar treatment, in giving an account, or writing the history, of the latter, to allude to the former in words more or less express or direct, without the slightest intention to insinuate that they were the same, any more than the apostles do, in the passage in question: and all that can be inferred from them is, that the Lord of Hosts was a stumbling stone to the Jews, and that Christ also was a stumbling stone to them. To conclude my remarks upon this subject, which I am afraid have already extended to an inconvenient length, I shall merely observe, that as we are carefully to avoid placing stumbling blocks in the way of others, I hope we shall also take some care, not unnecessarily to create any for ourselves.

You further say, "that as to the superiority of him that sanctifies, it is proclaimed by Trinitarians, that this was the glory of Jesus Christ, that he voluntarily condescended to the condition of a servant; that in proportion as he stooped, and placed himself in an inferior condition, the Father, who never thus stooped, must be superior; that this also sufficiently accounts for the Saviour's saying, 'The Father is greater than I.'

But this, you tell me, proves nothing against his original dignity; for that the same person may be my inferior in one relation, and my superior, or equal, in another; that when I urge the inferiority of Christ, his submission, &c. you wonder that I do not recollect, that those who are called orthodox, are so far from denying this, that they derive all their hope of salvation from the merit of this voluntary submission, and obedience: but that you contend, that the Scriptures very distinctly declare Christ to have possessed original glory, which he voluntarily laid aside; and that after having passed through a state of humiliation, he received a new and peculiar glory, in the new nature he had assumed, for which you quote Philipp. ii."

I perfectly agree with you, my dear Sir, that Christ voluntarily condescended to the condition of a servant (or rather slave, as it is in the original); but deny that it is because he stooped, and placed himself in an inferior condition, that the Father, who never thus stooped, must be superior; which must be the proposition to answer your purpose. I deny also, that this accounts for the Saviour's saying, "The Father is greater than I." The whole of this proceeds upon the assumption, without any kind of evidence, that our Lord was originally equal to the Father, and possessed of equal power and glory; and that from this transcendently high station he condescended to the condition of a slave. But where are your proofs of this? Our blessed Lord himself never says so, nor