propriety, be directed to the virgin Mary, as to the person of our Lord;" you proceed to fay, "that I refer my readers to Mr. Lindsey," who hath laboured at great length to prove, that prayer to our Lord Jefus Chrift is not authorised in the writings of the new Teftament; and you declare your intention of examining what he has advanced upon this fubject, in the fame order in which he hath propofed it, for the purpose of trying whether it is fufficient to justify the conclufion I have drawn thence.

This examination is comprised in the following pages, to the 55th inclufive. In the 56th, which is the last page but one of your letter, you write as follows: follows: "To conclude then, if my interpretation of the places in fcripture be right, it follows, fir, that your pofition that the addreffes of christians may, with the fame propriety, be directed to the virgin Mary, as to the person of our Lord,' is far from being true."

With respect to the preceding paffages, I truft it will be efteemed fufficient for me to obferve, that all these affertions, and conclufions, proceeding upon the idea of my

having actually referred my readers to Mr. Lindley's publication for a proof of my pofition, are abfolutely deftitute of all foundation.

My pamphlet may easily be obtained. I appeal from your affertions to the book itfelf. My declaration, respecting the propriety of addreffing prayer to Christ Jefus, will be found as you have quoted it, but without a single word of reference to Mr. Lindsey, or to any other perfon.

The proper unity of God, and the unlaw fulness of addreffing prayer to Chrift Jesus, are very different queftions. The great Socinus very ably defended the former queftion, and, at the fame time, attempted to refute the arguments of Francifcus Davides, who maintained the latter. I have spoken with approbation of Mr. Lindfey's arguments, respecting the proper unity of God, but have not referred to, or declared either my approbation or disapprobation of his reafonings, refpecting the impropriety of religious addreffes unto Chrift. The defign of my publication has been intirely misapprehended. Upon re-perufing of it, you may perceive,

Q3

perceive, that it was not my intention to engage in controverfy, but chiefly to affign the reafons, which induced me to relinquish my station in the church of England. I declared that I refigned my preferment because I held opinions diametrically oppofite to those, on which the established form of public worship is founded. I declared and unfolded these opinions without referve; but this circumftance laid me under no kind of obligation to maintain them by argument: my private perfuafion of their truth was a fufficient reafon for my conduct..

.

But had it been my intention to enter into the principles, upon which my opinion refpecting the point in question is founded, it is not probable, that I should have contented myself with referring to Mr. Lindsey's publication, however highly I approve his arguments, and refpect his authority. I should also have thought it my duty, to have endeavoured to establish the truth of fo important a position by such deductions, as at least would have convinced my readers, that I had not taken up my opinion without fome reflection on the fubject; and should unquef

unquestionably have referred, perhaps very largely, to thofe paffages in the facred writings, which, in my apprehenfion, would enable my readers to determine the question for themselves. It has long been my perfuafion, that we pay too much deference to the opinions of men, refpecting religion; and too little to the word of God, from which alone all our ideas refpecting the gofpel ought to be deduced. In the lectures I gave upon the evangelifts, during my refidence at Cambridge, I always endeavoured to convince my pupils, that it was their duty to make as much ufe as poffible of their own reason, when employed in exploring the genuine fenfe of fcripture. Not that I would prefume myself, or would advise others to reject the lights, which the labours of learned men, engaged in the fame purfuit, from time to time, have holden forth to us; on the contrary, I think it neceffary to avail ourfelves of every affiftance we can procure, but, at the fame time, I would always prefs the ufe of private judgment; by which I would be understood to mean, the exercise of a judgment intirely unbiaffed

Q4

unbiaffed by authority, and free from every kind of prejudice, fuch as becomes every man, in a case, which to every man is of private concern.

This freedom of the mind, from the exertion of which the most glorious confequences would be derived to fociety, I hold to be efsential in constituting the character of a true protestant. The invasion of it, by any human authority, how refpectable foever, I esteem as an outrage against the majefty of heaven; as it tends to deprive the almighty of the proper homage of his creatures. I have contended, and to the latest hour of my life will contend for its establishment, in its most unlimited extent; and I proteft against the ungenerous policy, which at the present moment, under pretence of zeal for the interefts of christianity, really aims at establishing the empire of the magistrate over confcience, and of thereby fubjecting the nobleft faculties, and endowments of our nature, to the luft of lawless power, the most baneful paffion of our frame.

But at the fame time that I think it incumbent upon me, to correct the false conception