ferred to him; and benedictions being thus confidered as a part of religious worship, it is easy to fee the conclufion, that Jesus Christ, to whom it is offered, is one with the Father, that God, whose incommunicable prerogative and honour religious worship is. "Let us therefore, beloved," "being called unto the grace of Chrift," Gal i. 6. "not separate ourselves, having not the spirit, but building up ourselves on our most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep ourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life," Jude 19, 20, 21; and " believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved," Acts xv. II.

4

But it has been said that the interpofal of the conjunctive and, enumerates distinct natures between the Father and Son; and that grace, mercy, and peace may proceed from, or glory, honour, and dominion be afçribed to one part of the subject, without affecting the other. Not to insist on the absurdity of introducing a name, to say nothing about it, in any proposition; on other grounds also, the distinction between God and Lord, how well foever it may have been supported by an epigram *, seems to me not only weak but infincere. "From God the Father and our Lord Jesus Chrift," are words that occur perpetually in St. Paul's epistles; and I think that candour will allow that "the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ," are, in such passages, put in appofition to "God," and mark a distinction of perfons indeed, but undoubtedly an unity, an identity of Godhead; for, were that copulative and to be taken as a mark of any other diftinction, and insisted on as introductory of a second power, however fubordinate it may be to the Father, and acting under him; the consequences of fuch a manner of understanding it might prove very fatal to the cause it is brought to support; for the same copulative is used by St. James,

Apology, p. 6.

Z2

in

in a manner that would destroy the Godhead of the Father himself; for by it the word "Father" is set apart from God. He says, "true religion, and undefiled before God and the "Father," where the copulative is used exactly in the same manner as by St. Paul: If it be admitted then that the personal terms stand in apposition to the general name of "God," all is at once accounted for; whereas, on the other hand, if it be insisted upon, that, in the one cafe, the conjunctive enumerates distinct natures, a consequence will necessarily follow, which even an Unitarian would start at drawing from it. St. James does not stand alone in this manner of diftinguishing between God and the Father; St. Paul has afforded many instances - of a like nature, "giving thanks to God and the Father," Col. iii. 17. "Now, God himself, and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Chrift, direct our way unto you," I Theff. iii. 11. " In the fight of God and the Father," I Theff. i. 3. How uncandidly then does even this honest and disinterested man deal by himself, in making use of, or yielding his affent to such weak fophifins; but I am forry to say that every thing feems an argument in his eyes, that only appears to make against "the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ," Col. ii. 2. " Now, unto God and our Father, be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Phil. iv. 20*.

In

In the Jewish ritual, the neceffity of repeating the sacrifice is made use of as a proof of the infufficiency of any single victim, to establish those who came to the altar: for, had any one offering been answerable to fo great an end, the daily facrifice had been taken away, that work for which it had been appointed being finished. Just such is the cafe with Mr. Lindsey's arguments; the sacrifice of to-day manifested the weakness of the sacrifice of yesterday; and the offering now made upon the altar of fophiftry, manifests the infufficiency of that which has preceded it, to establish the votary, that doctrine, of which he stands the priest; it acknowledges the weakness of the priesthood, and that it is not faultless; like that of the Jews, therefore, I entertain a chearful hope that the whole shall at length vanish away. This gentleman, accordingly, very juftly confidering all that he has already urged as no argument at all, proceeds to infinuate, rather than say, (for he has not put it into so many words) that the junction of the name of Christ, in doxologies and benedictions, with the name of God, which is invoked or glorified in them, does not afford any proof that Jesus Christ is God, because that to their names fometimes other names also are joined. Had the fact been as here stated, I should have allowed it fome weight, and therefore looking on it as material, I did literally "search the scriptures," and throughout could find but that one inftance in which Mr. Lindsey has exemplified the rule. It is the benediction of St. John in the first chapter and fourth verse of the Revelation, "Grace be unto you, and peace from him which was, and which is, and which is to come, and from the seven spirits, which are before his throne; and from Jefus Chrift," Rev. i. 4, 5. And here it must be granted, that unless the seven spirits be God also, the junction of the name of Jesus Chrift is not a proof that he is God; but I

may

may possibly surprize Mr. Lindsey by an afsurance that these seven fpirits also are God; and this is a position eafily explained to any man who remembers that "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord *;" " The feven spirits are the eyes of the Lamb + ;" and grace, in the eyes of the Lamb, is surely a blessfing devoutly to be implored, when we consider who that Lamb is, even our Lord Jesus Christ himself, "the Lord of Lords;" and when we reflect on the advantages that accrued to Noah from his having found favour in his eyes before. According to Mr. Lindsey's mode of arguing, we might as well declare that St. Paul meant to diftinguish between God and the hands of God, when he says, " It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," Heb. x. 31. For, if these terms be not only different appellations of the same Being, I will then allow that to find grace from God, and from the eyes of God, have likewife distinct meanings,

This is the only benediction against which this charge is brought, and I hope I have shewed its inability to affect the Godhead of our blefsfed Lord; had it been proved I should have allowed it an argument, as it is true that God alone is the fountain whence grace and mercy can flow, and from which alone the apostles, with the spirit of truth, could feek to draw them: but surely if the names of other Beings be found joined with that of God in the performance of actions, of which other Beings are capable, it can never be admitted an argument against the divinity of Chrift, whose name is often found joined with God, and invoked to perform actions of which God alone is capable. To Timothy St. Paul says, "I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels," I Tim. v. 21; and on this passage Mr. Lindfey

sey makes the same observation as that above, sayings " the angels being here joined with God and Chrift,. shews that when God is joined with other Beings in the most folemn manner, no equality can be inferred from such a conjunction;" Apology, p. 107. Now I deny that God is in this instance joined with other Beings in the most solemn manner, the conferring of a charge upon Timothy was an act of which every Being, upon whom God had bestowed the powers of difcernment, was a proper and competent witness before whom he should confer it, and therefore, had the apostle joined man and every intelligent nature to the name of God, and of Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, it could not in the least derogate from the dignity of God, or ever be interpreted as conferring upon them a claim to Godhead. That it should argue against Christ's divinity, it is neceffary to shew that it proves too much, and therefore nothing, and that too-much, which it is supposed to prove, is, that the angels are God also; but does any such consequence follow? Certainly not, and therefore this most solemn conjunction cannot impeach the divinity of our Lord. I do not defire the aid of this verse in proof of our Saviour's Godhead, there being no greater power called into exercise than that of witnessing a charge to which the witness of God will add folemnity indeed, but which is an act that he has given power to inferior natures to perform. " Ye are my witnesses, and God also," I Theff. ii. 10, says St. Paul: now which does this most solemn conjunction of God and the Thessalonians prove, the Theffalonians to be God, or God a Theffalonian? Neither one nor the other; for the conduct of Paul, which he called upon God and them to testify to be just and holy, was performed equally before God and them, and they being endowed with adequate faculties, were therefore equally competent witnesses of it. But with respect to

the