From the Epiftles of St. John, I need felect only one paffage, which is direct in its affertion, and decidedly conclusive. 1 John, v. 20. "And we

"know that the Son of GOD is come, and hath

given us an understanding, that we may know him "that is true. And we are in him that is true, even "in his Son JESUS CHRIST. This is the true GOD, 6 and eternal life.” Ουτος εςιν ο αληθινος Θεος, και Η ζωή αιώνιος. Now, whether you refer ουτος to yoς του Θεου, το αληθινον, or to Ιησού Χριςω, it makes no manner of difference: if to the firft of thefe, then the Apostle fays, that "the Son of GOD is GOD "indeed:" if to the fecond, then he that is true is GOD indeed; but he that is true (he fays) is JESUS CHRIST the Son of God; therefore, JESUS CHRIST the Son of GOD, is i aλnfwvos cos, GoD indeed. After fo very plain and fo very explicit a declaration of the beloved Difciple and Apoftle, will any one fay, that the Divinity of the Son of God is no doctrine of the New Teftament? By what arguments, by what perverfe contortion of words, is this teftament of St. John to be evaded? Ouros is hic demonftrative, and it refers to JESUS CHRIST, and therefore he is ὁ αληθινός Θεός ; and he muft be totally ignorant of the Greek language, who attempts to refer it otherwife. The word this, in our English tranflation, does not feem to be quite right; it would have been better, if it had been rendered, "the fame is truly "GOD;" for, the article is prefixed to aλnfivos merely in confequence of the word dvos, and there

7

fore

foreanos ought not to be conftrued the true, but, adverbially, truly or indeed.

The Epiftle of St. Jude affords a very strong teftimony likewife in the words which have been already cited on a different account, ver. 4. "For, "there are certain men crept in unawares, who 66 were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our GOD into lafciviousness, and denying the only LORD GOD, "and our LORD JESUS CHRIST." From these words, I cannot help taking notice, firft, of the peculiarity of the expreffion την του Θεου ημων χαριν μετατιθεντες εις ασελγειαν : why doth the Sacred Writer fay

εou йμ? The expreffion is not very frequent or common; fometimes, indeed, 'it is used by the other Writers of the New Teftament, but then, as it fhould feem, always with a marked fignificance. I Cor. vi. 2. Αλλα απελουσασθε, αλλα ἡγιασθητε, αλλα εδικαιώθητε εν τω ονόματι του Κυρίου Ιησου, και εν τω πνευματι του Θεου ημων. So alfo, I Theff. ii. 2. Επαρ ρησιασάμεθα εν τῷ Θεῷ ἡμων λαλησαι προς υμας το ευαγ γελιό YENIO TOU SOU. And, 2 Theff. i. 12. St. Paul uses the very fame expreffion with St. Jude, κατα την χαριν του Θεου ήμων και Κυρίου Ιησου Χριςου. In all which inftances, the expreffion is used with an evident defign of diftinguishing the GoD of Chriftians from the GoD acknowledged by the reft of the world. The firft inftance refers to the GOD of Chriftians, into whose name they were baptized; and therefore,

Θεου.

ἡμων;

the Apostle very properly uses the expreffion cou ; inafmuch as no others acknowledged the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, to be the one GOD. In the fecond inftance, wherein he speaks of the boldness and courage wherewith he preached the Gofpel, encountering all difficulties, he was endued with it by our Gop, ἐν τῷ Θεῷ ἡμων, by the GOD in whom we Chriftians believe. The third instance speaks plainly enough for itself; and, therefore, it is unneceffary to point out its propriety. Let us then attend to what St. Jude fays, and the propriety of his ufing the fame expreffion will appear evident. By the way, however, I cannot help first remarking, that Ignatius, who was the Difciple of St. John, uses the fame expreffion, and in a very remarkable manner. In his Epiftle to the Ephefians, xviii. he fays, Ὁ γαρ Θεος ήμων Ιησους ὁ Χριςος εκυοφο ρήθη ύπο Μαρίας, κατα οικονομίαν Θεου, εκ σπέρματος Ειδ, πνευματος δε άγιου; which mode of expreffion occurs more than once in his Epiftles. St. Jude's words are, "For, there are certain men crept in un"awares, who were before of old ordained to this "condemnation, ungodly men, aσECES, THY TOU EQU σε ήμων χαριν μετατίθεντες εις ασέλγειαν, impioufly ma"king a jeft of the grace of our GOD, i. e. of the GOD of “us Christians, and (as impioufly) denying him "who hath the fole dominion, TOY μOVOY SEOπTOTNY, our "GOD and LORD JESUS CHRIST, Osov na vion · ἡμων Ιησούν Χριςον.” I muft here be forgiven, if I once more object to our English tranflation in this inftance.

Δα

2

inftance. The words certainly do not appear to be rendered properly by "the only LORD GOD and "our LORD." AσTOTηy is not an adjective, but a fubftantive in concord with its adjective μovov; and therefore in conftruction is limited to that; but, in the tranflation, its power is transferred, as if it was in agreement with Osov, and as if it had an adjective fignification, which it certainly has not. Caftalio tranflates it Solum Herum Deum; what kind of language this is I undertake not to determine; but it is ftrange that the manifeft impropriety of it did not ftrike him; fuch language feems rather to be burlesque than any thing elfe; others, perhaps, may have tranflated the words as erroneoufly, but in what manner I ftay not to enquire. The error of the tranflation feems moft probably to have arifen from its having been fuppofed that MONON doTOTηy could not with truth be applied to JESUS CHRIST. But, it fhould have been remembered, what is really the truth of the Gospel is truth, "that all power was given to JESUS CHRIST, both in Heaven and Earth." It fhould have been remembered, what our LORD himself affures us, that "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed "all judgement to the Son ;" and, if these things had been remembered, the tranflators would have had no difficulty in rendering the words " denying him, "who hath the fole dominion, our GoD, and "LORD, JESUS CHRIST;" for, fuch, according to all the rules of conftruction, feems to be the only true interpretation of the Greek words.

St. Jude concludes his Epiftle in terms no lefs ftrongly attefting the Divinity of the Son of God, when he afcribes to him Glory and Majefty, Dominion and Power, both now, and ever. Μονῳ σοφῷ Θερ σωτηρι ήμων δοξα και μεγαλωσύνη, κρατος και εξουσια, και νυν και εις πάντας τους αιώνας. Αμην. He that can

find out a confiftent and true mode of applying these words otherwife than to our acknowledged Saviour, let him do it.

Here then I fhall conclude my enquiry into the evidence that may be brought, from the New Teftament, in proof of the Divinity of the Son of GOD; not because more could not have been produced; for, the whole is full of evidence; but because sufficient has been already produced to fatisfy any reafonable enquiries, and because, if what has been al ready produced is ineffectual for that purpose, neither would a farther accumulation of fimilar evidence prove effectual.

That which I undertook to prove was, that, if we are not mistaken in our conclufion, that JESUS is GOD, because he is declared to be the Son of GOD; then would the Sacred Writings of the New Teftament afford us as clear evidence to the truth of this conclufion as they do to the truth of our conclufion that he is man, because he is called the Son of man. The evidence is now before the reader, from the Evangelifts, from St. Paul, St. Peter, St.

James