great incentive to divine love: God,' saith he, 'commendeth his love towards us, in that, when we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' (Rom. v. 8.) For if Christ be a mere man, God commended his love as much towards us by the death of Socrates, or of St. Paul, as by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. On the same evangelical ground rests also this ravishing conclusion of the apostle, 'As by one man's offence death reigned by one, much more they who receive abundance of grace shall reign in life, by one, Jesus Christ.' (Rom. v. 17.) For if our Lord be a mere man as Adam was, why is he much more able to save than the first man was able to destroy? But upon St. Paul's evangelical principles of sound reasoning, Christ is by so much more able to save than Adam was to destroy, by how much the only begotten and proper Son of God is greater than a son by mere creation. For the first Adam was [only] made a living soul, but the last Adam [is] a quickening Spirit.' (1 Cor. xv. 45.)

་

Take another instance of St. Paul's apostolic concern for our Lord's divine glory, which you so zealously oppose. Christ had said to the woman of Samaria, Salvation is of the Jews,' because he, the Saviour, was of Jacob's posterity. In like manner, St. Paul, speaking of the Israelites, adds, of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, ο ων επι πάντων Θεος ευλογητος εις τες αιώνας auny. (Rom. ix. 5.) It was impossible to any but an inspired writer to crowd, in so few words, such a full description of our Lord's Divinity, contradistinguished from his humanity.-(1.) He is o wv, he exists essen tially.Before Abraham was,' says he, 'I am;' and therefore the name of Jehovah, the self-existent God, belongs to him, as he is one with the Father, and the Spirit. (2.) He is not only with God,' but he is God:-Yea, (3.) God'over all,' God of all men and angels, God supreme over earth and heaven :-(4.) God blessed,' praised and worshipped as God; evλoyia, blessing, being the first action of adoration, which St. John saw performed in heaven, to him that sitteth upon

the throne, and to the Lamb. (Rev. v. 13.)-Nor is this adoration, (5.) To end, like the extraordinary honours paid to a king at his coronation: It is to last for ever: And so far is St. Paul from repenting to have asserted our Lord's Divinity in so strong a manner, that he sets, (6.) The broad seal of his approbation to the whole description by an Amen,' which expresses both the fulness of his persuasion, and the warmth of the devotion, with which he blessed and adored our Lord.

When the apostle hath considered the Son of God in his divine nature, lest we should lose sight of his condescending love in becoming our brother, he coucludes the Epistle by shewing him in his inferior character, as a divine man by whom alone we have access uuto God. To God only wise,' says he, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever!' (Rom. xvi. 27.) This care of the apostle is a proof of his wisdom, for, having shewed us the infinite height of the ladder by which we rise to glory, he kindly shews us that the foot of it is within our reach, reminding us that this very Jesus, who, in the unity of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, is God over all,' is nevertheless, in consequence of his union with our nature, a man who graciously mediates between God and us :

And lest we should think that divine man a mere man, St. Paul, in the context, represents him again as a wonderful person in whom, by virtue of an indissoluble union with Deity, are all the treasures of divine wisdom and power. For whereas, in the first chapter of his Epistle, he had wished the Romans 'grace and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ;' in the last chapter he shews that in Christ dwells the fulness of the Godhead, and gives twice his blessing in the name of the Son only, saying 'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all;' (Rom. xvi. 20, 24;) an apostolic blessing this, which upon your plan would be both absurd and wicked.—(1.) Absurd: For how can a mere man have grace enough to supply the wants of millions in all ages?—And, (2.)

Wicked: Because it puts Christians upon believing in, and praying to Jesus Christ, for the fulness of divine grace, which would be tempting them to gross idolatry, if he were a mere man.

6

But so far was St. Paul from entertaining any fear in this respect, that he begins his next Epistle by describing true Christians as men who are sanctified in [or by] Christ Jesus, and who in every place call upon the name of Jesus our Lord, both theirs and ours :'-As people who wait for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall confirm them unto the end, that they may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,' elsewhere called the day of God.' (1 Cor. i. 2, 7, 8.) These words, Sir, demoustrate our Lord's Divinity, unless you can prove that all Christians, in all ages, and in every place, are to call upon a mere man, for sanctifying and confirming grace unto the end of the world.

But opposing St. Paul to himself, you try to set aside this striking proof of our Lord's Divinity, by saying after the apostle, There is none other God but one. To us [Christians] there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things.' (1 Cor. viii. 4, 6.) `

As you, Sir, and your brethren, perpetually deceive the simple, by affirming that our Lord's Divinity is inconsistent with these words, I shall not only rescue them out of your hands, but establish by them what you intend to destroy..

1. What appearance is there that St. Paul, having begun his Epistle by pointing out our Lord as the object of our adoration and prayers, would contradict himself in the middle of that very Epistle? If you do not believe that he wrote by divine inspiration, you should at least allow that he wrote with common

sense.

2. When he says, 'There is none other God but one;' to us there is but one God,' he no more means to overthrow the Godhead of our Lord, which is one with the Godhead of the Father, than he means to overthrow the Godhead of the Holy Spirit; but he

evidently opposes the oue Godhead of the Father, and of the Word, and of the Holy Ghost, to the multiplicity of Heathenish deities, and of potentates, who, as living images of the supreme Potentate, are sometimes called gods, even in Scripture.

་

3. To be convinced that this is the true meaning of the two clauses on which you rest your contempt of our Lord's Divinity, we need only consider them with the context. St. Paul speaks of eating the flesh of those beasts which have been offered in sacrifice to idols ;' and he says, We know that an idol is nothing in the world, [is a niere vanity,] and that there is noue other God but one, for though there be that are called gods, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) yet to us [Christians] there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we of him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, [the Word and Son of the Father,] by whom are all things, and we by him.' He might have added, as he does, (chap. xii. 4, and Eph. iv. 4,) and 'one Holy Ghost,' the Spirit of the Father, in whom are all things, and we in him.

4. I have observed in the last letter, that this expression, one God the Father,' far from excluding the Divinity of the Son, is as consistent with it, as the idea of a king is consistent with that of a subject: For God being eternally and infinitely perfect, if paternity belong to his essence, so does sonship. The eternal Father hath then a co-eternal Son, his Word, who, in the unity of the Spirit, is the one God opposed by St. Paul to the many idols and gods of the Heathen. "There are three [divine subsistences] that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three [eoi ev] are one,' one Jehovah, in whose names Christians are baptized.

5. That our Lord, with the Holy Spirit, is not excluded from the unity of the Godhead by the text, is evident to those who take notice that the apostle hath no sooner mentioned one God the Father,' but he mentions the Son as the one Lord,' in the unity of the Father and of the Spirit

6. If you insist that this expression, eus eos, one God, which is applied to the Father, necessarily excludes the Son; it will follow, by the same unscriptural rule, that this expression, es Kugios, one Lord, which is applied to the Son, necessarily excludes the Father; and thus to rob the Sou of his supreme Divinity, you will rob the Father himself of his supreme Lordship! So true it is, that Unitarian overdoing always ends in undoing; and that our Saviour spake an awful truth, when he said, 'He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father!'

7. To be convinced that the one God, and the one Lord, are not to be separated, and that, while the former is viewed as the Creator, the latter is not to be looked upon as a mere creature, we have only to consider what the apostle saith of each. He calls the Father the Being of whom are all things, and we in him;' and he assures us that the Son is the Being, 'BY whom are all things, and we by him.' Now if all things are by the Son,' he is prior to all the creatures that have been created, nay, he is the Creator of them all, and therefore you endeavour to substitute an absurd tenet to the second article of the Christian faith, when you teach that he is a mere man, who had no existence till he was born of the Virgin. Thus the very scriptures by which you attack our Lord's Divinity, when they are candidly considered with the context, and the tenor of the Bible, strongly confirm what you rashly deny: And St. Paul does not contradict himself when he exhorts the Corinthians to flee from idolatry,' and to 'call upon the name of the one Lord, by whom all things were made.'

6

Nor will it avail to object, that St. Paul writes to these very Corinthians, that as the head of the woman is the man, so the head of Christ is God:' (1 Cor. xi. 3.) For we who believe the Divinity of our Lord, as it is set forth in the scriptures and in the Nicene Creed, grant that as Eve was subordinate to Adam, so the Son is subordinate to the Father: But, at the same time, we assert, that as Eve, notwithstanding her subordi