But, if fpirit is fo oppofite to matter, and according to our comprehenfion they are as contrary to each other as light to darknefs, will not a fpiritual body be a mystery? and will it not found like a contradiction in terms? and yet it was exemplified to be a truth in the perfon of our LORD after his refurrection. But, notwithstanding the exemplification, the myftery ftill remains; for, how can we conceive of matter that is not impeded, or of spirit that is tangible as matter? In like manner, concerning the perfon of our LORD, what will a philofophical enquiry into the fubject open to us, but a scene of confufion and darkness? Enquiries will prefent us with difficulties, and difficulties will fucceed difficulties, till, at length, bewildered and loft, we are driven into defperation of folly, and deny the fact, which comes authenticated to us as a truth by perfons divinely infpired by the God of Truth. The credit due to their affertions refts entirely on the authority by which they have made them; and, if that authority is this divine infpiration, what is there in Philofophy that will justify us in refufing credit to their affertions? But, if we deny their inspiration, to what are we reduced? Then, where is infpiration to be found? and whither are we to refort in the fearch of truth? Without the light of Heaven the mind is involved only in endless perplexities; fuch was the state of all the ancient Philofophers, infomuch that Socrates, who is fuppofed to have been the wifeft of them, after a life of more than feventy years spent in the pur

fuit

fuit of Truth, found it not. By wisdom he knew not GOD; and when he died, although with fuch incredible fortitude, nothing prefented itself even at that time to his mind but doubt and uncertainty. Philo- ' fophy therefore, from what we know of the ages that are past, is a sad substitute for Revelation, a fubftitute of unfupported imaginations for truth, of darknefs and despair for light, certainty, and life: and hence it can be no measure of the truth of what an infpired writer faith, when he afferts the Divinity of the Son of GOD," in whom the whole fulness of the "Godhead dwelt bodily." But let us proceed with fome farther teftimonies of St. Paul to this great truth. 2 Theff. i. 12. Οπως ενδοξασθη το όνομα του Κυρίου ἡμων Ιησου Χριςου εν ύμιν, και ύμεις εν αυτῷ κατα την χαριν του Θεου ήμων, και Κυρίου Ιησου Χριςου; which words in our tranflation are thus, "That the name "of our LORD JESUS CHRIST may be glorified in "you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our "GOD, and the LORD JESUS CHRIST." But furely the tranflation of thefe latter words does not feem to be juft. There is no article in the Greek to justify tranflating Kupicu the LORD." In Latin it would be as it is in Greek, Dei noftri et Domini Jefu Chrifti ; and why should it be otherwife in the English? why should it not be "according to the grace of our GoD "and LORD JESUS CHRIST." By all the generallyobferved rules of conftruction, ou in the Greek is applied to JESUS CHRIST as well as Kupov; for, fetting afide their being connected by the copulative

Κυρίου

και

na, they are both governed by the fame word xapiv, and have the fame perfonal pronoun belonging to both. Had the words been του βασιλεως oι του σωτηρος ήμων και Κυρίου, would any one then have hefitated about the conftru&tion ? would not βασιλέως or σωτηρος have been referred to JESUS CHRIST as well as Κυρίου ? What then is the rule of conftruction by which ou is required not to be referred to him! If the rule cannot be produced, as I apprehend it cannot, then doth St. Paul manifeftly in this place ftyle JESUS CHRIST our Gon and LORD.

be exemplified and Augavers de Αυξανετε δε εν χασωτήρος Ιησού Χριςου;

What I have here faid may confirmed from 2 Peter iii. 18. ριτι και γνώσει του Κυρίου ἡμων και which is thus rendered in our English verfion, "But "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our LORD "and Saviour JESUS CHRIST." Here, by the known rules of conftruction, Kugou is referred to JESUS CHRIST as well as owrygos, being governed by the fame words, connected by the fame copulative, and. having the fame perfonal pronoun. But, do not all these things concur in the inftance above recited from St. Paul? why then fhould there be any difference in the mode of conftruction? the pofition and order of the words Θεου ήμων και Κυρίου is precifely the fame as in Kυρίου ἡμων και σωτήρες. It is It is very ftrange that they are to be referred to JESUS CHRIST in the latter inftance, and not in the former, when the order and pofition of the words and the

rule of con

ftruction

Atruction are the fame in both inftances: it is incumbent therefore on the adverfaries of our LORD's Divinity to fhew by what grammatical rule of conftruction του Κυρίου ήμων και σωτηρος Ιησου Χριςου is to be conftrued" of our LORD and Saviour JESUS CHRIST,” and του Θεου ήμων και Κυρίου Ιησου Χριςου is not to be conftrued, "of our GOD and LORD "JESUS CHRIST."

.

But a word or two more. Θεου ημων και Κυρίου, 1 think, should be interpreted, Dei noftri æque ac Domini; for, in the former part of the verse, the Apoftle having ftyled JESUS CHRIST our LORD, in this latter part he styles him our GoD as well as LORD, and thus takes off from what otherwise might seem to be an unneceffary tautology, "That the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST may be glorified in you " and you in him, according to the grace of our "GOD as well as LORD JESUS CHRIST."

When men come to the New Teftament with preconceived prejudices, and under a perfuafion, that JESUS CHRIST is not to be called GoD, they are but too apt to make every thing bend to that perfuafion, and thus even to violate the commoneft rules of construction; but it should be remembered, that we are to derive our conceptions from the New Teftament, and not to carry them with us to it.

If Osov is not here applied by the Apostle to JESUS CHRIST, and he is not GOD, what are we to inake of the words κατα χαριν ? It appears to be a kind of battology, difcendendo, to talk of the grace of GoD, and of the LORD JESUS CHRIST. If JESUS CHRIST is merely a human creature, the difference between GOD and him is infinitely greater than between the greatest earthly potentate and the porter of his palace. But what language would it be? Where was fuch language ever heard as "I have free accefs to "the palace, naта την xaрiv тоυ aportes, by the fa"vour of the prince and of the porter?" If the Scripture must be misinterpreted, men fhould endeavour to preserve, at leaft, the appearance of confiftency: for, if JESUS CHRIST is not GOD, the Apostle could not have faid, with any degree of propriety, taking the words even as they stand in our tranflation, "According to the grace of our "GOD and the LORD JESUS CHRIST."

I Timothy i. 1. κατ' επιταγήν Θεου σωτηρος ήμων, και Κυρίου Ιησού Χριςε. In the English; "Paul an apoftle of JESUS CHRist, "by the commandment of GoD our Saviour, and "LORD JESUS CHRIST." Here the tranflation manifeftly does not deviate from the Greek, only there feems to be an error in the punctuation, which should be, "By the commandment of GoD, our Saviour "and LORD, JESUS CHRIST."

Παυλος αποςολος Ιησου Χρίσου,

Ver.