are they particularly characteristic of them? Did not the Jews believe in God? They moft certainly did. But the Jews not being any part of Titus's charge, and the words being inapplicable to them, therefore they must be referred to perfons whose faith was different from the faith of the Jews, that is, to the Chriftian converts, whofe faith in GOD was different from the faith of the Jews, and was the faith, owrnpos wv eou, which the Jews rejected. St. Paul, therefore, having characterised the Chriftians as πεπιςευκότες τῷ Θεῷ, and their faith in Gop, differing from the Jewish by believing in CHRIST; therefore, he affixes the title of os emphatically to CHRIST, who is the Σωτηρ Θεος.

We ought now to proceed to the evidence which the Epiftle to the Hebrews will afford us; but, as by fome it has been thought, that St. Paul was not the author of that epiftle, the examination of it fhall be deferred, and we will go on to the General Epiftle of St. James, from which much evidence indeed is not. to be expected, as it is chiefly employed in directing the moral conduct of Christians. However, one teftimony we have very full and direct, when he calls himfelf Θεου και Κυρίου Ιησου Χριςου δουλος, i. e. The fervant of JESUS CHRIST, GOD and LORD. But although this, perhaps, is the only direct teftimony which the Epistle of St. James will afford us, yet the Apofile plainly intimates to us, that the title og is. applicable to fome perfon who was not the Father;

for,

1

for, he fays, i. 27. "Pure religion before God and
"the Father is this," &c. And again, iii. 9. Ev
αυτη ευλογούμεν τον Θεον και πατέρα ; "Herewith blefs
"we GOD and the Father," not "even the Father,"
as it is in our tranflation, a mode of expreffion
not peculiar to St. James, but often ufed alfo by St.
Paul, who, by using the terms GOD the Father as
well as GOD and the Father, feems to intimate to us,
that the two expreffions have different extents. A
diversity there evidently is in the expreffions OcOU
πατρος and Θεου και πατρος; and, as it fhould feem,
there must have been fome certain.cause of it in the

Apoftle's mind. The diverfity is more ftrikingly ap-
parent, Coloffians ii. 2. Εις επιγνωσιν του μυςηρίου του
Θεου και πατρος και του Χριςον, 6 to the acknow-
"ledgement of the mystery of GOD, and of the Fa-
"ther, and of CHRIST." If the Apostle here meant
❝of the GOD and Father," his meaning then would
have been the fame as if he had expreffed himself
Θεου πατρος ; and then how fhall we account for his
not having expreffed himself in that manner? How
fhall we account for the folemnity with which he
fpeaks of a mystery as containing three fubjects of
it, when he meant that it contained only two fub-
jects, and when he could fo eafily have hindered us
from mifapprehending him by writing, as he often
does, ou warpos? The language 2 Theff. ii. 16.
is very remarkable. Αυτος δε ὁ Κύριος ήμων Ιησους Χριστ
τος, και ὁ Θεος και πατηρ ἡμων ὁ αγαπησας ήμας; ac-
cording to our tranflation, "Now, our LORD JESUS

င်

1

"CHRIST himself, and GoD even our Father, which hath loved us;" where, at all events, na feems to be improperly rendered even; for, the tranflation, as it should feem, ought to have been either " and our GOD and Father," or the whole fhould have been thus: "Now our LORD JESUS CHRIST "himself, and GOD, and our Father, who hath "loved us." And here, as we are upon the fubject, the reader will permit me to take notice of a paffage. wherein St. Paul ufes a fimilar mode of expreffion, 2 Cor. i. 3. Ευλογητος ὁ Θεος και πατηρ του Κυρίου ήμων Ιησού Χριςου; "Bleffed be GOD even the Father of "our LORD JESUS CHRIST." But the translators undoubtedly were miftaken in rendering na even. In 1 Peter i. 3. they tranflate the very fame words "Bleffed be the GOD and Father of our LORD JE

I

SUS CHRIST." One of thefe tranflations certainly must be wrong: but, if I may exprefs my own opinion, which I do with great diffidence, neither of them is ftrictly right, as I fee no neceffity for rendering :05 in the latter inftance the GoD, any more than for rendering na even in the former. To a perfon perfuaded of the Divinity of the HOLY GHOST it will appear very probable at least, if not certain, that by Oog the HOLY GHOST is intended in both inftances. St. John, in his Gofpel, tells us, xiv. 26. that the HOLY GHOST is the Comforter, & δε παράκλητος το πνευμα το άγιον. Attend then to the Apofile's words, "Bleffed be GOD, and the Father "of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; the Father of Mer

"cies

"cies, and GOD of all confolation," warns apaλŋoɛws, where evidently what he afcribes to the πατηρ is different from what he afcribes to the ɛos; and, therefore, they are diftinct perfons. Moreover, what he afcribes to each is characteristic of each; for, it is characteristic of the Father, that he is merciful; of the HOLY GHOST, that he is the Comforter. The Father is the Father of Mercies, the HOLY GHOST the GOD of all Confolation.

πατηρ

Once more ; 1 Cor. xv. 24. Ειτα το τέλος, όταν παραδω την βασιλειαν τῷ Θεῷ και πατρι. Here again Θεος Oeos and warp feem to be diftinct perfons, which is intelligible enough to those who believe that there is a trinity of perfons in the Godhead, but to others must be intricate and inexplicable. When the end cometh, when all the purposes of the Evangelical dispensation shall be finally accomplished, then fhall the kingdom, which had been exclufively exercised by the incarnate Aoys, be delivered up w, nas πατρι. warp. The vios himself will become fubject; for, the apos will no longer have any share in the kingdom, but ὁ Θεος will be all in all, τα παντα εν wary; and the Aoyos, who had been in union with the apos, will be altogether in the unity of the Godhead Θεού, και πατρος.

Should any one object to the interpretation of na by "and" in the words w, no warp, he will be pleased to confider, that, if it is interpreted even, the

dif

difference will be more in appearance than in reality; inasmuch as "GOD even the Father" will still imply a Osos diftinct from the Father. For, if by og was neceffarily and exclufively meant the Father, and if by the Father was neceffarily and exclusively meant eos, the use of both terms would be fuperfluous, and no more information would be conveyed by the use of both terins than by the use of one only; fo that, interpret it as you will, there will not be much difference. In the one cafe, eos nas warne will be diftinft by implication; in the other, the diftinction will be direct.

I have farther to obferve, and therein I apprehend I fhall meet with no oppofition from perfons of the Arian perfuafion, that Θεος πατηρ and ὁ Θεος και warp are marked to be of different imports by the omiffion or addition of the article; where the words are used without the intervention of the conjunction, the article is constantly omitted, and when xx intervenes, the article is as conftantly prefixed. And this rule is invariably preferved, I believe, by all the different writers of the New Teftament, with only these two exceptions, if indeed they may be called exceptions, John vi. 27, τούτον γαρ ὁ πατηρ εσφρα γισεν, ὁ Θεός, and Ephef. iv. 6, εις Θεος και πατηρ πάντων. Befides these two, I know of no other paffages in the New Teftament which have even the appearance of being exceptions to the general rule; but I hardly think that these two inftances can with

any