ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerufalem for the Name of the Lord Jefus. And when he would not be perfuaded, we ceased, faying, The will of the Lord be done. Nor would fuch a reader fuppofe that the brethren afcribed too much to him, for whofe Name Paul was willing to fuffer fo much. It would naturally occur, that the Lord for whom he was ready to die, had surely something to say as to the difpofal of his lot. But let our author inform us, if it be not this Lord Jefus, of whom another Apostle, as expreffing the faith of all believers in his time, declares; This is the confidence that we have in him, that if we ask any thing ACCORDING TO HIS WILL, be beareth us. And if we know that he bear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him, 1 John V. 14, 15.

Dr P. here tranfcribes the whole prayer of the apoftles, recorded Acts iv. 24. and carefully inferts or fervant, where according to our verfion it is thy Holy Child Jefus. But what does all this prove, but that which hath never been denied on the other fide, that God the Father is properly addreffed in prayer? But it cannot prove that he is the only object.

The Doctor then fays; "We have now examined fome "particulars both of the inftructions, and the examples of fcrip"ture with regard to the proper object of prayer, in time of "perfecution," &c. He here refers to a notion which fome have entertained, that " Chrift is the proper object of "prayer in time of perfecution." But furely he who may with propriety be addreffed as the object of worship at any time, may be thus addressed at all times.

The Doctor has examined thefe, but he has carefully paffed over a great variety of other inftructions and examples, which clearly prove that Chrift is the object of prayer. We have formerly feen that the firft Chriftians

were

Vol. i. p. 43.

were generally known by the defignation of those who called on the Name of Jefus, and proved that this denotes religious worship; that they prayed to him, when supplying the vacancy in the college of the Apostles, Acts i. 24. that Stephen truly did so, chap. vii. 59, 60. that Paul was engaged in the fame exercise, chap. xxii. 17. 1 Tim. i. 12. and that he commended or dedicated the elders of the church of Ephefus to the gracious Word of God, as really as to God the Father, Acts xx. 32.

Many other paffages might be mention, which contain the fame proof. We have Paul's own account of his exercise, when buffeted by a messenger of Satan. For this thing, he says, I befought the Lord thrice.-And HE faid unto me, My grace is fufficient for thee; my strength is made perfect in thy weakness. With the fame breath he adds; Moft gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in mine infirmity, that the power of Chrift may rest upon me, 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9. Surely, the fame Lord, whom he befought, anfwered him : and that this was the Lord Christ, is evident from Paul's calling that the power or frength of Chrift, (for the word is the fame) which the Lord had called his power. Whatever the Lord meant by his firength being made perfect in Paul's weakness, Paul himself understood as included in the strength of Chrift refting on him, or dwelling in him as in a tabernacle.

Does not the fame Apoftle view Chrift as the object of prayer, equally with the Father, when he says; Now may God bimfelf, and our Father, and our Lord Jefus Chrift, direct our way unto you? 1 Thef. iii. 11.

Jefus received this honour from his difciples and others, even during his humiliation. They prayed to him for temporal falvation, which none but God can give, Mat. viii. 25. for mercy, chap. ix. 27. for the increafe of their

faith, Luke xvii. 5. for the fuppreffion of their unbelief, Mark ix. 24.

The fame glorious Person was addressed by believers, as the object of prayer, before his incarnation. Jacob fupplicated the God of his fathers as that Angel who had redeemed him from all evil, and who had power to blefs, Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. He was known as the Name of the God of Facob, and under this character addreffed as the object of prayer, and as the protector of his people, Pfal. xx. 1. Now, we have the impartial teftimony of Philo, that thẹ perfonal Word was called the Name of God.

CHA P. IV.

Of Dr Priestley's objection to the Doctrine of the Trinity, aş implying a Contradiction.

I

ASK then," our author fays, "wherein does the Athanafian doctrine of the Trinity differ from a con"tradiction? It afferts in effect that nothing is wanting to "either the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, to constitute "each of them truly and properly God, each of them being "equal in eternity, and all divine perfections; and yet "that these three are not three Gods, but only one God. "They are therefore both one and many in the same re"fpect, viz. in each being perfect God." It is granted, that we are not bound to believe any thing to be a divine doctrine, that is really contradictory to right reason. But from the weakness, and especially from the depravation of our powers, things may feem contradictions, which are by no means so in fact. Even reason may teach us, that it is unquestionably our duty to believe a revealed doctrine, although it should infinitely exceed our comprehenfion.

The

The objection, produced by Dr P., has been often answered before. The terms of the argument, as it is called, are somewhat altered, but the fubftance is the fame. It is an evident fophifm. For the Doctor affumes that each perfon is confidered by Trinitarians as "truly and properly

God," fo as to engrofs all divine perfections to himself. In this cafe, each perfon would have divine perfections of his own, diftinct from those of the other perfons. But we believe that each perfon is "truly and properly God," as having all divine perfections, though not exclufively. The equality afferted, is not that of things perfectly alike, yet fubftantially diftinet; but an equality in the poffeffion of the fame things, of the fame "eternity, and all divine per"fections." Therefore, they are not one and many in "the fame refpects." For they are one, as to abfolute identity of nature and perfections; but many, with respect to the individual and common poffeffion of what is effentially one.

66

The Doctor is chargeable with an obvious fallacy in the structure of his argument. He uses the term God in one fenfe only, as if this were a fair state of the invariable practice of Trinitarians. Whereas, according to scriptural example, they use it, in the connexion to which his argument refers, in two different senses. In the one, it denotes a perfon; in the other, a nature. When one person is faid to be "truly and properly God," the term is used perfonally; but when the three perfons are faid to be one God, effentially. He, indeed, blends two diftinct terms, as if they were equally applied to different objects" in the fame

respect." These are God, and one God. But one perfon is faid to be "truly and properly God," not as exclu ding the other adorable persons, but as diftinguishing the effence of the perfon fpoken of from that of all creatures. The three persons are said to be one God, not as immediate

ly opposed to creatures, but as excluding all diversity of effence among these persons.

There is another evident fallacy in this argument. Our author throws in a term, in his conclufion, not to be found in the premises. This is perfect God. The introduction of this new term tends greatly to perplex the reader; and seems to give a force to the conclufion, to which it has no claim. Now, this is against all the rules of reafoning: and it is especially unfair, as the expreffion is not commonly used by Trinitarians. A believer in the Trinity might say, that one perfon is perfectly God; meaning, that he is completely a divine perfon. But he would not say, that one is perfect God, at least in the fenfe affumed in the argument; because, in the idea of God effentially confidered, he includes, not merely all divine perfections, but the different modes of subsistence.

It is evident that, in Dr P.'s argument, the two firft propofitions are meant to exprefs the principles of Trinitarians. But when these propofitions are stated according to their real principles, it must appear to every candid reader, that the conclufion by no means follows.

"Nothing is wanting to either the Father, the Son, or "the Spirit, to conftitute each of them a perfon truly and "properly God."

But these three perfons, being of the fame effence, are only one God.

Therefore, they are both one and many in the fame refpect, viz. in each being perfect God."

This argument, then, has one character of a fophifm, always given by logicians. The premises do not contain the conclufion.

"This is certainly," the Doctor fays, "as much a con"tradiction as to say that Peter, James, and John, having " each of them every thing that is requifite to conftitute a