fpect to this text. Some of the Polish Socinians acknowledge that the original word is eos, and pretend that this defignation is given to Chrift. officially; or that God the Father is meant, and that the blood of Chrift is called his, because of the intimate union between them, notwithstanding diverfity of effence *.

Dr P. is not fo liberal in his conceffions. "In the moft "ancient manufcripts," he says, "this text is, Feed the "church of the Lord, which generally fignifies Christ +." By the way we may obferve that, although our author here grants that the term Lord has generally this meaning, when he defcends to particulars, there are a great many exceptions. It can never fignify Chrift, however ftrong the collateral evidence, where it can fignify any thing unfriendly to the Socinian fyftem. Of this we have a striking proof in the paragraph immediately preceding, where that paffage is introduced, And thou, Lord, in the beginning haft laid, &c. Heb. i. 10. Though there can be no connexion in the apostle's reasoning, if these words refer not to Christ, yet they must be understood of the Father alone.

Only three manuscripts are mentioned as reading the Lord; while all the reft, fome of which are reckoned of at least equal authority, give the language according to our verfion. A few of these join the Lord with God. But this makes no difference as to the sense, but rather confirms the ordinary reading. It deferves attention, that the church of the Lord is a phrase never ufed in the New Testament; whereas we often read of the church of God.

But even fuppofing that the true reading were, the church of the Lord, as respecting Chrift, the paffage would still afford a striking proof of his Deity. For it is undeniable that the church is God's (1 Cor. i. 2. x. 32. xi. 22, &c.) that it is as much his property as a man's house is his, to

the

Vid. Catech. Racov.

Famil. Illuft. p. 36.

the exclufion of every other proprietor. Therefore we read of the boufe of God, which is the church of the living God (1 Tim. iii. 15). But if the church be also Chrift's, if it be bis own boufe; it must neceffarily follow that he is the living God, (Heb. iii. 6. 12.)

Our author adds; "Alfo in fome copies it is, which "be purchafed with blood; that is, 'the blood of his "Son." He evidently ftumbles on this ftone. For when he tells us, that "the Lord generally fignifies Christ,” it might be fuppofed that he would adhere to this sense of the paffage, as fupported by "the most ancient manuscripts." But the very next fentence is at war with it. The perfon is changed. The term Lord is applied to the Father. It avails not, it would feem, though all the members of a text should contradict each other, if the whole be preferved from contributing any thing to the doctrine of Immanuel.

He further obferves that "as the blood of God is a phrafe " which occurs no where else in the fcriptures, we ought "to be exceedingly cautious how we admit fuch an expref"fion." It would be more honest and confiftent to say, that, as the Bible contains fuch a doctrine, as that the man, the fellow of JEHOVAH, could be fmitten, we" ought to be "exceedingly cautious how we admit fuch a book."

A very fage obfervation brings up the rear: "If Chrift "was God, his blood could not be his blood as God, but as "man." Can our author prove that God could not unite to his own perfect and impaffible nature one infinitely inferior; or that, in this cafe, what properly belonged to the inferior nature, could not be afcribed to the perfon, as denominated from the superior?

A

VINDICATION

OF THE

DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE, &c.

BOOK III.

OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST, FROM THE

USE OF THAT EXPRESSION, THE SON OF GOD.

S the Evangelifts, in a great variety of paffages, call Jefus the Son of God, I once thought of illuftrating this character among the proofs of his Divinity from the three first gospels. But this argument opening a wide field, it seemed more proper to view it diftinctly. Nor could it appear in that luftre of evidence which naturally belongs to it, were not some attention paid to the ufe of this expreffion by other inspired writers. But when this striking phrafeology is viewed in connexion with thofe various ideas which are combined with it in the language of inspiration, like the rays of light concentrated in one point, its force is greatly increased, and all the objections of adverfaries are as a thread of tow when it toucheth the fire.

That

C

That I may, as far as poffible, do juftice to the fubject, I fhall inquire, how this character was understood by faints under the Old Teftament; in what fense it was proclaimed by the Father; how it was interpreted by holy angels, by devils, and by the enemies of Chrift; what ideas it conveyed, as expreffed by Jefus himself; what fenfe believers affixed to it during his abode on earth; and how it was applied to him by the apoftles and others, after his afcenfion.

It may be previously observed, that when Chrift is called the Son, without any addition, it is to be understood in the fame fense as when he is more particularly denominated the Son of God.

D

С НА Р. I.

Of the Faith of Saints under the Old Teftament; and of the
Teftimony of the Father, and of boly Angels, concerning
Chrift as the Son of God.

ELIEVERS under the Old Teftament knew the Mef

BELIEV

fiah as a Son begotten of the Father; as it is faid, Pfal. ii. 7. Thou art my Son, this day bave I begotten thee. They confidered this as a proper generation, and as implying unity of effence. For they embraced this Son as the object of their faith, and were affured of the blessedness of all who did fo. Thus it is faid, ver. 12. Kifs ye the Son, left he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little: bleffed are all they that put their trust in him. They could not have this affurance, without believing his Deity. For they were taught by the fame authority, that curfed is the man that trufteth in man, Jer. xvii. 5. They

They knew that this confidence was that which belongs to God alone, Ifa. xlviii. 2. 1. 10. They were perfuaded that, if they refused to receive and rely on him as the proper object of their faith, they subjected themselves to eternal mifery; they would perish from the way. Can any one, therefore, who candidly confiders their faith in the Meffiah, as here declared, affert of the Jews without diftinction, that they never expected any other than a man "like themselves *?"

66

Solomon introduces the Wisdom of God as giving this teftimony to the fons of men; When there were no depths, I was brought forth.-Before the mountains were fettled, be-fore the bills was I brought forth, Prov. viii. 24, 25. That this can only be understood as the language of a person, has been elsewhere proved. To the fame purpose is the faith of the church expreffed by Micah: Whofe goings forth have been from of old, from everlafting, chap. v. 2.

Long before the incarnation, the church knew this glorious Person as in the bofom of the Father, as the Son of his love; according to that divine teftimony, Then was I by him, as one brought up with him, or as a fofter-son, and I was daily bis delight, Prov. viii. 30. They believed in him as the Counsellor, Ifa. ix. 6.

They acknowledged him as a Son whofe nature was ineffable. Therefore Agur faith; What is his Son's Name, if tbou canft tell? Prov. xxx. 4. Name must be understood in the fame fenfe here, as in the claufe immediately preceding, where it is used with refpect to the Father. Now, they knew his name; but not the full import of it, as expreffing his incomprehenfible nature. They believed that the nature of the Son was as incomprehenfible as that of the Father. Therefore are these two questions joined, with a note of defiance equally applicable to both; What is his Name, or bis Son's Name, if thou canst tell?

Hift, of Corrupt. vol. i. p. 2.

They