ternal relation to God as his peculiar people. Here it may have a special refpect to their repentance foretold in the preceding verses. But can Dr P. really mean that this defignation, as denoting the Saviour, is to be understood in no higher a sense than when applied to those who have previously been as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke, and who have borne the reproach of their youth? ver. 19, 20.

BOOK

VINDICATION

OF THE

DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE, &c.

BOOK IV.

OF DOCTOR PRIESTLEY's ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

CHAP. I.

The first Argument, from what is supposed to be the general Tenor of the Scriptures, confidered.

THE

66

66

HE Doctor prefaces his objections by a very just observation. "An impartial perfon," he says, "may eafily fatisfy himself, that the writers of the books of scripture held the doctrine of one God, and that they were "understood to do fo by those persons for whose use the "books were written." Here in words at least we perfectly agree with our author. But the foundation of the Socinian

3

☀ Vol. i. p. 3, 4.

Socinian fyftem is laid in the assumption of two falsehoods, as if they had been proved to be indifputable truths; firft, that those who hold the doctrine of the Trinity believe in more Gods than, one; and fecondly, that one God muft of neceffity be one perfon only. The charge of polytheism, however, belongs not to Trinitarians, but to their opponents, who afcribe the perfections and prerogatives of the one God to angels, and to a mere man. It must be obvious to every impartial reader, that on thefe falfe grounds the whole of Dr P.'s reasoning against the divinity of our Saviour proceeds.

66

66

He grants that the plural number" is made ufe of, when "God is represented as faying, Gen. i. 26. Let us make "man." "But," he adds, "that this is mere phraseology, "is evident from its being faid immediately after, in the fingular number, ver. 27. God created man in bis own image, so that the creator was still one being *." A plurality of perfons in an unity of being, is all that we plead for. But nothing will please a Socinian, as a proof of a plurality of perfons, that would not prove a plurality of beings, that is, of gods. He alfo refers to these words, Gen. xi. 7. God faid, Let us go down, and there confound their language. His reply to the argument for a plurality from this paffage, is equally fage. “But we find, in the very "next verse, that it was one "fected this." And what Trinitarian ever afferted the contrary? That kind of speaking or writing cannot justly be dignified with the name of argument, that proves what has never been doubted by the adverfe party. The Doctor ought to have proved, not that one being was the agent in both inftances; but that a fingle perfon is meant, when the plural number is ufed, and that he did not address any other person, but himself.

being only who actually ef

Our author goes on in the fame important demonstration.

L

* Ibid. p. 4.

66

"In all the intercourfe of God, with Adam, Noah, and the "other patriarchs, no mention is made of more than one being who addressed them under that character. The name “by which he is distinguished is fometimes Jehovah, and at "other times the God of Abraham, &c." He might also have mentioned that he who calls himself the God of Abraham, is called the Angel of Jehovah. But this would have given him the trouble of formally answering an objection, which, as has been already feen, he wifely paffes over as lightly as poffible, when brought in by him, as if merely en passant. A wife man will not raise a ghost, which he is not sure that he can lay.

As a proof of the unity of God, in the Socinian sense, the Doctor refers to Deut. vi. 4. But it has been formerly proved that the ancient Jews, however stedfastly they maintained the doctrine of the divine unity, explained this paffage of a plurality of persons *.

"The Meffiah," he says, " is supposed to be announced "to our first parents under the title of the feed of the wo66 man, Gen. iii. 15 t." We hope, the Doctor does not suppose any thing elfe: however unpalatable this expreffion may be to him, now that he has difcovered that the fcriptural doctrine of the miraculous conception has the marks of a "story inconfiftent and ill-digefted." But he has found out a method of getting rid of this fingular expreffion: "The phrafe born of woman, which is," he fays, "of the fame import, is always in scripture synonymous to "man." It is exprefsly denied that the phrafe born of woman is of the fame import with the feed of the woman. There are other paffages which contain language of the fame import: but it is always fo guarded as to fhew that an extraordinary, and even an unparalleled event is meant. Thus it is faid, Jer. xxxi. 22. The Lord bat created a new thing in the earth, A woman fball compass a man.

See above, p. 74.—76. † Vol. i. p. 8.

But was

it a new thing in the earth, for a man to be born of a we man? It was a fign that JEHOVAH himself was to give, that a virgin should conceive, and bear a fon, Ifa. vii. 14. If Jefus received his human nature in the ordinary way, the Apostle Paul is chargeable with a mere affectation of fingularity, without the least reason, when he says that God fent forth his Son made of a woman, Gal. iv. 3. One of these very texts on which the Doctor leans, for the support of his affertion with refpect to the confonancy of the phrases mentioned, proves to him a broken reed which pierces into How the very heart of his argument. This is Job xxv. 4. can be be clean that is born of a woman? Because no one born of a woman, according to the ordinary course of nature, can be clean; it was neceffary that our high-prieft fhould be feparate from finners in his very conception, and therefore that he should be made of a woman.

Dr P. quotes Deut. xviii. 18. I will raise them up a prophet, from among their brethren, &c. adding, with an air of triumph; "Here is nothing like a fecond perfon in the "Trinity, a perfon equal to the Father, but a mere pro"phet, delivering in the name of God, whatever he is or"dered fo to do." This kind of reasoning would be valid, if the friends of the deity of Chrift refused that he sustained any other character than that of a divine person. But on no other fuppofition does it deferve an answer. Much in the fame manner, might thofe, who never saw David till he was afcending Mount Olivet, weeping, with his head uncovered, and bare-foot, fay; "Here is nothing "like the King of Ifrael." Jefus fays to his disciples, Lo, I am among you as one that ferveth. With equal propriety might it be argued from these words, that he conld be in no respect fuperior to the difciples, because bere is nothing like fuperiority. Our author ought to give his argument its due weight. For the words of God by Mofes will equally

#Ibid. p. 9.

prove