Greek articles untranslated in our bibles. Notable doctrine for papists, whose faith must depend on what the learned say, but cannot judge for themselves, not having the scriptures in a language they know: besides, it may seem strange, that the fidelity of the learned translators allowed them to withhold words of such peculiar emphasis; this amounts at least to a strong presumption, that they did not judge them of such importance as some now would persuade us they are: but how far they are so, will appear by considering,

Secondly. The use and grammatical sense of the word THAT, which they would here supply. It sometimes signifies the other, as opposed to this. Sometimes it signifies WHO, when applied to a person mentioned before. When taken comparatively, it expresses the eminence of the person spoken of, above all others that bear the same name. In this last sense it must be taken, if added to the text; so THAT CHRIST, THAT SON, will point out the peculiar eminence of the person spoken of, above all others that were anointed to be prophets, priests, and kings; and all that bear the title Son of God: or that he was the very person prophecied of, and described by these characters in the old testament. And I must also observe, if the word that is used here, it cannot properly be an article, but a demonstrative adjective or quality, pointing out our LORD to be that peculiar Son of GOD, whom they so long expected, and who had a peculiar relation and likeness to God. But,

Thirdly. The critics are not agreed how often the word should be repeated in the text. Goodwin and others think it should be read thus, "That CHRIST, that Sox of that GOD, that living GOD." If this is so, and these articles, (as they are called)

have such influence upon the terms in the first clause," that CHRIST, that SON," they must have the same in the latter, "that GOD, that living GOD," and so the term GOD, and living GOD, will not be of the same import; but as different in meaning, as they would have the terms Christ and Son to be. But as I hope none will presume to affirm, that they can make any difference in the sense of the terms in the last clause, we may safely affirm they make none in the former; and so this mighty argument, after so much weight has been laid upon it, makes against the contrivers of it, and tends to strengthen the cause it is brought against.

Though the above objection is founded upon several other texts of the same import with that we have been considering, yet it is unnecessary to take particular notice of each of them, as I have chosen that which the objectors reckon most for their purpose, and what is said on it equally shews the import of similar texts where they occur. There are also some other passages of scripture which have been opposed to the above account of Christ's sonship: but as they are rather brought as arguments for natural sonship, or that he is a SON, as he is GOD, I judged it more orderly to consider them among the other arguments produced for that doctrine. I shall then shew, that they are every one against the notion which they are brought to prove, and tend to confirm the truth of Christ's economical Sonship.

SECTION IV.

HAVING given the scripture account of the character of CHRIST as a SON, it is necessary that something be said concerning the name, title, appellation, or character WORD, which is given him. As it is owing to the prejudice of education, that the term SoN is so little understood, I suppose, it will be found, that on the same account, the term WORD is applied to CHRIST in a wrong sense: whereby the significant ideas which are conveyed by the use of it in the sacred volumes, are in a great measure lost to such as are accustomed to take things of this kind upon trust, as handed down to them, without being at the pains to consult the scriptures impartially to find the true import

thereof.

The schoolmen's definitions of this term, as applied to CHRIST, are such as no man can have any ideas of, without first supposing him to be a mere creature; as they are inconsistent with any notions that revelation affords us of Deity. Even they themselves pretend not to know what is meant by the terms they use, and are therefore obliged to put this into the number of the great mysteries in religion, which cannot be understood, and so should not be enquired into. This is a fate which many of the plain truths in revelation have been subjected to. Many critics have attempted to reconcile the inferior characters of the WORD to true and eternal Deity, by supposing that both a real derivation, and some natural as well as economical inferiority may be allowed to belong to the LOGOS, even in his divine nature. But this, with other things of the same kind, I leave to those who can defend the doctrine of a derived GOD.

It would be of small advantage to examine the subtle distinctions, which have been advanced on this point: nor dare I depart so far from the present purpose. I shall endeavor to make it appear, that the term WORD, is part of the economical character of CHRIST in the new testament, and so must be of peculiar advantage for every christian to consider and know.

John uses this title of CHRIST oftener than the other writers of the new testament: but wherever it is mentioned, it is plainly meant of his economical character. Luke, in the preface to his gospel, says, the disciples "were eye-witnesses, and ministers, or servants of the WORD." That by the WORD here, is meant JESUS CHRIST, and not the gospel, as some suppose, is evident from the words; for with the greatest propriety might the disciples be called eye-witnesses of CHRIST, as Peter also speaks of their being "eye-witnesses of his majesty." But it must be a very forced construction, and in effect saying, that Luke did not write good sense, to call them eye-witnesses of the gospel, which would rather been ear-witnesses, had that been the

sense.

Besides, it would seem very strange in Luke, to write a preface to the history of the life and actions of CHRIST, and not mention to Theophilus, (to whom he wrote it) any name or title of the person whose history he was about to write: but this must be the case, if JESUS CHRIST is not intended by the term WORD in the preface, for there is not any other word that points him out in it.

Now, as the WORD here means JESUS CHRIST, (for I can see nothing of any consequence against

it) this is one instance wherein he is called the WORD, in his economical character: or the gospel of Luke is not a history of him under that consideration, which none will presume to say.

The apostle, in his epistle to the Hebrews, says, "The WORD of GOD is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow; and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." What is here predicated of the WORD, cannot with such propriety belong to the written word, as to JESUS CHRIST, the " living WORD of GOD." The last clause determines the whole, as it is the very cha racter he challenges to himself," I am he who searcheth the reins and the hearts." And the next verse connected with this shews, that it must be a person, not a thing that is meant, for the personal relatives are always used, which have no other antecedent than the WORD OF GOD mentioned before. 66 Neither, says the apostle, is there any creature that is not manifest in HIS sight: but all things are naked, and open unto the eyes of HIM, with whom we have to do." Omniscience is here attributed to the WORD, which is not proper to the written word: and the scriptures certify us, that Christ shall judge the world, who must be the same with the WORD here spoken of, to whom, says the apostle, we must give an account: besides, it is added, this WORD is the "great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, JESUS, the Son of GOD." This, with what the apostle had formerly said concerning the WORD, he makes an argument for the same thing, to encourage them in perseverance and stedfastness. "Let us labor therefore