PREFACE TO THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS

THE Epistle to the Hebrews, on which the reader is about to enter, is by far the most important and useful of all the apostolic writings; all the doctrines of the Gospel are in it embodied, illustrated, and enforced in a manner the most lucid, by references and examples the most striking and illustrious, and by arguments the most cogent and convincing. It is an epitome of the dispensations of God to man, from the foundation of the world to the advent of Christ. It is not only the sum of the GOSPEL, but the sum and completion of the LAW, on which it is also a most beautiful and luminous comment. Without this, the law of Moses had never been fully understood, nor God's design in giving it. With this, all is clear and plain, and the ways of God with man rendered consistent and harmonious.

The apostle appears to have taken a portion of one of his own epistles for his text-CHRIST is the END of the LAW for RIGHTEOUSNESS to them that BELIEVE, and has most amply and impressively demonstrated his proposition. All the rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices of the Mosaic institution are shown to have had Christ for their object and end, and to have had neither intention nor meaning but in reference to him; yea, as a system to be without substance, as a law to be without reason, and its enactments to be both impossible and absurd, if taken out of this reference and connection. Never were premises more clearly stated; never was an argument handled in a more masterly manner; and never was a conclusion more legitimately and satisfactorily brought forth. The matter is everywhere the most interesting; the manner is throughout the most engaging; and the language is most beautifully adapted to the whole, everywhere appropriate, always nervous and energetic, dignified as is the subject, pure and elegant as that of the most accomplished Grecian orators, and harmonious and diversified as the music of the spheres.

So many are the beauties, so great the excellency, so instructive the matter, so pleasing the manner, and so exceedingly interesting the whole, that the work may be read a hundred times over without perceiving any thing of sameness, and with new and increased information at each reading. This latter is an excellency which belongs to the whole revelation of God; but to no part of it in such a peculiar and supereminent manner as to the Epistle to the Hebrews.

To explain and illustrate this epistle multitudes have toiled hard; and exhibited much industry, much learning, and much piety. I also will show my opinion; and ten thousand may succeed me, and still bring out something that is new. That it was written to Jews, naturally such, the whole structure of the epistle proves. Had it been written to the Gentiles, not one in ten thousand of them could have comprehended the argument, because unacquainted with the Jewish system; the knowledge of which the writer of this epistle everywhere supposes. He who is well acquainted with the Mosaic law sits down to the study of this epistle with double advantages; and he who knows the traditions of the elders, and the Mishnaic illustrations of the written, and pretended oral law of the Jews, is still more likely to enter into and comprehend the apostle's meaning. No man has adopted a more likely way of explaining its phraseology than Schoettgen, who has traced its peculiar diction to Jewish sources; and, according to him, the proposition of the whole epistle is this:- JESUS OF NAZARETH IS THE TRUE GOD.

And in order to convince the Jews of the truth of this proposition, the apostle uses but three arguments: 1. Christ is superior to the angels. 2. He is superior to Moses. 3. He is superior to Aaron.

These arguments would appear more distinctly were it not for the improper division of the chapters; as he who divided them in the middle ages (a division to which we are still unreasonably attached) had but a superficial knowledge of the word of God. In consequence of this it is that one peculiar excellency of the apostle is not noticed, viz. his application of every argument, and the strong exhortation founded on it. Schoettgen has very properly remarked, that commentators in general have greatly misunderstood the apostle's meaning through their unacquaintance with the Jewish writings and their peculiar phraseology, to which the apostle is continually referring, and of which he makes incessant use. He also supposes, allowing for the immediate and direct inspiration of the apostle, that he had in view this remarkable saying of the rabbins, on Isa. lii. 13: "Behold, my servant will deal prudently." Rab. Tanchum, quoting Yalcut Simeoni, part ii., fol. 53, says: hyìmh √lm hz , "This is the King Messiah, who shall be greatly extolled, and elevated: he shall be elevated beyond Abraham; shall be more eminent than Moses; and more exalted than hrìh ykalmm the ministering angels." Or, as it is expressed in Yalcut Kadosh, fol. cxli5: hìm nmw twbah nm lwdg hyìm hrìh yklm nmw Mashiach gadol min ha-aboth; umin Mosheh; umin Malakey hashshareth. "The Messiah is greater than the patriarchs; than Moses; and than the ministering angels." These sayings he shows to have been fulfilled in our Messiah; and as he dwells on the superiority of our Lord to all these illustrious persons because they were at the very top of all comparisons among the Jews; he, according to their opinion, who was greater than all these, must be greater than all created beings.

This is the point which the apostle undertakes to prove, in order that he may show the Godhead of Christ; therefore, if we find him proving that Jesus was greater than the patriarchs, greater than Aaron, greater than Moses, and greater than the angels, he must be understood to mean, according to the Jewish phraseology, that Jesus is an uncreated Being, infinitely greater than all others, whether earthly or heavenly. For, as they allowed the greatest eminence (next to God) to angelic beings, the apostle concludes "that he who is greater than the angels is truly God: but Christ is greater than the angels; therefore Christ is truly God." Nothing can be clearer than that this is the apostle's grand argument; and the proofs and illustrations of it meet the reader in almost every verse.

That the apostle had a plan on which he drew up this epistle is very clear, from the close connection of every part. The grand divisions seem to be three:- I. The proposition, which is very short, and is contained in chap. i. 1-3.

The majesty and pre-eminence of Christ.

II. The proof or arguments which support the proposition, viz.:- CHRIST IS GREATER THAN THE ANGELS.

1. Because he has a more excellent name than they, chap. i. 4, 5. 2. Because the angels of God adore him, chap. i. 6. 3. Because the angels were created by him, chap. i. 7. 4. Because, in his human nature, he was endowed with greater gifts than they, chap. i. 8, 9. 5. Because he is eternal, chap. i. 10, 11, 12. 6. Because he is more highly exalted, chap. i. 13. 7. Because the angels are only the servants of God; he, the Son, chap. i. 14.

In the application of this argument he exhorts the Hebrews not to neglect Christ, chap. ii. 1, by arguments drawn,:- 1. From the minor to the major, chap. ii. 2, 3.

2. Because the preaching of Christ was confirmed by miracles, chap. ii. 4.

3. Because, in the economy of the New Testament, angels are not the administrators; but the Messiah himself, to whom all things are subject, chap. ii. 5.

Here the apostle inserts a twofold objection, professedly drawn from Divine revelation:- 1. Christ is man, and is less than the angels. What is man-thou madest him a little lower than the angels, chap. ii. 6, 7. Therefore he cannot be superior to them.

To this it is answered: 1. Christ as a mortal man, by his death and resurrection, overcame all enemies, and subdued all things to himself; therefore he must be greater than the angels, chap. ii. 9.

2. Though Christ died, and was in this respect inferior to the angels, yet it was necessary that he should take on him this mortal state, that he might be of the same nature with those whom he was to redeem; and this he did without any prejudice to his Divinity, chap. ii. 10-18.

CHRIST IS GREATER THAN MOSES.

1. Because Moses was only a servant; Christ, the Lord, Hebrews iii. 2-6.

The application of this argument he makes from Psa. xcv. 7- 11, which he draws out at length, ver. 7-18; iv. 1-13.

CHRIST IS GREATER THAN AARON, AND ALL THE OTHER HIGH PRIESTS.

1. Because he has not gone through the veil of the tabernacle to make an atonement for sin, but has entered for this purpose into heaven itself, chap. iv. 14.

2. Because he is the Son of God, chap. iv. 14.

3. Because it is from him we are to implore grace and mercy, chap. iv. 15, 16, and chap. iv. 1, 2, 3.

4. Because he was consecrated High Priest by God himself, chap. v. 4-10.

5. Because he is not a priest according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedec, which was much more ancient, and much more noble, chap. 7. For the excellence and prerogatives of this order, see the notes.

6. Because he is not a typical priest, prefiguring good things to come, but the real Priest, of whom the others were but types and shadows, chap. viii. 1-9. For the various reasons by which this argument is supported, see also the notes.

In this part of the epistle the apostle inserts a digression, in which he reproves the ignorance and negligence of the Hebrews in their mode of treating the sacred Scriptures. See chap. v. 11, and chap. 6.

The application of this part contains the following exhortations:- 1. That they should carefully retain their faith in Christ as the true Messiah, chap. x. 19-23. 2. That they should be careful to live a godly life, chap. x. 24, 25. 3. That they should take care not to incur the punishment of disobedience, chap. x. 32-37, and chap. xii. 3-12. 4. That they should place their whole confidence in God, live by faith, and not turn back to perdition chap. x. 38; xii. 2. 5. That they should consider and imitate the faith and obedience of their eminent ancestors, chap. 11. 6.

That they should take courage, and not be remiss in the practice of the true religion, chap. xii. 12-24. 7. That they should take heed not to despise the Messiah, now speaking to them from heaven, chap. xii. 25-29.

III. Practical and miscellaneous exhortations relative to sundry duties, chap. 13.

All these subjects, (whether immediately designed by the apostle himself, in this particular order, or not,) are pointedly considered in this most excellent epistle; in the whole of which the superiority of CHRIST, his Gospel, his priesthood, and his sacrifice, over Moses, the law, the Aaronic priesthood, and the various sacrifices prescribed by the law, is most clearly and convincingly shown.

Different writers have taken different views of the order in which these subjects arc proposed, but most commentators have produced the same results.

For other matters relative to the author of the epistle, the persons to whom it was sent, the language in which it was composed, and the time and place in which it was written, the reader is referred to the introduction, where these matters are treated in sufficient detail.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.

Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5571. - Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5565. - Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5555. - Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4067. - Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4291. - Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3823. - Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4422 -Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2411. - Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3165. - Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1003. - Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 810. - Year of the CCXth Olympiad, 3. - Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 810. - Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 814. - Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 815. - Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 816. - Year of the era of the Seleucidae, 375. - Year of the Caesarean era of Antioch, 111. - Year of the Julian era, 108. - Year of the Spanish era, 101. - Year from the birth of Jesus Christ according to Archbishop Usher, 67. - Year of the vulgar era of Christ's nativity, 63. - Year of Albinus, governor of the Jews, 2. - Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 14. - Year of Domitius Corbulo, governor of Syria, 4. - Year of Matthias, high priest of the Jews, 1. - Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 64. - Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 7; or the second after the second embolismic. - Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 4, or the first after the first embolismic. - Year of the Solar Cycle, 16. - Dominical Letter, it being the third after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, B. - Day of the Jewish Passover, according to the Roman computation of time, the IIId of the calends of April, or, in our common mode of reckoning, the thirtieth of March, which happened in this year on the fourth day after the Jewish Sabbath. - Easter Sunday, the IIId of the nones of April, named by the Jews the 19th of Nisan or Abib; and by Europeans in general, the 3d of April. - Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 6. - Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon's age on New Year's day, or the Calends of January, 13. - Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 13, 15, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 22, 22. - Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty- first of March to the Jewish Passover, 9. - Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar, the fifth Roman monarch, computing from Octavianus, or Augustus Caesar, properly the first Roman emperor, 10. - Roman Consuls, C. Memmius Regulus and L. Verginius Rufus.

CHAPTER I

Different discoveries made of the Divine will to the ancient Israelites by the prophets, 1. The discovery now perfected by the revelation of Jesus Christ, of whose excellences and glories a large description is given, 2-13. Angels are ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation, 14.

NOTES ON CHAP. I.

Verse 1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners] We can scarcely conceive any thing more dignified than the opening of this epistle; the sentiments are exceedingly elevated, and the language, harmony itself! The infinite God is at once produced to view, not in any of those attributes which are essential to the Divine nature, but in the manifestations of his love to the world, by giving a revelation of his will relative to the salvation of mankind, and thus preparing the way, through a long train of years, for the introduction of that most glorious Being, his own Son. This Son, in the fullness of time, was manifested in the flesh that he might complete all vision and prophecy, supply all that was wanting to perfect the great scheme of revelation for the instruction of the world, and then die to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. The description which he gives of this glorious personage is elevated beyond all comparison. Even in his humiliation, his suffering of death excepted, he is infinitely exalted above all the angelic host, is the object of their unceasing adoration, is permanent on his eternal throne at the right hand of the Father, and from him they all receive their commands to minister to those whom he has redeemed by his blood. in short, this first chapter, which may be considered the introduction to the whole epistle is, for importance of subject, dignity of expression, harmony and energy of language, compression and yet distinctness of ideas, equal, if not superior, to any other part of the New Testament.

Sundry times] polumerwv, from poluv, many, and perov, a part; giving portions of revelation at different times.

Divers manners] polutropwv, from poluv, many, and tropov, a manner, turn, or form of speech; hence trope, a figure in rhetoric. Lambert Bos supposes these words to refer to that part of music which is denominated harmony, viz. that general consent or union of musical sounds which is made up of different parts; and, understood in this way, it may signify the agreement or harmony of all the Old Testament writers, who with one consent gave testimony to Jesus Christ, and the work of redemption by him. To him gave all the prophets witness, that, through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins; Acts x. 43.

But it is better to consider, with Kypke, that the words are rather intended to point out the imperfect state of Divine revelation under the Old Testament; it was not complete, nor can it without the New be considered a sufficiently ample discovery of the Divine will. Under the Old Testament, revelations were made polumerwv kai polutropwv, at various times, by various persons, in various laws and forms of teaching, with various degrees of clearness, under various shadows, types, and figures, and with various modes of revelation, such as by angels, visions, dreams, mental impressions, &c. See Num. xii. 6, 8. But under the New Testament all is done aplwv, simply, by one person, i.e. JESUS, who has fulfilled the prophets, and completed prophecy; who is the way, the truth, and the life; and the founder, mediator, and governor of his own kingdom.

One great object of the apostle is, to put the simplicity of the Christian system in opposition to the complex nature of the Mosaic economy; and also to show that what the law could not do because it was weak through the flesh, Jesus has accomplished by the merit of his death, and the energy of his Spirit.

Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 1, page 7, has a passage where the very words employed by the apostle are found, and evidently used nearly in the same sense: th rov anqrwpou yuch duo organwn ontwn prov sunesin, tou men aplou, on kaloumen noun, tou de poikilou kai polumerouv kai polutropou, av aisqhseiv kaloumen. "The soul of man has two organs of intelligence: one simple, which we call mind; the other diversified, and acting in various modes and various ways, which we term sense." A similar form of expression the same writer employs in Diss. 15, page 1l21: "The city which is governed by the mob, polufwnon te einai kai polumerh kai polupaqh, is full of noise, and is divided by various factions and various passions." The excellence of the Gospel above the law is here set down in three points: 1. God spake unto the faithful under the Old Testament by Moses and the prophets, worthy servants, yet servants; now the Son is much better than a servant, ver. 4. 2. Whereas the body of the Old Testament was long in compiling, being about a thousand years from Moses to Malachi; and God spake unto the fathers by piecemeal, one while raising up one prophet, another while another, now sending them one parcel of prophecy or history, then another; but when Christ came, all was brought to perfection in one age; the apostles and evangelists were alive, some of them, when every part of the New Testament was completely finished. 3.

The Old Testament was delivered by God in divers manners, both in utterance and manifestation; but the delivery of the Gospel was in a more simple manner; for, although there are various penmen, yet the subject is the same, and treated with nearly the same phraseology throughout; James, Jude, and the Apocalypse excepted. See Leigh.

Verse 2. Last days] The Gospel dispensation, called the last days and the last time, because not to be followed by any other dispensation; or the conclusion of the Jewish Church and state now at their termination.

By his Son] It is very remarkable that the pronoun autou, his, is not found in the text; nor is it found in any MS. or version. We should not therefore supply the pronoun as our translators have done; but simply read en uiw, BY A SON, or IN A SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things. God has many sons and daughters, for he is the Father of the spirits of all flesh; and he has many heirs, for if sons, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; but he has no Son who is heir of all things, none by whom he made the worlds, none in whom he speaks, and by whom he has delivered a complete revelation to mankind, but Jesus the Christ.

The apostle begins with the lowest state in which Christ has appeared: 1.

His being a SON, born of a woman, and made under the law. He then ascends, 2. So his being an Heir, and an Heir of all things. 3. He then describes him as the Creator of all worlds. 4. As the Brightness of the Divine glory. 5. As the express Image of his person, or character of the Divine substance. 6. As sustaining the immense fabric of the universe; and this by the word of his power. 7. As having made an atonement for the sin of the world, which was the most stupendous of all his works.

"'Twas great to speak a world from nought; Twas greater to redeem." 8. As being on the right hand of God, infinitely exalted above all created beings; and the object of adoration to all the angelic host. 9. As having an eternal throne, neither his person nor his dignity ever changing or decaying.

10. As continuing to exercise dominion, when the earth and the heavens are no more! It is only in God manifested in the flesh that all these excellences can possibly appear, therefore the apostle begins this astonishing climax with the simple Sonship of Christ, or his incarnation; for, on this, all that he is to man, and all that he has done for man, is built.

Verse 3. The brightness of his glory] apaugasma thv doxhv The resplendent outbeaming of the essential glory of God. Hesychius interprets apaugasma by hliou feggov, the splendour of the sun. The same form of expression is used by an apocryphal writer, Wisdom chap. vii. 26, where, speaking of the uncreated wisdom of God, he says: "For she is the splendour of eternal light, apaugasma gar esti fwtov aidiou, and the unsullied mirror of the energy of God, and the image of his goodness." The word augasma is that which has splendour in itself apaugasma is the splendour emitted from it; but the inherent splendour and the exhibited splendour are radically and essentially the same.

The express image of his person] carakthr thv upostasewv autou? The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest, and is a perfect fac-simile of the whole. It is a metaphor taken from sealing; the die or seal leaving the full impression of its every part on the wax to which it is applied.

From these words it is evident, 1. That the apostle states Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with the Father, as the apaugasma, or proceeding splendour, must be the same with the augasma, or inherent splendour.

2. That Christ, though proceeding from the Father, is of the same essence; for if one augh, or splendour, produce another augh, or splendour, the produced splendour must be of the same essence with that which produces it.

3. That although Christ is thus of the same essence with the Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father; as the splendour of the sun, though of the same essence, is distinct from the sun itself, though each is essential to the other; as the augasma, or inherent splendour, cannot subsist without its apaugasma, or proceeding splendour, nor the proceeding splendour subsist without the inherent splendour from which it proceeds.

4. That Christ is eternal with the Father, as the proceeding splendour must necessarily be coexistent with the inherent splendour. If the one, therefore, be uncreated, the other is uncreated; if the one be eternal, the other is eternal.

Upholding all things by the word of his power] This is an astonishing description of the infinitely energetic and all pervading power of God. He spake, and all things were created; he speaks, and all things are sustained.

The Jewish writers frequently express the perfection of the Divine nature by the phrases, He bears all things, both above and below; He carries all his creatures; He bears his world; He bears all worlds by his power. The Hebrews, to whom this epistle was written, would, from this and other circumstances, fully understand that the apostle believed Jesus Christ to be truly and properly God.

Purged our sins] There may be here some reference to the great transactions in the wilderness.

1. Moses, while in communion with God on the mount, was so impressed with the Divine glories that his face shone, so that the Israelites could not behold it. But Jesus is infinitely greater than Moses, for he is the splendour of God's glory; and, 2. Moses found the government of the Israelites such a burden that he altogether sank under it. His words, Num. xi. 12, are very remarkable: Have I conceived all this people? Have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, CARRY them in thy BOSOM-unto the land which thou swearest unto their fathers? But Christ not only carried all the Israelites, and all mankind; but he upholds ALL THINGS by the word of his power.

3. The Israelites murmured against Moses and against God, and provoked the heavy displeasure of the Most High; and would have been consumed had not Aaron made an atonement for them, by offering victims and incense. But Jesus not only makes an atonement for Israel, but for the whole world; not with the blood of bulls and goats, but with his own blood: hence it is said that he purged our sins di autou, by himself his own body and life being the victim. It is very likely that the apostle had all these things in his eye when he wrote this verse; and takes occasion from them to show the infinite excellence of Jesus Christ when compared with Moses; and of his Gospel when compared with the law. And it is very likely that the Spirit of God, by whom he spoke, kept in view those maxims of the ancient Jews, concerning the Messiah, whom they represent as being infinitely greater than Abraham, the patriarchs, Moses, and the ministering angels. So Rabbi Tanchum, on Isa. l2: 13, Behold my servant shall deal prudently, says, jyìmh √lm hz Zeh melek hammashiach, this is the King Messiah; and shall be exalted, and be extolled, and be very high. "He shall be exalted above Abraham, and shall be extolled beyond Moses, and shall be more sublime than the ministering angels-."See the preface.

The right hand of the Majesty on high] As it were associated with the supreme Majesty, in glory everlasting, and in the government of all things in time and in eternity; for the right hand is the place of the greatest eminence, 1 Kings ii. 19. The king himself, in eastern countries, sits on the throne; the next to him in the kingdom, and the highest favourite, sits on his right hand; and the third greatest personage, on his left.

Verse 4. So much better than the angels] Another argument in favour of the Divinity of our Lord. The Jews had the highest opinion of the transcendent excellence of angels, they even associate them with God in the creation of the world, and suppose them to be of the privy council of the Most High; and thus they understand Gen. i. x16: Let us make man in our own image, in our own likeness; "And the Lord said to the ministering angels that stood before him, and who were created the second day, Let us make man," &c. See the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel. And they even allow them to be worshipped for the sake of their Creator, and as his representatives; though they will not allow them to be worshipped for their own sake. As, therefore, the Jews considered them next to God, and none entitled to their adoration but God; on their own ground the apostle proves Jesus Christ to be God, because God commanded all the angels of heaven to worship him. He, therefore, who is greater than the angels, and is the object of their adoration, is God. But Jesus Christ is greater than the angels, and the object of their adoration; therefore Jesus Christ must be God.

By inheritance obtained] keklhronomhken onoma. The verb klhronomein signifies generally to participate, possess, obtain, or acquire; and is so used by the purest Greek writers: Kypke has produced several examples of it from Demosthenes. It is not by inheritance that Christ possesses a more excellent name than angels, but as God: he has it naturally and essentially; and, as God manifested in the flesh, he has it in consequence of his humiliation, sufferings, and meritorious death. See Philippians ii. 9.

Verse 5. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee] These words are quoted from Psa. ii. 7, a psalm that seems to refer only to the Messiah; and they are quoted by St. Paul, Acts xiii. 33, as referring to the resurrection of Christ. And this application of them is confirmed by the same apostle, Rom. i. 4, as by his resurrection from the dead he was declared - manifestly proved, to be the Son of God with power; God having put forth his miraculous energy in raising that body from the grave which had truly died, and died a violent death, for Christ was put to death as a malefactor, but by his resurrection his innocence was demonstrated, as God could not work a miracle to raise a wicked man from the dead. As Adam was created by God, and because no natural generation could have any operation in this case, therefore he was called the son of God, Luke iii. 38, and could never have seen corruption if he had not sinned, so the human nature of Jesus Christ, formed by the energy of the eternal Spirit in the womb of the virgin, without any human intervention, was for this very reason called the Son of God, Luke i. 35; and because it had not sinned, therefore it could not see corruption, nor was it even mortal, but through a miraculous display of God's infinite love, for the purpose of making a sacrificial atonement for the sin of the world and God, having raised this sacrificed human nature from the dead, declared that same Jesus (who was, as above stated, the Son of God) to be his Son, the promised Messiah; and as coming by the Virgin Mary, the right heir to the throne of David, according to the uniform declaration of all the prophets.

The words, This day have I begotten thee, must refer either to his incarnation, when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit; or to his resurrection from the dead, when God, by this sovereign display of his almighty energy, declared him to be his Son, vindicated his innocence, and also the purity and innocence of the blessed virgin, who was the mother of this son, and who declared him to be produced in her womb by the power of God. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, to which the words most properly refer, not only gave the fullest proof that he was an innocent and righteous man, but also that he had accomplished the purpose for which he died, and that his conception was miraculous, and his mother a pure and unspotted virgin.

This is a subject of infinite importance to the Christian system, and of the last consequence in reference to the conviction and conversion of the Jews, for whose use this epistle was sent by God. Here is the rock on which they split; they deny this Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and their blasphemies against him and his virgin mother are too shocking to be transcribed. The certainty of the resurrection of Jesus refutes their every calumny; proves his miraculous conception; vindicates the blessed virgin; and, in a word, declares him to be the Son of God with power.

This most important use of this saying has passed unnoticed by almost every Christian writer which I have seen; and yet it lies here at the foundation of all the apostle's proofs. If Jesus was not thus the Son of God, the whole Christian system is vain and baseless: but his resurrection demonstrates him to have been the Son of God; therefore every thing built on this foundation is more durable than the foundations of heaven, and as inexpungable as the throne of the eternal King.

He shall be to me a Son?] As the Jews have ever blasphemed against the Sonship of Christ, it was necessary that the apostle should adduce and make strong all his proofs, and show that this was not a new revelation; that it was that which was chiefly intended in several scriptures of the Old Testament, which, without farther mentioning the places where found, he immediately produces. This place, which is quoted from 2 Samuel vii. 14, shows us that the seed which God promised to David, and who was to sit upon his throne, and whose throne should be established for ever, was not Solomon, but Jesus Christ; and indeed he quotes the words so as to intimate that they were so understood by the Jews. See among the observations at the end of the chapter.

Verse 6. And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten] This is not a correct translation of the Greek, ╞otan de palin eisagagh ton prwtotokon eiv thn oikoumenhn? But when he bringeth again, or the second time, the first-born into the habitable world. This most manifestly refers to his resurrection, which might be properly considered a second incarnation; for as the human soul, as well as the fullness of the Godhead bodily, dwelt in the man, Christ Jesus on and during his incarnation, so when he expired upon the cross, both the Godhead and the human spirit left his dead body; and as on his resurrection these were reunited to his revivified manhood, therefore, with the strictest propriety, does the apostle say that the resurrection was a second bringing of him into the world.

I have translated oikoumenh the habitable world, and this is its proper meaning; and thus it is distinguished from kosmov, which signifies the terraqueous globe, independently of its inhabitants; though it often expresses both the inhabited and uninhabited parts. Our Lord's first coming into the world is expressed by this latter word, chap. x. 5: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, dio eisercomenov eiv ton kosmov, and this simply refers to his being incarnated, that he might be capable of suffering and dying for man. But the word is changed on this second coming, I mean his resurrection, and then oikoumenh is used; and why? (fancy apart) because he was now to dwell with man; to send his gospel everywhere to all the inhabitants of the earth, and to accompany that Gospel wherever he sent it, and to be wherever two or three should be gathered together in his name. Wherever the messengers of Jesus Christ go, preaching the kingdom of God, even to the farthest and most desolate parts of the earth where human beings exist, there they ever find Christ; he is not only in them, and with them, but he is in and among all who believe on him through their word.

Let all the angels of God worship him.] The apostle recurs here to his former assertion, that Jesus is higher than the angels, ver. 4, that he is none of those who can be called ordinary angels or messengers, but one of the most extraordinary kind, and the object of worship to all the angels of God. To worship any creature is idolatry, and God resents idolatry more than any other evil. Jesus Christ can be no creature, else the angels who worship him must be guilty of idolatry, and God the author of that idolatry, who commanded those angels to worship Christ.

There has been some difficulty in ascertaining the place from which the apostle quotes these words; some suppose Psa. xcvii. 7: Worship him, all ye gods; which the Septuagint translate thus: proskunhsate autw, pantev aggeloi autou? Worship him, all ye his angels; but it is not clear that the Messiah is intended in this psalm, nor are the words precisely those used here by the apostle. Our marginal references send us with great propriety to the Septuagint version of Deut. xxxii. 43, where the passage is found verbatim et literatim; but there is nothing answering to the words in the present Hebrew text. The apostle undoubtedly quoted the Septuagint, which had then been for more than 300 years a version of the highest repute among the Jews; and it is very probable that the copy from which the Seventy translated had the corresponding words. However this may be, they are now sanctioned by Divine authority; and as the verse contains some singular additions, I will set it down in a parallel column with that of our own version, which was taken immediately from the Hebrew text, premising simply this, that it is the last verse of the famous prophetic song of Moses, which seems to point out the advent of the Messiah to discomfit his enemies, purify the land, and redeem Israel from all his iniquities. Deut. xxxii. 43, from the Hebrew.

Rejoice, O ye nations, for he will avenge in him; for he will avenge the the blood of his servants; and will render vengeance to his adversaries and will be merciful to his land and to his people.Deut. xxxii. 43, from the Septuagint.

Rejoice, ye heaven, together with him; and let all the angels of God . .

.Rejoice, O ye nations, with | worship him. Rejoice, ye his people; Gentiles, with his people; and let the children of God be strengthened in him blood of his children; he will avenge, and will repay judgment to his vengeance: adversaries; and those who hate him . | will he recompense: and the Lord will purge the land of his people.

This is a very important verse; and to it, as it stands in the Septuagint, St. Paul has referred once before; see Rom. xv. 10. This very verse, as it stands now in the Septuagint, thus referred to by an inspired writer, shows the great importance of this ancient version; and proves the necessity of its being studied and well understood by every minister of Christ. In Rom. 3: there is a large quotation-from Psa. xiv. , where there are six whole verses in the apostle's quotation which are not found in the present Hebrew text, but are preserved in the Septuagint! How strange it is that this venerable and important version, so often quoted by our Lord and all his apostles, should be so generally neglected, and so little known! That the common people should be ignorant of it, is not to be wondered at, as it has never been put in an English dress; but that the ministers of the Gospel should be unacquainted with it may be spoken to their shame.

Verse 7. Who maketh his angels spirits] They are so far from being superior to Christ, that they are not called God's sons in any peculiar sense, but his servants, as tempests and lightnings are. In many respects they may have been made inferior even to man as he came out of the hands of his Maker, for he was made in the image and likeness of God; but of the angels, even the highest order of them, this is never spoken. It is very likely that the apostle refers here to the opinions of the Jews relative to the angels. In Pirkey R. Elieser, c. 4, it is said: "The angels which were created the second day, when they minister before God, ìa lì yì[n become fire." In Shemoth Rabba, s. 25, fol. 123, it is said: "God is named the Lord of hosts, because with his angels he doth whatsoever he wills: when he pleases, he makes them sit down; Judg. vi. 11: And the angel of the Lord came, and sat under a tree. When he pleases, he causes them to stand; Isa. vi. 2: The seraphim stood. Sometimes he makes them like women; Zech. v. i10: Behold there came two women, and the wind was in their wings. Sometimes he makes them like men; Gen. xviii. 2: And, lo, three men stood by him. Sometimes he makes them spirits; Psa. civ. i5: Who maketh his angels spirits. Sometimes he makes them fire; ibid. His ministers a flame of fire." In Yalcut Simeoni, par. 2, fol. 11, it is said: "The angel answered Manoah, I know not in whose image I am made, for God changeth us every hour: sometimes he makes us fire, sometimes spirit, sometimes men, and at other times angels." It is very probable that those who are termed angels are not confined to any specific form or shape, but assume various forms and appearances according to the nature of the work on which they are employed and the will of their sovereign employer. This seems to have been the ancient Jewish doctrine on this subject.

Verse 8. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever] If this be said of the Son of God, i.e. Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ must be God; and indeed the design of the apostle is to prove this. The words here quoted are taken from Psa. xlv. 6, 7, which the ancient Chaldee paraphrast, and the most intelligent rabbins, refer to the Messiah. On the third verse of this Psalm, Thou art fairer than the children of men, the Targum says: "Thy beauty, ajyìm aklm malca Meshicha, O King Messiah, is greater than the children of men." Aben Ezra says: "This Psalm speaks of David, or rather of his son, the Messiah, for this is his name," Ezekiel xxxiv. 24: And David my servant shall be a Prince over them for ever. Other rabbins confirm this opinion.

This verse is very properly considered a proof, and indeed a strong one, of the Divinity of Christ; but some late versions of the New Testament have endeavoured to avoid the evidence of this proof by translating the words thus: God is thy throne for ever and ever; and if this version be correct, it is certain the text can be no proof of the doctrine. Mr. Wakefield vindicates this translation at large in his History of Opinions; and o qeov, being the nominative case, is supposed to be a sufficient justification of this version.

In answer to this it may be stated that the nominative case is often used for the vocative, particularly by the Attics; and the whole scope of the place requires it should be so used here; and, with due deference to all of a contrary opinion, the original Hebrew cannot be consistently translated any other way, d[w ╡lw[ ╡yhla √ask kisaca Elohim olam vaed, Thy throne, O God, is for ever, and to eternity. It is in both worlds; and extends over all time; and will exist through all endless duration. To this our Lord seems to refer, Matt. xxviii. 18: All power is given unto me, both in HEAVEN and EARTH. My throne, i.e. my dominion, extends from the creation to the consummation of all things. These I have made, and these I uphold; and from the end of the world, throughout eternity, I shall have the same glory-sovereign, unlimited power and authority, which I had with the Father before the world began; John xvii. 5. I may add that none of the ancient versions has understood it in the way contended for by those who deny the Godhead of Christ, either in the Psalm from which it is taken, or in this place where it is quoted. Aquila translates ╡yhla Elohim, by qee, O God, in the vocative case; and the Arabic adds the sign of the vocative (Arabic) ya, reading the place thus: (Arabic) korsee yallaho ila abadilabada, the same as in our version. And even allowing that o qeov here is to be used as the nominative case, it will not make the sense contended for, without adding esti to it, a reading which is not countenanced by any version, nor by any MS. yet discovered. Wiclif, Coverdale, and others, understood it as the nominative, and translated it so; and yet it is evident that this nominative has the power of the vocative: forsothe to the sone God thi troone into the world of world: a gerde of equite the gerde of thi reume. I give this, pointing and all, as it stands in my old MS. Bible. Wiclif is nearly the same, but is evidently of a more modern cast: but to the sone he seith, God thy trone is into the world of world, a gherd of equyte is the gherd of thi rewme. Coverdale translates it thus: But unto the sonne he sayeth, God, thi seate endureth for ever and ever: the cepter of thi kyngdome is a right cepter. Tindal and others follow in the same way, all reading it in the nominative case, with the force of the vocative; for none of them has inserted the word esti, is, because not authorized by the original: a word which the opposers of the Divinity of our Lord are obliged to beg, in order to support their interpretation. See some farther criticisms on this at the end of this chapter.

A scepter of righteousness] The scepter, which was a sort of staff or instrument of various forms, was the ensign of government, and is here used for government itself. This the ancient Jewish writers understand also of the Messiah.

Verse 9. Thou hast loved righteousness] This is the characteristic of a just governor: he abhors and suppresses iniquity; he countenances and supports righteousness and truth.

Therefore God, even thy God] The original, dia touto ecrise se o qeov, o qeov sou, may be thus translated: Therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee. The form of speech is nearly the same with that in the preceding verse; but the sense is sufficiently clear if we read, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee, &c.

With the oil of gladness] We have often had occasion to remark that, anciently, kings, priests, and prophets were consecrated to their several offices by anointing; and that this signified the gifts and influences of the Divine Spirit. Christ, o cristov, signifies The Anointed One, the same as the Hebrew Messias; and he is here said to be anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows. None was ever constituted prophet, priest, and king, but himself; some were kings only, prophets only, and priests only; others were kings and priests, or priests and prophets, or kings and prophets; but none had ever the three offices in his own person but Jesus Christ, and none but himself can be a King over the universe, a Prophet to all intelligent beings, and a Priest to the whole human race. Thus he is infinitely exalted beyond his fellows - all that had ever borne the regal, prophetic, or sacerdotal offices.

Some think that the word metocouv, fellows, refers to believers who are made partakers of the same Spirit, but cannot have its infinite plenitude.

The first sense seems the best. Gladness is used to express the festivities which took place on the inauguration of kings, &c.

Verse 10. And, Thou, Lord] This is an address to the Son as the Creator, see ver. 2; for this is implied in laying the foundation of the earth. The heavens, which are the work of his hands, point out his infinite wisdom and skill.

Verse 11. They shall perish] Permanently fixed as they seem to be, a time shall come when they shall be dissolved, and afterward new heavens and a new earth be formed, in which righteousness alone shall dwell. See 2 Pet. iii. 10-13.

Shall wax old as doth a garment] As a garment by long using becomes unfit to be longer used, so shall all visible things; they shall wear old, and wear out; and hence the necessity of their being renewed. It is remarkable that our word world is a contraction of wear old; a term by which our ancestors expressed the sentiment contained in this verse. That the word was thus compounded, and that it had this sense in our language, may be proved from the most competent and indisputable witnesses. It was formerly written (Anglo-Saxon) weorold, and (Anglo-Saxon) wereld. This etymology is finely alluded to by our excellent poet, Spencer, when describing the primitive age of innocence, succeeded by the age of depravity:-" The lion there did with the lambe consort, And eke the dove sat by the faulcon's side; Nehemiah each of other feared fraude or tort, But did in safe security abide, Withouten perill of the stronger pride: But when the WORLD woxe old, it woxe warre old, Whereof it hight, and having shortly tride The trains of wit, in wickednesse woxe bold, And dared of all sinnes, the secrets to unfold." Even the heathen poets are full of such allusions. See Horace, Carm. lib. iii., od. 6; Virgil, AEn. viii., ver. 324.

Thou remainest] Instead of diameneiv, some good MSS. read diameneiv, the first, without the circumflex, being the present tense of the indicative mood; the latter, with the circumflex, being the future-thou shalt remain.

The difference between these two readings is of little importance.

Verse 12. And they shall be changed] Not destroyed ultimately, or annihilated. They shall be changed and renewed.

But thou art the same] These words can be said of no being but God; all others are changeable or perishable, because temporal; only that which is eternal can continue essentially, and, speaking after the manner of men, formally the same.

Thy years shall not fail.] There is in the Divine duration no circle to be run, no space to be measured, no time to be reckoned.

All is eternity-infinite and onward.

Verse 13. But to which of the angels] We have already seen, from the opinions and concessions of the Jews, that, if Jesus Christ could be proved to be greater than the angels, it would necessarily follow that he was God: and this the apostle does most amply prove by these various quotations from their own Scriptures; for he shows that while he is the supreme and absolute Sovereign, they are no more than his messengers and servants, and servants even to his servants, i.e. to mankind.

Verse 14. Are they not all ministering spirits] That is, They are all ministering spirits; for the Hebrews often express the strongest affirmative by an interrogation.

All the angels, even those of the highest order, are employed by their Creator to serve those who believe in Christ Jesus. What these services are, and how performed, it would be impossible to state. Much has been written on the subject, partly founded on Scripture, and partly on conjecture. They are, no doubt, constantly employed in averting evil and procuring good. If God help man by man, we need not wonder that he helps man by angels. We know that he needs none of those helps, for he can do all things himself; yet it seems agreeable to his infinite wisdom and goodness to use them. This is part of the economy of God in the government of the world and of the Church; and a part, no doubt, essential to the harmony and perfection of the whole. The reader may see a very sensible discourse on this text in vol. ii., page 133, of the Rev. John Wesley's works, American edition. Dr. Owen treats the subject at large in his comment on this verse, vol. iii., page 141, edit. 8vo., which is just now brought to my hand, and which appears to be a very learned, judicious, and important work, but by far too diffuse. In it the words of God are drowned in the sayings of man.

THE Godhead of Christ is a subject of such great importance, both to the faith and hope of a Christian, that I feel it necessary to bring it full into view, wherever it is referred to in the sacred writings. It is a prominent article in the apostle's creed, and should be so in ours. That this doctrine cannot be established on ver. 8 has been the assertion of many. To what I have already said on this verse, I beg leave to subjoin the following criticisms of a learned friend, who has made this subject his particular study.

BRIEF REMarkS ON HEBREWS, chap. 1, ver. 8.

╞o qronov sou, o qeov, eiv touve aiwnav.

It hath ever been the opinion of the most sound divines, that these words, which are extracted from the 45th Psalm, are addressed by God the Father unto God the Son. Our translators have accordingly rendered the passage thus: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever." Those who deny the Divinity of Christ, being eager to get rid of such a testimony against themselves, contend that o qeov is here the nominative, and that the meaning is: "God is thy throne for ever." Now it is somewhat strange, that none of them have had critical acumen enough to discover that the words cannot possibly admit of this signification. It is a rule in the Greek language, that when a substantive noun is the subject of a sentence, and something is predicated of it, the article, if used at all, is prefixed to the subject, but omitted before the predicate. The Greek translators of the Old, and the authors of the New Testament, write agreeably to this rule. I shall first give some examples from the latter:- qeov hn o logov. - "The Word was God." John i. 1.

╞o logov sarx egeneto. - "The Word became flesh." John i. 14.

pneuma o qeov. - "God is a Spirit." John iv. 24.

╞o qeov agaph esti. - "God is love." 1 John iv. 8.

╞o qeov fwv esti. - "God is light." 1 John i. 5.

If we examine the Septuagint version of the Psalms, we shall find, that in such instances the author sometimes places the article before the subject, but that his usual mode is to omit it altogether. A few examples will suffice:- ╞o qeov krithv dikaiov. - "God is a righteous judge." Psa. vii. 11.

╞o qeov hmwn katafugh kai dunamiv,-"God is our refuge and strength." Psa. xlvi. 1.

kuriov bohqov mou. - "The Lord is my helper." Psa. xxviii. 7.

kuriov sterewma mou kai katafugh mon. - "The Lord is my firm support and my refuge." Psa. xviii. 2.

qeov megav kuriov. - "The Lord is a great God." Psa. xcv. 3.

We see what is the established phraseology of the Septuagint, when a substantive noun has something predicated of it in the same sentence.

Surely, then, we may be convinced that if in Psa. xlv. 6, the meaning which they who deny our Lord's Divinity affix, had been intended, it would rather have been written qronov sou, o qeov, or qronov sou, qeov. This our conviction will, if possible, be increased, when we examine the very next clause of this sentence, where we shall find that the article is prefixed to the subject, but omitted before the predicate.

╞rabdov euquthrov h rabdov thv basileiav sou. - "The scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter of rectitude."But it may be doubted whether qeov with the article affixed be ever used in the vocative case." Your doubt will be solved by reading the following examples, which are taken not promiscuously from the Septuagint, but all of them from the Psalms.

krinon autouv, o qeov. - "Judge them, O God." Psa. v. 10.

╞o qeov, o qeov mou. - "O God, my God." Psa. xxii. 1.

soi yalw, o qeov mon. - "Unto thee will I sing, O my God." Psalm lix. 17.

uywsw se, o qeov mon. - "I will exalt thee, O my God." Psalm cxlv. 1.

kurie, o qeov mou. - "O Lord my God." Psa. civ. 1.

I have now removed the only objection which can, I think, be started. It remains, that the son of Mary is here addressed as the God whose throne endures for ever.

I know that a pronoun sometimes occurs with the article prefixed to its predicate; but I speak only of nouns substantive.

I must not fail to observe, that the rule about the subject and predicate, like that of the Greek prepositive article, pervades all classes of writers. It will be sufficient, if I give three or four examples. The learned reader may easily collect more.

proskhnion men o ouranov apav, qeatron d╞ h oikoumenh. "The whole heaven is his stage, and the world his theater." Chrysostom. We have here two instances in one sentence. The same is the case in the following examples:- bracuv men o xullogov, megav d o poqov. - "Small indeed is the assembly, but great is the desire." Chrysostom.

kalon gar to aqlon, kai h elpiv megalh. - "For the prize is noble, and the hope is great." Plato.

to t╞ aiscron ecqron, kai to crhston eukleev. - "That which is base is hateful; and that which is honest, glorious." Sophocles.

Having spoken of nouns substantive only, I ought to state that the rule applies equally to adjectives and to participles. Near the opening of the fifth of Matthew, we find eight consecutive examples of the rule. In five of these the subject is an adjective, and in the other three, a participle. Indeed one of them has two participles, affording an instance of the rule respecting the prepositive article, as well as of that which we are now considering. makarioi oi peinwntev kai diywntev. "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst." In the Apocalypse there are four examples of the rule with participles, and in all these twelve cases the predicate is placed first. See the supplement to my Essay on the Greek Article, at the end of Dr. A. Clarke's commentary on Ephesians.

I am aware that an exception now and then occurs in the sacred writings; but I think I may assert that there are no exceptions in the Septuagint version of the book of Psalms. As the words o qronov sou, o qeov, occur in the book of Psalms, the most important question is this: Does that book always support the orthodox interpretation? With regard to the deviations which are elsewhere occasionally found, I think there can be little doubt that they are owing to the ignorance or carelessness of transcribers, for the rule is unquestionably genuine. - H. S. BOYD.

The preceding remarks are original, and will be duly respected by every scholar.

I have shown my reasons in the note on Luke i. 35, why I cannot close in with the common view of what is called the eternal Sonship of Christ. I am inclined to think that from this tenet Arianism had its origin. I shall here produce my authority for this opinion. Arius, the father of what is called Arianism, and who flourished in A. D. 300, was a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, a man of great learning and eloquence, and of deeply mortified manners; and he continued to edify the Church by his teaching and example till the circumstance took place which produced that unhappy change in his religious sentiments, which afterwards gave rise to so much distraction and division in the Christian Church. The circumstance to which I refer is related by Socrates Scholasticus, in his supplement to the History of Eusebius, lib. i., c. 5; and is in substance as follows: Alexander, having succeeded Achillas in the bishopric of Alexandria, self-confidently philosophizing one day in the presence of his presbyters and the rest of his clergy concerning the holy Trinity, among other things asserted that there was a Monad in the Triad, filotimoteron peri thv agiav triadov, ev triadi Monada einai filosofwn eqeologei. What he said on the derived nature or eternal Sonship of Christ is not related. Arius, one of his presbyters, a man of considerable skill in the science of logic, anhr ouk amoirov thv dialektikhv leschv, supposing that the bishop designed to introduce the dogmas of SHebellius, the Libyan, who denied the personality of the Godhead, and consequently the Trinity, sharply opposed the bishop, arguing thus: "If the Father begot the Son, he who was thus begotten had a beginning of his existence; and from this it is manifest, that there was a time in which the Son was not. Whence it necessarily follows, that he has his subsistence from what exists not." The words which Socrates quotes are the following, of which the above is as close a translation as the different idioms will allow: ei o pathr egennhoe ton uion, archn uparxewv ecei o gennhqeiv? kai ek toutou dhlon, oti hn ote ouk hn o uiov? akolouqei te ex anagkhv, ex ouk ontwn ecein auton thn upostasin. Now, it does not appear that this had been previously the doctrine of Arius, but that it was the consequence which he logically drew from the doctrine laid down by the bishop; and, although Socrates does not tell us what the bishop stated, yet, from the conclusions drawn, we may at once see what the premises were; and these must have been some incautious assertions concerning the Sonship of the Divine nature of Christ: and I have shown elsewhere that these are fair deductions from such premises. "But is not God called Father; and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? "Most certainly. That God graciously assumes the name of Father, and acts in that character towards mankind, the whole Scripture proves; and that the title is given to him as signifying Author, Cause, Fountain, and Creator, is also sufficiently manifest from the same Scriptures. In this sense he is said to be the Father of the rain, Job xxxviii. 28; and hence also it is said, He is the Father of spirits, chap. xii. 9; and he is the Father of men because he created them; and Adam, the first man, is particularly called his son, Luke iii. 38. But he is the Father of the human nature of our blessed Lord in a peculiar sense, because by his energy this was produced in the womb of the virgin. Luke i. 35, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; THEREFORE also that HOLY THING WHICH SHALL BE BORN OF THEE shall be called THE SON OF GOD. It is in consequence of this that our blessed Lord is so frequently termed the Son of God, and that God is called his Father. But I know not any scripture, fairly interpreted, that states the Divine nature of our Lord to be begotten of God, or to be the Son of God.

Nor can I see it possible that he could be begotten of the Father, in this sense, and be eternal; and if not eternal, he is not God. But numberless scriptures give him every attribute of Godhead; his own works demonstrate it; and the whole scheme of salvation requires this. I hope I may say that I have demonstrated his supreme, absolute, and unoriginated Godhead, both in my note on Col. i. 16, 17, and in my Discourse on Salvation by Faith. And having seen that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship produced Arianism, and Arianism produced Socinianism, and Socinianism produces a kind of general infidelity, or disrespect to the sacred writings, so that several parts of them are rejected as being uncanonical, and the inspirations of a major part of the New Testament strongly suspected; I find it necessary to be doubly on my watch to avoid every thing that may, even in the remotest way, tend to so deplorable a catastrophe.

It may be said: "Is not God called the eternal Father? And if so, there can be no eternal Father if there be no eternal Son." I answer: God is not called in any part of Scripture, as far as I can recollect, either the eternal or everlasting Father in reference to our blessed Lord, nor indeed in reference to any thing else; but this very title, strange to tell, is given to Jesus Christ himself: His name shall be called the EVERLASTING FATHER, Isa. ix. 6; and we may on this account, with more propriety, look for an eternal filiation proceeding from him, than from any other person of the most holy Trinity.

Should it be asked: "Was there no trinity of persons in the Godhead before the incarnation!" I answer: That a trinity of persons appears to me to belong essentially to the eternal Godhead, neither of which was before, after, or produced from another; and of this the Old Testament is full: but the distinction was not fully evident till the incarnation; and particularly till the baptism in Jordan, when on him, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a dove; and a voice from heaven proclaimed that baptized person God's beloved Son: in which transaction there were three persons occupying distinct places; as the person of Christ in the water, the Holy Spirit in a bodily shape, and the voice from heaven, sufficiently prove; and to each of these persons various scriptures give all the essential attributes of God.

On the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of the Divine nature of Christ I once had the privilege of conversing with the late reverend John Wesley, about three years before his death; he read from a book in which I had written it, the argument against this doctrine, which now stands in the note on Luke i. 35. He did not attempt to reply to it; but allowed that, on the ground on which I had taken it, the argument was conclusive. I observed, that the proper, essential Divinity of Jesus Christ appeared to me to be so absolutely necessary to the whole Christian scheme, and to the faith both of penitent sinners and saints, that it was of the utmost importance to set it in the clearest and strongest point of view; and that, with my present light, I could not credit it, if I must receive the common doctrine of the Sonship of the Divine nature of our Lord. He mentioned two eminent divines who were of the same opinion; and added, that the eternal Sonship of Christ bad been a doctrine very generally received in the Christian Church; and he believed no one had ever expressed it better than his brother Samuel had done in the following lines:- "From whom, in one eternal now, The SON, thy offspring, flow'd; An everlasting Father thou, An everlasting God." He added not one word more on the subject, nor ever after mentioned it to me, though after that we had many interviews. But it is necessary to mention his own note on the text, that has given rise to these observations; which shows that he held the doctrine as commonly received, when he wrote that note; it is as follows:- "Thou art my Son] God of God, Light of Light. This day have I begotten Thee - I have begotten Thee from eternity, which, by its unalterable permanency of duration, is one continued unsuccessive day." Leaving the point in dispute out of the question, this is most beautifully expressed; and I know not that this great man ever altered his views on this subject, though I am certain that he never professed the opinion as many who quote his authority do; nor would he at any time have defended what he did hold in their way. I beg leave to quote a fact. In 1781, he published in the fourth volume of the Arminian Magazine, p. 384, an article, entitled "An Arian Antidote;" in this are the following words: "Greater or lesser in infinity, is not; inferior Godhead shocks our sense; Jesus was inferior to the Father as touching his manhood, John xiv. 28; he was a son given, and slain intentionally from the foundation of the world, Rev. xiii. 8, and the first-born from the dead of every creature, Col. i. 15, 18. But, our Redeemer, from everlasting (Isa. lxiii. 16) had not the inferior name of Son; in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God from eternity, and the Word, made flesh, was God," &c. This is pointedly against the eternal Sonship of the Divine nature. But why did Mr. W.