behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the HIGHEST; and the LORD GOD shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." The name he was to bear, implies the salvation he was to procure. It was given as a reason why he was called JESUS, because, said the angel," he shall save his people from their sins." By the appointment of heaven, this was his proper name. But the term Son here, as in all other places where it is used, is descriptive of a character in which is contained a number of distinct facts, and it is sometimes applied to one part of the character, and sometimes to another. In this passage it is appropriated to the exalted state of kingly government, which God would raise him unto, after finishing the great work of redemption. It so plainly respects him in his economical character, that to apply it to any other sense, would be a manifest abuse of the passage.

As to that passage in the Proverbs,-" What* is his name, or what is his son's name?" (which hath been so often perverted, by making it a proof of Christ's sonship, as he is GOD) I think it is evident from the scope of it, that it has no relation to Christ at all; but a question of the same kind with some others in scripture, "who (that is, what man) hath ascended up to heaven, &c. what is his name, and what is his son's name?"

Nor do I think Nebuchadnezzar meant any thing concerning Jesus Christ the Messiah, when in the height of his surprize, he says,-" Lo,† I see + Dan. iii, 25.

* Prov. xxx. 4.

four men loose walking in the midst of the fire,— and the form of the fourth is like the SON OF GOD." Any one but tolerably acquainted with the bible only, will see that it was the manner of speaking in the eastern countries, to call almost every thing father, son, or daughter. Hence, for a proud or wicked man we read the son of pride, the son of wickedness; and for mighty men, the sons of the mighty. It is also observable, that the term GoD, is often used to heighten the idea of the thing spoken of, as," the trees of God," &c. Why then might not Nebuchadnezzar, at the sight of so glorious a person, call him the Son of God, or one whose glory was above the appearance of men,— one of a more divine and godlike form than the other three, whom he afterwards calls the angel or messenger of the GOD of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. This was like the language of a heathen king, who supposed that men might be deified, for he calls him a man as well as the other, but more like the notion he had of a God. It cannot be imagined with any probability, that this idolatrous prince knew any thing of Christ, though some would have him know more than many of his apostles did, all the time Christ was among them.

There is one text more in the old testament, which claims our particular attention, because currently interpreted of the Son as he is God, which is directly contrary to the scope of the passage itself, and the use which the apostles make of it in the new testament." I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." It is evident that the general scope of this psalm is a prophetical description of the character of the Messiah in some things particularly relating to his sufferings,

Psa. ii. 7.

resurrection, kingdom, and conquest over his enemies.

The raging of the heathen, and vain imaginations of the people, are expressly applied by Peter* and John to Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Jews and Gentiles, that were gathered against Christ. These apostles interpreted this psalm, with respect to the counsel and determination of God, concerning what should happen to Christ. When the apostle would convince the Jews, that the same JESUS, whom they had condemned and crucified, was the Messiah promised to the fathers, he says,-" Wef declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise that was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up JESUS again; as it is also written in the second psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Now, to deny that by the Son in this text, is meant the Messiah, is in plain terms to say, that the apostle, or the Spirit by which he was inspired, did not understand the meaning of it; seeing it is so expressly applied to him in that character, yea, brought as a proof of his being the MESSIAH: and not only here, but in other places it is accommodated to the same purpose. It is certainly sufficient to limit human curiosity, when the matter is determined so explicitly by a divine interpreter.

The text itself is the language of the Son, who says,"I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me," &c. Now the apostle tells us, he became our high priest in pursuance of this decree." Not man taketh this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron; so also Christ, glorified not himself, to be made an high priest, but he that said unto him, thou art my

*Acts iv. 25-29. + Ibid. xiii. 32, 33. ↑ Heb. v. 4, 5.

Son, this day have I begotten thee." What kind of reasoning would this be for an apostle, if the sonship in the text referred to the manner of his divine existence, under which consideration, he could not be set apart, appointed, cousecrated, or perfected: nor could any office be prescribed to him. But the apostle affirms all these of the Son, mentioned in the text, and therefore he must be so designed with reference to his economical character.

Christ must certainly be considered under the same character in the seventh, as in the eighth verse of this psalm, where it is said, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." To ask and receive an inheritance and possession are terms quite agreeable with his inferior character, as Messiah; but absolutely inconsistent with Deity. As God, he has an original right to all creatures, the heavens and earth are his, and all they contain.

The word DAY in the text, is supposed to mean eternity; and so the SON is concluded to be an eternal SON. The best reason I could ever hear for this conjecture was, that some men have thought so. But the apostle surely thought otherwise, when he applies the text to things done in time: and also joins it with another similar passage, which is spoken in the future time, and very much elucidates this, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." This cannot mean either eternity, or the pure Deity of Christ. Besides, there is not one instance where the phrase to-day signifies eternity in all the word of GOD.

Many commentators apply the text to the resurrection of Christ, from what the apostle says,

Acts xiii. 32, 33. "The promise which was made unto the fathers, GoD hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Though the application of it to Christ's resurrection equally favors my argument; yet, I think by close attention to this passage, it will be found, it rather refers to the sending of Christ in the flesh, as the fulfilling of those promises made to the fathers.

The apostle had been giving the Jews at Antioch, a demonstrative account of Jesus being the true Messiah promised to the fathers, in which he introduces the testimony of John the baptist,— charges his death upon their countrymen, proves his resurrection from the testimony of living witnesses, and then tells them that these things were foretold by promises to the fathers, which were now fulfilled to them, viz. the promise of the coming of Christ, ver. 33. GOD hath fulfilled the same (that very promise made to the fathers, mentioned in the foregoing verse) unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus, (again, this word the original will not bear) as it is written in the second psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." The promise of his resurrection, he adds the very next verse-" And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David," &c. The first raising up here, must refer to his coming in the flesh, as expressed in the 23d verse," Of this man's (David) seed, hath GOD, according to his promise, raised unto Israel, a Savior Jesus." The words "unto us their children," seem to limit it to that sense. Whereas had it been meant of the resurrection, why is it added immediately, And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead," if in the former verse

66