apostles, whom he had chosen." (2.) He was determined to be the Son of God, by that divine effusion of the Spirit upon the apostles at pentecost, which their now ascended master had promised to send when he went away. This in the most eminent manner confirmed the truth of his character as the sent of God; because it had been promised by God in the old testament, and expected by the Jews as a part of the glory of the Messiah's kingdom. Peter tells the astonished spectators, that what they saw and heard was the same that Joel foretold. Jesus himself commanded his disciples to tarry at Jerusalem, until they were endowed with the Spirit: and the event happening so soon after his ascension, in so striking and visible a manner, must be the clearest demonstration of his being the sent and chosen of God: or, as the apostle hath it in the text, it "determined him to be the SON of GOD with power." See more of this, Part II. sect. 5.

Secondly, another proof which he says determines him to be the Son of God, is his resurrection from the dead. The old testament prophets had said a great deal about the glory and perspicuity of the kingdom and reign of the Messiah, who was to be the seed of David;-Christ himself frequently affirmed that he would rise from the dead.

"The Son of Man shall be betrayed to the chief priests, and they shall condemn him to death, and the third day he shall rise again." Yea, when the Jews tempted him to give a proof of his being the Messiah, he puts the whole upon his resurrection, saying, "destroyt this temple, and in three days I will raise it up: but he spake of the temple of his body." Now, as the whole was without dispute exactly accomplished, it amounts to

* Matt. xx. 18, 19. ↑ John ii. 19, 21. Matt. xii. 38-41.

the clearest evidence of his being the true Messiah, that can possibly be supposed. The apostle saw the great importance of it, when he puts the truth of the whole christian religion upon it. "If* Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." And here he says, by this he was " determined to be the Son of God."

Thirdly, as a further demonstration of the power and precious effects of this truth, that he is the Son of GOD, he had bestowed the grace of apostleship upon Paul and others, that they might spread the gospel among the nations, to bring many into the obedience of faith in his name; among which converts, the saints at Rome, to whom he wrote the epistle, were living instances of the power of the truth; as he says, "Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ."

As the above is the plain scope of this passage, it must be a clear demonstration that the sonship of Christ refers to the economy of redemption, as the execution of that plan in its several parts, are here brought to prove the truth of his sonship, otherwise the reasoning of the apostle appears very trifling. For what analogy can be supposed betwixt the proofs here alledged by Paul, and a natural sonship, or Christ being a Son as he is God? What relation have his rising from the dead,sending the Holy Ghost,-giving commission to apostles, and converting the Gentile nations, to his being eternally begotten as a person in Deity? This notion, though it were true, could have no manner of relation to any part of redemption, without supposing it necessary in the nature of GOD to redeem mankind: but as this is absurd, it

* 1 Cor. xv. 14.

follows, that this text is a manifest proof of Christ's economical sonship, and can have no relation to á natural sonship, or eternal generation, for which it hath been so often alledged as a proof.

There is another text in this epistle frequently pressed into the same service." He* that spared not his own Son, but delivered himself up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things?" Here we are told, that the word proper should be added to Son, which they affirm is the same with natural Son. It would be needless to expose the weakness of this way of reasoning, since it is so evident in the text itself, that the sonship supposed must be taken in a sense consistent with what is predicated of the Son, which is that great work he was given by GoD to finish, for the redemption of his people; this limits the sense to an economical sonship. But his being given, -delivered up by God, his sufferings and death for his people, are ideas not very consistent with pure Deity.

Where the Lord Jesus is called the image of GOD, it is imagined the character belongs to him as a divine person, and consequently favors the doctrine of natural sonship; but I must be allowed to differ from this opinion. The phrase is but thrice used in our translation, "Christ,† who is the image of GOD,-who is the image of the invisible GOD, the first-born of every creature. The brightness of glory, and the express image of his person." (Hypostasis.)

Now the Lord Jesus cannot be the image of GOD, either in his divine nature, or divine person

*Rom. viii. 32.

† 2 Cor. iv. 4. Col. i. 15. Heb. i. 3.

ality.* Not the first, for the self-same numerical nature or essence, is one and the same, in all the divine persons, and so he would be as much the image of himself, as of the Father: and is there any propriety in saying a thing is the image of itself? It amounts to no more in the present case, than saying the divine nature is the image of the divine

nature.

And according to the scheme itself, the divine personality of the Son, cannot be the image of the Father's personality; for it maintains Christ to be a divine person, as he is a Son; which, if true, makes it impossible that as such, he can be the image of the FATHER; for filiation is by no means an image of paternity. Nay, sonship is the very reverse or contrary to fatherhood; and it is not to be imagined, how contrary characters can be the image or resemblance of each other. Besides, his sonship or divine personality is said to be communicated by, or derived from the Father; now, it is a contradiction in terms, to say that a communicated or derived manner of subsistence, is the image or resemblance of an underived, unoriginated manner of subsistence. This the Father's must be, as he is of none: that the Son's must be, as he is of the Father, as to his divine person, if the human scheme be true.

But again, the text says, Christ is the image of the invisible GOD, which term must include the three in Deity,--all that is called GOD. Now, as the persons in Deity, and the divine essence in each person, must be alike invisible, he who is the image of the invisible God, cannot be so abstractedly, but as he manifests, exhibits, represents, or makes

* The reader will see, I hope, the necessity I am under to use the language of the human scheme in this third part, though I do not otherwise approve of many of the terms so applied.

known the invisible God to men; this is none other than the LORD JESUS in his complex character, as EMANUEL, GOD in our nature, as I shewed above.

As for the phrase essential image, so frequent in systems, it is void of meaning,-there is no countenance in scripture for it; and among men there can be no rational ideas affixed to it. Therefore to talk of an essential image, must be as good sense as to tell us of substantial forms, another unmeaning phrase used in treating this subject, both are absurd in ontology, or the doctrine of the properties of being in the abstract. It seems very strange, that the abstruse, self-contradictory, and unintelligible phrases among mankind, should be chosen to clothe divine mysteries, (or rather to make mysteries of plain truths) and the people commanded to believe them under that dress, as articles of faith, at the peril of their souls! Does the adopting such phrases into schemes of divinity make them good sense? Or, must the people's faith be so implicit as to receive for truth what their leaders are pleased to dictate; though they can neither reconcile their notions with scripture, reason, nor good sense? But to return.

CHRIST, as he is GOD, cannot be the image of GOD; because the image is different from, and inferior to the original. But the LORD JESUS, neither in his divine nature, nor divine person, is different from, nor inferior to the Father. He hath the same divine nature, and in his person he is equal in all divine glory and perfection. Moreover, to say

Christ, as a divine person, is the image of God, is too low a character of him as GoD, when it is considered, that every man is called the image of GOD. There is no way of making this opinion consistent with any ideas we can have, but by supposing two GoDs, the one the image and representation of the