other, and inferior to him, which is the sum of the Arian hypothesis.

The reader will remember that I shewed, at page 204, in what respects Christ may be called the image of GOD, agreeable to his economical, subordinate character, and no ways inconsistent with his divine glory and perfections. To which I shall here add, that he is the image of GOD, as he reveals, makes known, or represents GOD, to men, "Who (the apostle says) dwelleth in light, which no man can approach into, whom no man hath seen, or can see." This he doth as Emanuel, the medium or mirror of all we know or enjoy of GOD. It is very plainly expressed in Col. i. 13.-" That GoD's dear Son, (Son of his love, marg.) is the image of the invisible GOD." The same into whose kingdom the saints are translated,-with whom they are fellow heirs,-in whom they have redemption through his blood,-who is the head of the body, the church, the first-born from the dead, in whom all fulness dwells, and who made peace through the blood of his cross. HE, says the apostle, "is the image of the invisible GOD." But to reason that he is the image of GOD, as a SON, and as a SON he is God, is to destroy this part of his character altogether, and say, as GOD he is the image of GOD," that is, either GOD is the image of himself,--or one GoD is the image of another-or in the most favorable acceptation, one in Deity is visible, another is invisible.

66

We now come to the first chapter of the Hebrews, where it is said of the SON, that he is "Heir of all things-the brightness of glory, and the express image of his person,-that he made the worlds, and upholds all things,-that he was made so much better than the angels, as he hath by in

heritance obtained a more excellent name than they,-angels are commanded to worship him, and he is called God; thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever." All these expressions are supposed proofs of natural sonship, or that Jesus Christ is GOD, as he is a SON. It is argued that the things said of the Son, are proper only to God; therefore he is GOD, as he is a SoN. But it is evident by a little consideration, that this conclusion has no countenance, either from the scope of the epistle in general,-this first chapter in particular, or the several particulars here attributed to the Son: all which I shall consider very concisely.

The apostle wrote this epistle to the Hebrews, who had embraced christianity; yet were so far prejudiced in favor of Mosaic rites and ceremonies, as to think them necessary to be joined to the gospel of Christ. On account of their professing christianity, they suffered a kind of persecution from their gainsaying brethren, which, with their own prejudices, were ready to weaken their attachment to, and endanger their apostatizing from the profession of the christian religion. To prevent this, and remove their prejudices, the apostle introducces a variety of arguments to prove the christian dispensation to be transcendently more excellent than that under the old testanent. gives them a glorious description of Christ in his complex character as EMANUEL,-in his offices as the great legislator and administrator of the economy of GOD, in creation, providence, and redemption; and particularly in his offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. He proves at large that Christ was greater than angels;-a greater lawgiver than Moses;-a greater priest than Aaron ;a greater prince than Melchisedeck. He points out to them the fatal consequences of apostacy, the

He

blessings of perseverance in the faith, and concludes the whole with a pathetic exhortation to stedfastness.

In this first chapter he prosecutes a part of this great plan, and mentions several things concerning Christ, who is the great subject of the epistle, which infer most evidently, that he is truly and properly God as well as man: but as the apostle's scope is to shew the excellency of EMANUEL, above angels, Moses, &c. the whole of his reasoning must be viewed as descriptive of him in that character, as GOD manifest in flesh, with a connotation of his offices, and the term Son of God, must be limited to that sense, consistent with the scope of the epistle.

Should it be asked, what is the apostle's scope in this first chapter? The answer is briefly given in the contents of our English common bibles,

CHRIST preferred to angels." Christ, the Son of God, is the subject, the whole is a description of bim. But if he is spoken of as God under the title Son, then the whole is a description of Deity absolutely considered. Now can any one ever imagine, that the apostle would write two whole chapters to prove that the eternal God was greater than angels, and a third to prove that he was greater than Moses! What occasion was there for it? Who ever denied that GOD was superior to all those the Son of God is contrasted with in this epistle? The question with the unconverted Hebrews was not about what GOD was; but who Jesus of Nazareth was? Whom they supposed only a mere man, and none of the best neither; not the promised Messiah, but an impostor: and if we will not grant that the apostle is here vindicating the character of the Messiah from the false charges of the Jews, but will confine the term Son to his Deity, we plainly

affirm, that he took all this pains to prove what nobody denied, and what had not the least relation to his purpose; except we absurdly suppose, that he designed to inculcate the notion of Two GODS.

We shall now more particularly consider the phrases used here by the apostle, which have been commonly so rendered and interpreted, as to make his meaning included in them quite obscure; and like the dark side of the cloud which was turned towards the Egyptians, the character of Christ given from them, has been rather confounding than edifying. They have been generally forced in as proofs of his eternal generation, whereas if they are carefully considered, they will be found to prove a very different doctrine: for our ideas are confined to the character of Christ as Emanuel, concerned in the work of our salvation, from the consideration of these very expressions being applied to him, which have been so inadvertently perverted to other purposes.

In verses first and second, the apostle tells the Hebrews, that "GOD who spake in times past to their fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things."-It was surely JESUS CHRIST, as come in the flesh, who is here said to speak to them, who could not be appointed heir purely as God, for it was God who appointed him as his Son; and delegation must imply inferiority; for though the person appointed or delegated, may be in other respects equal to him or any of them who send, impower, or communicate authority to him; yet, in that particular respect in which he is appointed, authorized, sent, or deputed, he is certainly inferior. Therefore the SoN being appointed as heir, must refer to that part of his character in which he is inferior, and subject to the paternal authority of

GOD, displayed in the divine economy, and evidently implied in the act of appointing or communicating the power, right, or privilege of heirship. Hence, Christ himself says, "My Father who gave them me, is greater than all." But this I shall consider a little further, when we come to the fourth

verse.

And before we enter upon the third, I must observe that there are many, who with regard to receiving sentiments in religion, act with more indifference than they would do in purchasing the meanest trifles in the world. In the latter case, they choose to go if possible to the first hand, and careful to have their goods pure and unsophisti cated, without adulteration; but they are far from being so circumspect with regard to religion, which they can receive adulterated with the inventions of men,-admit the meaning of passages from interpolations and comments, which rather shew the sentiments of the translator or interpreter, than the mind of God revealed in them. Thus the scrip tures are forced to speak the language of systematics. Among many passages that have suffered by such methods, this text is a most glaring example, which commonly runs thus when cited, "Who is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person."-And according to this reading, has been sustained an undoubted proof of eternal generation; or Christ being a Son, as he is God. But if the reader will please to take his bible, he will see that the words father and his, are not even in the English version. The translators have supplied the word his, and custom only has added father to it, which is a gross corruption of the text, and tends to obscure the obvious meaning of it.

The first clause reads thus, "Who being the brightness, splendor, or refulgence of that glory."