In the fourth verse, the apostle tells us, tliat "he was made much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my SoN, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a SoN." It is here said, that he OBTAINED the name SON OF GOD by inheritance, which is directly contrary to an eternal sonship, by an act of generation. Were he naturally and eternally a Son, it could not be said with any propriety that he obtained this name by inheritance; but this the apostle says he did, while

the passages where such words occur, appear dark and perplexed. In such cases, the reader generally brings ideas to the passages, which the writer was a stranger to, and no wonder, if they are then intricate, and perhaps contradictory to him. There have been many complaints about the darkness of scripture, which the readers have occasioned to themselves, by striving to reconcile them to their own pre-conceived notions, which never were in the scriptures; but learned from systems composed by men, who seem to have paid more regard to the traditions of their fathers as a rule, than the spirit and scope of the scriptures. The veil that has been upon many passages for centuries past, is a most glaring proof of this lamentable fact: and, it is no way surprizing, that the veil of error hath so long remained over texts, which have been once misconstrued in favor of doctrines invented by men: for the false interpretation being once received,-error substituted and established for truth, it is afterwards taken for granted, and continues a received doctrine without examination. Hence transubstantiation, purgatory, &c. continue among papists, and other sister mysteries in the reformed churches,-glossed over by interpreters, and inculcated as necessary truths by leaders in religion, they have been swallowed for ages with very little ceremony, and held equally sacred with the abused texts, which they are supposed to be taken from.

But when this, or any other text, is rescued from the perplexed, incoherent ideas commonly prefixed to it; and presented to the reader ip that simplicity and plainness so peculiar to the scriptures, clearly connected with the writer's scope, and the character of Christ in revelation, it must stamp a value on the discovery to all who love the truths of GOD, exhibited in their own original beauty and divine purity.

others in effect say, he did not, but it was natural to him as he is GOD. The enquiring christian may determine for himself, which of these sentiments he should hold for truth; both he cannot, as they are directly opposite.

It is manifest on the face of the text, that by his obtaining this excellent name by inheritance, he was made so much better than angels. Now, this must be something not eternal, for then it were not obtained, nor he made thereby better than angels, who were not in being.-And how ridiculous is it to suppose, that GoD obtained a name by inheritance, to make him better than angels? which is the plain language of the apostle, if it is true, that CHRIST is a Son, as he is GOD. But it is evident from this text, that his sonship belongs to his economical character, in which the apostle is treating of him here, and with the utmost propriety says, "He was made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."

It should here be remarked, that what the scriptures say concerning Christ as an heir, or firstborn, which are terms of the same import when applied to him, mostly refer to some part of his exalted character after his death. This is pretty clear from the apostle's reasoning, in this chapter. "GOD,-hath in these last days spoken by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,who is the brightness of glory, and the distinguishing mark of his condescension, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high: being made so much better than angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.-Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore GoD, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil

of gladness above thy fellows." He told his disciples after his resurrection, "That all power in heaven and earth was given unto him," which was the accomplishment of the promise made concerning him in the psalms," Also I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth."

Psa. lxxxix. 27.

+ The translators have thought fit to supply the word my in this text, but it evidently mars the sense, as it makes it contain only one promise,-and supposes the first-born to be the person concerning whom this promise is given, of being "made higher than the kings of the earth." Whereas it is plain that the text, without this supplement, includes two promises; "the one, I will make him first-born; the other explanatory of the former: I will make him such a first-born, as to be higher than the kings of the earth. This is clear from the scope of the whole passage, beginning at the twentieth verse, where we have the designation of Christ to his work of mediator, which is followed by several promises of aid and support, in going through the arduous work of humiliation, with the faith and confidence he should express in GOD, as his Father, and the rock of his salvation; then follow several promises that respect his exaltation, "Also, saith God, will I make him first-born." What him? The phraseology points it out as another promise made to the same person mentioned before and this primogeniture was to be of such a sort as to admit of no equal. He should be heir to an inheritance of such glory, extent, and duration, as every way to excel the kings of the earth. Hence, it is said, "I will set him on high, because he hath made my name known." To the same purpose are the other texts, where he is called first-born, "Jesus Christ the first be gotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.-He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Now, if this primogenial right conferred on Jesus Christ, refers to his exaltation after he had finished the work of man's redemption, as revelation plainly declares it does, how can it have any relation to a natural and necessary primogeniture, or to his being a Son, as he is God? This by no means destroys the idea of priority included in that text, "He is the first-born of every creature." The ideas are very distinct: the one refers to his early existence: the other to his being put in possession of the power and privileges of GOD's first-born, after he had finished the work the Father gave him to do.

The next verse of this chapter I had occasion to consider before, and shall not detain the reader any longer on a subject so clear:

But come to another text in this epistle, which is made an argument for eternal sonship,-" The* law maketh men high priests which have infirmities; but the word of the oath which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated (or as in the margin, perfected) for evermore.'

From

this text they reason, "That as those who had infirmity were MEN before they were priests; so Christ was a SoN before his investiture in the priestly office; consequently his sonship did not arise from his priesthood."

Ans. The argument here is merely specious, it may amuse the unwary, but has no relation to

There is a most emphatical idea of the extent of the Messiah's kingly power and government, expressed in an ancient prophecy by Balaam. Num. xxiv. 17. “I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh; there shall proceed a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and sball smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Seth." Seth was the son of Adam, whom GOD gave him, instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. As all Cain's posterity was destroyed by the flood, it was the race of Seth only, that was saved in the ark. Therefore the whole world is now the children of Seth. The idea then, that is conveyed by the last clause of the verse, as we have it translated, is, that the Messiah should destroy the whole world of mankind! But it reads, he shall UNWALL, or have uninterrupted dominion and power over all the children of Seth, which respects his universal rule and government over the whole world, and is agreeable to many other prophecies and promises concerning him. Psa. lxxii. 8. "He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth." Psa. ii. 8. "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." All which refer to that exalted state of government he was raised to, after his sufferings here, and resurrection from the dead.

• Heb. vii. 28,

the point it is brought to prove. For the question is not, whether he was a Son before he actually entered upon the office of priesthood? But whether his divine person was eternally begotten, and so an eternal Son? I not only grant, but hold it as a principle, that the consideration of his sonship, as Emanuel, was necessary in order of nature (to speak as men) before even his ordination to his office as mediator,* much more his actual investiture in the office of priesthood; which is more than can be drawn from the text: but what does even this say for eternal generation, which the text is brought to prove? The most that can be alledged from it is, that he was a Son before his investiture in that office, by the word of the oath, which was since the law, this might be even after his incarnation. As to what the psalmist says of his priesthood, it may be to point out his excellency above figurative priests; and exhibit his character that he might be known when manifested in flesh, as the end and substance of Melchizedecian and Aaronical priesthoods: and though spoken in the present tense, yet refers to things future: but will as natively prove Melchizedeck to be an eternal man, as that Christ was eternally begotten.

The text says, the Son was consecrated to be a priest; but will any say his pure Deity could be consecrated or perfected? Or that he could be our priest, without the consideration of his human na ture, which must be included in every idea of his appointment to, or undertaking and assumption of this office of priesthood. So that instead of the text proving eternal generation, (like all the rest, as I hope the reader plainly sees) it is an evident

* See page 214.