its future union with the man CHRIST JESUS. But why should such a figure as prolepsis be introduced here, since the real existence of CHRIST's creature nature before creation makes all this language of scripture, in every place where it is hinted, just and plain to the meanest capacity in the literal sense of the words? And it would seem strange, that since the words are so plain and readily applied to their proper subject in the literal sense, that the apostles should have left this important matter so unguarded, as never to give the least hint that they were to be understood in a figurative sense, and were only properly applicable to CHRIST when come in the flesh. It was not the apostle's common method of leaving things so unguarded, that were apt to be misconstructed; and I will venture to affirm, that let a man have no other comment but the bible itself, he will never conceive from any thing in it, that the words need any other sense put upon them than what they literally point out, which is also consistent with and explanatory of many other passages, one of which we shall next consider.

In that glorious description of CHRIST in Paul's first chapter to the Hebrews, there are, as in what we have been considering, ascriptions which are sufficient evidences of his divine nature, but there are others which evidently point out an inferior and dependent nature. His laying the foundations of the earth, and the heavens being the works of his hands; and upholding all things by the word of his power; are expressions which carry in them an idea too sublime to be applied to any mere created nature. And as most of these words are taken from the hundred and second psalm, and by an apostle applied to CHRIST, there is none that can reasonably doubt that he is the JEHOVAH, the GoD of whom those things are said

by the psalmist. But his being a Son, a begotten Son, implies derivation and dependence. The creature nature of CHRIST existing by some peculiar and immediate manner of creation, formation, or derivation from GOD, before other creatures were formed, made and continued in union to Deity, may properly be called the Son of GOD; and still the more so if his exaltation to the office of Messiah, as King and Lord of all, be added to the idea. This at once destroys the Arian pretences against his Deity, which they found on the topics of argument that have been inadvertently used against them, viz. the derivation of one person from another, in pure Deity-an act of eternal generation producing a co-essential, eternal Son, &c. all which imply a derivation and dependence; and have involved the truth in darkness and incomprehensible difficulties.

The apostle says, "He is the brightness of glory, and the express image of his person."-N.B. The word father commonly put into this text, is neither in the original nor in the translation. Were I to enter upon a critical consideration of these words, it perhaps would be imagined that I wanted to force them to suit my purpose, I shall therefore take them as they stand in the English bible, and they evidently shew the plainness and propriety of the sense I contend for. The creature nature of CHRIST was always the glass through which Deity shone with inimitable splendor in all the revealed perfections of it. Thus CHRIST was the most perfect image of GOD, both in his own native excellencies, bearing the nearest resemblance to God, as an "only begotten Son;" and in his being the "brightness of his glory;" because the perfections of GoD shone through him with more

* See this in the Clear Display of the Trinity, page 345.

illustrious rays, than it was possible for any other creature to represent or transmit them, who was not thus united to Deity.

CHRIST is called in one place "the image of the invisible GOD;" in another" the express image of his person." Now if this is understood of his Deity, as it commonly is, he must be either the image of the divine essence, or of the Father's personality. It is a contradiction in terms to say, a son as such, can be the image of his father as such. Filiation is no image of paternity. We may as well conclude that light is the image of darkness. To say he is the image of GOD, as a Son, and as a Sou, he is Gop, is to destroy this part of his character altogether, and the same as to say, "As God 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 terms, one Deity is visible, another is invisible.

But things appear quite in another light when we consider CHRIST as the image of GoD, 1st. As man; his creature nature being the first, best, holiest, and wisest of all created beings, made like God in the greatest perfection possible for a creature. All the natural and moral perfections in the whole creaation put together, are not equal to what the crea ture nature of CHRIST is possessed of: "For in all things he must have the pre-eminence."-2. As this glorious creature nature is united to Deity; in this respect, the perfections of GOD himself shine through his Son, in the most resplendent manner, as EMANUEL. Here indeed he is the brightness of glory, and the express image of the invisible GOD. Here the light of the knowledge of the glory of GOD, shines in the face of his Son JESUS CHRIST.3. He is the image of GOD, as he reveals GOD to man, in the character of his ambassador and repre

sentative: this he did in the whole of the old testament economy, and still more clearly under the new. He is vested with sovereign power and dominion over all things in heaven and earth-is appointed heir and Lord of all--King of kings, and Lord of lords. As Adam in his dominion over the creatures was the image of GOD, much more is the Son of GOD, the glorious image of GoD, in his soverign dominion over the upper and lower worlds. Under these and such like considerations, we may with propriety learn from the light of revelation, the divine beauty that shines in this part of CHRIST'S filial character, the image of God, to our spiritual

comfort and edification.

66

The apostle says, "He was appointed heir of all things." GOD has an original and eternal right to all things, and does not come at it by inheritance, or derivation, much less by being appointed an heir. Therefore this clause must refer to an inferior nature to Deity.-And there are other expressions which must refer the same way, Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.-Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore GOD, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."-These things cannot be supposed to be spoken of Deity, and yet they are spoken of CHRIST before his incarnation, consequently must be spoken of him in the character contended for. The design of this chapter is to point out the glories of CHRIST's ancient existence in union with Deity, and this seems plain from comparing him so frequently with angels and setting him above them. Now this would have been but a diminutive account of Deity, to raise it above angels: but it is a most glorious account of his inferior nature, as united to Deity, and one with GOD. Now as there

are so many expressions in this chapter which must refer to an inferior nature to Deity, to apply them in that sense makes the whole plain: but when they are all applied to Deity, we are embarrassed with difficulties on all sides, especially from the Arians, who gain an advantage by our attributing things derivative and dependent to Deity, and by ascribing some things too low to the Deity of CHRIST, we provide weapons by which they with dexterity wound the truth.

Another passage which is plain by this doctrine, is the eighth of Proverbs, where it is said, "The LORD possessed me* the beginning of his ways, before his works of old: I was set up from everlasting: before the hills I was brought forth : I was by him, and was daily his delight." These terms possessed or acquired, I was set up, I was brought forth, &c. express something inferior to Deity, which is underived and independent: yet it is plain that the description is of a being distinct from GOD, which is still more manifest from what is added, "I was by him as one brought up with him, I was daily his delight, I rejoiced before him, and my delights were with the sons of men." Take these literally, and they must mean a real being distinct from GOD. The best critics in the Hebrew language say the text reads, The LORD possessed, acquired, or assumed me the beginning of his ways. Which leads directly to this interpretation, That JEHOVAH acquired, assumed, or possessed himself of the creature nature of CHRIST as the beginning, head and foundation of all his works and ways, both of creation and providence, hence he is called the beginning or head of the creation of GOD. If it be taken in this sense, nothing is

The word in should not be in the text.

+ Prov. viii. 22, &c.

Rev. iii. 14.