"Unto the Son, God saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." This, at first thought, seems to imply, that Christ was the Son, when God thus addressed him: "Unto the Son, God saith"--The sense of the passage is this: Unto the divine Logos in heaven, but now known as the Son, God saith. This is evident from the passage in the Old Testament here quoted, where God thus addressed the Person now called the Son. The passage is Psalm xlv. 6; “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre." Neither in this passage, nor in its contexts, is any mention made of a Son. The Media.. tor is there spoken of, as the King, fairer than the children of men; and the most Mighty. But now being known as the Son of God, the apostle says, "Unto the Son God saith"-i. e. unto David's King, who is the Most Mighty, but now known as the Son, God spake the words.

Again we read; "When he bringeth his first Begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the Angels of God worship him." This, it may be said, seems to imply, that Christ was God's first Begotten, before he was brought into the world; or his divine Person was the Son of God, while in heaven, before his incarnation. But the passage quoted teaches no such thing; therefore the quotation can mean no such thing. The passage quoted is in Psalm xcvii. where nothing is found of a first Begotten. The Person there,

who in the quotation to the Hebrews, is called God's first Begotten, is called the Lord, or Jehovah, reigning with clouds and darkness round about him, but righteousness and judgment being the habitation of his throne. "A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. His lightning lightened the world; the earth saw it and trembled. The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth. The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory. Confounded be all they, that worship graven images, that boast themselves of idols; Worship him, all ye gods"; or Angels-(as the Septuagint, and the apostle in the above quotation, render it.) Not a word is said here of the Messiah's being at that time God's first Begotten. Here he is the great and infinite Jehovah of the whole earth, in all the glory of the true God. But when God becomes manifest in the flesh, then the Father saith, " And let all the angels of God worship him." And he is now presented, in humanity, as God's first Begotten.

Again. "God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Let the passages just explained by their primitive texts, decide the sense of this. Yea, let John, in his introduction of the Messiah, decide the sense of it. God so loved the world, that be sent his beloved and adorable Logos, who was in the

beginning with God, and was God, one with the Father; but who was now in human nature manifest to his people, as God's only begotten Son. The title, under which he is now known, is given; but not the title, under which he was known, or which did apply to his Divinity, when God determined to send him.

The apostle, Gal. iv. 4, affords a clue to explain this point. "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."Here, when the time of the promise arrived, God sent his Son. How was the Person, who was now sent, God's Son? The passage informs; "made of a woman; made under the law;" to redeem and save. Christ here was made the Son of God, by the miraculous producing of his humanity from the virgin Mary, that he might do the work of the Mediator; that he might exercise that filial obedience under the law, essential to his mediatorial character, and to man's salvation. This is the plain sense of the above text. And it perfectly accords with the words of Gabriel to Mary; and with the account given of this subject in "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ."

Again. "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all."-This may relate to the days of Christ on earth, when he was known as the Son of God. God did

This

not then spare him; but "laid on him the iniquities of us all." He, who was presented as God's own Son, must suffer, and be delivered up to death. "Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things, which he suffered." And "it pleased the Fatherto bruise him, and to put him to grief." But should any think, that this text may relate to the divine act of sending the Saviour from heaven; (as it no doubt may ;) the explanation of the foregoing texts may equally apply to this, and to all of a similar nature. mode of speech is common. We say, When king David kept his father's sheep. But he was not king, when he kept them. We say, When king Solomon was born :-Yet he was not born king, nor Solomon. But afterward being known by both the office and the name, these are carried back to his birth, when his birth is spoken of. One says, My father was born in such a year. He does not mean, that he was born his father. In like manner, when we read, "God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son"—" God sent forth his Son, made of a woman"-the plain meaning appears to be, God sent his beloved Logos, the darling of his bosom, infinitely dear, as one with himself, who took human nature, and was manifested as the only begotten Son of God.

But such texts do not teach that the Divinity of Christ did literally sustain the filial relation to God, as having been begotten by the Father, at some period before creation.

The primi

And we see, from numerous scriptures, that this sense cannot be admitted. tive texts of the Old Testament, which first point to the paternal and filial relation, we have seen applied, by the Holy Ghost, to the miraculous producing of Christ's humanity, and to his being introduced to his mediatorial work, and to his inheritance. What right then has man to apply these texts, and others, which allude to them, contrary to the application made by the Holy Ghost? When we consider, that the Old Testament is silent concerning any paternal and filial relation, as then actually existing between the two first Persons in the Trinity, and that the Holy Ghost does apply the first predictions in the Old Testament, which speak of those relations between God and Christ, to the manifestation of the Messiah in the flesh; we may conclude that we have no divine warrant to say, that the Divinity of the second Person in the Godhead was derived from the First.