allowed to be prophetic of the Messiah, he is declared to be of the same nature with the Father by the language, " Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten "thee." Paul quotes this passage to show that Christ is superior to angels: "for," says he, "to which of "the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, " this day have I begotten thee?" (e) (e) Ps. ii. 7. Heb. i. 5. It is worthy of remark, that the Socinians, in their New Version, evade the force of this passage in a very disingenuous manner, by putting a false translation in the text, and the true one in a note. In the text they give-" This day I have adopted thee," while in a small note, which not one reader in ten will look at, they say, "begotten thee. Gr. and N." To be sure, it would require a front of brass, to deny that the original ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε, is properly translated in the authorised version. Why, then, should adopted be thrust into the text, and begotten be obscured in a note? Are adoption and begetting synonymous ? Or, in such a case as that before us, can one, with any degree of fairness, be substituted for the other? In another passage (John i. 15,) these critics get quit of an equal incumbrance upon their system, by an amazing piece of delicacy : "Only begotten" (say they, quoting from Mr. Lindsey's List of Wrong Translations)" is most gross and improper language to be used " in English, especially with respect to Deity." I would be glad to ask these admirable detectors of " wrong translations," by what other English term they will express the true meaning of μονογενες, with equal correctness and equal conciseness ? Mr. Belsham, who seems to rely alike upon the ignorance of his admirers and the supineness of those who oppose his dangerous speculations, affirms positively (p. 259 of his book on the Divinity of Christ) that the word αγαπητος "does not occur in St. John," and that therefore that writer used μονογενες to denote well-beloved. How will the astonishment and horror of the unlearned reader be excited when I assure him, notwithstanding this bold assertion, that John employs αγαπητος, in his Gospel and Epistles, at least eight times! Indeed both these words occur in one and the same chapter: see 1 John, iv. 1, 7, 9, 11. Such misrepresentation and evasion, as are glanced at in this note, would be very contemptible even in reasoning upon minor topics; but it is ! ! In another passage the Psalmist says, "Confounded " be all they that serve graven images, that boast " themselves of idols: worship Him (i. e. Jehovah,) "all ye gods or angels." Here David describes the Supreme God, and commands the angels to worship him. St. Paul quotes the psalm, (f) applies it to Jesus, and commands the angels to worship HIM. In Paul's estimation, therefore, Jesus is God supreme. Again, in the hundred and second psalm, "the " afflicted, who poureth out his complaint before the " LORD," says, "O my God, take me not away in the " midst of my days: thy years are throughout all "generations. Of old hast THOU laid the foundation " of the earth, and the heavens are the work of THY "hands. They shall perish, &c. But Thou art the "same, and THY years shall have no end." St. Paul applies this also to Jesus Christ, (g) to prove that he was really God, because he made the world. Once more, in the forty-fifth Psalm, an avowed and very expressive prophecy of the majesty and grace of the Messiah, we have this language: "Thy throne, “O GOD, is for ever and ever," &c. And this also is cited by Paul, to show that the title of the everlasting God belonged to Christ. "But unto the Son he "saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a " sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy king" dom." (h) difficult to reconcile them with common integrity or common humanity when they are employed to seduce men into a system in the adoption or rejection of which, for aught these writers can show to the contrary, the salvation of the soul may be deeply implicated. (f) Psalm xcvii. 7. Heb. i. (g) Psalm cii. 24-27. Heb. i. 10-12. The quotations here made, are not from authors who are careless in the employment and selection of their language, nor from those who were deficient in jealousy for the honour of God. On the contrary, they would not suffer the character of God to be depreciated, nor would they permit that of man to be unduly exalted, or in any way to usurp the place of God. "Surely," says one of them, "men of low (h) Psalm xlv. 6. Heb. i. 8. Here again the Socinians have been evincing their ingenuity in a remarkable manner. Their translation is, "God is thy throne for ever and ever." This appears to approximate more nearly to nonsense than either to pure theology or genuine philosophy; but it serves to exemplify the natural progress of erroneous sentiment. Jesus Christ is not the Son of God really, but by adoption (and adopted not in the opinion of the apostle Paul, but of modern theologians, who mistranslate his language to favour their notions): he discharges his " office " of Son" so well, that he is to be rewarded by having his Almighty Father transformed into a chair of state, on which he is to sit "for " ever and ever." Such is the way in which these writers preserve the awful and sublime character of God from degradation. Truly this is a tissue of absurdity very adroitly woven, considering that it is done by those who pride themselves upon their rationality, and who are presumptuous enough to accuse the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews of indulging in "far-fetched analogies, and inaccurate reasonings." It ought to be added to the honour of Dr. Carpenter, that after he had selected "God is thy throne" as one of the most important improved renderings, he admitted in his " Letters to Mr. Veysie," that the idiom of the Greek forbids our so rendering it. The modern Socinians are not the first who have misinterpreted the language of the 45th Psalm to suit an erroneous hypothesis. The Jeros in the earlier times of Christianity did the same ; and Origen (Cont. Celsus, lib. i. cap. 45) shows how he baffled a Jewish doctor, and exposed the evasions by which he aimed to escape the only true deduction, in reference to the essential Deity of the Messiah, which could be made from that graphic prediction. " degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie. " Power belongeth unto God. Trust in Him at all "times." (i) Another says, "Cease ye from man; " wherein is he to be accounted of?" (k) Another has this strong denunciation,-" Cursed be the man " that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." (l) Yet, when speaking of Jesus Christ, their language is-" Embrace the Son lest he be angry, and ye "" perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but "a little: blessed are all they that put their trust in "HIM." (m) If any words can communicate definite ideas, the grand truth, conveyed by the preceding passages, is, that in the estimation of the apostles, the Messiah possesses the Divine nature and attributes, and is therefore entitled to confidence and worship as GOD. Men, therefore, who dislike the great peculiarities of the Christian system, may exercise their ingenuity to the utmost, may labour to render some books of Holy Writ suspected, and may speculate on the extent of apostolic inspiration, as much and as long as they please; yet they cannot shake the certainty of these two truths: 1st, That the apostles have applied to Jesus Christ certain passages from the prophets which characterise the supreme God. And 2dly, That if Jesus Christ does not partake of the glories of the Divine essence, and is but a mere creature (to whom consequently those characters do not belong), we must look upon the apostles, not as teachers of truth, but as (i) Ps. lxii. 8, 9, 11. (k) Is. ii. 22. men who betray others into idolatry by most impious and blasphemous applications of the prophetical books. Nay, we may add farther, that if the notions of the modern Socinians as to the nature of Christ be correct, it follows, inevitably, that neither the prophets exactly predicted things to come, nor the apostles understood the prophets; a consequence which would sap the foundation of both the Jewish and Christian religions, and leave no manner of harmony between the Old and the New Testament. This is a powerful consideration; to which, however, others may be added equally pressing. II. The prophecies, miracles, language, and conduct of Jesus Christ, furnish indubitable proofs of his Divinity. The Jewish prophets, when about to announce future things, waited till something extraneous roused within them the prophetic spirit, and then plainly indicated that they were animated by a foreign impulse. Not so the Messiah. He prophesied with the same ease, calmness, and composure, as he spoke: the future mysteries and events which he predicted were not suddenly infused into his mind; they were familiar objects to him, always present to his view, their images always (if I may so say) existing within himself: all ages to come were prefigured clearly in his capacious intellect. So that, whether he foretold his own sufferings and death, the destruction of the temple, the resurrection of the dead, or the awful solemnities of the day of judgment, he manifested the same undisturbed tranquillity. |