at least in part, refer to the Father's communication of the Divine Essence to the Son by what divines call generation, so that he is the eternal Father of an eternal Son. This, it is true, may appear to some objectionable, as making the verse a mere tautology with the two following verses; and, therefore, they will be inclined to explain it solely in reference to the offices which he undertook for the redemption of man, and to which he was ordained in the eternal and immutable purpose of God; for he was "foreordained before the foundation of the world."-1 Pet. i. 20.

Some suppose" to anoint" is a figurative expression, denoting to confer dignity and honour. "Power, dominion, and greatness were given to me," as R. Levi Ben Gersom understands it; and it has been thought, that our Saviour was called the Messiah, or Christ, on account of his being constituted a prince, and invested with power and dominion by the Father. (Suicer, ibid.; Schleusner, Lex. Xporos.) But it appears clearly to me, that his title of Christ is derived from the triple character he sustains of Prophet, Priest, and King, to which offices he was anointed by the effusion of the Spirit.

However the expression may be explained, how can it be said that divine wisdom was " anointed from everlasting?" Can it with any propriety be asserted of an attribute, that it was anointed, invested with power and authority, from everlasting? Is it not absurd to affirm of an attribute, that it was anointed, or ordained to perform an office of any description whatsoever? In what way then, literal or figurative, can the expression be predicated of a quality? But it is strictly applicable to the divine Logos, who was anointed, by the effusion of the Spirit, to perform the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King; who was invested with power and dignity from everlasting; and who from all eternity derived his existence and essence from the Father, for " in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" (Col. ii. 9;) he "was in

the beginning with God, and was God," (John, i. 1,) “ having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” (Heb. vii. 3,) but is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," Heb. xiii. 8.

before the world was]—Literally, “ from the antiquities of the earth," that is, before its existence, as the following verses prove: so the ancient versions. Schultens renders it, "longe longeque ante terram," and adds, in a note, “Ne satisfacit quidem, antequam esset terra. In Hebræo est ab anterioritatibus terræ ; quod quivis cernit adferre sensum istum, quem in versione proposui.”

24. I was born]—Among the different senses of which in, the radix of bin, is susceptible, there are only two that can possibly apply in this and the next verse, viz. to travail, to bring forth, parturire; and to form, to produce, formare.* Neither of these significations, however, can agree with divine wisdom, which never was born, or formed, or produced; but always subsisted as an attribute of the Deity: and, as the sense of forming, producing, or creating is wholly unsuitable to the Son, who is eternal and uncreated, I conclude it is applied to him in the sense of bringing forth, expressive of his divine and eternal generation. To this effect it is rendered by all the ancient versions, except the Arabic, which is of little or no authority. The Targum, indeed, on ver. 25, according to the Latin translation in the Polyglott, has "condita sum;" but the word n'ans, which is there used, should have been rendered "genita sum.”—(See Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. Talm. et Rab. n.) Dr. Bernard Hodgson renders it, "I was," and in ver. 25, "I existed;"

* In regard to this, Michalis observes, (Suppl. No. 686,) “Fere omnia quæ pro ea (scil. significatione formandi) adferuntur exempla manifeste parturiendi notionem habent:" so Dindorf, Lex. p. 933.

66

and Roell, (Dissert. Altera de Generatione Filii, § 95,) who is greatly perplexed with this passage, as it so strongly militates against his scheme, hesitates between the renderings fui," and "formata, h. e. ordinata;" but I find no authority for giving it the sense of fui, I was. The version I have given is, likewise, supported by the authority of the most eminent modern translators, commentators, and lexicographers; as Mercer, Geier, Castalio, Piscator, C. B. Michalis, Schultens, Dathe, Hales, (see ver. 25,) Cocceius, Gousset, (Diss. ad Bohl. N. 2, at the end of his Lex.) Simonis, Dindorf, Parkhurst, Vitringa, (de Generatione Filii, p. 16.) Little doubt, therefore, remains that the expression 'nin refers to the filiation of the Son, who was begotten of the Father before all worlds.

Imperatively called by my duty as a commentator, I must touch upon the doctrine of the Trinity, at once the most interesting and most awful of all topics; on which to multiply words without knowledge is pregnant with mischief, and "to speak unadvisedly" is irreverent and profane. Yet, as the Ministers of the Gospel should not be restrained, through silent timidity, from the avowal of what they regard as celestial truths, I shall briefly state the result of my investigation, in full confidence of its consistency with the sacred writings, and the Formularies of the Established Church.

That three distinct Subsistencies or Persons exist in one Godhead, is the unanimous voice of the Scriptures and of the ancient fathers. Of these Persons only One can be self-existent and unoriginated, the cause and original of all things, who is denominated God the Father; for a plurality of Persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods. The Scriptures declare, that the Son is really and truly God, coessential and coexistent with the Father; but the Father alone is self-existent and unoriginated; therefore, the Son must have derived his being and essence from the

Father.

Now as the Divine Essence, embracing all perfections, is indivisible, the communication of it must be total and plenary, so that the Son is "of one Substance with the Father" and as the same perfections require us to acknowledge that God is immutable, that what he now is he always was, it follows, that the essence which he had from all eternity, he from all eternity communicated; being always Father as always God; and, therefore, the Son was "begotten from everlasting, the very and eternal God." But, if the Son were unoriginated, it would constitute him a separate, independent, self-existent God, the assertion of which leads directly to the error of Tritheism; since to make three independent co-ordinate Divinities, is to make three separate and distinct Gods. Some subordination, then, there must be in the Trinity; some root, centre, or fountain of Deity; and accordingly we are taught in the sacred writings, that the Son is of the Father, God of God. Wisdom, by which appellation the second Person in the Holy Trinity is denoted, is expressly said, in the passage under consideration, to be "born;" the title "Son of God" is applicable to Christ only in his divine nature, and the relation included in it certainly implies derivation; indeed, the whole tenor of Scripture evinces his emanation from the Father, who is represented as the cause and source of all things.

Of the nature and mode of the Son's origination the human mind can form no conception; the sacred Oracles, however, assure us of the fact; and, as language is the medium of

That the denomination "Son of God" imports the Divinity of Christ, is most ably demonstrated by the Bishop of Lincoln, (Elem, of Theol. vol. ii. art. 2,) by Wilson, (Illustration of the Method of Explaining the N. T. by the early Opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ, cap. 2 et seq.) by the Bishop of St. David's, (Brief Memorial, p. 78, and Sermon preached before the University of Oxford, 1790,) and by Dr. Jamieson (Vindication of the Deity of Christ, lib. iii.)

thought, some word or words must be selected to express this origination, and none are better adapted for this purpose, or more agreeable to Scripture, than the term " Generation;" a term not intended to intimate a physical generation; but to express the unknown manner in which the Son's eternal personal existence is in and of the Father. To object, that eternal generation is a self-contradiction, the generator being necessarily prior to the generated, is to apply to the Creator notions derived from the generative process in the creature: whereas, if the Son be a Person in an eternal and immutable Godhead, his personality must have been from eternity; for an origination of it in time is incompatible with the immutability of the Deity. Little dependence, it is granted, can be placed in metaphysical reasonings upon the nature and attributes of the Trinity; our ideas on this abstruse subject have no other firm basis to rest upon than the Scriptures; and as this important, though mysterious, doctrine of the Son's eternal filiation is revealed in them, we ought to receive it as an infallible truth, without presumptuously attempting to explain a subject so far above the grasp of finite understandings. The fact is certain, the manner incomprehensible. "Mihi impossibile est hujus generationis scire secretum. Mens deficit, vox silet, non mea tantum, sed et angelorum. Licet scire quod Filius natus sit: non licet discutere quomodo natus sit. Illud negare non licet, hoc quærere metus est."-Ambrose, Lib. de Fid. ad Grat. See some excellent observations in Irenæus, Hæres, lib. ii. c. 48; Eusebius, Dem. Evangel. lib. v. c. 1, p. 213 et seq. de Eccles. Theol. lib. i. c. 12. See also Bishop Horsley's Tracts, p. 513, Dundee, 1812.

From the generation of the Son, his Divinity may be inferred by a just and inevitable consequence; for that which emanates from the great First Cause, after the mysterious manner denominated Generation, must be essentially like him. Generation is the vital production of another in the same nature; the very