expressly treats of the eternal generation of the Son should be quoted in this place where the discourse is of the incarnation and mission of the Messiah. It is done with the design to show that Jesus, who is here spoken of as manifested and sent, is such a Saviour as was described and promised in that Psalm; namely, the eternal and proper Son of God."

The whole of the commentary of this writer upon the passage, especially in connexion with the authorities to whom he refers, is worthy of the reader's attention. Kuinoel also has some valuable remarks in the details of his criticism, though the result falls far short of the magnificence of the oracle. See also Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles., in voc. onμepov; Augustine et Amama in Psalm ii. 7; Theophylact. et Ecumenius in Heb. i.; Witsii Animadvers. Iren., c. iii., sect. xiii.; Ib. in Symbol., Exercit. vii., sect. x., xi.; Owen's Vindic. Evang. in answer to Biddle, c. ix., sect. xi.; and especially the beautiful and terse exposition by Mr. Wesley of the entire passage.

This note cannot be more appropriately concluded than by the following citations from two of the above named fathers. To render the former intelligible, it may be necessary to remark, that in Luke iii. 22, instead of the reading in our text, some copies quote Psalm ii. 7. These, though without adequate authority, are followed by several of the fathers.

"That oracle of the Father, which was pronounced upon him at his baptism, To-day I have begotten thee, indicates, not that day of time alone in which he was baptized, but the day of a changeless eternity; as it also showed, that the man was united to the person of the Only Begotten. For where a day neither begins by the end of yesterday, nor ends by the beginning of to-morrow, it is always to-day.” (Augustin. Enchirid. ad Laurent., e. xlix., T. iii., p. 74.)

"How is it shown, some one may inquire, that he is better than the angels? The reply is, By his name. For the name Son indicates kindred, even that near kindred which is by immediate descent. If he is a Son by grace, he is inferior to the angels. The expression, To-day I have begotten thee, signifies simply from the beginning, from the period in which God was the Father. As he is called I am, with reference to the present period, and that most appropriately, so also is the phrase today employed in this place." (Theophylact. in Heb. i. 5.)

NOTE (N), p. 284.

On the Epithet πрwтóтокоs, and on Heb. i. 6.

SEVERAL eminent expositors, in order to avoid the difficulties with which this epithet is supposed to be encumbered, have suggested an accentual alteration. The following remarks of Dr. J. P. Smith will supply all the information necessary to this part of the subject:-" Isidore of Pelusium, (and the great critics Erasmus, Zeger, and John David Michaelis, inclined to the opinion,) proposed to make the word a paroxyton, ршτоTÓкоs, that it might have an active signification, First Producer. But the objections to this reading appear sufficient: viz., that it is a form of the word unknown in the scriptural Greek; it is of very rare occurrence in the classical authors; when it does occur it is of the feminine gender; and the ancient versions and all accented manuscripts are against it." (Scrip. Test., vol. iii., p. 326, note.)

Reverting, therefore, to the accredited accentuation, it is to be remarked, that the use of the word "first begotten" in its secondary sense of supremacy and sovereignty, if not exclusively Jewish, is found among Jewish writers with a peculiar latitude. There are, in the Old Testament, examples where the original signification of the corresponding Hebrew term appears to be entirely merged. (E. g. Job xviii. 13; Isai. xiv. 30; Jer. xxxi. 9.) And it is most probably with this exclusive reference that the epithet, by rabbinical writers, is applied to the Messiah. Thus Rabbi Nathan says, "In the same manner in which Jacob is said to be the first begotten; (Exod. iv. 22;) Israel is my son, my first-born; even so is it said of the King Messiah, (Psalm lxxxix. 27,) I will make him my first-born." (Elle Shemoth Rabba, sect. xix.; Ap. Cartwright, Mellific., Heb., lib. iii., c. v.) A still more extraordinary use of the word, from R. Jos. Bechai, is cited by Wetstein and Wolf. "Who is worthy to be the FIRST BEGOTTEN? This dignity is eminent, and is suitable to the holy and blessed God, who is the FIRST BEGOTTEN of the world." (by bw 1133. In Exod. xiii. 11, sqq.)

As applied to Christ, πpwrórokoç in every instance seems to require the Jewish interpretation; yet in no case to the

exclusion of the primary sense of the word. In Col. i. 15, our Lord is described as "the first-born of every creature;" (próTOKOG Tάons Krioɛwc;) that is, the universal sovereign of nature; the proximate reason of which immediately succeeds, "for by him were all things created.” (Verse 16.) But there is a yet higher reason in the case; one which accounts for his agency in the creation, as well as for his consequent dominion over it; and this is found in the eternal relation which he sustains to the Father. He is the Son of God's love; (verse 13;) and the image of the invisible God; in the highest sense divinely begotten, and the participator of the Father's nature and essence. And because he is thus, in respect of his eternal being, the only generated, the first begotten, he has, in respect of the economy of creation, the dignity of a divine primogeniture, being at once the Creator and the Lord of the universe.

The same reason extends yet further; for such are the rights resulting from his eternal relation as to ensure supremacy in every economical character which he may condescend to assume. Thus, that in all things he might have the preeminence, he is also the first-born from the dead, (πp. iк rv vɛкρāv, verse 18,) that is, Lord of the dead; (Comp. Rev. i. 5 and 18;) yet not without a reference both to his having been the first fruits, the arapyn, of them that slept, (1 Cor. xv. 20,) and to his eternal filiation, which is the foundation of all his mediatorial distinction, and of which his resurrection is the appropriate and acknowledged evidence.

The epithet is found in another connexion which comes within the application of the same principles. It is the relation of Christ to the new covenant, of which he is the representative, the head, and the sovereign. So St. Paul, speaking of the elect, describes them as conformed to the image of the Son, that he might be the FIRST-BORN among many brethren. (Rom. viii. 29.) Here the church is represented as a family, in which our Lord has the absolute authority of primogeniture. But lest the epithet should be taken exclusively in its secondary sense he is declared, in his filial state and relation, to supply the model to which all the members of this divine household are to be assimilated. The terms for admission, and for the retention of privilege, are all summed up in this one comprehensive characteristic,-conformity to the image oF THE SON.

Of this more, however, in the sequel. (See CHAP. VI., sect. iv., below.)

While, therefore, we give to this epithet its secondary sense, as the proximate meaning of the sacred writers, it must be with the full understanding that, in every instance in which it is employed, and with respect to every mode of authority which it indicates, the ultimate reference is to the eternal relation of our Lord to the Father.

Upon the same principles, I conceive, the title rλngovóμos, with its cognate verb, is to be explained; the proximate idea suggested being that of proprietorship, the ultimate reference, the jus hæreditatis, the prerogative of heirship, derived from the divine and immutable filiation.

The passage in the first chapter to the Hebrews, in which the epithet prÓTоkog occurs, presents several difficulties. It contains a quotation from the Old Testament, probably from Psal. xcvii. 7, and in proof of our Lord's proper Deity is conclusive; since nothing can be more evident than that the whole of this spirited ode treats exclusively of the glory and supremacy of Jehovah. But it affords no clue as to the precise period in which this particular prophecy was to be fulfilled, nor, of consequence, to the meaning of the expression, "when he bringeth in the First Begotten into the world."

Hence there is some ambiguity in the reference of the word Túy, "again." It may be applied either, as in our version, to the accumulation of particulars in which the Apostle is engaged, or, since it immediately precedes ɛioɑyáyn, “he bringeth in," it may be designed to indicate a second introduction, and so be read, "when he introduceth the First Begotten again into the world," &c. The evidence seems to preponderate in favour of the former arrangement; and in that case the allusion is to the nativity and the accompanying angelic announcement, to which the passage has already been referred.

Should the other sense be deemed preferable, the epithet "first begotten" will be equivalent to "first begotten from the dead," and the entire text will describe the resurrection of our Redeemer. In favour of this view, it may be alleged that the term oikovμέvn, "the world inhabited by men," supplies an antithesis not unsuitable nor inelegant to hades, the place of disembodied spirits. But however correct this may be, the

--

introduction of the First Begotten into the habitable world, is a description not less suited to the incarnation than to the resurrection. To the latter reference there is besides an objection which, I apprehend, must be considered insuperable. It is this, so far as we are informed, no such homage as that here demanded was paid to the Lord, either upon his resurrection, or during the time that he subsequently remained on earth. All angelic honour offered to Christ in person, of which we have any record, occurred antecedently to his death. The appearances of two or of three angels at the sepulchre, and of two others at the period of the ascension, even admitting these to have been acts of worship, which is allowing the term an undue latitude, were altogether inadequate to the requisition, "Let all the angels of God worship him;" and the honours rendered by these celestial ministers upon the reception of Christ into heaven can of course have no connexion with a demand which respected his introduction into the world inhabited by men. Upon the whole, therefore, that exposition is to be preferred which has already been laid before the reader.