that name; he spake unto him and called him by that name, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." He is not called the Son of God upon such a common account as angels and men, the one by creation, the other by adoption; but God peculiarly, and in a way of eminence, gives this name unto him.,

Thirdly, This name must be such, as either absolutely, or by reason of its peculiar manner of appropriation to the Messiali, proves his pre-eminence above the angels. Now the name designed is the Son of God: Thou art my Son, not absolutely, but with that exegetical adjunct of his generation, this day have I begotten thee. Chrysost. Hom. 22. on Gen. vi. positively denies that the angels in Scripture are any where called the sons of God. Hence some conjecture, that the translation of the LXX. is changed since that time; seeing it is evident that they are so called in the Greek Bibles now extant. However, in the original, they are called the sons of God, Job i. 6. ch. ii. 1. ch. Xxxviii. 7. Psal. lxxxix. 6. Believers are also called the sons of God, Rom. viii. 16. Gal. iv. 6. 1 John iii. 1. and magistrates, gods, Psal. lxxxii. 1. 6. John x. 34. It doth not therefore appear how the mere assigning of this name to the Messiah, doth prove his pre-eminence above the angels, who are also called by it.

Answ. Angels may be called the sons of God upon a general account, and by virtue of their participation in some common privilege; as they are by reason of their creation, like Adam, Luke iii. ult. and constant obedience, Job i. 6. But it was never said unto any angel personally upon his own account, Thou art the son of God. God never said so unto any of them, espe cially with the reason of the appellation annexed, this day have I begotten thee. It is not then the general name of a son, or the sons of God, that the apostle instanceth in, but the peculiar assignation of this name unto the Lord Jesus on his own particular account, with the reason of it annexed, this day have I begotten thee, which is insisted on. So that here is an especial appropriation of this glorious name unto the Messiah.

Fourthly, The appropriation of this name unto him in the manner expressed, proves his dignity and pre-eminence above all the angels. For it is evident, that God intended thereby to declare his singular honour and glory, giving him a name to denote it, that was never by him assigned unto any mere creature, as his peculiar inheritance; in particular, not unto any of the angels: not one of them can lay any claim unto it, as his peculiar heritage from the Lord.

And this is the whole that was incumbent on the apostle to prove by the testimony produced. He manifests him sufficientÎy to be more excellent than the angels, from the excellence of

the name which he inherits, according to his proposition before laid down. There is indeed included in this reasoning of the apostle, an intimation of a peculiar filiation and sonship of Christ. Had he not been so the Son of God, as never any angel or other creature was, he never had been called so, in such a way as they are never so called. But this the apostle at present doth not expressly insist upon, only he intimates it as the foundation of his discourse.

To conclude then our considerations of this testimony, we shall briefly inquire after the sense of the words themselves, absolutely considered; although, as I have shewed, that doth not belong directly unto the present argument of the apostle.

Expositors are much divided about the precise intention of these words, both as they are used in the Psalm, and variously applied by the apostles. But yet generally the expositions given of them are pious, and consistent with each other. I shall not insist long upon them, because, as I said, their especial sense belongeth not unto the design and argument of the apostle. That Christ is the natural and eternal Son of God, is agreed at this day by all Christians, save the Socinians. And he is called so, because he is so. The formal reason why he is so called, is one and the same, namely, his eternal Sonship; but occasions of actually ascribing that name unto him, there are many. And hence ariseth the difficulty that is found in the words. Some think those words, This day have I begotten thee, do contain the formal reason of Christ's being properly called the Son of God, and so to denote his eternal generation. Others think they express only some outward act of God towards the Lord Christ, on the occasion whereof he was declared to be the Son of God, and so called. The former way went Austin with sundry of the ancients. The rn, the hodie, or this day here, was with them the same as the nunc stans, as they call it, of eternity; and the 7, I have begotten thee, denotes, as they say, the proper natural generation of the Son, by an inconceiv able communication of the essence and substance of the Godhead by the person of the Father unto him. And this doctrine is true, but whether here intended or not, is by some greatly questioned.

Others therefore take the words to express only an occasion. of giving this name at a certain season to the Lord Christ, when he was revealed or declared to be the Son of God. And some assign this to the day of his incarnation, when he declared him to be his Son, and that he should be so called, as Luke i. 35. some to the day of his baptism, when he was again solemnly from heaven proclaimed so to be, Matt. iii. 17. some to the day of his resurrection, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom. i. 3. and Acts xiii. 33. some to the day of

his ascension, whereunto these words are applied. And all these interpretations are consistent and reconcileable with each other, in as much as they are all means serving unto the same end; that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal amongst them, and fixed on in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony unto him, Acts xiii. 33.

And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect unto David as a type of Christ, seeing he was said as it were to be begotten of God when he raised him up, and established him in his rule and kingdom. Neither indeed doth the apostle treat in this place of the eternal generation of the Son, but of his exaltation and pre-eminence above angels.

The word also constantly in the Scripture denotes some signal time, one day, or more. And that expression, This day have I begotten thee, following immediately upon that other typical one, I have set my King upon my holy hill of Sion, seems to be of the same import, and in like manner to be interpreted. Thus far I then choose to embrace the latter interpretation of the words; namely, that the eternal generation of Christ, on which his filiation or sonship, both name and thing doth depend, is to be taken only declaratively, and that declaration to be made in his resurrection and exaltation over all that ensued thereon. But every one is left unto the liberty of his own judgment herein.

And this is the first testimony, whereby the apostle confirms his assertion of the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the name that he inherits as his peculiar right and possession.

For the further confirmation of the same truth, he adds another testimony of the same import, in the words ensuing.

Και παλιν, εγω εσομαι αυτώ εις πατέρα, και αυτος εσται μοι εις ύιον. Vulg. Et rursum, ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium. 'I will be unto him for a Father, and he shall be to me for a Son.' So also the Syriac: 2x and x, in patrem, and in filium; not pro patre, et pro filio, as some render the words. Erasmus worse than they: Ego ero ei loco patris, et ille erit mihi loco filii, Instead of a Father, and instead of a Son,' or in the place,' which agrees not with the letter, and corrupts the sense. Beza, Ego ero ei pater, et ipse erit mihi filius, who is followed by ours. "And again, I will be to him a Father, and

6

he shall be to me a Son."

Kai mari, and again; that is, in another place, or again it is said to the Son, what is no where spoken unto the angels. E

doth ל the prefixed ,אני אהיה לו לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן,trouas

6

not denote a substitution or comparison, but the truth of the thing itself. So it is said of Rebecca, w 1, she was unto him,' not for, or instead, or in the place of, but his

wife.' And in the words of the covenant, Jer. xxxi. 33. I will be to them, and they shall be to me

;' not,

I will be unto them instead of God, and they shall be unto me instead of a people; but, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.' And the same is the signification of these words, I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son.'

This is the second testimony produced by the apostle to prove the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the excellency of the name given unto him. One word, one witness, the testimony being that of God, and not of man, had been sufficient to have evinced the truth of his assertion. But the apostle adds a second here, partly to manifest the importance of the matter he treated of, and partly to stir them up to a diligent search of the Scripture, where the same truths, especially those that are of most concern unto us, are stored up and down in sundry places, as the Holy Ghost had occasion to make mention of them. This is that mine of precious gold which we are continually to dig for, and search after, if we intend to grow and to be rich in the knowledge of God in Christ, Prov. ii. 3, 4. Expositors do generally perplex themselves and their readers about the application of these words unto the Lord Christ. Cajetan for this cause, that this testimony is not rightly produced nor applied as it ought, rejects the whole Epistle, as not written by the apostle, nor of canonical authority. Such instances do even wise and learned men give of their folly and self-fulness every day. The conclusion that he makes, must needs be built on these two suppositions. First, That whatever any man might or could apprehend concerning the right application of this testimony, that he himself might and could so do; for otherwise he might have acknowledged his own insufficiency, and have left the solution of the difficulty unto them to whom God should be pleased to reveal it. Secondly, That when men of any generation cannot understand the force and efficacy of the reasonings of the penmen of the Holy Ghost, nor discern the suitableness of the testimonies they make use of, unto the things they produce them in the confirmation of, they may lawfully reject any portion of Scripture thereon. The folly and iniquity of which principles or suppositions are manífest.

The application of testimonies out of the Old Testament in the New, depends as to their authority on the veracity of him that maketh use of them; and as to their cogency in argument on the acknowledgment of them on whom they are pressed.. Where we find these concurring, as in this place, there remains nothing for us, but to endeavour a right understanding of what is in itself infallibly true, and unquestionably cogent unto the ends for which it is used.

VOL. III.

L

Indeed the main difficulty, which in this place expositors generally trouble themselves withal, ariseth purely from their own mistake. They cannot understand how these words should* prove the natural sonship of Jesus Christ, which they supposed they are produced to confirm, seeing it is from thence that he is exalted above the angels. But the truth is, the words are not designed by the apostle unto any such end. His aim is only to prove, that the Lord Christ hath a name assigned unto him more excellent, either in itself, or in the manner of its attribution, than any that is given unto the angels, which is the medium of this first argument to prove him, not as the eternal Son of God, nor in respect of his human nature, but as the revealer of the will of God in the gospel, to be preferred above all the angels in heaven, and consequently in particular above those whose ministry was used in the giving of the law.

Two things then are necessary to render this testimony effectual to the purpose for which it is cited by the apostle; first, that it was originally intended of him to whom he doth apply it secondly, that there is a name in it assigned unto him more excellent than any ascribed to the angels.

For the first of these, we must not wave the difficulties that interpreters have either found out in it, or cast upon it. The words are taken from 2 Sam. vii. 14. and are part of the answer returned from God unto David by Nathan, upon his resolution to build him an house. The whole oracle is as followeth, ver. 11. "The Lord telleth thee, that he will make thee an house." Ver. 12. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom" (or, as 1 Chron. xvii. 11. And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired, that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons, and I will establish his kingdom.") Ver. 13. "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever." (1 Chron. xvii. 12, 13. “He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever.") Ver. 14. "I will be his Father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men." Ver. 15. "But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee." (1 Chron. xvii. 13. "I will be his Father, and he shall be my son; and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee.") Ver. 16. "And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before me: thy throne shall be established for ever." (1 Chron. xvii. 14. "But I will settle him in mine house, and in