If it be asked, in what sense is Christ God's "_Son_, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds?" I answer, the word doubtless means, that he was derived from God, that he sprung from God, that he received his being from God before the creation of the universe. He is called God's "first-begotten" and "only-begotten." It is unnecessary and may be useless for us to enter into any inquiries and discussions concerning hypostasis, person, nature, being, essence, substance, and other logical and metaphysical terms employed by theologians, which do not afford a particle of light; but we must believe, that Christ was derived from God and possesses the very attributes and endured the sufferings, ascribed to him in the scriptures. If we ascribe to him a nature not ascribed to him in the Bible, one incapable of suffering, and then deny the sufferings, which are ascribed to him; what do we but contradict the word of God and reject the doctrine of the Atonement by the sufferings of Christ, which is the foundation of the sinner's hope? If a learned doctor should assert, that if Christ was the agent of God in the creation of the universe, and is his agent in its government, then he could not be derived from God; the learned man puts forth only the words of folly. As derived from God, why might not the Son be as much superior to the highest angel, as man is superior in knowledge and powers to the beetle under our foot? Why could he not derive from God and exercise under God the powers of creation? "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers: all things were created by him and for him:"――"it pleased the father, that in him should all fullness dwell." Col. 1:15, 16. So in Heb. 1:3, Christ is called "the express image of God's person;" where the Greek word, translated person, means nature, essence, or being, and the assertion is, that Christ is "a clear and strong image of the essence or nature of the divine majesty." It may be, that for this reason the title of god is given to him; and with very obvious propriety may we ascribe to him divinity or call him a divine being, without contending for the impossibility that he is the very being, whose image he is, or that his own is the very nature, person, hypostasis, or substance, of which he stands the express character.