05. In what sense Christ is the Son of God

IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD.

Psalms 2:7. Thou art my Son. Jesus Christ is the Author of our holy religion. The communications, which were made to man after the apostasy, were made by him. By his authority holy men of God were inspired by the Holy Spirit; and communicated the divine will. By him the covenant of grace was given to degenerate man; and through his mediation, every favor is bestowed upon this fallen world. When fullness of time was come he appeared on earth in the form of human nature. He made more clear and copious displays of the divine will, than had been made before. He taught the way which led to heaven. He was embraced in the first promise of mercy to fallen humanity. He was the principal object of ancient prophecy. He was the substance, which was represented by the types in the Hebrew ritual. He was the antitype of the sacrifices, which were offered upon the Jewish altar. He is the main scope of the gospel. He is the foundation of salvation. He is the chief corner stone of the church. As Jesus Christ holds so important a place in the scheme of redemption, it is necessary to form correct ideas of his nature, character and office. As he is the foundation of Christianity, the sentiments we form of him, will affect our whole creed respecting the method of salvation. It cannot be expected that the superstructure will be better than the basis. If we IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 47 begin with error, the whole fabric will be erroneous.

View the Christian world, and it will be found that the sentiments they form of Christ give a complexion to their whole creed respecting Christianity. The greatest care ought, therefore, to be used in forming an opinion on this fundamental article of the Christian faith. It concerns us to decide whether Jesus Christ is simply human; whether he is a composition of human and super-angelic nature, or whether he is composed of humanity and Divinity. It is important to decide whether Christ exhibited characteristic marks of divine nature; and whether he sustains the office of Mediator, Redeemer and Savior. The importance of the subject demands a faithful investigation. When Christ appeared in the world, it was a prominent inquiry among the Jews whether he was the Son of God. The inquiries whether he was the Christ, or whether he was the Son of God were of the same import. They expected that when the promised Messiah appeared, he would appear in the character of God’s Son. In the Old Testament God acknowledges him to be his Son. By his prophet he said, “Thou art my Son.” Jewish authors admit that the term Son in the 2d Psalm is applied to Christ. To put the question beyond dispute the apostle Paul quotes this short passage, and applies it to Christ. When Jesus claimed the title, Son of God, and the title, Christ, the Jews considered him claiming the same prerogatives. At one time they accused him of calling himself Christ. At another time they accused him of calling himself the Son of God; and they viewed the accusations of the same import.

Christ once inquired of his disciples what was the opinion of people respecting himself After they had named several opinions, which were entertained of him, he inquired of them saying, “Whom say ye, that I am.’“’ Peter, who was always ready to give an answer, said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 48 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. living God.-’ Jesus replied, “Blessed art thou Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee; but my Father, which is in heaven.” This reply proved that Peter had formed right ideas of him; and gave him an appropriate name. Jesus Christ was predicted by the name, Son. When he came into the world he maintained that he was the Son of God. When he was on trial before the council, the high Priest adjured him by the living God, that he should declare whether he was the Christ, the Son of God. When the Centurion saw the miracles at his crucifixion, he exclaimed, “Surely this was the Son of God.” The apostles preached the same doctrine. After Saul was converted to the Christian faith, he “straightway preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.” Evil spirits acknowledged the same sentiment; and gave him the same title. The relationship of Christ to the Father expressed by the term Son was acknowledged by himself; by his apostles; and by primitive Christians.

Soon after Christ left the world, various opinions arose respecting him. Some believed that he was wholly divine; that he assumed only the appearance of humanity. Some held that a super-angelic nature was united with his human nature. Others maintained that he was a mere man, furnished with extraordinary communications. This variety of sentiment respecting Jesus Christ early disturbed and divided the Christian Church. The same distinctions, with their various modifications, have perpetuated divisions in the Christian world. The phrase, Son of God, is often applied in the scriptures to Jesus Christ. He frequently claims this dignity. The Father often calls him his Son; his own Son; his dearly beloved Son. Scripture names are remarkable for their pertinence; and there is no doubt that a peculiar and appropriate sense is to be attached to this title. It is important to inquire in what sense Christ is the Son of God. IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 49 This appellation was given to individuals of the human race. Adam was called the son of God. When God sent Moses to Pharaoh, requiring him to let Israel go, he commanded him to say unto Pharaoh, “Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son. When God forbade David to build an house for his name, he declared that Solomon should build him an house; and “I will be his Father and he shall be my Son; and I will establish his kingdom.” Those, who are born of the Spirit and have become members of Christ’s kingdom, are frequently called sons of God. “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” People are children of God in different senses, and in different respects. All are his children in this general sense, that he is the Author of their existence; and in this sense all may call him Father. But those, who are renewed in the temper of their minds, and are adopted into his family, are, in a more peculiar sense, his children, or his sons; and in a more peculiar sense God is their Father.

Christ is not only Son of God, but by way of distinction and eminence, he is the Son of God. If those, who are born of the Holy Spirit; who bear the divine moral likeness, and have become members of God’s family by adoption, are emphatically sons of God; for greater reasons, and in a higher sense is Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Some are of opinion that the sonship of Christ originated from his miraculous conception. To Mary the angel said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee; and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” It is not doubted that this is one reason, for which he was called by this name. But it is not the only, nor the principal reason for giving him this appellation. Christ was called a Son Ions: before his incarnation. The Psalmist 7 50 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOB. speaking the language of the Father to Christ, saith, “Thou art my Son.” The love of God is represented in the highest degree because he sent his Son into the world. The love of God is grounded on his not sparing his own, his dearly beloved Sony but giving him up freely for the sins of the world. If God had not had a Son before the advent of the Messiah, he could not have sent his Son. Therefore the peculiar manner of his introduction into the world did not constitute his near relationship to the Father.

Christ is not a literal Son of the Father. Because Christ is repeatedly called Son of God, it does not follow that this phrase is to be understood according to its literal, or natural meaning. If it should be admitted as an established rule for the interpretation of the scriptures that words are always to be understood according to their natural meaning, and according to their general acceptation, there would be found something more than mystery in the Bible. If the terms Son of God prove that Jesus Christ is literally and properly the Son of the most High, then the terms Lamb of God would prove that Christ was literally and properly a. lamb; and as he was of God, it would prove that God possessed the same nature. The scriptures say, “it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth; The Lord repented of the evil, which he thought to do unto his people; God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them and he did it not.” If these passages are to be understood according to the rule of literal interpretation, or according to the common acceptation of words, then God is changeable like man; and feels the painful emotions of humanity. God is represented in the scriptures as hearing, seeing, smelling. If these terms are to be explained by the rule just mentioned, then the divine Spirit is invested with a body; and possesses corporeal organs. Such interpretations prove that the rule is not correct; and it proves also that Christ is not literally the Son of God, merely because he is called by this name. IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 51

Christ is not the Son of God by derivation. Creation and derivation are words of different import; and they require different acts of power. Creation is the production of something out of nothing. Derivation is the production of something from something already existing. Matter was created. The human body was derived from this substance. The human race have derived their nature ultimately from the parents of all living. All the properties of their natures are similar to those of their progenitors. If their parents had a beginning of existence, if they were dependent and were limited in all their faculties, their descendants are exactly like them in all these particulars. The nature they derived is exactly similar to that, from which they derived it. A stream is of the same nature as its fountain. Every production is of the same nature, i. e. possesses the same essential properties, as those from which they are produced. In this manner derivation applies to almost every thing, which falls under our notice.

If Christ derived his nature from the Father, he possesses the same kind of nature, the same essential properties, which the Father possesses. If the Father be eternal, self existent, independent, infinite in power, knowledge and wisdom’, the derived Son must also be eternal, self-existent, independent, infinite in power, knowledge and wisdom. This derived Being is a distinct and separate existence from the Father. As he possesses all divine attributes, he is a divine Being. As he possesses a nature separate from, and independent of, the Father, he and the Father are two distinct gods. As this natural conclusion is false, it is presumed that the doctrine of divine derivation is not true.

It is in vain to say, all divine attributes may be derived except eternity and self-existence. If the Son, by derivation of divine, he possesses divine attributes. If he possess not divine attributes, he is not divine. Take from him any one divine property, and 52 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. his divinity ceases. Take from him his eternity and self-existence, and it is harder to conceive of his divinity, than it is to conceive of a plurality in the divine nature. It is hard to conceive divine attributes blended in the same nature with finite properties. It is hard to conceive almighty power in a dependent existence; to conceive infinite knowledge, or any other quality infinite in its nature, subsisting in a nature, which has had a temporary existence. When creatures receive existence by derivation, they, from whom they are derived, communicate a portion of their own substance. They suffer a diminution of themselves; and the diminution would continue, if they did not receive supplies, from external substance. If” Christ derived his nature from the Father, the Father communicated a part of his own nature, a part of his own substance. He would suffer a privation of a part of his attributes, a part of his nature. There would be a chasm in the divine Spirit, which could not be filled. There would be an essential defect in the Father. The derived extract would be dependent; and the original Source of being would be diminished. Of course, the Son would be a dependent, and the Father a finite being.

Divine nature, or divine attributes are not communicable. God cannot impart one quality of his mind; nor can one divine quality be derived from him. If a human or an angelic spirit be produced, it is the effect of divine energy; it is not a communication of divine qualities. A created mind is similar, in some respects, to the divine Mind; but, in degree, it bears no comparison. Holiness in the human heart is not a derivation of divine holiness; but it is the effect of divine operation upon the mind. There is an essential difference between originating existence, and communicating that which already exists. The divine nature is eternal; and it is necessary in its existence. As it had no cause of its existence, there is no cause, which can destroy its existence. As IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 53 it is impossible that it should not exist, it is impossible that it should exist otherwise than it does. If its attributes are infinite, it is impossible it should exist with a diminution or relinquishment of any of its attributes. It is not derogatory to the Deity, to be incapable of change; to be incapable of imperfection. Admitting these principles, it is impossible that God should communicate his nature or his attributes; and it is equally impossible that they should be derived from him. Should he communicate almighty power, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge and independence, he would become entirely destitute of these attributes. Or rather, a transference of divine attributes, (supposing it possible) would not destroy them; and being again united, they would constitute the same divine Being; and of course there would be no communication, nor derivation. If it be supposed that Jesus Christ derived divine attributes from the Father in only a limited degree, the supposition is inconsistent. In the first place, divine nature is incapable of division, or separation, or of communication of any part of itself. In the second place, if a partial communication were made, the consequence would be different from that, which is contemplated by the supposition. If it were possible that Christ derived a finite nature and finite attributes from the Father, he would not be divine. There is no perceptible difference between finite properties and the properties of creatures. Divine attributes are infinite; or they are in the highest possible degree. Attributes less than these are not divine. Should we speak of divine, dependent power; of a divine, finite knowledge; of a divine, limited presence; of a divine, temporary existence; we should pervert, we should torture language. II’ we had ideas on this subject, it is certain that such a combination, such a contrariety of words would not convey them.

If Christ has his nature by derivation from the Father, there was a period in eternity, in which lie had not existence. It was owing to (he will of the 54 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD.

Father that he was brought into being. It is, of course, owing to his will that he is continued in existence. For the same power, which produced him, can return him to his original state. He is, consequently, entirely dependent on the Father. If he be not eternal; if he be not independent, it is impossible he should possess other divine attributes. It is a contradiction to say that a dependent being possesses almighty power. It appears to be impossible that a being of only a temporary existence should possess infinite knowledge. It is impossible there should be infinite wisdom where knowledge is limited. A dependent being cannot be, in his own nature, unchangeable. Within these limitations it is impossible that a being should be omnipresent, and be capable of holding the reins of universal government. After the closest investigation of the nature of a Son, derived from the Father, (if such a thing were possible) it will clearly appear that he has not one divine attribute, nor the least degree of divine nature.

It is in vain to attempt to supply the innate deficiency of this derived Son, by constituting him God’s agent, and by anointing him with the Spirit without measure; and by investing him with divine fullness. If Christ was only appointed or constituted Creator of the world; if the Father employed him as an instrument, through whom he exercised his own power, Christ was not the actual Creator of the world; and the glory of the work would not be due to him. If Christ was constituted a Prince; and he was a Prince on this ground only, he had no native regal dignity, nor regal authority. He acted only under a commission; and he, who granted the commission could, at any time, withdraw it. This constituted agent would not be entitled to those honors, to which the Father, who constituted him, would be entitled. There would be the same difference in their claims, as there would be in the claims of an actor and an instrument. If his claims to princely honors rise solely from God’s IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 55 requiring: that they should honor the Son even as they honor the Father, it is difficult to understand in what sense God is jealous for the honor of his name; and that he will not give his glory to another. If Christ is Judge, only because he is constituted to that office, then he does not possess inherent qualifications for that station, he is merely the organ, through which the Father acts; and the judgment rendered is not properly that of the Son, but that of the Father. If Christ is a Savior, merely on the ground of a constituted character, or merely because he was appointed to that office, he would be only an ostensible Savior; the Father would be the real Savior.

If the Son was divine, on the ground of his derivation from the Father, there would be no need of constituting him to fill divine offices; to sustain divine titles; to perform divine works. There would be no need of making divine communications to him for these purposes. He would be competent in his own nature to fill the highest offices; to claim the highest honors; and to do the greatest works. If extraordinary divine communications are necessary to qualify him for these things, it follows that he is not divine.

If Christ’s superior excellence and dignity arises not from his nature, but from the communications, which the Father made to him, it is difficult to draw a line of distinction between him and the prophets. God endued Moses with an extraordinary degree of power, by which he exhibited signs and wonders before Pharaoh. But who actually wrought these miracles? When God called Moses to send him to the king of Egypt; and he hesitated to go, God said unto him, “I will stretch out my hand and smite Egypt with all my wonders, which / will do in the midst thereof.” The power, which God communicated to Moses for this purpose, did not become a property of Moses’ nature, any more than it became the property of the rod, which he carried, wherewith, God said, he should do signs. Moses never pretended to act by his own 56 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. strength in his exhibition of miracles, excepting at the rock in Horeb; and there he greatly displeased the Lord. When Elijah restored to life a dead child of the woman with whom he abode, he did not attempt the undertaking in his own name, nor by his own might. But “he cried unto the Lord and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.” Before Elisha raised the child of the Shunammite, he prayed unto the Lord. When Peter was about to give health to a sick man, he said, “Jesus Christ maketh thee whole.” When he cured a lame man, he said, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” Before he raised Tabitha from the dead, he kneeled down and prayed. These were wonderful works, which God wrought through them. They professed to act under authority; and they refused divine honors when they were offered to them. If Christ was endued with divine fullness in a similar manner, it might be expected that his miracles would be attended with similar circumstances. When Christ turned water into wine, he addressed no superior power. When he healed the impotent man at the pool, he simply said, “rise, take up thy bed, and walk.” When Jesus gave sight to a blind man, he applied clay to his eyes; and sent him to the pool of Siloam. When he healed a man of the leprosy he said, “I will, be thou clean.” When he cured a man of the palsy, he said, “arise and take up thy couch and ^o unto thine house.” The other miraculous cures, which he effected, he accomplished in a similar manner. When he raised the widow’s son of Nain, he only said, “Young man, I say unto thee, arise.” Before he raised Lazarus from the grave he addressed the Father. But for what purpose did he address him? Was it that the Father would put forth his power through him? Christ assigns the reason himself; IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 57

“because of the people which stand by I said it.” He then cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” The circumstances attending the miracles, which he wrought, did not give the least appearance that he acted by power, which was not properly his own. When, in consequence of divine works, divine honors were addressed to him, he never refused them, nor rebuked his worshippers. When people heard his instructions they were astonished at his doctrine; for he taught them as one having authority.’ The prophets never pretended that they were the authors of divine works; and they never claimed divine honors. If the Son had performed divine works, only by the intervention of the Father’s power operating through him, he would be no more entitled to divine names and divine homage than the prophets.

It has been supposed that, because the Father hath given all things into the hand of his Son; because God hath exalted and glorified him; because God hath put all things under his feet and exalted him with his own right hand to be a Prince and a Savior; because God ordained him to be Judge of quick and dead; because God created the world by him and sent him into the world, Christ is inferior to the Father; that he is of a lower nature than the Father; that he has no claims to divinity excepting on the ground of a constituted character, or by the reception of divine fullness. This sentiment arises from not making a distinction between the Son’s nature and the offices which he sustains. Had there been no apostasy; had no projection of a method of salvation been made and put in operation, it is probable the divine plurality would never have been manifested. In the scheme of redemption the distinctions in the divine nature are brought into view, and into distinct operation. In this great work there is perfect arrangement; there is perfect order. In respect to office there is priority and posteriority. In respect to authority and works there is subordination. The Father sends the Son; the Son sends the 8 58 IN WHM SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD.

Holy Spirit. It is the office of the Father to send. The offices of the Son and of the Holy Spirit require that they should be sent. They fill as important offices in the work of salvation as the Father; and they appear no less glorious in their offices, than the Father does in his. The glories of divine nature shine in each. Subordination in the work of redemption is one of its divine perfections; and it argues nothing against the divinity of the Son; it is not derogatory to his nature or character that he manifests this perfection.

Some names and works are attributed exclusively to the Father, and others are attributed exclusively to the Son. This does not appear strange, when it is considered that they had different offices, and had different parts to perform in the work of salvation. As the Father holds a precedence in respect to office, it is not surprising that those names and works, which have an immediate relation to his office, should appear to have a preeminence over the names and works, which have an immediate relation to the Son’s office. The Father is called, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;” Ephesians 1:3. and 1 Peter 1:3. He is called the Head of Christ. “The Head of every man is Christ — and the Head of Christ is God;” 1 Corinthians 11:3. The Son is called “the only begotten of the Father;” John 1:14. He is called “the image of the invisible God;” Colossians 1:15. He is called Mediator. “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” 1 Timothy 2:5. To infer from these names of the Son that his nature is inferior to the nature of the Father is not logical. The name Father is more dignified than the name Son. But who ever supposed that the nature of a father was essentially different from, or superior to, that of his son? The 7nan Christ Jesus had a Head, a God, as well as other men; even the Father. His office required subordination. Because the Son is called the image of the invisible God, it does not follow that his nature is Inferior. It is common language to say, one person is the very image of another. But this expression is never understood to mean that he, who is called the image, is inferior to him, of whom he is the image. The name, or the office of Mediator does not necessarily imply that he, who acts in this office, is inferior to either party, between whom lie mediates. There is no higher name given to the Deity than the name Jehovah. This name is given to the Son. It is believed that the unqualified name Jehovah is not given to any creature. If there be any proof of divinity from a name, the Son has as high proof as the Father.

Some works are peculiar to the Father. Others are peculiar to the Son. This is not strange, as they hold different offices. The Father begat the Son. “This day have / begotten thee;” Php 2:7. The Father sent the Son into the world. He gave him all authority in heaven and in earth. He hath highly exalted him. Christ was begotten. He came into the world and assumed human nature. “The Word was made flesh;” John 1:14. He humbled, or emptied himself. He died; rose, ascended to the Father; and makes intercession. He made an atonement for sin.

We are taught by the word of inspiration in what sense the Father begat the Son. “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised tip Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee;” Acts 13:13. This act of begetting, therefore, relates only to the body of Jesus Christ. Nothing, of course, can be inferred from this respecting that nature of his, which had glory with the Father before the world was. The act of sending does not imply that he, who sends, possesses a higher nature than the one who was sent. It only designates superiority of office. The chief magistrate of a nation sends an ambassador to a foreign court. This act affords no evidence that

/

[^ SE 60 IN WH^ SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. the former possesses a nature superior to the latter; or that he possesses higher qualifications. It only proves his higher office. All things were delivered unto Christ by the Father. All authority in heaven and in earth were given to him. This communication does not imply an imparting of any qualities or qualifications to him. It rather implies that he possessed the necessary qualifications for this office. It is not difficult to imagine what qualifications are necessary in order to exercise all authority in heaven and in earth. To receive this authority only implies a subordination of office.

Because Christ was exalted by the Father, it has been inferred that he was not divine, as Divinity is not capable of exaltation. The man Christ Jesus receives great reward, great honor, great exaltation in consequence of the part he performed on earth. He is seated on the right hand of God. If it be admitted that the Son of God was in a state of humiliation when he was upon earth; that he emptied himself of that glory, which he had with the Father before the world was, there will be no difficulty in admitting his exaltation, when he returns to his former glory; and as Savior receives the bowing of every knee, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth; and the confession of every tongue that he is Lord. Such is the union of nature and connection of office between the Son and the Father, that this exaltation, this glory of the Son will also be “to the glory of God the Father.” The peculiar union of the Son of God with humanity affords no evidence against his Divinity. While he was in the man Christ Jesus, he concealed, in a great measure, the glories of his nature; and he suffered a reproach, an ignominy, which before had not been given him. But this concealment of his glory, this dishonor offered to him does not imply a change in his nature. If a king descend from his throne, assume the appearance of one of his subjects, and receive rude IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 1 treatment from them, these circumstances effect no change in his nature, nor do they imply it. We do not attempt to explain the union, which subsists between the Son of” God and the son of man. When those, who maintain that God the Father was in Jesus Christ; that the fullness of the Godhead, which dwelt bodily in him was the Father, not the Son, will explain that union of Deity with humanity, their explanation will answer our purpose as well as theirs.

If Adam could with propriety be called Son of God, with the same propriety could Christ, in respect to his human nature, be called Son of God. Adam was formed by the immediate act of divine power. The child Jesus was also formed by the immediate act of the same power. But in a different, and in a higher sense is Christ the Son of God. He is not only called Son, but he is called the own Son; the dearly beloved Son; the first begotten, the only begotten Son. These additions to his name are marks of peculiar distinction. The term son, when applied to Adam, in relation to his heavenly Father, has a signification different from what it has, when applied to any of the human race, in relation to their earthly parents. If the relative term son, necessarily implied derived existence, then the first man as literally derived his nature from the substance of God, as children derive their natures from the substance of their parents. But a word does not always signify the same thing. Sometimes it is used in an extensive, sometimes in a restricted sense. Sometimes it is used literally, sometimes figuratively. When a word is used figuratively, there is a resemblance between the thing signified by it literally, and the thing signified by it figuratively. When God is called a rock, the propriety of the figure arises from some points of resemblance between God and a rock. The qualities of this hard substance are expressive of the steadfastness and durability of the divine nature. Christ is called a shield. This piece 62 m WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. of armor was formerly used in war to secure the body from the weapons of the enemy. Christ is a defense against the attacks of the great adversary. The Savior is called a vine. A vine has many branches, and it supports them all. The Savior has many members, and they all derive support from him. Christ is called a shepherd. A shepherd feeds and defends his flock. Christ feeds his followers with spiritual food; and he defends them against the attacks of their enemies. Many other names are figuratively applied to Christ. Because he is called a Shield, a Vine, a Shepherd, it does not follow that he is literally a shield, a vine, a shepherd. The propriety and force of these appellations arise from some striking resemblance there is between the Savior and those things, by whose name he is called. Figurative language is peculiarly significant and striking. When it is wished to convey ideas of an object, with which people are but little acquainted, no method is so concise and eligible, as to compare it with something, or call it by a name, with which people are acquainted. Then, by selecting the most prominent qualities of the best known part of the comparison, they may be applied to that part of the comparison, which is less known. By this method ideas are frequently conveyed with greater clearness and force. When Christ wished to impress it upon the minds of people that he pointed out the course, which led to heaven; that only through his merits and mediation mankind could have access to the mercy-seat; that he communicates only truth; that he was the origin and support of spiritual life in the soul, it was with peculiar pertinence and force he said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”

It may be inquired how it can be known when a passage of scripture is to be understood literally, and when it is to be understood figuratively. Without giving any general directions in answer to this inquiry, it is sufficient for the present purpose to lay down one particular rule; viz. if any text or expression of scripture, taken literally, be an impossibility or an absurdity, it must be taken figuratively. For example, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” As it is impossible that a real hating of these near connections should be a necessary ingredient in the character of Christ’s disciples, the word hate, must be understood in a comparative or figurative sense. The phrase, Son of God, cannot be understood in a literal sense; because it is Impossible that God should have a Son derived from his nature, as a child is derived from its parents. It is impossible that divine nature, and divine attributes should be communicated, unless the original proprietor sustained a loss of them. It is impossible there should be two separate and distinct divine natures, without admitting the existence of two gods. If the expression. Son of God, cannot be taken literally, it must be taken figuratively. As Christ is called the Son of God, as he cannot be his literal and proper Son, it may be expected there is a striking resemblance between the relationship, which Jesus Christ bears to the Father, and the relationship, which a son bears to his parents. Although we cannot comprehend the mode of divine subsistence, yet there are points of coincidence in the comparison, which give beauty and force to the figure.

1. There is a similarity of nature between a son and his father. There is often a family likeness. A son often inherits the aspect of his father. He often inherits the distinguishing characteristics of body and mind, which his father possessed. His moral nature and character often resemble those of his father. Though there be some dissimilarity between a father and his son; yet there are probably no two objects in the rational world, which sustain a more striking resemblance. Their bodies are of similar substance and of similar configuration. Their minds are of similar natures, and of similar powers and faculties.

64 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. The resemblance there is between a son and his father, is one reason why Christ is called Son of God; and that God is called his Father. His nature is similar to that of the Father. By this expression it is not designed to convey the idea that the Son and Father are two distinct natures; nor is it designed to convey the idea that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son. Like the Father, the Son is divine. Like the Father, he is eternal, self-existent, and independent. There is a perfect resemblance between them; and there is a mysterious union, by which many things may be predicated of both. This striking similarity is one reason why Christ is called Son of God.

2. There is a near and endearing relationship subsisting between a son and his father. The former proceeded from the latter. There is no relationship more near and endearing than this. This then is another reason why Jesus Christ is called the Son of God. The union, which subsists between them, forms a relationship, which is nearer than any, which can be formed by flesh and blood. He is in the bosom of the Father; he is one with the Father; they, who have seen him, have seen the Father also. Mutual affection subsists between them.

3. A son, while under the care and support of his father, is subordinate to him. He is not subordinate in respect to nature. For he possesses all the essential qualities, which his father possesses. But he is in subjection to him. He submits to parental authority; and he appears to the greatest advantage when he is in his proper place, the place of obedience. Christ may, with propriety be called a Son, in respect to his subordination to his heavenly Father. In the economy of redemption different works are to be performed; different offices are to be occupied. Methodical arrangement must be established and acknowledged. The Father holds the place of authority; Christ holds the place of submission. This order of offices implies IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 65 no arbitrary power, nor servile subjection. It is established with the greatest cordiality. It is the office of the Father to appoint; it is the office of Christ to act under his commission. It is the office of Christ to ask, and it is the office of the Father to grant his requests. The Father is under as much obligation, according to the covenant of redemption, to grant the intercessions of his Son, as the Son is to submit to the authority of the Father. The sacred scriptures represent the Holy Spirit to be as subordinate to the Son, as the Son is to the Father. Christ said to his disciples, “It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”

4. A father loves his son. The similarity of nature, the relationship, and the subordination, produce a strong affection in a father’s breast. God the Father loves the Lord Jesus Christ. He loves him for his excellence of nature. He loves him for his holiness. He loves him for his union with himself He loves him for the faithful performance of the duties of his office. The Father has declared him to be his own Son; his dearly beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased. The love, which he exercises toward him is another reason, for which he calls him his Son.

Christ is not only called a Son, but he is called a begotten Son. People, who have understood the term Son, literally, have also understood the term beget, or begotten, literally. They have supposed there was a power in the Father to generate, and a power in the Son to be generated. They were aware that this method, if it were not qualified, supposed a posteriority of existence in the Son. To remedy this difficulty they maintained that the essence of the Son was not begotten; but his person was begotten. The distinction between his nature and person, they made to consist in something, which was incommunicable from the Father to the Son, or from the Song of Solomon to 9 66 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. the Father. They held, that the Father had a power to beget, and the Son had a power to be begotten.

There appears to be no small degree of inconsistency in this hypothesis. It supposes that there is no other difference between the Father and the Son. than this; the Father had a power to beget. But what did he beget? He begat the person of the Son; i. e. according to the hypothesis, he begat a power in the Son to be begotten. The hypothesis first supposes the existence of the Son; then it supposes the production of some distinguishing personal quality, which he already possessed. Or it supposes that he possesses some adventitious quality, for which he was entirely dependent. To avoid the imputation of dependence to Christ, they maintained the eternal generation of the Son. Thus they secured their sentiment from refutation in the obscurity of language. The human nature of Christ was begotten; but his divine nature was unbegotten. The Son of God was always the same in his nature and attributes, and in his union and relationship to his heavenly Father. In a figurative sense he might be said to be begotten, when he actually came into the office of Redeemer; received mediatorial authority, and became submissive to God the Father. He might be said to be begotten, when he was manifested on earth in the office of Redeemer; and by the name. Son of God. Those are said to be begotten, who are brought out of one state into another. Paul to the Corinthians says, “In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” To Philemon he says, “1 beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds.” Christ may be said to be begotten by his resurrection from the dead. By this act he was more fully declared to the world than he before had been. Before this time, even his disciples were exceedingly ignorant of him; the design of his coming, and the nature of his kingdom. By his resurrection his own prophecy was

I IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 67 fulfilled, and he was in a capacity for making more full displays of the divine will by making more copious communications of the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul appears to have viewed the resurrection of Christ in this light when he said to the Jews, “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” The circumstances attending Christ in his introduction into office; his introduction into the world; his resurrection from the dead, are similar in some respects to the production of a human son. The circumstances are so analogous that there is a foundation for calling Christ a begotten Son.

Christ is also called the only begotten Son. By the law of analogy there is a striking propriety in this expression. In his human nature no one was ever so begotten as he was. In his divine nature no one ever sustained those offices; that intimate union and near relationship to the Father, which he sustained. Parents often feel an extraordinary affection for an only, or an only begotten son. When God required Abraham to offi3r Isaac in sacrifice, he commanded him saying, take now thy son, thine only son. The apostle, speaking of the faith of Abraham, calls Isaac his only begotten son. At that time Abraham had another, and an older son. But he had an extraordinary affection for this younger son; and on account of this strong affection, God called him his only son; and by the mouth of his apostle he called him his only begotten son. There is analogy in nature, therefore, for calling Christ the only begotten Son of God. The Father loves him with an everlasting love. He loves him for the excellence of his nature, and for the fulfillment of the duties of his offices. No language was better calculated to convey the idea of God’s great love to Christ than this.

Christ is repeatedly called in the scriptures the first horn, the, first begotten. This language is also figurative. The propriety and force of this figure arise from the peculiar prerogatives of the first born of God’s ancient chosen people. The first born was principal heir of his father’s substance. He had dominion over his brethren. Isaac, in blessing Jacob, said, “Be lord over thy brethren; and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee.” It was the privilege of the first born to have the priest’s office. In all these respects there is such a similarity between the prerogatives of the first born and the prerogatives of Christ, that there is a peculiar propriety in calling him the first born. God hath appointed him heir of all things. Christ is said to be the first born among many brethren, denoting he has dominion over them. It is written, that the Father hath given him authority to execute judgment; that all power is given to him in heaven and in earth. He performed the duties of a priest. He was formally consecrated to the priest’s office. He made intercession for the people, and offered sacrifice for their sins.

Christ is called the first born of every creature. Some have understood by this that he is the first created being. It has been shown in what sense he is the first born; and it appears that in all things he has the preeminence. Besides, the original, from which this passage is translated, might with equal propriety be rendered, horn before every creature. Christ is likewise the first born, the first begotten from the dead. He is called the first fruits of them that slept. Christ was first born from the dead in respect to his dignity. He was Lord of the dead. Never did the tomb hold so glorious a prisoner. Never did such circumstances attend the resurrection of any other. This holy One did not see corruption. His resurrection was first, or he was the first born from the dead, inasmuch as his resurrection proved, and was the procuring cause of the resurrection of those, who had been, or would be, under the dominion of death. “If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; but now IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 69 is Christ risen and become the first fruits of them that slept.” In the writings of the Old Testament God called Christ the Son, and my Son. From these expressions the Jews expected that the Messiah was the Son of God; and it appears they expected he would appear with that title, and in that character. Although Jesus Christ was somewhat obscurely revealed under the Jewish dispensation; yet the phrase, the Son, my Son, had, in their opinion, a peculiar and appropriate meaning, a meaning different from the term son, when applied to any of the human race. The Jews, in consequence of the revelations, which they possessed, expected a glorious personage in the Messiah. Had their expectations been realized in respect to his appearance, it seems, according to human calculation, that they would have acknowledged him to be the Messiah; that they would not have been offended, if he had claimed the title. Son of God. But when they saw his humble appearance; when they saw his object was different from what they expected, they viewed him as a mere man. When he called God his Father; when he called himself the Son of God, they considered him making pretensions to divinity; assuming the place of the Messiah; and making himself equal with God. They supposed the title implied divine nature. They, of course, considered him blasphemous when he made such pretensions. As he did not correct them for error in their construction of the title Son of God, it is presumable they put a right construction upon it.

Because a son signifies a natural descendant from parents, it does not follow that the divine Son is a natural descendant from his heavenly Father. We often reason from one thing to another. But the rules of analogy are of limited extent; and they are greatly confined in their application. There is a resemblance and proportion between different things in some particulars. But beyond a certain extent resemblance 70 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. and proportion fail. There is a resemblance between a man and a brute. Their bodies are material, and they are both sensitive. But, because the rational principle in man is capable of improvement, it does not follow that the instinct of brutes possesses the same capacity. Because the bodies of both are mortal, it does not follow that both will be reorganized and reanimated. The human mind bears some resemblance to the divine mind. It was formed after its likeness. But there is no proportion between what is finite and what is infinite. Because God has given a power to human nature to produce and perpetuate its kind, it follows, God has a power to produce the same kind. The inference is corroborated by the fact, that he did originally produce it. But from these premises it does not follow that he has a power to produce a divine species. No rules of logic, no analogy of nature will justify such an inference. It is a natural impossibility that infinite power should produce infinite power; that an eternal Being should produce an eternal Being; that self-existence should produce self-existence. Because this confounds cause and effect. It is a natural impossibility that a divine nature should not have divine attributes. Because a nature is designated by its attributes. It is a natural impossibility that divine attributes should be limited by any thing foreign from their own nature. Because it is the prerogative of divine attributes that they have no superior. As far as there are points of likeness and proportion between things there is analogy; and so far analogical reasoning may be used, and no further. To obviate the sentiment that Christ is Son of God by derivation, it is not necessary to have recourse to the peculiar mode of the conception of his humanity as a primary reason of his sonship. Without doubt this is one reason, for which he is called Son of God; but for other and more important reasons he is called the Son of God, the first begotten, the only begotten, the dearly beloved, the own Son. If the humanity of ,IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 71

Christ was the principal ground of calling him Son of God, then Adam was Son of God in as high sense as Christ; for his nature was no less the immediate effect of God’s power than the humanity of Jesus Christ. The angels, being of a more exalted nature than humanity, they would be sons of God in a higher sense than the human nature of Christ. When the apostle Paul to the Hebrews describes the excellence of Christ, and contrasts him with angels, he infers his superiority from this circumstance, that God called him his Son; but never gave this distinguishing appellation to them; and that he promises to be to him a Father, and that he should be to him a Son. Because this promise is in future tense, it does not follow that his humanity is the primary ground of his sonship, or that his sonship originated with his incarnation. As he had not been clearly manifested to the world by that name and in that relationship to the Father before this prediction, it was proper, in view of the manifestation of him as Son in the flesh to make the promise in future time, although the relationship then actually existed. After God delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage, he promised them saying, I will walk among you; and will be your God; and ye shall be my people. This promise is in future time; but who doubts that God walked among them at that time; and at that time he was. their God and that they were his people? As the relationship was to continue, it was proper to make the declaration in future tense. As the relationship between the Father and the Son was permanent, it was no less proper to declare it in future than in present time.

“Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” If God’s declaration to Christ that he would be his Father and that Christ would be his Son, must necessarily be taken in future tense, this declaration of the Psalmist must, by the same necessity, be taken in the present tense. It would, of course, follow that the Son was begotten at the time the Psalm, containing 72 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. this declaration, was written. But in prophetic language it is not uncommon that one tense is put for another. The prophet Isaiah described the sufferings of the Messiah many centuries before he suffered, in the present, and in the past tense. The prophetic writings, and the peculiar idiom of the Hebrew language admit some variation of tense. “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” The apostle Paul does not consider this passage to have relation to the nativity of Jesus, but to his resurrection. In his address to the men of Israel he said, “We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise, which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children in that lie hath raised tip Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” It appears, of course, that, when Christ is called the first begotten, the only begotten Son, these terms do not designate the origin of his human nature, but are applied to him in a higher and in a more distinguishing sense. The apostle Paul to the Romans, speaking of Christ says, “Declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.^’ He is also called “the first born from the dead.” Hence it follows that the terms begotten and born when applied to Christ are not always to be understood literally; that they do not always apply to his nativity. The discourse, which Gabriel had with Mary, has, more than once, been used to prove that the filiation of Christ originated from his incarnation. “The angel answered and said unto her. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore, also, that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” The holy thing, which was to be born of Mary, was the holy Child Jesus. This Child was called the Son of God. Christ was called the Son of God, the first begotten, the only begotten Son; when the Father IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 73 declared, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” These distinguishing and endearing appellations were not applied exclusively to the humanity of Christ. They were applied to him when Divinity and humanity were united. If the humanity of Christ sustained a nearer relationship to the Father than his Divinity, there would be ground for applying the terms, importing the nearest relationship, primarily to his human nature. But as there is not that nearness of relationship between God and a creature that there is in the divine nature, it is presumable that those appellations, which import the nearest relationship, were applied primarily to that nature of Christ, which bore the nearest relationship to the Father. Consequently they could not have a primary reference to his humanity. So intimate was the union between the Divinity and humanity of Christ, that it is not doubted that the name Son might with propriety, be applied to either nature distinctly or to both natures conjointly; and at the same time primary reference be made to his divine nature. The apostle to the Galatians, speaking of Christ, says, “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman; made under the law, to redeem them that are under the law.” This text does not teach how Christ became God’s Son. It does not teach that his Sonship originated from his being made of a woman. The original word in this text, translated mac?c, might with much more propriety be translated born. The text, thus translated, would stand in this manner, “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.” It is not true that the humanity of Jesus was wholly made of a woman. His human spirit was not derived from Mary. She did not impart any portion of her spirit to his b6dy.

Spirit is not divisible; and of course it is not a subject of propagation. The body and soul of Jesus were both 6orn of Mary. It is presumable that Divinity was united to his body before his birth, that it was 10 74 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. united at the time of his conception; that both natures were brought into the world in union. Before Jesus was born, he was called that holy thing. Though the holy thing might embrace only his humanity; yet it was probably called holy, not only on account of his immaculate conception, but on account of his union with Divinity. It is evident that divine nature was in union with the child Jesus immediately after his birth, because he was called Emmanuel, which signifies, “God with us.” The name would not be appropriate if divine nature were not united with the human nature of Jesus. As there is nothing recorded, which affords evidence that such union occurred after his birth, it is presumable that it occurred before this event. In view of these suggestions the text under consideration reads naturally, “God sent forth his Son.” He sent him forth from heaven. He was “born of a woman” in conjunction with human nature. He was “born under the law;” he was born under the Jewish dispensation, and was subject to the institutions and ordinances of the ceremonial law. In his human nature he was subjected to death. Though he knew no sin himself; yet he suffered death for the sins of others.

“The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” These words Christ spoke, when he was in the flesh. When he made this declaration, did he design to convey the idea that his human nature was in the bosom of the Father, and that his human nature had declared him? Were these the primary ideas that he designed to convey by this declaration? Does the appellation, the only begotten Son, in this text, apply primarily to the humanity of Christ? Christ’s Divinity is in more intimate union with the Father than his humanity. When he is said to be in the bosom of the Father, it has of course a primary reference to his Divinity.

Christ, in his divine nature has declared the Father much more than he has in his human nature. When IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 75 he is said to declare him, it has, of course, a primary reference to his divine nature.

Some communication was made in the Old Testament respecting the Father and the Son. If the relationship, which these names import, actually existed at that time, why was it not more fully and distinctly revealed? For the same reason, undoubtedly, for which the doctrine of the Trinity, and the scheme of redemption were not so fully and distinctly revealed in the Old, as in the New Testament. God revealed himself, and unfolded his gracious designs by degrees. So intimate was the connection between the doctrine of the Trinity and the plan of salvation, that the unfolding of the one would, in a great measure, unfold the other. As God designed not to make a full display of the method of salvation till after the incarnation of his Son, he of course, withheld a proportionate display of the relationship which subsisted in the divine nature. As the economy of redemption depended on this relationship, it appears proper that they should be revealed proportionably and together. In the Old Testament the divine nature was revealed by many names. Among others, it was revealed by the names Father and Son. Did not a relationship then subsist between these two, which was a proper ground for applying to them these relative names? Or, were these names applied to them only in view of a relationship, which was afterwards to subsist? In support of the affirmative of the latter question it is argued, “We say, when king David kept his father’s sheep. But he was not king when he kept them. We say, when king Solomon was born. Yet he was not born king nor Solomon. But afterward being known by both the office and the name, these are carried back to his birth, when his birth is spoken of. One says, my father was born in such a year. He does not mean that he was born his father.’ From these premises it is inferred that when it is said, “God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Song of Solomon; 76 IN \WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD

God sent forth his Son;” these declarations do not import that Christ was son before he was sent; but that “the plain meaning appears to be, God sent his beloved Logos, the darling of his bosom. Infinitely dear, as one with himself, who took human nature, and was manifested as the only begotten Son of God.” This reasoning does not appear to be correct. Because the examples adduced are not parallel with the subject under consideration. The examples take the present name, relationship and office of persons, and apply the same to them at a past period of their life. But, according to the argument, the subject takes the future nature of Christ, and applies it to him at the present time. If it be proper to apply the present name of a person to him in a past condition of life, it does not follow that it is proper to apply the future name of a person to him in his present state. The premises and the conclusion are not analogous; and of course the argument is not correct; and the inference is not conclusive. In the divine nature the same relationship always has subsisted and always will subsist. Among creatures Hew relationships arise; and as creatures come into existence relationships arise between them and their Creator. But there is no change in the divine Being. If there be ground in the divine nature now for calling one of the Trinity Father and another Son, there always was ground for the application of these relative names. If one of the Trinity was manifested to the world as Son of God, there was ground in his nature for this manifestation before he appeared in the world. His coming into the world and assuming human nature did not affect his relation to the others of the Trinity. His humanity commenced its relationship with God, but his Divinity no more commenced a relationship with the Father, than it commenced existence. Whatever his human nature may be called, it does not affect the proper name of his divine nature. IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 77

There is a certain relationship subsisting between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The question now is, whether there appears to be ground in the divine nature for calling one of them Son? There is no dispute that one is called Father. He is not so called in relation to creatures; because when their Father is named, it is God without the distinction of individuality. When one of the Trinity is called Father, it is in relation to another of the Trinity. If it be proper to call the first Father m relation to the second, it is proper to call the second Son in relation to the first. The great love of God toward the human race is argued in the scriptures from his not sparing his own Son; but delivering him up for us all. If God’s Son imports no more than the man Christ Jesus, God did not manifest an extraordinary love for the human race in giving him up in sacrifice. If a prince should subject to death one of his subjects for the sake of the preservation of the rest, he would not display an extraordinary love for them. Any prince would do the same. But if, for this purpose he should expose to death his own, and only son, who was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, he would give decisive evidence of his exceedingly great love for his subjects. If God has exposed one of the Trinity, who was in the most near and endearing relationship to himself, to all the insolence and violence, which an ungrateful world could offer him, it cannot be doubted that he entertained an affectionate regard for his human rebellious subjects. Because the sacrifice of his Son was efficacious and satisfactory, there is the strongest evidence that the Son was of higher nature and dignity than mere humanity. The sacred scriptures testify that God sent his Son into the world. This mode of expression conveys the idea that Christ was his Son, when he sent him, and that the act of sending; him, or of attaching; human nature to him, did not make him his Son. If 78 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD, it be said that a man sends his son on business it is understood that the child is really a son at the time he was sent; and not that he is to be made a son by any future act. God’s sending his Son into the world, signifies his sending one of” the Trinity upon earth among mankind. This act of sending the Son, cannot have reference to his introduction to the duties of his office, because he was in the world before this time. To say he was sent into the world after he was in the world, would not be a correct mode of expression. If the Son whom God sent into the world, was one of the Trinity, there was the same ground for calling him Son before, as there was after he was sent. No new relation has ever been formed between them; and he that was sent from heaven, has, ever since the apostasy, stood in the same relation to the human race. He has been appointed to no new office since that time. He has acted in no office since that time, which would appropriately give him the name Son. The apostle Paul to the Hebrews, has given information on what ground he received this name. He obtained by inheritance, or he hath inherited, (according to the original) the name Son. “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained, or he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.” The apostle gives us to understand that the name, which was better than that of the angels was Son; and he expressly says he inherited this name. Many of his names were official. He was called Messiah, Jesus, Lord, Christ, Mediator, Redeemer. These names he did not inherit in the same sense. They were given him on account of the offices, which he sustained. The name Son, he inherited. He was entitled to it by the relationship, which subsisted between him and the Father. IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 79

Angels and men have received the name Son of God. But they did not inherit it, in the same sense, in which he did. Christ obtained this name in a peculiar and distinguishing sense, in a sense, in which no creature ever obtained it. This is an evidence that he is in nearer relationship to the Father than any created being. If Christ was called Son, only on account of his human nature, then he was not Son in any higher sense than angels and men; and he inherited it in no other manner than they. But the apostle reasons otherwise. He argues Christ’s nearer relationship to the Father, and his superior excellence and dignity from this fact, that he inherited a more excellent name than the angels; that he inherited the name Son of God.

It is admitted that the humanity of Christ is sometimes called Son of God. The scriptures testify that he raised his Son from the dead. But the man Christ Jesus was not Son of God in a higher sense than Adam. When Christ is called God’s own and only Son; his dearly beloved, his first begotten, his only begotten Son, these appellations primarily designate his divine nature. If either of these appellations are applied to his humanity, it is because his humanity is united with him, who is in a peculiar sense the Son of God.

If the sonship of Christ originated from his humanity, then the Holy Spirit was Father of the Son. The angel declared to Joseph, “that which is conceived in her, (1. e. Mary,) is of the Holy Ghost.” When Christ addresses his Father, he does not address the Holy Spirit. He addresses another of the Trinity.

Why is this, if the Holy Spirit is the Father of the Son. When Christ addresses his Father, he addresses him, who sent him from heaven into the world, and whom he obeys. He addresses him who stands first in order in the work of redemption.

It is natural to inquire why two of the Trinity arc called Father and Son? It is not supposable that finite minds can fully understand the ground of relationship 80 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. in the divine plurality. It appears reasonable that the relationship between the Father and the Son is not literal; that there is not that priority and posteriority of existence, and those claims and obligations, which there are between a human father and son. If there be a striking analogy in several prominent points in the relationship between Christ and the Father, and between a human son and his father, there is sufficient ground for calling Christ the Son of the Father, or the Son of God. Such analogy appears; and there appears to be just ground for applying to them the relative names Father and Son. The relationship between God and the human nature of Christ is not a sufficient ground for calling him literally Son of God. The origination of his existence, and the origination of the existence of a human son, in the ordinary way, were too different to be a ground for calling him, by this name. Yet there is such a resemblance between the origination of the two, that figuratively the man Christ Jesus, may, with propriety, be called Son of God. If this appellation be applied figuratively to Christ, either In his human, or divine nature, it is also used figuratively, when it Is applied to him without the distinction of natures. In the Old Testament, Christ, in relation to the Father, is called Son. He is called by this name in connection with the present, the past and future tense. By one prophet God said of Christ, “Thou art my Son; he shall be to me a Son.” By another prophet he said, “I called my Son out of Egypt.” These passages appear to furnish evidence that the sonship of Christ may be traced as remotely, at least, as the time when these declarations were made. But in the prophetic writings tenses are not always used literally. Revelation was much more obscurely made in the Old, than in the New Testament. There is much greater reason for explaining the Old Testament by the New, than there is for explaining the New Testament by the Old. It is much more reasonable to explain prophecy by its event, than to explain an event by its prophecy. The reality affords more correct and definite ideas than the representation. The Sun of Righteousness sheds more copious light than all the shadows, which had dimly prefigured him. The Old Testament, like the lesser light in the firmament, reflects light from its obscure representations. But the New Testament, like the sun in the heavens, sheds its own native splendor.

Christ’s being begotten, first begotten, only begotten, import his introduction into the world; his introduction into office; his reception of all authority, and his resurrection from the dead. These acts did not bring him into a new relationship with the Father.

They did not make him Son. They declared, or manifested that he was the Son of God.*

If there be distinctions in the divine nature, it is not incredible that names should be given them to designate their relationship with each other. Whatever that relationship is, it cannot be expected that any name, or names, can give us a full conception of it. There is nothing, which falls under our notice, which can give an adequate representation of those distinctions, which constitute the divine plurality. Hut when God would reveal himself to us, he uses various similitudes, so that he may, in some measure, bring himself down to our conception. When he would express the near relationship between himself, the Creator, and ourselves his creatures, he calls himself Father, and us his children. When he would acquaint us with his knowledge of the affairs of this world, he represents himself, as if he possessed organs of sense. This is figurative language, and it conveys the ideas, which were designed. If he would reveal to us the distinctions and relationships, which exist in his nature, he must, undoubtedly, use words in a figurative sense; because these are subjects, different from all those, with which we are acquainted. When he reveals himself by the relative terras, Father and Son, these distinctive appellations must be understood in a sense not inconsistent with the divine perfections. Whatever is predicated of the Son of God, as it respects his nature, which implies literal sonship, literal generation, derivation, emanation, or procession, appears to be directly against his independence and his eternal, self-existence. Or, in other words, it appears to be directly against his divinity. But if it be admitted that the distinctive terras. Father and Son, are to be understood in a figurative sense, this difficulty ceases to exist.

If the phrases. Son of God, first begotten, only begotten, first born, are understood figuratively, they may be consistently applied to Christ, in his divine nature, unless certain texts of scripture, render this application inadmissible. So far from this, the scriptures apply to him the term Son, before he took upon him the form of a servant. The apostle, in his epistle to the Hebrews, speaking of the Son, says, “By whom also he made the world.” John, in his Gospel, attributes the creation of the world to the Logos. There is no doubt that the Son and Logos are the same; and it appears that both are names given to his divine nature. When it is conceived that several names are given to God without a view of the distinctions in his nature, it is not incredible that more names than one should be given to the Son of God. It is not doubted that he derived names from his offices, from his works, and from his union with human nature. But it appears that, independently of these, he inherited by right, one name, and that was Sox.