Chapter XXV: Part 25

“_Fifthly_: Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his being
_manifested to destroy the works of the devil_: but he was manifested
to destroy the works of the devil by taking upon him human nature;
consequently, he was the Son of God antecedent to the human nature
being assumed. There is equal proof from the phraseology of 1 John
iii. 8. that he was the _Son of God_ antecedent to his being
_manifested to destroy the works of the devil_, as there is from that
of 1 Tim. iii. 16. that he was _God_ antecedent to his being
_manifested in the flesh_; or from 1 John i. 2, that _that eternal
life, which was with the Father_, was such antecedent to his being
_manifested to us_.

“_Sixthly_: The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administered
_in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit_.
Matt. xxviii. 19. The terms, _Father_ and _Holy Spirit_, will be
allowed to denote divine persons; and what good reasons can be given
for another idea being fixed to the term _Son_?

“_Seventhly_: The proper deity of Christ precedes his office of
Mediator, or High Priest of our profession, and renders it an exercise
of _condescension_. But the same is true of his sonship: _He maketh
the Son a High Priest—Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience_.
Heb. vii. 28. v. 8. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to
the same thing as his being a divine person.

“_Eighthly_: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives _dignity_ to
his office of Mediator: but this dignity is ascribed to his being the
_Son of God_. _We have a_ GREAT _High Priest; Jesus, the_ SON _of_
GOD. Heb. iv. 14. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the
same thing as his being a divine person.

“_Lastly_: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives _efficacy_ to
his sufferings—_By_ HIMSELF _he purges our sins_. Heb. i. 3. But this
efficacy is ascribed to his being the _Son of God_—_The blood of Jesus
Christ_, HIS SON, _cleanseth us from all sin_. 1 John i. 7. His being
the Son of God therefore amounts to the same thing as his being a
divine person.

“Those who attribute Christ’s sonship to his miraculous conception,
(those however to whom I refer,) are nevertheless constrained to allow
that the term _implies_ proper divinity. Indeed this is evident from
John v. 18, where his saying that _God was his own Father_ is supposed
to be _making himself equal with God_. But if the miraculous
conception be the proper foundation of his sonship, why should it
contain such an implication? A holy creature might be produced by the
over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit, which yet should be merely a
creature; _i. e._ he might, on this hypothesis, profess to be the Son
of God, and yet be so far from making himself equal with God, as to
pretend to be nothing more than a man.

“It has been objected, that Christ, when called the Son of God, is
commonly spoken of as engaged in the work of mediation, and not simply
as a divine person antecedent to it. I answer; In a history of the
rebellion in the year 1745, the name of his Royal Highness, the
commander in chief, would often be mentioned in connexion with his
equipage and exploits; but none would infer from hence that he thereby
became the king’s son.

“It is further objected, that sonship implies _inferiority_, and
therefore cannot be attributed to the divine person of Christ.—But,
whatever inferiority may be attached to the idea of Sonship, it is not
an inferiority of _nature_, which is the point in question: and if any
regard be paid to the Scriptures, the very contrary is true. Christ’s
claiming to be the Son of God was _making himself_, not inferior, but
_as God_, or _equal with God_.

“Once more: Sonship, it is said, implies _posteriority_, or that
Christ, as Son, could not have existed till after the Father. To
attribute no other divinity to him, therefore, than what is denoted by
sonship, is attributing none to him; as nothing can be divine which is
not eternal. But if this reasoning be just, it will prove that the
divine purposes are not eternal, or that there was once a point in
duration, in which God was without thought, purpose or design. For it
is as true, and may as well be said, that God must exist before he
could purpose, as that the Father must exist before he had a Son: but
if God must exist before he could purpose, there must have been a
point in duration in which he existed without purpose, thought, or
design; that is, in which he was not God! The truth is, the whole of
this apparent difficulty arises from the want of distinguishing
between the order of nature and the order of time. In the order of
nature, the sun must have existed before it could shine; but in the
order of time, the sun and its rays are coeval: it never existed a
single instant without them. In the order of nature, God must have
existed before he could purpose; but in the order of time, or
duration, he never existed without his purpose: for a God, without
thought or purpose, were no God. And thus in the order of nature, the
Father must have existed before the Son; but, in that of duration, he
never existed without the Son, The Father and the Son therefore are
properly eternal.”

FULLER.

Footnote 102:

Και περ _is used six times in the New Testament; in two or three of
which places it might be rendered, without deviating from the sense of
the respective texts,_ & quidem, _as well as_ quamvis; _and I see no
reason why the enclitic particle_ περ, _being added to_ και, _should
always, without exception, alter the sense thereof, any more than when
it is joined to_ ως, εαν, _or_ ει. _And whereas I render_ και, _in
ver. 9._ But, _instead of_ And, _that may be justified by several
scriptures, where it is so rendered; as Luke vii. 35. Matth. xii. 39.
Acts x. 28. 1 Cor. xvi. 12._

Footnote 103:

Dr. Ridgley differs from the most of his brethren on the Sonship of
Christ as Mediator. The following note, and the two preceding,
represent, it is presumed, the orthodox doctrine on this important
head.

“The Redeemer is the Son of God, in a peculiar and appropriated sense,
and by which he is distinguished from every other person in the
universe. He is therefore called the _first begotten_, or first born
son of God: his _only begotten son_, _his own son_; and eminently _The
Son_, and _The Son of the Father_. His _dear Son_; or, as it is in the
original, _The Son of his love_; His _beloved Son, in whom he is well
pleased_. ‘For he received from God the Father, honour and glory, when
there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ 2 Pet. i. 17. He is ‘The only
begotten Son, _which is in the bosom of the Father_.’ John i. 18. Who
only knows the Father; and none does or can reveal and make him known
but the Son. Matt. xi. 27. John i. 18. He being the brightness of his
glory, and the express image of his person; he that hath seen the Son,
hath seen the Father, John xiv. 9. Heb. i. 3. Which epithets and
declarations distinguish him from all other sons; as much as his
Father is distinguished from all other fathers. He is mentioned as the
Son of God above _an hundred times_ in the New Testament; and fifty
times by the apostle John. And the Father of Jesus Christ, the Son, is
mentioned above _two hundred and twenty times_; and more than one
hundred and thirty times in the gospel and epistles of St. John. Jesus
Christ often makes use of the epithets, _The Father_, _My Father_, &c.
This character is represented as essential to the Redeemer and
peculiar to him, and is an essential article of the Christian faith.
This confession Peter made as the common faith of the disciples of
Christ. ‘We believe, and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son
of the living God,’ John vi. 69. Matt. xvi. 16. This was the Eunuch’s
faith, required in order to his being baptized. ‘I believe that Jesus
Christ _is the Son of God_.’ And he who believes with all his heart,
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, hath the Son, and with him
eternal life. When Peter made this confession, ‘Thou art Christ, the
Son of the living God,’ Christ said to him, ‘Blessed art thou; for
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is
in heaven.’ Matt. xvi. 16, 17. ‘He that believeth on the Son, hath
everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see
life.’ John iii. 36. And John says, ‘Whosoever shall confess that
Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Who is he
that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son
of God! He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son
of God, hath not life. These things have I written unto you _that
believe on the name of the Son of God_: that ye may know ye have
eternal life, and that ye may _believe on the name of the Son of
God_.’ 1 John iv. 15. v. 5, 12, 13.

“It must be farther observed, that this title, the Son of God, is the
_highest title_ that is given to the Redeemer, and denotes his
divinity, or that he is himself God, and therefore equal with the
Father, if his divinity be any where expressed in the Bible; and that
it is there abundantly declared, we have before shewed. He styles
himself, and is called _The Son of Man_, more than _eighty times_ in
the New Testament, by which epithet his humanity is more especially
denoted, but not excluding his divinity. And, on the contrary, he is
called the Son of God, more particularly to express his infinitely
superior character, his divinity or godhead. In this view, let the
following passages be considered. When the angel, who declared to the
virgin Mary that she should be the mother of the Messiah, expressed to
her the greatness of this her Son, he does it by saying that he should
be called _the Son of the Highest_, _the Son of God_. ‘He shall be
great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest. Therefore also that
holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of
God.’ Luke i. 32, 35. If this were not his greatest, his highest title
and character, he most certainly would have given him a higher, and
one that did fully express divinity. This, therefore, did express it
in the fullest and strongest manner. And no one, who believes in the
divinity of Christ, can, consistently, have any doubt of it. And when
the Father gives him the highest encomium, and recommends him to men,
as worthy of their highest regards, implicit obedience, and unlimited
trust and confidence, and commands them thus to regard, love, trust
in, and obey him, this is the highest character he gives him, by which
his divinity is expressed, ‘This is _my beloved_ SON, in whom I am
well pleased: Hear ye him.’ If this does not express his divinity, we
may be sure divinity is no part of his character; and that he is not
God. So, when Peter undertakes to express the idea he had of the high
and glorious character of his Lord and Master, he does it in the
following words, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If
Peter believed the divinity of Christ, he certainly expressed this in
these words; for he did not conceive of any higher character, that
could be given in any other words. This also appears by Nathaniel’s
using this epithet, when he was struck with wonder and surprise at the
omniscience of Christ. ‘Rabbi, thou art _the_ SON _of God_, thou art
the King of Israel.’ John i. 49. When our Lord Jesus Christ proposed
himself to the man whom he had restored to sight, as the proper object
of his faith and trust, he said to him, ‘Dost thou believe on the Son
of God?’ And when he told the man that he himself was the person, he
said, ‘Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.’ John ix. 35, 38. It
appears from this, that _Son of God_ was the highest title which Jesus
assumed, and that this had special reference to, and expressed his
divinity; and therefore in this character, and as the Son of God, this
pious man paid him divine honour, and worshipped him. When the
disciples of our Lord, and all that were in the ship with them, had
seen him walking upon the sea, in the midst of a terrible storm, and
reducing the boisterous winds, and raging waves, to a calm, by his
word and presence, they were struck with a fresh and affecting
conviction of his divinity, that he was God, and expressed it by
coming to him, falling down and worshiping him, ‘saying, of a truth,
thou art the Son of God.’ Matt. xiv. 33. In which words they expressed
his divinity, and gave a reason for their worshipping him, as their
Lord and their God, _viz._ that they were sure from clear and abundant
evidence, that he was the Son of God. The apostle John, when he would
represent Jesus Christ in his highest and most glorious character,
gives him this title, and adds, ‘This is the true God.’ He says, ‘We
know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding,
that we may know him that is true: And we are in him that is true,
_even_ in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal
life.’ 1 John v. 20.

“It is to be farther observed, that when our Lord said to the Jews,
‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,’ the Jews, therefore sought
the more to kill him, _because he said that God was his Father_, (_his
own proper Father_, as it is in the original) ‘MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL
WITH GOD.’ This is to be understood as the sense which St. John the
Evangelist puts upon the words of Christ, ‘My Father worketh hitherto,
and I work.’ For this was making himself equal with God the Father, as
doing the same work with him: And this is represented as implied in
God’s being _his own Father_; or in his being the Father’s own Son,
the Son of God. But if we understand it as the sense which the Jews
put upon the words of Christ, and that they said this was making
himself equal with God, it amounts to the same thing; for it appears
that their inference was just; and our Saviour is so far from denying
it to be true, that in his reply to them, he confirms it, and asserts
that whatsoever the Father does, the Son does the same; and instances
in his raising the dead, and judging the world, and having all things,
and all power in his hands. ‘That all men should honour the Son, even
as they honour the Father.’ John v. 13-17. Thus he makes the Son equal
with the Father. Hence it appears that to be the Son of God, and God’s
own Son, is the same with a divine person, and denotes one who is
truly God; and that this title is used to express the divinity, rather
than the humanity of Jesus Christ.

“The same appears from what passed between our Lord and the Jews at
another time. He said to them, ‘I and my Father are One.’ This, they
said, was blasphemy, because being a man, he made himself God. It is
plain from the answer which he makes to them that they considered him
as a blasphemer, because he claimed to be the Son of God, by calling
God his Father. ‘Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and
sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, _I am the Son
of God_?’ This was the blasphemy with which they charged him; because
they considered his saying, that he was the Son of God, by calling God
his Father, as an assertion that he was God. John x. 30, 33, 36. And
it appears, not only from this passage, but from others, that the
Jews, and others, did affix the idea of divinity to the Son of God,
and considered this title as expressing a character infinitely above a
mere creature. When Jesus was arraigned before the Jewish council, the
High Priest charged him with the solemnity of an oath, saying, ‘I
adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the
Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And when Jesus answered in the
affirmative, he with all the members of the council, charged him with
blasphemy; and pronounced him worthy of death for making this claim.
Matt. xxvi. 64, 65, 66. And they brought this accusation against him
to Pilate, ‘We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he
made himself the Son of God. When, therefore, Pilate heard that
saying, he was the more afraid.’ John xix. 7, 8. By this, it is
evident that Pilate considered the Son of God, to imply divinity. When
the Centurion, and the guard who were with him, saw the earthquake and
the other supernatural events which attended the crucifixion of Jesus
Christ, ‘they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.’
Matt, xxvii. 54. From this, it is evident that they considered the Son
of God to be more than a man, at least, if not really God.

“There was some idea and belief propagated among other nations, as
well as the Jews, of an extraordinary personage, a divinity, who was
denominated _The Son of God_, and who was to make his appearance in
the world. To this, Nebuchadnezzar doubtless had reference, when he
said, that in a vision, he saw a fourth person, walking in the midst
of the fire of the furnace into which he had cast three men; and that
none of them had been hurt by the fire; and the form of the fourth was
_like the Son of God_. Dan iii. 25. And who but this divine person can
be meant by Agur, when he says, ‘Who hath ascended up into heaven, or
descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the
waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, _and what is his Son’s name_, if thou canst tell?’
Prov. xxx. 4.

“This epithet and character we find expressly mentioned by David, the
divinely inspired king of Israel, in the second Psalm. And he is there
introduced and described, as a divinity, who claims divine homage,
trust, and worship, as the Omnipotent heir, possessor and ruler of the
world. ‘I will declare the decree. The Lord hath said unto me, Thou
art MY SON, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give
thee the heathen for thine inheritance, _and the uttermost parts of
the earth for thy possession_. Thou shalt break them with a rod of
iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Be wise
now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. _Kiss the Son_,
lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is
kindled but a little. _Blessed are all they that put their trust in
him._’[104] From this ancient oracle in Israel, and from a revelation
which was made upon the first apostacy, and handed down by tradition,
not only the Jews, but also those of other nations who had any
particular connexion with them, were taught to consider the expected
Messiah as the Son of God in a peculiar and appropriated sense; and as
implying real divinity. Therefore, it was supposed on all hands, that
this person, the Son of God, the King of Israel, the King of the Jews,
was to be worshipped as worthy to receive divine honours. Hence the
wise men from the East, being admonished of the birth of this glorious
personage, came to worship him, to pay him divine honours; for which
they had a particular warrant, having had him pointed out to them by a
STAR, which was a known symbol, or hieroglyphic of the Divinity, or a
God. And Herod took it for granted, that this person was to be
worshipped, and receive divine honours. For he said to the wise men,
‘When ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come _and
worship him also_.’

“All this will be of no weight, indeed, and as nothing with the
Anti-trinitarians, the Sabellians; and with all those who deny the
divinity of Jesus Christ, the Arians and Socinians. But they who
believe in a Trinity of persons in the Deity, and that Jesus Christ is
God, the second person of the Trinity, must be sensible that he is
called the Son of God, the Son of the Father, with a special reference
to his divine nature, and to denote his Godhead, as the second person
in the Triune God.—The Arians and Socinians hold that he is the Son of
God, considered as a mere creature, being by this distinguished from
all other creatures; and consequently that there was no Son of God
before this creature did exist. The latter, or Trinitarians, believe
that the sonship of Jesus Christ, necessarily includes his divinity;
but are not all agreed as to the foundation of his sonship, and in
what it consists. It has been generally believed, and the common
doctrine of the church of Christ, from the beginning of the fourth
century, and so far as appears from the days of the apostles to this
time, that Jesus Christ is the _eternal_ Son of God: That his Sonship
is essential to him, as the second person in the Trinity, and that _in
this sense_, he is _the only begotten Son of the Father_, antecedent
to his incarnation, and independent on it, even from eternity. But
there are some who think that the Sonship of the Redeemer consists in
an union of the second person of the Trinity, or the Word, with the
human nature; and that he became the Son of God by becoming man; and
therefore before the incarnation, there was no Son of God, though
there were a Trinity of persons in the GODHEAD. This opinion seems to
be rather gaining ground, and spreading, of late.

“Those on each side of this question differ in their opinion of the
importance of it, and of the bad tendency of either of these opposite
sentiments. Some suppose that the difference is of little or no
importance, as both believe the Redeemer to be God and man, in one
person, and that he is the Son of God, and that this implies his
divinity, though they differ in opinion respecting the time and manner
of his filiation. Others think this is a difference so great and
important, and attended with such consequences; and that those who are
opposed to them on this point embrace such a great and dangerous
error, that they ought to be strenuously opposed: and consequently do
not desire an accommodation, or think it possible.

“Though it be needless and improper here to undertake the labour of
entering into all the arguments which have been produced, or may be
mentioned in support of each side of this question; yet the following
observations may not be altogether useless; but may be of some help to
form a judgment upon this point, agreeable to the scriptures.

“1. As this question respects the character of the Redeemer, it may
justly be considered as an important one; as every thing relating to
his character is very important and interesting. Who would be willing
to be found at last taking the wrong side of this question; and always
to have entertained so unbecoming ideas and conceptions of the
Redeemer, which his must be, if on this point he embraces and contends
for that which is directly contrary to the truth? Though such an error
should not be fatal to him who embraces it, but be consistent with his
being a real Christian; yet it must be a very criminal mistake, and
dishonourable to Jesus Christ; as every idea of him must be, which is
contrary to his true character: For that is so perfect and glorious,
that nothing can be taken from it, or added to it, which will not mar
and dishonour it. His character, as it respects the question before
us, is without doubt properly and clearly stated in divine revelation,
and if we embrace that which is contrary to the truth, it must be
wholly our own fault, and a very criminal abuse of the advantages
which we enjoy, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ his Son,
whom he has sent. Those considerations ought to awaken our attention
to this subject, and excite a concern and earnest desire to know and
embrace the truth; which will be attended with a modest, humble,
diligent enquiry, sensible of the danger in which we are, through
prejudice, or from other causes, of embracing error; and earnestly
looking to the great Prophet to lead us into the truth.

“2. What has been observed above, and, it is believed, made evident,
_viz._ that the term, Son of God, so often given to Christ, is used to
denote his divine nature, and to express his divinity, rather than his
humanity, seems naturally, if not necessarily, to lead us to consider
this character as belonging to him independent of his union to the
human nature, and antecedent to his becoming man; and therefore, that
it belongs to him as God, the second person in the Trinity. For if his
sonship consists in his union to the human nature, and he became a
son, only by becoming a man; then this character depends wholly upon
this union, and is derived from his being made flesh: Therefore this
epithet could not be properly used to denote his divinity, independent
of his humanity, or what he is as a divine person, antecedent to his
incarnation; or to express his divine, rather than his human nature.
And Son of God, would be no higher a character, and express no more
than Son of man; which is contrary to the idea which the scripture
gives us on this head, as has been shown.

“This may, perhaps, be in some measure illustrated by the following
instance. The son of a nobleman of the first honour and dignity, came
from Europe, and married the daughter of a plebian in America, by
which he became his son: But as his honour and dignity did not consist
in his marrying this woman, or in his being the son of the plebian, by
this union with his daughter, but in his original character; no man
thought of expressing his highest and most dignified character by
which he was worthy of the greatest respect, by using an epithet which
denoted only his union to that woman, and which was not applicable to
him in any other view; or by calling him _son_, as expressing this new
relation: But the highest title which they gave him, was that which
had a special respect to, and expressed his original character, which
he sustained antecedent to this union; and in which his highest
dignity consisted. And he being the son of a nobleman and a lord, in
which all his honour and dignity did consist, they used this phrase,
My noble Lord, to express their highest respect, and his most worthy
character. This epithet was always used to express his original and
highest character and relation, and could not, with propriety, be used
to express any thing else. He was often called, indeed, the son of the
plebian, when they designed particularly to express his union to his
wife, and speak of him as standing in this relation.

“3. The Son of God is spoken of in many instances, if not in every one
where this term is used, so as will naturally lead the reader to
consider him as sustaining this character and relation antecedent to
his incarnation, and independent of it. ‘God so loved the World _that
he gave his only begotten Son_.’ John iii. 16. Do not these words seem
to express this idea, _viz._ that there existed an only begotten son,
antecedent to his being given; that God gave this his Son to the world
by his becoming flesh, and being united to the human nature; and not
that he became his Son by this union? ‘In this was manifested the love
of God towards us, because that God _sent his only begotten Son into
the world_, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that
we loved God, but that he loved us, _and sent his Son_ to be a
propitiation for our sins.’ 1 John iv. 9, 10. If God _sent_ his only
begotten Son into the world, does not this suppose he had a Son to
send, antecedent to his sending him; and that he did not become his
Son by his sending him into the world, or only in consequence of this!
This is expressed in the same manner by St. Paul. ‘But when the
fulness of time was come God _sent forth his Son_, made of a woman,
made under the law.’ Gal. iv. 4. The Son was _sent forth_. Does not
this seem at least to imply that there was a Son to be sent forth
antecedent to his being made of a woman, and that he was not made a
Son, by being made of a woman or becoming man? ‘No man hath seen God
at any time: _The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the
Father_, he hath declared him.’ John i. 18. Do not these words
naturally lead us to conceive of the only begotten Son as existing in
the nearest union with the Father as his Son, independent of the human
nature?

“It is said, ‘God _was manifested in the flesh_.’ 1 Tim. iii. 16. It
would be unnatural and absurd to suppose, from this expression, that
Jesus Christ was not God, antecedent to his being manifested in the
flesh, and that by his becoming man, he became a God. Directly the
contrary to this is asserted, _viz._ that he who is God from eternity,
did in time appear in the human nature, and manifested himself to be
God, independent of the flesh, in which he appeared. It is also said,
‘For this purpose, the Son of God _was manifested_, that he might
destroy the works of the devil.’ 1 John iii. 8. These two passages
appear to be parallel. God manifested in the flesh, and the Son of God
manifested, are two expressions of the same thing. From this it may be
inferred, that the Son of God, and God, are synonymous here, and of
the same import. This serves to confirm what has been said above of
the use and meaning of the term, Son of God. And may it not with equal
certainty be inferred from these two passages, compared together, that
the Son of God existed in this character as the Son of God, antecedent
to his manifestation in the flesh, and independent of it; and that he
did not become the Son of God by being made flesh? If God be
manifested in the flesh, there must be a God to be manifested
antecedent to such a manifestation, and independent of it. And is it
not equally certain that if the Son of God be manifested, he must have
existed the Son of God, antecedent to such manifestation, and
independent of it? Consequently he did not become the Son of God by
his being manifested in the flesh: His Sonship does not consist in the
union of the divine and human natures in one person. His personality
existed before this union with the human nature; and he was the Son of
God before this: This same Son of God, this same person who existed
without beginning, assumed the human nature, not a human person, into
a union with himself, his own person, and so appeared, was manifested
in the flesh.

“When David speaks of the Son of God, and represents the Father as
saying, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,’ so long
before his incarnation, the idea which most naturally arises in the
mind from this is, that there was then such a person as the Son, who
did at that time declare the decree, by the mouth of David; and not,
that there should in some future time be a Son begotten, who should
_then_ declare the decree. ‘I will declare the decree: The Lord said
unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ It is very
unnatural, and contrary to all propriety of speech to suppose, ‘this
day have I begotten thee,’ means I will beget thee in some future
time; and that the Son should be made to declare the decree, long
before any such person existed; and when there was in fact no such
Son. The decree which the Son declares is not that declaration, ‘Thou
art my son, this day have I begotten thee;’ but what follows, ‘ask of
me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the
uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them
with a rod of iron, &c.’ ‘_This day_,’ that is, _now_, not in time
which is passed, or which is to come; for with God there is no
succession, no time passed or to come; but he exists, as we may say,
in one eternal, unsuccessive NOW. Therefore, when we speak of an
eternal, immanent act, it is most properly expressed thus, ‘This day,
or NOW, have I begotten thee.’ This therefore is the sense in which
the best divines have generally understood it.

“St. Paul cites this passage as being illustrated and verified in the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Acts xiii. 33. But he cannot mean that
he by the resurrection became the Son of God, and was then begotten:
for he had this title before that. His meaning is explained by himself
in his epistle to the Romans. ‘_Declared_ to be the Son of God by the
resurrection from the dead.’ Rom. i. 4. That is, this was a fresh and
open manifestation and declaration that he was indeed what had been
often asserted of him, and what he always was: The only begotten Son
of God.

“What the angel said to the virgin Mary, ‘He shall be great, and shall
he called the Son of the Highest—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,’ cannot reasonably be understood as a declaration that his
sonship consisted in his miraculous conception, or in the union of the
second person of the Trinity with the human nature, thus conceived:
But that this child, conceived in this manner, and born of a virgin,
should appear, and be known to be the Son of God, that very person who
had been spoken of and known in all past ages by this title; of whom
Isaiah had particularly spoken, when he said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL. Unto us a
Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder: And his
name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God:’ Isaiah
vii. 14. ix. 6. That this Son was now to be born of the virgin Mary:
the long expected Messiah, who is considered and spoken of by the
people of God, by the title of the Son of God, which title he shall
bear, as he is indeed the mighty God.

“We are naturally lead to consider the Son of God as existing in this
character before his incarnation, and the same with the Word, by what
is said of him in the first chapter of John. ‘The Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of
the Father. No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John bare
witness of him, and cried, saying, this was he of whom I spake, he
that cometh after me, is preferred before me: _For he was before me_.
And I saw, and bear record that this is the Son of God.’ Here John is
represented as asserting that the Son of God, concerning whom he bore
witness, did exist _before him_, which therefore must be _before his
incarnation_; for John was conceived before the incarnation of Jesus.
But how can this be true, if there were no Son of God, before John
existed? But if we consider the Word and the Son of God as synonymous,
who was in the beginning with God, and who was God, and created all
things, this whole chapter will be plain and easy to be understood;
and we shall see John bearing witness to the Son of God, who existed
before him in this character, and was now come in the flesh.

“We find the same representation made in the epistle to the Hebrews.
‘God, who spake in time past unto the fathers, by the prophets, hath
in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed
heir of all things; _by whom also he made the worlds_. Who being the
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, _and
upholding all things by the word of his power_,’ &c. How could God
make the worlds _by his Son_, four thousand years before he had a Son;
and on this supposition, where is the propriety or truth of this
assertion? And how could the Son be said to uphold all things by the
word of his power, thousands of years before any Son existed? ‘And
again, _when he bringeth the first begotten into the world_, he saith,
And let all the angels of God worship him.’ This expression naturally
suggests the idea that God the Father had a first-begotten Son to
bring into the world, whom he commanded the angels to worship. How can
he be said to _bring_ his first begotten Son _into the world_, when he
had no such Son to bring into the world; and indeed never did bring
this his Son into the world, if he was begotten and received his
sonship _in this world_, when he took the human nature in the womb of
the virgin, and was not a son before?

“Again, speaking of Melchisedec, he says, he was ‘Without father,
without mother, without descent, _having neither beginning of days_,
nor end of life; _but made like unto the Son of God_.’ Heb. vii. 3. If
there were no Son of God till the human nature of Christ existed, then
the Son of God did _begin to exist_; consequently there was a
beginning of his days; and Melchisedec was not made like him, but
_unlike_ to him, by having no beginning of days.

“Since there are so many passages of scripture, (and there are many
more than have now been mentioned) which seem to represent the
Redeemer as the Son of God, antecedent to his incarnation, and
independent of it, which will naturally lead those who attend to them
to this idea of him; and some of them cannot be easily reconciled to
the contrary opinion; this will fully account for the generally
received doctrine in the Christian world from the earliest ages to
this time, _viz._ That the Redeemer of man is the second person in the
Trinity, the eternal Son of God, who in the fulness of time was made
flesh, by a personal union with the human nature.

“4. It is worthy of consideration, whether the contrary opinion,
_viz._ That the Redeemer is the Son of God, only by the second person
in the Trinity being united to human nature, and becoming man, does
not naturally lead to dangerous and evil consequences; and what good
end is to be answered by it? If it be not agreeable to scripture, we
know it must be dangerous and hurtful in a greater or less degree, (as
all errors respecting the person and character of the Redeemer are)
and naturally tends to lead into other mistakes, still greater, and of
worse consequence. And if it be agreeable to scripture, it certainly
has no bad tendency. If, therefore, it does appear from reasoning upon
it, or from fact and experience, that this opinion tends to evil
consequences, and has a bad effect; we may safely conclude that it is
wrong, and contrary to divine revelation.

“1. Does not this sentiment tend to lower our ideas of the Redeemer,
and lead into a way of thinking less honourably of him? It has been
observed that it appears from scripture, that this title, Son of God,
was used to express the highest and most honourable idea which his
friends had of his person and character. But if we understand by it,
nothing but what takes place by his union to man, by taking flesh upon
him, and consider it as signifying nothing but what took place by his
becoming man, nothing is expressed by it more than by _Son of man_:
And we are left without any epithet or common scripture phrase,
whereby to express the divinity, the Godhead of the Redeemer, and his
equality with the Father. Thus, instead of raising our conceptions of
the Redeemer, does it not tend to sink them? Does not the sonship of
Christ become an infinitely less and more inconsiderable matter, upon
this plan, than that which has always been esteemed the orthodox
sentiment on this point, which considers his sonship, as wholly
independent of the whole creation, as eternal, and altogether divine?

“We live in an age when the enemies of the Redeemer lift up their
heads, and are suffered to multiply and prevail. The deists attempt to
cast him out as an impostor. Arians and Socinians strip him of his
divinity: And the careless, ignorant, immoral and profane, treat him
with contempt, or neglect. This is agreeable to his great enemy,
Satan; who seems now to be let loose in an unusual degree, and has
uncommon power among men, to lead them into gross errors, and those
especially which are dishonourable to Christ, and injurious to his
character. And if this sentiment now under consideration, concerning
the Sonship of the Redeemer, should spread and prevail _now_, this
would be no evidence in favour of it; but, considering what has been
now observed, concerning it, would it not give reason to suspect, at
least, that it is dishonourable to the Son of God, and leads to other
errors yet more dishonourable to him?

“This leads to observe,

“2. It is worthy of consideration, whether this doctrine of the
filiation of Jesus Christ, does not tend to reject the doctrine of the
Trinity, as it has been held by those who have been called the
orthodox in the christian church, and leads to what is called
Sabellianism; which considers the Deity as but one person, and to be
three only out of respect to the different manner or kind of his
operations.

“This notion of the Sonship of Christ, leads to suppose that the Deity
is the Father of the Mediator, without distinction of persons; and
that by Father so often mentioned in the New Testament, and generally
in relation to the Son is commonly, if not always, meant Deity,
without distinction of persons. If this be so, it tends to exclude all
distinction of persons in God, and to make the personality of the
Redeemer to consist wholly in the human nature; and finally, to make
his union with Deity no more, but the same which Arians and Socinians
admit, _viz._ the same which takes place between God and good men in
general; but in a higher and peculiar degree. But if there be no
tendency in this doctrine of the sonship of Christ, to the
consequences which have been now mentioned; and it can be made evident
that none of those supposed evils do attend it, or can follow from it;
yet it remains to be considered _what advantage attends it_, and the
good ends it will answer, if it were admitted to be true. None will
say, it is presumed, that it is more agreeable to the general
expressions of scripture relating to this point, than the opposite
doctrine; who well considers what has been observed above. The most
that any one can with justice say with respect to this is, that the
scripture may be so construed and understood, as to be consistent with
the sonship of Christ, commencing at the incarnation, however
inconsistent with it some passages may appear at first view.

“It may be thought, perhaps, that this notion of the sonship of the
Redeemer is attended with two advantages, if not with more, _viz._ It
frees the doctrine of the Trinity from that which is perfectly
incomprehensible, and appears a real contradiction and absurdity; that
the second person should be Son of the first, who is the Father; the
Son being begotten by the Father from eternity; than which nothing can
be more inconceivable, and seemingly absurd. And this appears
inconsistent with the second person being equal with the first; for a
son begotten of a father, implies inferiority, and that he exists
after his father, and consequently begins to exist, and is dependent.
Both these difficulties are wholly avoided, it is thought, by
supposing that the second person in the Trinity became a son by being
united to the human nature, and begotten in the womb of the virgin.
And it is probable that these supposed advantages have recommended
this scheme of the Sonship of Christ, to chose who embrace it, and led
them to reject the commonly received opinion; and not a previous
conviction that the former is most agreeable to the scripture. This
therefore demands our serious and candid attention. And the following
things may be observed upon it.

“1. If we exclude every thing from our creed, concerning God, his
existence, and the manner of his existence, which to us is
incomprehensible and unaccountable, we must reject the doctrine of the
Trinity in unity, and even of the existence of a God. The doctrine of
three persons in one God is wholly inconceivable by us, and Unitarians
consider it as the greatest contradiction and absurdity imaginable.
And those Trinitarians, who have undertaken to explain it, and make it
more intelligible, have generally failed of giving any light; but have
really made it absurd and even ridiculous, by ‘darkening counsel by
words without knowledge.’ If we reasoned properly on the matter, we
should expect to find in a revelation which God has made of himself,
his being and manner of subsistence, mysteries which we can by no
means understand, which are to creatures wonderful, and wholly
unaccountable. For the being of God, and the manner of his existence,
and of his subsisting, must be infinitely above our comprehension: God
is infinitely great, and we know him not. And if we attempt to search
out these mysteries by reason, we are prone to think they are
contradictions and absurdities, merely because our reason cannot
fathom them; and they appear more unintelligible, the more we try to
understand them. ‘Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou
find out the ALMIGHTY to perfection? It is as high as heaven, what
canst thou do? Deeper than hell, what canst thou know? The measure
thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.’ Job ii.
7, 8, 9. ‘Teach us what we shall say unto him, (and what we shall say
concerning him;) for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness.
Shall it be told him that _I speak_?’ and attempt to comprehend and
explain the mysteries that relate to his existence? ‘If a man speak,
surely he shall be swallowed up.’ Job xxxvii. 19, 20. If a man
undertake thus to speak, instead of giving any light, he will be
involved and overwhelmed in impenetrable darkness.

“They, therefore, who do not believe the eternal sonship of Jesus
Christ, because it is mysterious and incomprehensible, and to some it
appears to be full of contradiction, will, if they be consistent with
themselves, for the same reason, reject the doctrine of a Trinity of
persons in one God.[105]

“2. If the doctrine of the eternal generation and sonship of the
second person in the Trinity be soberly and modestly considered in the
light of the foregoing observation, and with a proper sense of our own
darkness and infinite inferiority to the divine Being, and how little
we can know of him; we shall not be forward to pronounce it
inconsistent with reason, and absurd; but be convinced, that to do
thus, is very bold and assuming; and that it may be consistent and
true, notwithstanding any thing we may know; though it be mysterious
and incomprehensible. This is a _divine generation_, infinitely above
any thing that takes place among creatures, and infinitely different.
It is that of which we can have no adequate idea, and is infinitely
out of our reach. What incompetent judges are we then of this matter?
What right or ability have we to pronounce it absurd or inconsistent,
when we have no capacity to know or determine what is true,
consistent, or inconsistent in this high point, any farther than God
has been pleased to reveal it to us? There may be innumerable
mysteries in the existence and manner of subsistence of the infinite
Being, which are, and must be, incomprehensible, by a finite
understanding. God has been pleased, for wise ends, to reveal that of
the Trinity, and this of the eternal generation and sonship of the
second person: And he has done it in a manner, and in words best
suited to convey those ideas of it to men, which it is necessary they
should have: And we ought to receive it with meekness and implicit
submission, using our reason in excluding every thing which is
contrary to, or below infinite perfection, and absolute independence;
without pretending to comprehend it, or to be able to judge of that
which is infinitely high and divine, by that which takes place among
creatures, with respect to generation, and father and son.

“God is said in scripture, to repent and be grieved at his heart; to
be angry, and to have his fury to come up in his face; and hands,
feet, eyes, mouth, lips and tongue, &c. are ascribed to him. These
words are designed and suited to convey useful ideas, and important
instruction to men. But if we should understand these expression as
meaning the same thing in the Divine Being, that they do when applied
to men; we must entertain very unworthy, and most absurd notions of
God, and wholly inconsistent with other declarations in the sacred
Oracles. But if we exclude every thing that is human, or that implies
any change or imperfection from these expressions when applied to the
Deity, they will convey nothing absurd or inconsistent, or that is
unworthy of God. And it will doubtless be equally so in the case
before us; if it be constantly kept in mind that the only begotten Son
of God denotes nothing human, but is infinitely above any thing which
relates to natural, or creature generation, and does not include any
beginning, change, dependence, inferiority, or imperfection. This will
effectually exclude all real absurdity and contradiction.