100.Unity of nature with the Father.In the original it is equality of his nature. But apprehending that, by an error of the press, gelykheid is put for eenigheyd, I have adventured to translate the passage as above; and that in the fullest consistency with the design of the worthy author, in the whole of this treatise, and with his express words in the close of the second paragraph of this very section, where he says, “we dare not esteem Christ less than ὁμοουσιος, that is, of thesame natureor essence with God.”
100.Unity of nature with the Father.In the original it is equality of his nature. But apprehending that, by an error of the press, gelykheid is put for eenigheyd, I have adventured to translate the passage as above; and that in the fullest consistency with the design of the worthy author, in the whole of this treatise, and with his express words in the close of the second paragraph of this very section, where he says, “we dare not esteem Christ less than ὁμοουσιος, that is, of thesame natureor essence with God.”
101.“The meaning of the terms,Son of God,only-begotten Son of God, must needs be of importance, inasmuch as the belief of the idea signified by them was made a leading article in the primitive professions of faith. John vi. 69. iii. 18. xx. 31. Acts xviii. 37. 1 John iv. 15. Whatever disputes have arisen of late among christians, there seems to have been none on this subject in the times of the apostles. Both Jews and Christians appear to have agreed in this: the only question that divided them was, whether Christ was the Son of God, or not? If there had been any ambiguity in the term, it would have been very unfit to express the first article of the christian faith.“It has been frequently suggested, that the ground of Christ’s sonship is given us in Luke i. 35, and is no other than his miraculous conception: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 true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that such a conception was peculiar to him; but it does not follow that by this he became theSon, oronly-begotten Son of God. Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It has been thought that the phraseSon of God, in this place, is used in a peculiar sense, or that it respects the origin of Christ’s human nature, as not being by ordinary generation of man, but by the extraordinary influence of God; and that he is here called the Son of God in the same sense as Adam is so called, (Luke iii. 38.) as being produced by his immediate power. If this be the meaning of the term in the passage in question, I should think it will be allowed to be peculiar, and therefore that no general conclusion can be drawn from it, as to the meaning of the term in other passages. But granting that the sonship of Christ, in this place, is to be understood in the same sense as it is commonly to be taken in the new testament, still it does not follow that the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It may be a reason given why Christ iscalledthe Son of God; but not why heisso. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events? This is impossible; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from his miraculous conception, it could not for that reason arise from his resurrection, or exaltation: and so on the other hand, if it arose from his resurrection, or exaltation, it could not proceed from his miraculous conception. But if each be understood of his being herebyproved,acknowledged, or, as the scriptures express it,declaredto be the Son of God with power, all is easy and consistent.“Whether the terms,Son of God, andonly-begotten Son of God, be not expressive of his divine personality, antecedent to all consideration of his being conceived of the holy Spirit, in the womb of the Virgin, let the following things determine.“First: The glory of theonly-begotten of the Father, and the glory of theWord, are used as convertible terms, as being the same: but the latter is allowed to denote the divine person of Christ, antecedent to his being made flesh; the same therefore must be true of the former.The Word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory; that is, the glory of the Word,the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John i. 14. It is true, it was by the Word beingmade flesh, and dwelling amongst us, that his glory becameapparent; but the glory itself was that of the eternal Word, and this is the same asthe glory of the only-begotten of the Father.“Secondly: The Son of God is said todwell in the bosom of the Father; that is, he is intimately acquainted with his character and designs, and therefore fit to be employed in making them known to men.The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.John i. 18. If this be applied to his divine person, orthat eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us, 1 John i. 2. it is natural and proper; it assigns his omniscience as qualifying him for making known the mind of God: but if he became the only-begotten of the Father by his miraculous conception, or by any other means, the beauty of the passage vanishes.“Thirdly: God is frequently said to havesenthis Son into the world: John vii. 17. x. 36. 1 John iv. 9, 10. but this implies that he was his Son antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no less absurd than supposing that when Christ is said to have sent forth his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but in consequence of his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their mission.“Fourthly: Christ is called the Son of God antecedently to his miraculous conception, and consequently he did not become such by it.—In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law—God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh.Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 3.—The terms,made of a woman,made under the law, are a parenthesis. The position affirmed is, that God sent forth his Son to redeem the transgressors of the law. His being made of a woman, and made under the law, or covenant of works, which man had broken, expressed the necessary means for the accomplishment of this great end; which means, though preceding our redemption, yet follow the sonship of the Redeemer. There is equal proof that Christ was theSon of Godbefore he wasmade of a woman, as that he wasthe Wordbefore he wasmade flesh. The phraseology is the same in the one case as in the other. If it be alleged that Christ is here called the Son of Godon accountof his being made of a woman, I answer, If so, it is also on account of his beingmade under the law, which is too absurd to admit of a question.—Moreover: To say thatGod sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, is equal to saying that the Son of God assumed human nature: he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation.“Fifthly: Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his beingmanifested 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 theSon of Godantecedent to his beingmanifested to destroy the works of the devil, as there is from that of 1 Tim. iii. 16. that he wasGodantecedent to his beingmanifested in the flesh; or from 1 John i. 2, thatthat eternal life, which was with the Father, was such antecedent to his beingmanifested to us.“Sixthly: The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administeredin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matt. xxviii. 19. The terms,FatherandHoly Spirit, will be allowed to denote divine persons; and what good reasons can be given for another idea being fixed to the termSon?“Seventhly: The proper deity of Christ precedes his office of Mediator, or High Priest of our profession, and renders it an exercise ofcondescension. 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 givesdignityto his office of Mediator: but this dignity is ascribed to his being theSon of God.We have aGREATHigh Priest; Jesus, theSonofGod. 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 givesefficacyto his sufferings—ByHIMSELFhe purges our sins. Heb. i. 3. But this efficacy is ascribed to his being theSon 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 termimpliesproper divinity. Indeed this is evident from John v. 18, where his saying thatGod was his own Fatheris supposed to bemaking 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 impliesinferiority, 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 ofnature, 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 wasmaking himself, not inferior, butas God, orequal with God.“Once more: Sonship, it is said, impliesposteriority, 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.
101.“The meaning of the terms,Son of God,only-begotten Son of God, must needs be of importance, inasmuch as the belief of the idea signified by them was made a leading article in the primitive professions of faith. John vi. 69. iii. 18. xx. 31. Acts xviii. 37. 1 John iv. 15. Whatever disputes have arisen of late among christians, there seems to have been none on this subject in the times of the apostles. Both Jews and Christians appear to have agreed in this: the only question that divided them was, whether Christ was the Son of God, or not? If there had been any ambiguity in the term, it would have been very unfit to express the first article of the christian faith.
“It has been frequently suggested, that the ground of Christ’s sonship is given us in Luke i. 35, and is no other than his miraculous conception: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 true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that such a conception was peculiar to him; but it does not follow that by this he became theSon, oronly-begotten Son of God. Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It has been thought that the phraseSon of God, in this place, is used in a peculiar sense, or that it respects the origin of Christ’s human nature, as not being by ordinary generation of man, but by the extraordinary influence of God; and that he is here called the Son of God in the same sense as Adam is so called, (Luke iii. 38.) as being produced by his immediate power. If this be the meaning of the term in the passage in question, I should think it will be allowed to be peculiar, and therefore that no general conclusion can be drawn from it, as to the meaning of the term in other passages. But granting that the sonship of Christ, in this place, is to be understood in the same sense as it is commonly to be taken in the new testament, still it does not follow that the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It may be a reason given why Christ iscalledthe Son of God; but not why heisso. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events? This is impossible; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from his miraculous conception, it could not for that reason arise from his resurrection, or exaltation: and so on the other hand, if it arose from his resurrection, or exaltation, it could not proceed from his miraculous conception. But if each be understood of his being herebyproved,acknowledged, or, as the scriptures express it,declaredto be the Son of God with power, all is easy and consistent.
“Whether the terms,Son of God, andonly-begotten Son of God, be not expressive of his divine personality, antecedent to all consideration of his being conceived of the holy Spirit, in the womb of the Virgin, let the following things determine.
“First: The glory of theonly-begotten of the Father, and the glory of theWord, are used as convertible terms, as being the same: but the latter is allowed to denote the divine person of Christ, antecedent to his being made flesh; the same therefore must be true of the former.The Word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory; that is, the glory of the Word,the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John i. 14. It is true, it was by the Word beingmade flesh, and dwelling amongst us, that his glory becameapparent; but the glory itself was that of the eternal Word, and this is the same asthe glory of the only-begotten of the Father.
“Secondly: The Son of God is said todwell in the bosom of the Father; that is, he is intimately acquainted with his character and designs, and therefore fit to be employed in making them known to men.The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.John i. 18. If this be applied to his divine person, orthat eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us, 1 John i. 2. it is natural and proper; it assigns his omniscience as qualifying him for making known the mind of God: but if he became the only-begotten of the Father by his miraculous conception, or by any other means, the beauty of the passage vanishes.
“Thirdly: God is frequently said to havesenthis Son into the world: John vii. 17. x. 36. 1 John iv. 9, 10. but this implies that he was his Son antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no less absurd than supposing that when Christ is said to have sent forth his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but in consequence of his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their mission.
“Fourthly: Christ is called the Son of God antecedently to his miraculous conception, and consequently he did not become such by it.—In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law—God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh.Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 3.—The terms,made of a woman,made under the law, are a parenthesis. The position affirmed is, that God sent forth his Son to redeem the transgressors of the law. His being made of a woman, and made under the law, or covenant of works, which man had broken, expressed the necessary means for the accomplishment of this great end; which means, though preceding our redemption, yet follow the sonship of the Redeemer. There is equal proof that Christ was theSon of Godbefore he wasmade of a woman, as that he wasthe Wordbefore he wasmade flesh. The phraseology is the same in the one case as in the other. If it be alleged that Christ is here called the Son of Godon accountof his being made of a woman, I answer, If so, it is also on account of his beingmade under the law, which is too absurd to admit of a question.—Moreover: To say thatGod sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, is equal to saying that the Son of God assumed human nature: he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation.
“Fifthly: Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his beingmanifested 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 theSon of Godantecedent to his beingmanifested to destroy the works of the devil, as there is from that of 1 Tim. iii. 16. that he wasGodantecedent to his beingmanifested in the flesh; or from 1 John i. 2, thatthat eternal life, which was with the Father, was such antecedent to his beingmanifested to us.
“Sixthly: The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administeredin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matt. xxviii. 19. The terms,FatherandHoly Spirit, will be allowed to denote divine persons; and what good reasons can be given for another idea being fixed to the termSon?
“Seventhly: The proper deity of Christ precedes his office of Mediator, or High Priest of our profession, and renders it an exercise ofcondescension. 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 givesdignityto his office of Mediator: but this dignity is ascribed to his being theSon of God.We have aGREATHigh Priest; Jesus, theSonofGod. 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 givesefficacyto his sufferings—ByHIMSELFhe purges our sins. Heb. i. 3. But this efficacy is ascribed to his being theSon 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 termimpliesproper divinity. Indeed this is evident from John v. 18, where his saying thatGod was his own Fatheris supposed to bemaking 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 impliesinferiority, 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 ofnature, 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 wasmaking himself, not inferior, butas God, orequal with God.
“Once more: Sonship, it is said, impliesposteriority, 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.
102.Και περis 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 asquamvis;and I see no reason why the enclitic particleπερ,being added toκαι,should always, without exception, alter the sense thereof, any more than when it is joined toως, εαν,orει.And whereas I renderκαι,in ver. 9.But,instead ofAnd,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.
102.Και περis 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 asquamvis;and I see no reason why the enclitic particleπερ,being added toκαι,should always, without exception, alter the sense thereof, any more than when it is joined toως, εαν,orει.And whereas I renderκαι,in ver. 9.But,instead ofAnd,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.
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 thefirst begotten, or first born son of God: hisonly begotten son,his own son; and eminentlyThe Son, andThe Son of the Father. Hisdear Son; or, as it is in the original,The Son of his love; Hisbeloved 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 abovean hundred timesin the New Testament; and fifty times by the apostle John. And the Father of Jesus Christ, the Son, is mentioned abovetwo 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 Christis 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 youthat believe on the name of the Son of God: that ye may know ye have eternal life, and that ye maybelieve 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 thehighest titlethat 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 calledThe Son of Man, more thaneighty timesin 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 calledthe 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 ismy belovedSon, 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 arttheSonof 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, thatSon of Godwas 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,evenin 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 beinghis 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 denominatedThe 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 waslike 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 aSTAR, 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 comeand 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 theeternalSon of God: That his Sonship is essential to him, as the second person in the Trinity, and thatin this sense, he isthe 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 theGodhead. 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 himson, 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 Worldthat 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 Godsent 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 Sonto be a propitiation for our sins.’ 1 John iv. 9, 10. If Godsenthis 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 Godsent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.’ Gal. iv. 4. The Son wassent 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, ‘Godwas 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 Godwas 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 shouldthendeclare 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, unsuccessiveNOW. Therefore, when we speak of an eternal, immanent act, it is most properly expressed thus, ‘This day, orNOW, 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. ‘Declaredto 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 nameImmanuel. 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 existbefore him, which therefore must bebefore 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 worldsby 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 tobringhis first begotten Soninto 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 sonshipin 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 didbegin to exist; consequently there was a beginning of his days; and Melchisedec was not made like him, butunliketo 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 bySon 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 prevailnow, 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 consideredwhat 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 theAlmightyto 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 thatI 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 adivine 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.“It will be asked, perhaps, when all this is excluded from our ideas of generation, of Father and Son, what idea will remain in our minds, which is conveyed by these words? Will they not be without any signification to us, and altogether useless? To this, the following answer may be given: From what is revealed concerning this high and incomprehensible mystery, we learn, that in the existence of the Deity, there is that which is high above our thoughts, as the heavens are above the earth, infinitely beyond our conception, and different from any thing which takes place among creatures, which is a foundation of a personal distinction, as real and great as that between father and son among men, and infinitely more perfect: which distinction may be in the best manner conveyed to us by Father and Son, to express the most perfect union and equality; that the Son is the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, and that there is infinite love and endearment between them; and that in the economy of the work of redemption, the Son is obedient to the Father, &c. All this, and much more, our minds are capable of conceiving from what is revealed on this high and important subject; which is suited to impress our hearts with a sense of the incomprehensible, infinite, adorable perfection and glory of the Father and the Son; and is necessary in order to give us a right understanding of the gospel; of the true character of the Redeemer, and of the work of redemption.“What has been now said under this second particular, may serve to remove the other supposed difficulty in admitting the eternal filiation of the second person in the Trinity,viz.that it represents the Son as inferior to the Father, and as existingafter him, and therefore his existence had a beginning. This is obviated by the above observations; and particularly by this, that it is adivine filiation, and therefore infinitely unlike that which is human; and above our comprehension. Besides, to suppose eternal generation admits ofbeforeorafter, or of a beginning, is inconsistent. It may be further observed,“3. That the opinion that Jesus Christ is the first and only begotten Son of God, by the second person in the Trinity becoming incarnate, and united to the human nature, is, perhaps, attended with as great difficulties as the other which has been considered, if not greater. If so, the inducement to embrace it, and reject the other, which we are examining, wholly ceases.“If the Son was begotten by the miraculous formation of the human nature; then the Holy Ghost begot the Son and is the Father, as much as the first person in the Trinity. For the angel said to the virgin, ‘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.’ If we take these words as referring only to the production of the human nature, and if it be granted that by the highest, is meant the first person in the Trinity, of which there does not appear to be any evidence, yet the third person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing as much, and being as active in this production as the first person. But if this were no difficulty, and the first person of the Trinity be supposed to produce the human nature, and in this sense to be the Father of Jesus Christ; yet this will make him his Father in no other and higher sense than he is the Father of angels, and of Adam; and Jesus Christ will be the Son of God in no other, or higher sense than they; for they were created and formed in an extraordinary, miraculous way.“If the Son was begotten by uniting the second person of the Trinity with the human nature, and the filiation of the Son is supposed to consist wholly in being thus united to man; this is attended with the following difficulties, as great, perhaps, if not greater, than those which attend the eternal Sonship of the second person.“1. This is as different in nature and kind from natural or creature generation, as eternal divine generation; and the one bears no analogy or likeness to the other.“2. This union of God with the creature so as to become one person, is as mysterious and incomprehensible, as the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Trinity; and as inexplicable: so that nothing is gained with respect to this, by embracing this scheme.“3. It is not agreeable to scripture to suppose that the first person of the Trinity only, united the second person to the human nature, and so became a Father by thus begetting a Son. The third person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing this, or at least, being active in it; and there is nothing expressly said of the first person doing any thing respecting it as such. ‘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.’ ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.’ And the angel of the Lord said unto Joseph, ‘Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.’ Matt. i. 18, 20. And this uniting the divine nature with the human, is expressly ascribed, not to the first, but to the second person. ‘For as much as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same. For verilyhe took not on himthe nature of angels;but he took on him the seed of Abraham.’ Heb. ii. 14, 16. Do not they speak not onlywithout scripture, butcontrary to it, who say that the first person of the Trinity became a Father by uniting the second person to the human nature, in the womb of the virgin Mary; by which the latter became the only begotten Son of the Father? That the relation of Father and Son began in the incarnation of Christ, and consists wholly in this? And do they by this supposition avoid any difficulty, and render the filiation of the Redeemer more consistent, intelligible, or honourable to him? Let the thoughtful, candid discerning reader judge.”Hopkins.
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 thefirst begotten, or first born son of God: hisonly begotten son,his own son; and eminentlyThe Son, andThe Son of the Father. Hisdear Son; or, as it is in the original,The Son of his love; Hisbeloved 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 abovean hundred timesin the New Testament; and fifty times by the apostle John. And the Father of Jesus Christ, the Son, is mentioned abovetwo 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 Christis 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 youthat believe on the name of the Son of God: that ye may know ye have eternal life, and that ye maybelieve 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 thehighest titlethat 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 calledThe Son of Man, more thaneighty timesin 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 calledthe 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 ismy belovedSon, 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 arttheSonof 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, thatSon of Godwas 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,evenin 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 beinghis 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 denominatedThe 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 waslike 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 aSTAR, 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 comeand 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 theeternalSon of God: That his Sonship is essential to him, as the second person in the Trinity, and thatin this sense, he isthe 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 theGodhead. 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 himson, 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 Worldthat 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 Godsent 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 Sonto be a propitiation for our sins.’ 1 John iv. 9, 10. If Godsenthis 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 Godsent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.’ Gal. iv. 4. The Son wassent 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, ‘Godwas 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 Godwas 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 shouldthendeclare 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, unsuccessiveNOW. Therefore, when we speak of an eternal, immanent act, it is most properly expressed thus, ‘This day, orNOW, 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. ‘Declaredto 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 nameImmanuel. 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 existbefore him, which therefore must bebefore 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 worldsby 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 tobringhis first begotten Soninto 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 sonshipin 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 didbegin to exist; consequently there was a beginning of his days; and Melchisedec was not made like him, butunliketo 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 bySon 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 prevailnow, 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 consideredwhat 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 theAlmightyto 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 thatI 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 adivine 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.
“It will be asked, perhaps, when all this is excluded from our ideas of generation, of Father and Son, what idea will remain in our minds, which is conveyed by these words? Will they not be without any signification to us, and altogether useless? To this, the following answer may be given: From what is revealed concerning this high and incomprehensible mystery, we learn, that in the existence of the Deity, there is that which is high above our thoughts, as the heavens are above the earth, infinitely beyond our conception, and different from any thing which takes place among creatures, which is a foundation of a personal distinction, as real and great as that between father and son among men, and infinitely more perfect: which distinction may be in the best manner conveyed to us by Father and Son, to express the most perfect union and equality; that the Son is the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, and that there is infinite love and endearment between them; and that in the economy of the work of redemption, the Son is obedient to the Father, &c. All this, and much more, our minds are capable of conceiving from what is revealed on this high and important subject; which is suited to impress our hearts with a sense of the incomprehensible, infinite, adorable perfection and glory of the Father and the Son; and is necessary in order to give us a right understanding of the gospel; of the true character of the Redeemer, and of the work of redemption.
“What has been now said under this second particular, may serve to remove the other supposed difficulty in admitting the eternal filiation of the second person in the Trinity,viz.that it represents the Son as inferior to the Father, and as existingafter him, and therefore his existence had a beginning. This is obviated by the above observations; and particularly by this, that it is adivine filiation, and therefore infinitely unlike that which is human; and above our comprehension. Besides, to suppose eternal generation admits ofbeforeorafter, or of a beginning, is inconsistent. It may be further observed,
“3. That the opinion that Jesus Christ is the first and only begotten Son of God, by the second person in the Trinity becoming incarnate, and united to the human nature, is, perhaps, attended with as great difficulties as the other which has been considered, if not greater. If so, the inducement to embrace it, and reject the other, which we are examining, wholly ceases.
“If the Son was begotten by the miraculous formation of the human nature; then the Holy Ghost begot the Son and is the Father, as much as the first person in the Trinity. For the angel said to the virgin, ‘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.’ If we take these words as referring only to the production of the human nature, and if it be granted that by the highest, is meant the first person in the Trinity, of which there does not appear to be any evidence, yet the third person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing as much, and being as active in this production as the first person. But if this were no difficulty, and the first person of the Trinity be supposed to produce the human nature, and in this sense to be the Father of Jesus Christ; yet this will make him his Father in no other and higher sense than he is the Father of angels, and of Adam; and Jesus Christ will be the Son of God in no other, or higher sense than they; for they were created and formed in an extraordinary, miraculous way.
“If the Son was begotten by uniting the second person of the Trinity with the human nature, and the filiation of the Son is supposed to consist wholly in being thus united to man; this is attended with the following difficulties, as great, perhaps, if not greater, than those which attend the eternal Sonship of the second person.
“1. This is as different in nature and kind from natural or creature generation, as eternal divine generation; and the one bears no analogy or likeness to the other.
“2. This union of God with the creature so as to become one person, is as mysterious and incomprehensible, as the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Trinity; and as inexplicable: so that nothing is gained with respect to this, by embracing this scheme.
“3. It is not agreeable to scripture to suppose that the first person of the Trinity only, united the second person to the human nature, and so became a Father by thus begetting a Son. The third person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing this, or at least, being active in it; and there is nothing expressly said of the first person doing any thing respecting it as such. ‘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.’ ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.’ And the angel of the Lord said unto Joseph, ‘Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.’ Matt. i. 18, 20. And this uniting the divine nature with the human, is expressly ascribed, not to the first, but to the second person. ‘For as much as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same. For verilyhe took not on himthe nature of angels;but he took on him the seed of Abraham.’ Heb. ii. 14, 16. Do not they speak not onlywithout scripture, butcontrary to it, who say that the first person of the Trinity became a Father by uniting the second person to the human nature, in the womb of the virgin Mary; by which the latter became the only begotten Son of the Father? That the relation of Father and Son began in the incarnation of Christ, and consists wholly in this? And do they by this supposition avoid any difficulty, and render the filiation of the Redeemer more consistent, intelligible, or honourable to him? Let the thoughtful, candid discerning reader judge.”
Hopkins.