would be unnatural and absurd to suppose, from this expression, that
Jesus Christ was not God, antecedent to his being manifested in the
flesh, and that by his becoming man, he became a God. Directly the
contrary to this is asserted, _viz._ that he who is God from eternity,
did in time appear in the human nature, and manifested himself to be
God, independent of the flesh, in which he appeared. It is also said,
‘For this purpose, the Son of God _was manifested_, that he might
destroy the works of the devil.’ 1 John iii. 8. These two passages
appear to be parallel. God manifested in the flesh, and the Son of God
manifested, are two expressions of the same thing. From this it may be
inferred, that the Son of God, and God, are synonymous here, and of
the same import. This serves to confirm what has been said above of
the use and meaning of the term, Son of God. And may it not with equal
certainty be inferred from these two passages, compared together, that
the Son of God existed in this character as the Son of God, antecedent
to his manifestation in the flesh, and independent of it; and that he
did not become the Son of God by being made flesh? If God be
manifested in the flesh, there must be a God to be manifested
antecedent to such a manifestation, and independent of it. And is it
not equally certain that if the Son of God be manifested, he must have
existed the Son of God, antecedent to such manifestation, and
independent of it? Consequently he did not become the Son of God by
his being manifested in the flesh: His Sonship does not consist in the
union of the divine and human natures in one person. His personality
existed before this union with the human nature; and he was the Son of
God before this: This same Son of God, this same person who existed
without beginning, assumed the human nature, not a human person, into
a union with himself, his own person, and so appeared, was manifested
in the flesh.
“When David speaks of the Son of God, and represents the Father as
saying, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,’ so long
before his incarnation, the idea which most naturally arises in the
mind from this is, that there was then such a person as the Son, who
did at that time declare the decree, by the mouth of David; and not,
that there should in some future time be a Son begotten, who should
_then_ declare the decree. ‘I will declare the decree: The Lord said
unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ It is very
unnatural, and contrary to all propriety of speech to suppose, ‘this
day have I begotten thee,’ means I will beget thee in some future
time; and that the Son should be made to declare the decree, long
before any such person existed; and when there was in fact no such
Son. The decree which the Son declares is not that declaration, ‘Thou
art my son, this day have I begotten thee;’ but what follows, ‘ask of
me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the
uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them
with a rod of iron, &c.’ ‘_This day_,’ that is, _now_, not in time
which is passed, or which is to come; for with God there is no
succession, no time passed or to come; but he exists, as we may say,
in one eternal, unsuccessive NOW. Therefore, when we speak of an
eternal, immanent act, it is most properly expressed thus, ‘This day,
or NOW, have I begotten thee.’ This therefore is the sense in which
the best divines have generally understood it.
“St. Paul cites this passage as being illustrated and verified in the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Acts xiii. 33. But he cannot mean that
he by the resurrection became the Son of God, and was then begotten:
for he had this title before that. His meaning is explained by himself
in his epistle to the Romans. ‘_Declared_ to be the Son of God by the
resurrection from the dead.’ Rom. i. 4. That is, this was a fresh and
open manifestation and declaration that he was indeed what had been
often asserted of him, and what he always was: The only begotten Son
of God.
“What the angel said to the virgin Mary, ‘He shall be great, and shall
he called the Son of the Highest—The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son
of God,’ cannot reasonably be understood as a declaration that his
sonship consisted in his miraculous conception, or in the union of the
second person of the Trinity with the human nature, thus conceived:
But that this child, conceived in this manner, and born of a virgin,
should appear, and be known to be the Son of God, that very person who
had been spoken of and known in all past ages by this title; of whom
Isaiah had particularly spoken, when he said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL. Unto us a
Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder: And his
name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God:’ Isaiah
vii. 14. ix. 6. That this Son was now to be born of the virgin Mary:
the long expected Messiah, who is considered and spoken of by the
people of God, by the title of the Son of God, which title he shall
bear, as he is indeed the mighty God.
“We are naturally lead to consider the Son of God as existing in this
character before his incarnation, and the same with the Word, by what
is said of him in the first chapter of John. ‘The Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of
the Father. No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John bare
witness of him, and cried, saying, this was he of whom I spake, he
that cometh after me, is preferred before me: _For he was before me_.
And I saw, and bear record that this is the Son of God.’ Here John is
represented as asserting that the Son of God, concerning whom he bore
witness, did exist _before him_, which therefore must be _before his
incarnation_; for John was conceived before the incarnation of Jesus.
But how can this be true, if there were no Son of God, before John
existed? But if we consider the Word and the Son of God as synonymous,
who was in the beginning with God, and who was God, and created all
things, this whole chapter will be plain and easy to be understood;
and we shall see John bearing witness to the Son of God, who existed
before him in this character, and was now come in the flesh.
“We find the same representation made in the epistle to the Hebrews.
‘God, who spake in time past unto the fathers, by the prophets, hath
in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed
heir of all things; _by whom also he made the worlds_. Who being the
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, _and
upholding all things by the word of his power_,’ &c. How could God
make the worlds _by his Son_, four thousand years before he had a Son;
and on this supposition, where is the propriety or truth of this
assertion? And how could the Son be said to uphold all things by the
word of his power, thousands of years before any Son existed? ‘And
again, _when he bringeth the first begotten into the world_, he saith,
And let all the angels of God worship him.’ This expression naturally
suggests the idea that God the Father had a first-begotten Son to
bring into the world, whom he commanded the angels to worship. How can
he be said to _bring_ his first begotten Son _into the world_, when he
had no such Son to bring into the world; and indeed never did bring
this his Son into the world, if he was begotten and received his
sonship _in this world_, when he took the human nature in the womb of
the virgin, and was not a son before?
“Again, speaking of Melchisedec, he says, he was ‘Without father,
without mother, without descent, _having neither beginning of days_,
nor end of life; _but made like unto the Son of God_.’ Heb. vii. 3. If
there were no Son of God till the human nature of Christ existed, then
the Son of God did _begin to exist_; consequently there was a
beginning of his days; and Melchisedec was not made like him, but
_unlike_ to him, by having no beginning of days.
“Since there are so many passages of scripture, (and there are many
more than have now been mentioned) which seem to represent the
Redeemer as the Son of God, antecedent to his incarnation, and
independent of it, which will naturally lead those who attend to them
to this idea of him; and some of them cannot be easily reconciled to
the contrary opinion; this will fully account for the generally
received doctrine in the Christian world from the earliest ages to
this time, _viz._ That the Redeemer of man is the second person in the
Trinity, the eternal Son of God, who in the fulness of time was made
flesh, by a personal union with the human nature.
“4. It is worthy of consideration, whether the contrary opinion,
_viz._ That the Redeemer is the Son of God, only by the second person
in the Trinity being united to human nature, and becoming man, does
not naturally lead to dangerous and evil consequences; and what good
end is to be answered by it? If it be not agreeable to scripture, we
know it must be dangerous and hurtful in a greater or less degree, (as
all errors respecting the person and character of the Redeemer are)
and naturally tends to lead into other mistakes, still greater, and of
worse consequence. And if it be agreeable to scripture, it certainly
has no bad tendency. If, therefore, it does appear from reasoning upon
it, or from fact and experience, that this opinion tends to evil
consequences, and has a bad effect; we may safely conclude that it is
wrong, and contrary to divine revelation.
“1. Does not this sentiment tend to lower our ideas of the Redeemer,
and lead into a way of thinking less honourably of him? It has been
observed that it appears from scripture, that this title, Son of God,
was used to express the highest and most honourable idea which his
friends had of his person and character. But if we understand by it,
nothing but what takes place by his union to man, by taking flesh upon
him, and consider it as signifying nothing but what took place by his
becoming man, nothing is expressed by it more than by _Son of man_:
And we are left without any epithet or common scripture phrase,
whereby to express the divinity, the Godhead of the Redeemer, and his
equality with the Father. Thus, instead of raising our conceptions of
the Redeemer, does it not tend to sink them? Does not the sonship of
Christ become an infinitely less and more inconsiderable matter, upon
this plan, than that which has always been esteemed the orthodox
sentiment on this point, which considers his sonship, as wholly
independent of the whole creation, as eternal, and altogether divine?
“We live in an age when the enemies of the Redeemer lift up their
heads, and are suffered to multiply and prevail. The deists attempt to
cast him out as an impostor. Arians and Socinians strip him of his
divinity: And the careless, ignorant, immoral and profane, treat him
with contempt, or neglect. This is agreeable to his great enemy,
Satan; who seems now to be let loose in an unusual degree, and has
uncommon power among men, to lead them into gross errors, and those
especially which are dishonourable to Christ, and injurious to his
character. And if this sentiment now under consideration, concerning
the Sonship of the Redeemer, should spread and prevail _now_, this
would be no evidence in favour of it; but, considering what has been
now observed, concerning it, would it not give reason to suspect, at
least, that it is dishonourable to the Son of God, and leads to other
errors yet more dishonourable to him?
“This leads to observe,
“2. It is worthy of consideration, whether this doctrine of the
filiation of Jesus Christ, does not tend to reject the doctrine of the
Trinity, as it has been held by those who have been called the
orthodox in the christian church, and leads to what is called
Sabellianism; which considers the Deity as but one person, and to be
three only out of respect to the different manner or kind of his
operations.
“This notion of the Sonship of Christ, leads to suppose that the Deity
is the Father of the Mediator, without distinction of persons; and
that by Father so often mentioned in the New Testament, and generally
in relation to the Son is commonly, if not always, meant Deity,
without distinction of persons. If this be so, it tends to exclude all
distinction of persons in God, and to make the personality of the
Redeemer to consist wholly in the human nature; and finally, to make
his union with Deity no more, but the same which Arians and Socinians
admit, _viz._ the same which takes place between God and good men in
general; but in a higher and peculiar degree. But if there be no
tendency in this doctrine of the sonship of Christ, to the
consequences which have been now mentioned; and it can be made evident
that none of those supposed evils do attend it, or can follow from it;
yet it remains to be considered _what advantage attends it_, and the
good ends it will answer, if it were admitted to be true. None will
say, it is presumed, that it is more agreeable to the general
expressions of scripture relating to this point, than the opposite
doctrine; who well considers what has been observed above. The most
that any one can with justice say with respect to this is, that the
scripture may be so construed and understood, as to be consistent with
the sonship of Christ, commencing at the incarnation, however
inconsistent with it some passages may appear at first view.
“It may be thought, perhaps, that this notion of the sonship of the
Redeemer is attended with two advantages, if not with more, _viz._ It
frees the doctrine of the Trinity from that which is perfectly
incomprehensible, and appears a real contradiction and absurdity; that
the second person should be Son of the first, who is the Father; the
Son being begotten by the Father from eternity; than which nothing can
be more inconceivable, and seemingly absurd. And this appears
inconsistent with the second person being equal with the first; for a
son begotten of a father, implies inferiority, and that he exists
after his father, and consequently begins to exist, and is dependent.
Both these difficulties are wholly avoided, it is thought, by
supposing that the second person in the Trinity became a son by being
united to the human nature, and begotten in the womb of the virgin.
And it is probable that these supposed advantages have recommended
this scheme of the Sonship of Christ, to chose who embrace it, and led
them to reject the commonly received opinion; and not a previous
conviction that the former is most agreeable to the scripture. This
therefore demands our serious and candid attention. And the following
things may be observed upon it.
“1. If we exclude every thing from our creed, concerning God, his
existence, and the manner of his existence, which to us is
incomprehensible and unaccountable, we must reject the doctrine of the
Trinity in unity, and even of the existence of a God. The doctrine of
three persons in one God is wholly inconceivable by us, and Unitarians
consider it as the greatest contradiction and absurdity imaginable.
And those Trinitarians, who have undertaken to explain it, and make it
more intelligible, have generally failed of giving any light; but have
really made it absurd and even ridiculous, by ‘darkening counsel by
words without knowledge.’ If we reasoned properly on the matter, we
should expect to find in a revelation which God has made of himself,
his being and manner of subsistence, mysteries which we can by no
means understand, which are to creatures wonderful, and wholly
unaccountable. For the being of God, and the manner of his existence,
and of his subsisting, must be infinitely above our comprehension: God
is infinitely great, and we know him not. And if we attempt to search
out these mysteries by reason, we are prone to think they are
contradictions and absurdities, merely because our reason cannot
fathom them; and they appear more unintelligible, the more we try to
understand them. ‘Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou
find out the ALMIGHTY to perfection? It is as high as heaven, what
canst thou do? Deeper than hell, what canst thou know? The measure
thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.’ Job ii.
7, 8, 9. ‘Teach us what we shall say unto him, (and what we shall say
concerning him;) for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness.
Shall it be told him that _I speak_?’ and attempt to comprehend and
explain the mysteries that relate to his existence? ‘If a man speak,
surely he shall be swallowed up.’ Job xxxvii. 19, 20. If a man
undertake thus to speak, instead of giving any light, he will be
involved and overwhelmed in impenetrable darkness.
“They, therefore, who do not believe the eternal sonship of Jesus
Christ, because it is mysterious and incomprehensible, and to some it
appears to be full of contradiction, will, if they be consistent with
themselves, for the same reason, reject the doctrine of a Trinity of
persons in one God.[105]
“2. If the doctrine of the eternal generation and sonship of the
second person in the Trinity be soberly and modestly considered in the
light of the foregoing observation, and with a proper sense of our own
darkness and infinite inferiority to the divine Being, and how little
we can know of him; we shall not be forward to pronounce it
inconsistent with reason, and absurd; but be convinced, that to do
thus, is very bold and assuming; and that it may be consistent and
true, notwithstanding any thing we may know; though it be mysterious
and incomprehensible. This is a _divine generation_, infinitely above
any thing that takes place among creatures, and infinitely different.
It is that of which we can have no adequate idea, and is infinitely
out of our reach. What incompetent judges are we then of this matter?
What right or ability have we to pronounce it absurd or inconsistent,
when we have no capacity to know or determine what is true,
consistent, or inconsistent in this high point, any farther than God
has been pleased to reveal it to us? There may be innumerable
mysteries in the existence and manner of subsistence of the infinite
Being, which are, and must be, incomprehensible, by a finite
understanding. God has been pleased, for wise ends, to reveal that of
the Trinity, and this of the eternal generation and sonship of the
second person: And he has done it in a manner, and in words best
suited to convey those ideas of it to men, which it is necessary they
should have: And we ought to receive it with meekness and implicit
submission, using our reason in excluding every thing which is
contrary to, or below infinite perfection, and absolute independence;
without pretending to comprehend it, or to be able to judge of that
which is infinitely high and divine, by that which takes place among
creatures, with respect to generation, and father and son.
“God is said in scripture, to repent and be grieved at his heart; to
be angry, and to have his fury to come up in his face; and hands,
feet, eyes, mouth, lips and tongue, &c. are ascribed to him. These
words are designed and suited to convey useful ideas, and important
instruction to men. But if we should understand these expression as
meaning the same thing in the Divine Being, that they do when applied
to men; we must entertain very unworthy, and most absurd notions of
God, and wholly inconsistent with other declarations in the sacred
Oracles. But if we exclude every thing that is human, or that implies
any change or imperfection from these expressions when applied to the
Deity, they will convey nothing absurd or inconsistent, or that is
unworthy of God. And it will doubtless be equally so in the case
before us; if it be constantly kept in mind that the only begotten Son
of God denotes nothing human, but is infinitely above any thing which
relates to natural, or creature generation, and does not include any
beginning, change, dependence, inferiority, or imperfection. This will
effectually exclude all real absurdity and contradiction.
“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 existing _after
him_, and therefore his existence had a beginning. This is obviated by
the above observations; and particularly by this, that it is a _divine
filiation_, and therefore infinitely unlike that which is human; and
above our comprehension. Besides, to suppose eternal generation admits
of _before_ or _after_, 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.