formation from the law and the testimony. The following confiderations are fubmited to the reader. It is allowed by nearly all judicious interpreters of fcripture, to be most natural to admit the literal fenfe of a term or phrase, as the true sense, unless where various circumftances concur to fhow it to be used figuratively. But the term Son, in the most ftrict, literal, and generally received fenfe, in all languages, fuppofes a father, a being of the fame common nature with him. Tho' it be admitted that the term is many times used in a lower fenfe, as in the cafe of angels and men, who are called fons or children of God. Yet it is much questioned whether those strongly definite terms of The Son, by way of eminence, God's own Son, and Only begotten Son, are ever ufed to exprefs a lower idea of Sonfhip, than what is implied in a famenefs of nature with the Father. Certain it is, neither angels nor men are the fons of God, according to the fenfe of these terms. "For unto which of the angels faid he, at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Heb. i. 5. Suppofing one perfon was called the Son, the only Son, the only begotten Son of another, if we should understand the term in any other fenfe, than as expreffing a fameness of nature, & a descent by natural generation, it would introduce fuch a confufion of ideas and terms, as would go far towards reducing all language to the utmost uncertainty. What more therefore, could the infpired penmen fay, to affert Chrift to be a Son of the fame nature with the Father, and proceeding from him by an eternal, | though inexplicable generation, than to call him God's own Son, only begotten Son, &c.? Suppofing the doctrine of Chrift's eternal Sonship to be true, I fee not how the truth of it could be conveyed in fufficiently strong terms, or how we could have a revelation fufficiently clear, to fix our faith in the belief of it, if fuch a revelation is not given in the terms made use of by the facred penmen; for what more could be faid to prøve him to be a Son by nature, than to fay he was God's own Son, only begotten Son, &c. ? With refpect to the objection, that Sonfhip implies derivation and inferiority, it appears to originate from our connecting thofe ideas with the fupreme being, which belong to creatures. But, because among men a father neceffarily begets a fon younger than himself, it will not follow that the title fon, as applied to Chrift, implies inferiority. All the inferiority of a fon to a father among men, arifes from this circumftance of human generation and the nature of created beings. Separate from this, a fon being of the fame nature, is the father's equal. Perhaps a more juft idea of the manner, in which the Son of God is begotten of the Father, cannot be formed by mortal man, than what is derived from Pfalm ii. 7. "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." divine existence is not in fucceffion, admitting paft, prefent, and future; but is one eternal day, or now. So the Son's being begotten of the Father, is the immanent act of one eternal day.Therefore this text, is equally true of a whole eternity, as of any given point of time. Confequently, the term begotten, as applied The to Chrift, implies no inferiorityed him to be the Son of God. either of dignity, or in point of fucceffion of existence. Other circumftances, befides the obvious fenfe of the term, alfo concur to fhow us that this title is originally divine, or expreffive of the fupreme deity of Chrift particularly. As Son, and in the relation of a Son to the Father, he is declared to be an object of worship, both by men and angels, and, in many places, the reafon why he was worshipped was, that he was the Son of God. John v. 23. "That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. Heb. i. 6. "When he bringeth his firft begotten into the world, he faith, and let all the angels of God worship him." Pfalm xlv. 11. "He is thy Lord, worship thou him." Agreeably hereto, we find various inftances, in which divine worship was given to him while on earth, as foon as he was known to be the Son of God. As─By the wife men of the east. Matt. ii. 2.-By the -cleanfed Leper. Matt. viii. 2.By the ruler of the fynagogue, when he intreated him in behalf of his daughter. Matt. ix. 18. By the people who had been with him in the ship, and had feen his power in calming the tempeft. Matt. xiv. 3.-By the woman of Canaan. Matt. xv. 25.-By the man who had been poffeffed of the legion. Mark v. 6.-By the blind man who had been reftored to fight. John ix. 38.-By the women who firft repaired to the fepulchre after his refurrection. Matt. xxviii. 9.—And by his difciples when they first faw him after he was rifen from the dead. Luke xxiv. 52. The ground upon which divine worship was, in thefe inftances, given him, was that the parties knew and believ. But we cannot admit the suppo-. fition, that, in so many instances, divine worship would be given to, and received by him, upon a ground which implied no proper divinity. God is ever jealous of his glory, particularly of the glory of being the fole and exclufive object of all divine and religious worthip. He hath said, I am the Lord, this is my name, and my glory will I not give to another. When John, in the isle of Patmos, would have worfhipped the angel, who was God's minifter in imparting to him the revelation, doublefs fuppofing him to be the Lord Jefus Chrift, and no created angel, he was immediately forbidden : "See thou do it not, I am thy fellow fervant, and of thy brethren that have the teftimony of Jefus. Worship God." Rev. ix. 10. and xxii. 9. But if worship was to be given him, upon a ground which did not imply Deity, would it not be to countenance idolatrous worship? Admitting him to be truly God, yet, if the worshipper had no knowledge, or belief of his divinity nor any knowledge of his perfon and office, only through the medium of a title which implied no proper divinity, and was only appropri ate to the inferior nature, or at beft, reprefented him as a fuper-angelic created being, it would be no more than creature worship. And if worship was commanded to him upon fuch a ground, as it is exprefsly, Heb. i. 6. would it not contradict the command, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only fhalt thou ferve." Farther, as Son, and in the relation of a Son to the Father divine works are afcribed to him. But neither the mere human na ture of Chrift, nor any created being, however exalted, ever did fuch works as are properly the works of God. Among fuch works, note the creation of the world, John i. 3. All things, were made by him, and without him was there not any thing made that was made. By comparing this with ver. 14, it appears that the Logos or word and only begotton Son, are titles of the fame import, unless we are rather to view the latter as exhibiting the ftronger evidence of real underived deity, i. e. viewing him as the maker of all things, we behold a glory as of the only begotten of the Father. Creation is also afcribed to him as the Son, Col. i. 16. and Heb. i. 2. Not creation only, but all other divine works are aferibed to him as a Son, and in the relation of a Son to the Father, John v. 17-19. He raifeth the dead, ver. 21, and Judgeth the world, ver. 22. The term Son of God therefore, I think, plainly fuggefts the idea of a divine perfon and worker. Applied to the Meffiah, it does not point us fo directly to the office, as to the real underived deity of the officer. The fame idea of Chrift's Sonfhip appears, alfo, to be plainly expreffed in fuch fcriptures as the following, which afcribe divinity to him in the fulleft fenfe as Son, and in the relation of a Son to the Father: Heb. i. 8. quoted from Pfal. xlv. 6. "And unto the Son he faith, Thy throne O God is forever and ever, and the fceptre of righteoufnefs is the fceptre of thy kingdom." To the fame purpofe ver. 10 quoted from Pfalm cii. 25, 26, " And thou Lord, in the beginning, haft laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands." Thefe words are evidently spoken of the Jehovah of Ifrael, but here applied by the Father to the Son. As the Son of the Father, he is addreffed as the joint giver of grace, mercy and peace, 2 John 3. "Grace be with you, and mercy and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jefus Chrift, the Son of the Father, in truth and love." And the Apostle's elaborate proof that Jefus is the Son of God, confequently an object of faith, iffues in an affertion that he is the true God, and eternal life, i. es The Son of God in whom we have life, upon whom we are to be lieve for eternal life, and who giveth fpiritual understanding, is the true God, and eternal life. 1 John V. 11, 12, 13, 20. Unbeliev ing Thomas, reclaimed from his incredulity, exclaims, My Lord and my God! John xx. 28, This exclamation related to the fame person whom he had feen, and with whom he had, frequently converfed, in the days of his flefh. Our Lord, fo far from correcting his error, if it was one, pronounceth him bieffed as a be liever; and the inspired penman adds, "Thefe are written that ye might believe that Jefus is the Chrift, the Son of God, i. e. Thomas's confeffion of Christ as his Lord and his God, were writ ten among other things, that we might believe him to be the Son of God. To the fame purpose fee John xiv. 9, 10, 11. "He that hath feen me hath feen the Father: I am in the Father, and the Father in me." But unless, as the Son of the Father, he is truly God, inftead of seeing the Father in him, we fee no more than the Father's fervant. The eternity of Christ's gene ration and, fonfhip feems, alfa, to if we confider the term Son of God, as expreffing only the Meffiah's office, without any reference to the original dignity of his nature, will it not follow that when Paul preached Chrift in the fynagogue, that he is the Son of God, it only meant that he preached that Chrift was Chrift, or the Meffiah was the Meffiah ? And Peter's important confeffion, "Thou art Chrift the Son of the living God," will be no more than telling that Christ was Christ. And the difciples profeffion of faith, "We believe and are fure, that thou art Chrift, the Son of the living God," will be only saying, thou art Chrift the Christ. Such unmeaning tautologies muft not be charged upon infpiration. But if we understand the term, Son of the living God, as pointing out the divine, original digni be fairly implied in many fcrip- | original dignity of his nature, the tures of the old teftament, parti- paffage would be a tautology. cularly in fuch as follow. Prov. That the word Meffiah in the viii. 22, 23. "The Lord poffeffed Hebrew, is of the fame import me in the beginning of his ways; with Chrift in the Greek, is clear before his works of old. I was fet from John i. 41. "We have up from everlasting, from the begin- found the Meffiah, which is, bening, before ever the earth was."ing interpreted, the Chrift." But According to the well known idi om of the Hebrew language, the words rendered poffeffed, and bro't forth, plainly imply generation. That this is eternal is farther manifeft from Ifai. liii. 8. "Who fhall declare his generation." And Mic. v. 2. "Whofe goings forth have been from old, from everlafting." Pointing not barely to fimple existence, but to the date of his Sonship. It feems therefore plain, that the name and title Son of God, Only begotten Son, &c. are terms used, not fo much to point to the Meffiah's office, as to exprefs the divine dignity of him who was invefted with it, and who humbled himself that he might become the author of eternal falvation, to all them that obey him. He was not called the Son of God because he was the Messiah; but because he was the Son of God, he was eve-ty of the perfon or character, who ry way qualified to bear bear the is, by divine conftitution, appointweight of that office. ed to the office of the Meffiah; Chrift's Sonship is alfo diftin-or Chrift, the anointed; accordguished from his office, and de- ing to the literal and natural figclared to be prior to it, in fuch nification of the term, in all lanpaffages as thefe: Speaking of guages, then the phrases are not his Father, Chrift fays, John v. 29. only vaftly important, but very "I know him, for I am from plain and intelligible. him, and he hath fent me." Being from the Father by an eternal generation, is diftinguished from his being fent which relates to his office. Several places might also be mentioned in which, if we understand the term, Son of God, either of Christ's inferior nature, or of his office, or as expreffingx. 30. "I and my father are one." any thing lower than the divine Ver. 33. "For a good work we VOL. III. No. 7. In this fenfe it is abundantly evident the Jews understood the term, John v. 18. "Therefore the Jews fought the more to kill him, because he, not only had broken the Sabbath, but faid also that God was his father, making himself equal with God." John M m ftone thee not, but for blafphe- | right to divinity in the higheft fenfe. Obferve, he founds his claim to be the Son of God upon three things.-I. Upon his fanctification and fending into the fanctification of his human nature, my, and because that thou being a man, makeft thyself God.". Had the Jews understood no more by this term, than merely his profeffing himself to be the Mef-world. Ver. 36. i. e. Upon the fiah, in a language which laid no claim to proper divinity, they could have had no ground for a charge of blafphemy, if they had even difbelieved his pretenfions. Or, if their charge had been founded on a mifapprehenfion of the fenfe of the term, here was a fair opportunity to rectify the mistake, by explaining the title, which he claimed in its true fenfe. Or, though it be granted that our Lord did not, at all times, explain things to the Jews, in fuch a manner as to correct their obvious mistakes, yet, is it not probable that he would have done in this, as he frequently did in fimilar cafes, i. e. explain the matter to his own difciples, who were, probably, in the fame mistake, if it was one. But fo far from retracting what he had advanced, or from infinuating that the Jews did not understand him right, he goes on, farther, to vindicate the juftice of his claim to be the Son of God, from his doing fuch works as afforded infallible proof of his real divinity; though the Jews were, hereby, more and more exafperated. And although in John x. 30, he reminds the Jews, that they fometimes used the term in a lower fenfe, and from thence, urges the inconfiftency of their charge of blafphemy, feeing they had been accustomed to use the term God, and Son of God in a lower fenfe; yet when he comes to reafon from the lefs to the greater, and affert the juftice of his own claim to that title, he does it in language afferting his It is farther worthy of notice, that Chrift's Sonfhip is always fuppofed, even where it has no refpect to his office. He is never faid to be made a Son. He is faid to be made a prieft. Heb. v. 4. 5. 10. He is faid to be made Lord and Christ. Acts ii. 36. He is alfo faid to be raised up as a Prophet, to be fet as a King upon the holy hill of Zion, and to be raised up as a Prince, and a Saviour; but he is never faid to be made a Son. His fonship is always fuppofed, which, I think, fhows it to be a divine title, expreffing the effential dignity of his nature, irrefpective of his office. No time could be more proper to exhibit Chrift by a divine title, than when he is held up to view as being entitled to equal honor and obedience with the Father and Holy Spirit, as is the cafe when baptifm is adminiftered in his name. But here this is the title ufed. Matt. xxviii. 19. "Go and teach all nations, baptizing |