"

The fifth reafon affigned for the exalted character, is, The fovereign exaltation of Jefus to the right hand of the Father, after his death and refurrection. But I need not spend much time in refuting this conjecture; because many of the arguments already advanced return upon this occafion. I fhall, therefore, only afk, Was not: Chrift the Son of God, his own Son, and his only begotten Son, before his exaltation? Muit we never diftinguish between his being a Son, and his entering on the actual poffeffion of his inheritance? Jefus, the Mediator, I allow, entered on the full poffeffion of the inheritance, when he afcended into heaven; but does it from hence follow, that he was not the Son of God before? -We may affirm, that God anointed his Son; that he fent his Son, to be our prieft, prophet, and king; that he raised up, and highly exalted his Son; because the word of Infpiration affures us of these things. Confequently, instead of faying that Jefus is the Son of God, because he was anointed-was invefted with various officeswas raised from the dead, and highly exalted; we should rather fay, He was anointed with the Holy Ghoft, and invefted with his mediatorial offices; became the first-fruits of them that fleep, and was exalted after his refurrection; because he was the Son of God prior to thefe events. And if fo, we must either confider his conception by the Holy Ghoft, as the only reason of the illuftrious title, which we have already difproved; or we must have recourse to a more ancient generation (1).

P.4

But

(1) Perfectly conformable to the reasoning of our Author, in this Chapter, are the language and fentiments of that fenfible and ingenious writer, Mr JOHN M'LAURIN. 'If that name, God's own, or proper Sox, fignified his being produced by

· God

But here, as through the whole fubject, we must carefully diftinguifh the modus of our Lord's eternal Sonship from the Sonfhip itself. The latter is revealed, as an object of faith, by the Spirit of infallibility; while the former lies concealed in impenetrable darknefs. I fhall not, therefore, atsempt to explain the eternal generation of the Son of God. It is, I acknowledge, far above all our expreffions and all our thoughts: nor do I wonder that all the comparisons which the wit of man can invent, in order to illuftrate the subject, come vaftly fhort of their defigned end. But I have no need of fuch comparisons to fatisfy my reafon and confcience. For if I do not allow that there are manygreat and interefting realities which as to the modus of their existence, are abfolutely incomprehenfible by me, I am not capable of reafoning either in religion or nature. But if this be granted, the eternal Filiation of the Divine Son being to me incomprehenfible, is far from affording a fufficient reason to queftion the reality of it. I ought rather to inquire, Whether I can, without impious arrogance, doubt of its truth, it being clearly revealed in the Bible.

By examining the Scripture I am fully convinced, that Christ exifted before his conception in the womb of the virgin; this we have proved in the preceding Sections-That, before his in

carnation

God the Father, it would agree to all creatures. If it fignified only fome imperfect likeness to the nature of the Father, it would agree to all living, especially all rational creatures. If it fignified only the highest resemblance, or likeness to God, that any creature has, it might agree to many; 'fince no mere creature can have fo much of God, but another " might be raised to have as much, or more. If it fignified his being created immediately by the Father, whereas other beings are immediately created by the Son; all other rational creatures might have had the fame relation to the Father, and would, however, have the fame relation to Christ that he hath to God. The name of, GOD'S OWN SON, therefore, cannot agree to any mere creature.' Sermons and Essays, page 137. Edit, 2d.

ર

carnation, he was THE SON OF GOD; this the Holy Ghoft exprefsly afferts - That he is the Son of God, not by adoption, much lefs by a metaphor, but in a proper fenfe; and hence he is called, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD" -That, as the Son of God, he poffeffed a glory with the Father before the world began; of this, be himfelf affures us-That he is the Creator of all things, and one with the Father-That he is equal with God, and the true God; as appears from the foregoing pages. Confequently, how incomprehenfible foever the modus of his Divine Filiation may be, I cannot, without rejecting the teftimony of God, refufe my affent to the reality of his ETERNAL SONSHIP.

Other Objections answered.

Ο UR opponents object, with confidence, all

thofe paffages of Scripture which exprefs the idea of dependence, in Jefus Chrift, upon the Father. They, therefore, frequently confront us with those texts which affert; That Christ "does nothing of himself," that he does "thofe "works which the Father gave him to do;" that "the Son knoweth not the hour of the last "judgment;" that "the Father is greater than "he" and that "the Son fhall deliver up the "kingdom to the Father," at the confummation of all things.-On each of these, and on fimilar paffages, they argue against us. But as they make, in reality, but one difficulty, we fhall confider them all together, and give them but one reply.

? Here, then, it may be observed, That we frequently meet with fuch declarations in Scripture, as are, in appearance, directly opposite to

thefe. There we behold our Lord acting according to his own will; acting with a fovereign authority; acting as abfolutely independent. "Be it unto thee even as thou wilt-I will, be "thou clean -Thy fins be forgiven thee." There also we are affured, that he is "one "with the Father and equal with God;” that He "knoweth all things, and of his kingdom "there fhall be no end."-Now thefe paffages, with many of a fimilar kind, appear contradictory to thofe on which our adverfaries argue; but they are not, they cannot be fo, in reality: because they were all indited by the fame Spirit, who is not liable to error and contradiction. Confequently, of two hypothefes, that which makes them clafh and renders them irreconcilable, must be false; and that which proves their confiftency, bids fair to be true, and is abundantly preferable. The former, I am firmly perfuaded, "is the character of the Socinian, the latter of our -hypothesis.

"

By what medium, for inftance, will the Socinians fhew me, that Chrift is equal with his Father, and yet inferior to him? For, according to them, he is inferior, infinitely inferior to the Father, by nature. Is he, then, equal to him by his offices? Impoffible: the fuppofition is big with abfurdity. For, in regard to his offices, he is evidently THE SERVANT of God; he is not, he cannot, therefore, be equal with him, on that account. For a common fervant to fay, I am

equal to my mafter,' would be infolence; for a minifter of state to affert it, would be a fpecies of high-treafon against his sovereign..

With what confiftency can our opponents maintain that Chrift knows all things, and yet is ignorant of the time fixed for one of the greatest events that ever did, or ever will take place in

the

the universe? The diftinction between nature and office, is of no ufe here. For knowledge is a property of nature: fomething, therefore, belonging to the nature of Jefus must be in queftion. Will they fay, When Peter declares that

our Lord knows all things, that he does not • fpeak in the general? But what is speaking in the general, if not making use of general expreffions? Befides, Peter, from a general principle, draws a particular conclufion. "Lord, thou "knoweft all things, thou knoweft that I love "thee." As if he had faid, Lord, I love thee; and thou must know that I love thee; for thou art not ignorant of any thing.-To fuppofe the apostle was under a mistake, when he fo exprefsed himself, has no fhadow of reafon. Because if he was, he uttered blafphemy, by attributing omnifcience to Jefus Chrift, which belongs only to God; and because his holy and humble Malter would not have rewarded blafphemy by faying, Feed my fheep."

How can they reconcile those paffages which inform us, that Chrift does nothing of himself; that he prayed at the grave of Lazarus ; and that the Father always hears him; with others which represent him, as working miracles by his own will and his own power? If he be a mere man, he depends on God for his existence every moment, and was entirely beholden to the Great Sovereign for every exertion of power in the performance of his miraculous works. But if so, how came he to speak with fuch an air of Divine authority and of Divine power, "I WILL, BE "THOU CLEAN?" Had Mofes, or Paul, exprefsed himself after this manner, he would, undoubtedly, have been guilty of blafphemy. Nor can the distinction between office and nature, be of the least service on this occafion.

t

Nor