Agur also knew that there was a divine Person who existed in this character, when he faid: "What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst "tell?" Which words plainly fhew that the Almighty and incomprehenfible God, whom he describes, had a Son, who exifted with him, was of the fame divine, ineffable, and incomprehenfible nature, and a diftinct Person from him. Earlier than him, David takes notice of a divine Perfon, as the Son of God; and calls upon the kings and judges of the earth to pay homage and worship to him, faying, "Kifs the Son, left he be angry, and ye perish from the way, "when his wrath is kindled but a little: Bleffed are all they that put their "trust in him." Not to take notice of another paffage in the fame place; "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee :" which I fhall confider hereafter. To conclude this argument, Chrift exifted as the Son of God, at the creation of all things. For God, by him his Son, made the worlds, Heb. i. 2. Yea, before any creature was made; before the fun was, he was the Son of God: fee Pfalm lxxii. 17. where the words own wow as may be rendered, before the fun was, his name was Yinnon; which the Jews fay, is one of the names of the Meffiah, and comes from 3, which fignifies a Son; and is explained by Aben Ezra', 12 xp, shall be called a Son: but on this I lay no great stress. From the whole, it is manifeft, that Chrift bore the character of the Son of God under the Old Teftament-difpenfation, and before his incarnation; and therefore his incarnation cannot be the true cause and reason of his being the Son of God. Moreover, (5.) If the incarnation of Christ was the cause of his divine Sonship, or of his being the Son of God, then he would be but in the same class of Sonship as creatures, angels, and men are. Adam is called the Son of God, being wonderfully made and created by him, out of the duft of the earth; and all his posterity are the offspring of God. Angels are alfo the Sons of God by creation but "to which of the angels faid he, that is, God, at any time, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee:" and much less did he ever fay fo to any of the fons of men. The filiation of Chrift is of an higher rank than that of creatures, and therefore must be placed to another account, I go on, 2dly, To confider another cause or reafon affigned, why Chrift is called the Son of God, and that is, his refurrection from the dead; which must be rejected for the following reafons: z Ver. 7. * Prov. xxx. 4. • Talmud Sanhed. fol. 98. col. 2. Pefachim, fol. 54. 1. Nedarim, fol. 39. z. Berefhit Rabba, fol. 1. 2. Echa Rabbati. fol. 50. 2. • Heb. i. 5. b In Buxtorf. Lex. Rad. 1. 1. He was the Son of God before his refurrection; and therefore it can never be the foundation of this relation. The Socinians themselves fay, that he is called the Son of God, on the account of his incarnation; and therefore before his refurrection. As his own Son, God fent him forth in the likeness of finful flesh; and as fuch he fpared him not, but delivered him up to death; both which acts were previous to his resurrection. Yea, God, by a voice from heaven, declared him to be his Son, both at his baptifm and transfiguration. And his difciples, even before his death, knew and were sure that he was the Son of the living God. The fame was confeffed by others, whilst he was alive, and by the Centurion, when he hung upon the cross". All which fully evidence, that he was the Son of God before his refurrection. As 2. If his refurrection from the dead was the caufe of his divine filiation, then he must beget himself, or be the author of his own Sonfhip, which is abfurd; for he was himself concerned in his refurrection from the dead. he had power to lay down his life, which no mere creature has; fo he had power to take it up again, which none but God could do: according to his own prophecy, when the temple of his body was deftroyed, he raised it up again in three days. 3. If his refurrection from the dead is the ground of his Sonfhip, then his Sonship must be metaphorical, and not proper: whereas, he is called God's own or proper Son', and the Son of himself; and God is called his own or proper Father'. 4. He could not be called on this account, God's only begotten Son, which is the character he fometimes bears; because there are others that have been, - and millions that will be raised from the dead, befides him. He may indeed, on the account of his refurrection, be called, as he is, the firft born from the dead, Col. i. 18. and the first begotten of the dead, Rev. i. 5. because he is the first fruits of them that fleep, 1 Cor. xv. 20. but he cannot be called the only begotten. Befides, if this was a true caufe of divine Sonfhip, not only faints, but wicked men, would be the fons of God: for there will be "a refurrection both of the juft and unjuft "" Some of them that fleep in the duft of the earth, fhall awake to fhame and everlasting contempt, as others to everlasting life". And fome of them that are in their graves, fhall come forth to the refurrection of damnation, as others to the refurrection of life: yet these are no where called, nor will they ever bear the character of the Sons of God. Indeed, & John vi. 66. A&ts xxiv. 15. 1 'Os yɛ tữ iếu viù se iqúoalo, Rom. viii, 32. Dan. xii. 2. John v. 28, 29. 1Пaliga dier, John v. 18. Indeed, the faints are faid to be "the children of God, being the children of "the refurrection "." Not that their refurrection from the dead will be the cause of their relation to God as children; for they were fuch before: but being raised from the dead by virtue of their union to Chrift, and being by him put into the poffeffion of the heavenly inheritance, they will be manifefted and declared to be children, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Chrift. For this reason, I apprehend, the words in Pfalm ii. 7. "Thou art my Son, this "day have I begotten thee," are by the apostle, in As xiii. 33. applied to the refurrection of Chrift. Not that he was then begotten as God's own Son, for he was fo before, as has been proved; but he was then manifefted to be the eternally begotten Son of God. Things are, in an improper fense, said to be, when they are only manifested: So Christ is said to be that day begotten, because he was "declared to be the Son of God with power, by the refurrec❝tion from the dead "." Now this is the only paffage on which this notion is built; and what little foundation there is for it, is eafy to be observed. I proceed, 3dly, To confider another reafon given of Chrift's Sonship; and that is, his office as Mediator. The Socinians fay that he is called the Son of God because he was fanctified, or fet apart to this work and office; and was fent into the world to do it; and because he has executed the offices of Prophet, Priest and King, and is now exalted in glory. It is no wonder to hear them fay, that Chrift is the Son of God by office; when it is a darling notion of theirs that he is only God by office; for the fake of which, they endeavour to fupport this. And fince it fmells fo rank of Socinianism, or rather, is a part and branch of it, it should have the lefs countenance from, and be the lefs regarded by fuch who have a true value for the proper divinity of Chrift. That he who is the Mediator is the Son of God, is certain; but that his being the Mediator is the reason of his being called the Son of God, is the thing in queftion. That many, or most of the fcriptures which speak of him as the Son of God, do at the fame time hint fome things which relate to him as Mediator, is not denied, for the fcriptures do moftly speak of God confidered in and through the Mediator; and of the Son of God as fuch: but that his Mediatorship is the foundation of his Sonfhip, is a queftion that ought to be proved, and not begged. There are few fcriptures that fpeak of Chrift as God, but also fpeak of him as man, or as he is confidered in his office as Mediator. Thus when he is called the Mighty God', he is in the fame verfe faid to be born. as a child; and when he is reprefented as "over all, God bleffed for ever';" • Luke xx. 36. P Rom. i. 4. • Vide Calov. Socinism, Proflig. Art. 2. Controv. 6, and 8. p. 201, 209. he Ifaiah ix. 6. • Rom. ix. 5. he is said, at the same time to be of the Fathers as concerning the flesh. If this way of interpreting fcripture be allowed of, a fubtile Socinian knows how to make his advantage of it, to the destruction of Chrift's proper Deity, as well as Sonship. The text which the Socinians chiefly build this notion on, is John x. 36. "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath fanctified and fent into "the world, Thou blafphemeft, because I said, I am the Son of God" That he who was fanctified, and fent into the world, was the Son of God, may very well be collected from these words, and from his fanctification and miffion; because no other was promised to be sent; and no other was expected to come, but he who was the Son of God: but that his fanctification and miffion are the reason why he is called the Son of God, cannot be from hence concluded; because he was the Son of God before he was fent. In the preceding verses Chrift had afferted his equality with the Father: upon which, the Jews charge him with blafphemy, because he made himself God. To vindicate himself from this charge, he first argues from his inferior character, as being in office; that if magiftrates, without blafphemy, might be called gods, much more might he, who was fanctified and sent into the world by the Father. But he does not let the ftrefs of his Deity and Sonship reft here; but proceeds to prove that he was truly and properly God, and the Son of God, by doing the fame works his Father did. From the whole, 1 fee no reason to conclude from this text, that Chrift being in office as Mediator, is the cause of his being called the Son of God. Against which I have further to object as follows: 1. If Christ is the Son of God by office, and not nature, then he must be fo only in an improper, allufive, and metaphorical sense; just as magistrates are called gods, and the children of the Moft High. Whereas, as has been before obferved, he is called his own Son, his only begotten Son, and the Son of himself. 2. The Mediatorship of Chrift is not the foundation of his Sonship, but his Sonship is the foundation of his Mediatorship. He is not the Son of God because he is Mediator; but he is Mediator because he is the Son of God. He must be confidered, at least, in order of nature, as exifting under fome character or another, antecedent to his inveftiture with the office of a Mediator. If I prove that he existed as a Son, previous to his being a Mediator, the conclufion is easy, that his Mediatorship cannot be the cause, reason, or foundation of his Sonship. And, I think, this may be done by confidering diftinctly, and apart, his several offices of King, Priest, and Prophet, and his inveftiture into them. As to his kingly office, and his inftalment into that, it * Pfalm lxxxii. 6. it is faid: "But unto the Son, he faith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and "ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom"." Which words are directed to Chrift, under the character of the Son; and contain the Father's folemn inauguration of him into his kingly office; his being fet up and declared to be King over God's holy hill of Zion, and the perpetuity and righteousness of his kingdom. Concerning his priestly office, we read, That "the law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity; but the Word of "the oath, which was fince the law, maketh the Son, who is confecrated for evermore";" that is, the Word of the oath, or God's eternal counsel and covenant, which has been made more clear and manifest since the law was given, maketh the Son; What? not a Son; but maketh the Son a prieft. It follows then, that he was a Son before he was a priest; before he was constituted as such, or invested with the priestly office. Again, he was the Son of God, previous to his inveftiture with, entrance upon, or discharge of his prophetic office. And indeed, his being the only begotten Son, was what qualified him for it for "no man hath feen God at any time; the only begotten Son, "which is in the bofom of the Father, he hath declared him *." Being the only begotten of the Father, and lying in his bofom, and fo privy to all his thoughts, purposes and counsels, he was the only Perfon proper to be fent into the world, as the great Prophet of the Lord, to declare his mind and will to the fons of men. 3. Some scriptures do manifeftly distinguish him as a Son, from the confideration of him in the mediatorial office; as in the eunuch's confeffion of faith; when he said, "I believe that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God." If this phrase, Son of God, is only expreffive of his office as Mediator, it coincides with the other phrase, Jefus Chrift; and then the fenfe is, I believe that Chrift is the Chrift, or the Mediator is the Mediator; which fenfe carries in it no distinct ideas. The plain meaning of the confeffion is; I believe that Jefus Chrift, the true Meffiah and Saviour of finners, who was fent into the world for that purpose, is no less a Perfon than the Son of God, who is of the fame nature with God, and equal to him. Likewife, when Saul, upon his converfion, is faid to "preach Chrift in the fynagogues, that he is the "Son of God"." If the term, Son of God, is a term of office, the meaning. muft be, that he preached that Chrift was the Chrift, or the Mediator is the Mediator whereas, the fenfe is, that he preached that the Meffiah, who had lately appeared in the world, with all the true characters of the promised one, was a divine Perfon, no less than the Son of God; who had the fulness of the "Heb. i. 8. ▾ Heb. vii. 27. * John i. 18. |