ing that possessed a body, would be equally capable of enduring it. True, they might endure it: but would their suffering have answered the same end? Would it have satisfied justice? Would it have had the same effect upon the nation, or tended equally to restore the tone of injured authority? Some have placed all the virtue of the atonement in the appointment of God. But, if so, why was it "not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin*?" It does not accord with the divine proceedings to be prodigal of blood, especially in a superior character, where one far inferior might answer the same end. When, in order to try Abraham, Isaac was bound, and ready to be sacrificed, a lamb was found for a burnt offering: and if any gift from the divine Father, short of that of his only-begotten Son, would have answered the great purposes of moral government, there is no reason to think that he would have made Him a sacrifice; but would have "spared him," and not "freely have delivered him up for us all." It has been objected against the necessity of Christ's being a divine person, in order to his making atonement, That if he who makes atonement be infinite, it must needs be followed by the salvation of the whole human race. But this objection supposes that the number of the saved is to be proportioned to the ability of the Saviour: and then it would seem, that Christ being a mere man, he saved all that his finite merit would extend to. With just as much propriety might it be alleged, that the power by which we were created could not be infinite; for if it had, there must then have been an infinite number of worlds in existence. And the wisdom and goodness by which we are saved * Heb. x. 4. cannot be infinite; for if so, all the world, and the fal-, len angels too, would be interested in that salvation. In short, the deity and atonement of Christ have always, among thinking people, stood or fell together; and with them almost every other important doctrine of the gospel. The person of Christ is the foundationstone on which the church is built. An error therefore on this subject, affects the whole of our preaching, and the whole of our religion. In the esteem of the apostle Paul, that which nullified the death of Christ, was accounted to be another gospel; and he expressed his wish that those who propagated it, and so troubled the churches, were "cut off*." The principle maintained by the Galatians, it is true, did not consist in á denial of the deity of Christ; but the consequence is the same. They taught that justification was by the works of the law, from whence the apostle justly inferred that "Christ is dead in vain." And he who teaches that Christ is a mere creature, holds a doctrine which renders his sufferings of none effect. If the deity of Christ be a divine truth, it cannot reasonably be denied that it is of equal importance with the doctrine of justification by his righteousness. If therefore a rejection of the latter was deemed a 66 perversion of the gospel," nothing less can be ascribed to the rejection of the former. 134 THE meaning of the terms, Son of God, only-be gotten 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 Gai. i. 6. ii. 12. v. 12. faith. 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 the Son, or only-begotten Son of God. Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It has been thought that the phrase Son 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 ge neration 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 * John vi. 69. iii. 18. xx. 31. Aets xviii. 37. 1 John iv. 15. the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It may be a reason given why Christ is called the Son of God; but not why he is so. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the dead, and as exalted at the righthand of God*. 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 hereby proved, acknowledged, or, as the scriptures express it, declared to be the Son of God with power, all is easy and consistent. Whether the terms, Son of God, and only-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 the only-begotten of the Father, and the glory of the Word, 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. It is true, it was by the Word being made flesh, and dwelling amongst us, that his glory became apparent; but the glory itself was that of the eternal Word, and this is the same as the glory of the only-begotten of the Father. *Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 4, 5. † John i. 14, Secondly: The Son of God is said to dwell 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*. If this be applied to his divine person, or that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us†, it is natural and proper; it assigns his omniscience as qualifying him for making known the mind of God: but if he became the onlybegotten of the Father by his miraculous conception, or by any other means, the beauty of the passage vanishes. Thirdly: God is frequently said to have sent his Son into the world: 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 fleshS-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 pre+ John vii. 17. x. 36. 1 John * John i. 18. † 1 John i. 2. |