the Father. They held, that the Father had a power to beget, and the Son had a power to be begotten.

There appears to be no small degree of inconsistency in this hypothesis. It supposes that there is no other difference between the Father and the Son, than this; the Father had a power to beget. But what did he beget? He begat the person of the Son; i. e. according to the hypothesis, he begat a power in the Son to be begotten. The hypothesis first supposes the existence of the Son; then it supposes the production of some distinguishing personal quality, which he already possessed. Or it supposes that he possesses some adventitious quality, for which he was entirely dependent. To avoid the imputation of dependence. to Christ, they maintained the eternal generation of the Son. Thus they secured their sentiment from refutation in the obscurity of language.

The human nature of Christ was begotten; but his divine nature was unbegotten. The Son of God was always the same in his nature and attributes, and in his union and relationship to his heavenly Father. In a figurative sense he might be said to be begotten, when he actually came into the office of Redeemer; received mediatorial authority, and became submissive to God the Father. He might be said to be begotten, when he was manifested on earth in the office of Redeemer; and by the name, Son of God. Those are said to be begotten, who are brought out of one state into another. Paul to the Corinthians says, "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." To Philemon he says, "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds." Christ may be said to be begotten by his resurrection from the dead. By this act he was more fully declared to the world than he before had been. Before this time, even his disciples were exceedingly ignorant of him; the design of his coming, and the nature of his kingdom. By his resurrection his own prophecy was

fulfilled, and he was in a capacity for making more full displays of the divine will by making more copious communications of the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul appears to have viewed the resurrection of Christ in this light when he said to the Jews, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." The circumstances attending Christ in his introduction into office; his introduction into the world; his resurrection from the dead, are similar in some respects to the production of a human son. The circumstances are so analogous that there is a foundation for calling Christ a begotten Son.

Christ is also called the only begotten Son. By the law of analogy there is a striking propriety in this expression. In his human nature no one was ever so begotten as he was. In his divine nature no one ever sustained those offices; that intimate union and near relationship to the Father, which he sustained. Parents often feel an extraordinary affection for an only, or an only begotten son. When God required Abraham to offer Isaac in sacrifice, he commanded him saying, take now thy son, thine only son. The apostle, speaking of the faith of Abraham, calls Isaac his only begotAt that time Abraham had another, and an

ten son. older son. But he had an extraordinary affection for this younger son; and on account of this strong affection, God called him his only son; and by the mouth of his apostle he called him his only begotten son. There is analogy in nature, therefore, for calling Christ the only begotten Son of God. The Father loves him with an everlasting love. He loves him for the excellence of his nature, and for the fulfilment of the duties of his offices. No language was better calculated to convey the idea of God's great love to Christ than this.

་

Christ is repeatedly called in the scriptures the first born, the first begotten. This language is also figura

tive. The propriety and force of this figure arise from the peculiar prerogatives of the first born of God's ancient chosen people. The first born was principal heir of his father's substance. He had dominion over his brethren. Isaac, in blessing Jacob, said, "Be lord over thy brethren; and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee." It was the privilege of the first born to have the priest's office. In all these respects there is such a similarity between the prerogatives of the first born and the prerogatives of Christ, that there is a peculiar propriety in calling him the first born. God hath appointed him heir of all things. Christ is said to be the first born among many brethren, denoting he has dominion over them. It is written, that the Father hath given him authority to execute judgment; that all power is given to him in heaven and in earth. He performed the duties of a priest. He was formally consecrated to the priest's office. He made intercession for the people, and offered sacrifice for their sins.

Christ is called the first born of every creature. Some have understood by this that he is the first created being. It has been shewn in what sense he is the first born; and it appears that in all things he has the preeminence. Besides, the original, from which this passage is translated, might with equal propriety be rendered, born before every creature. Christ is likewise the first born, the first begotten from the dead. He is called the first fruits of them that slept. Christ was first born from the dead in respect to his dignity. He was Lord of the dead. Never did the tomb hold so glorious a prisoner. Never did such circumstances attend the resurrection of any other. This holy One did not see corruption. His resurrection was first, or he was the first born from the dead, inasmuch as his resurrection proved, and was the procuring cause of the resurrection of those, who had been, or would be, under the dominion of death. "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; but now

is Christ risen and become the first fruits of them that slept."

In the writings of the Old Testament God called Christ the Son, and my Son. From these expressions the Jews expected that the Messiah was the Son of God; and it appears they expected he would appear with that title, and in that character. Although Jesus Christ was somewhat obscurely revealed under the Jewish dispensation; yet the phrase, the Son, my Son, had, in their opinion, a peculiar and appropriate meaning, a meaning different from the term son, when applied to any of the human race.

The Jews, in consequence of the revelations, which they possessed, expected a glorious personage in the Messiah. Had their expectations been realised in respect to his appearance, it seems, according to human calculation, that they would have acknowledged him to be the Messiah; that they would not have been offended, if he had claimed the title, Son of God. But when they saw his humble appearance; when they saw his object was different from what they expected, they viewed him as a mere man. When he called God his Father; when he called himself the Son of God, they considered him making pretensions to divinity; assuming the place of the Messiah; and making himself equal with God. They supposed the title implied divine nature. They, of course, considered him blasphemous when he made such pretensions. As he did not correct them for error in their construction of the title Son of God, it is presumable they put a right construction upon it.

Because a son signifies a natural descendant from parents, it does not follow that the divine Son is a natural descendant from his heavenly Father. We often reason from one thing to another. But the rules of analogy are of limited extent; and they are greatly confined in their application. There is a resemblance and proportion between different things in some particulars. But beyond a certain extent resemblance

and proportion fail. There is a resemblance between a man and a brute. Their bodies are material, and they are both sensitive. But, because the rational principle in man is capable of improvement, it does not follow that the instinct of brutes possesses the same capacity. Because the bodies of both are mortal, it does not follow that both will be reorganized and reanimated. The human mind bears some resemblance to the divine mind. It was formed after its likeness. But there is no proportion between what is finite and what is infinite. Because God has given a power to human nature to produce and perpetuate its kind, it follows, God has a power to produce the same kind. The inference is corroborated by the fact, that he did originally produce it. But from these premises it does not follow that he has a power to produce a divine species. No rules of logic, no analogy of nature will justify such an inference. It is a natural impossibility that infinite power should produce infinite power; that an eternal Being should produce an eternal Being; that self-existence should produce self-existence. Because this confounds cause and effect. It is a natural impossibility that a divine nature should not have divine attributes. Because a nature is designated by its attributes. It is a natural impossibility that divine attributes should be limited by any thing foreign from their own nature. Because it is the rogative of divine attributes that they have no superior. As far as there are points of likeness and proportion between things there is analogy; and so far analogical reasoning may be used, and no further.

pre

To obviate the sentiment that Christ is Son of God by derivation, it is not necessary to have recourse to the peculiar mode of the conception of his humanity as a primary reason of his sonship. Without doubt this is one reason, for which he is called Son of God; but for other and more important reasons he is called the Son of God, the first begotten, the only begotten, the dearly beloved, the own Son. If the humanity of