low that his nature is inferior. It is common language to say, one person is the very image of another. But this expression is never understood to mean that he, who is called the image, is inferior to him, of whom he is the image. The name, or the office of Mediator does not necessarily imply that he, who acts in this office, is inferior to either party, between whom he mediates. There is no higher name given to the Deity than the name Jehovah. This name is given to the Son. It is believed that the unqualified name Jehovah is not given to any creature. If there be any proof of divinity from a name, the Son has as high proof as the Father.

The

Some works are peculiar to the Father. Others are peculiar to the Son. This is not strange, as they hold different offices. The Father begat the Son. "This day have I begotten thee;" Ps. 2:7. Father sent the Son into the world. He gave him all authority in heaven and in earth. He hath highly exalted him. Christ was begotten. He came into the world and assumed human nature. "The Word was made flesh;" John 1:14. He humbled, or emptied himself. He died; rose, ascended to the Father; and makes intercession. He made an atonement for sin.

We are taught by the word of inspiration in what sense the Father begat the Son. "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;" Acts 13:13. This act of begetting, therefore, relates only to the body of Jesus Christ. Nothing, of course, can be inferred from this respecting that nature of his, which had glory with the Father before the world

was.

The act of sending does not imply that he, who sends, possesses a higher nature than the one who was sent. It only designates superiority of office. The chief magistrate of a nation sends an ambassador to a foreign court. This act affords no evidence that

the former possesses a nature superior to the latter; or that he possesses higher qualifications. It only proves his higher office. All things were delivered unto Christ by the Father. All authority in heaven and in earth were given to him. This communication does not imply an imparting of any qualities or qualifications to him. It rather implies that he possessed the necessary qualifications for this office. It is not difficult to imagine what qualifications are necessary in order to exercise all authority in heaven and in earth. To receive this authority only implies a subordination of office.

Because Christ was exalted by the Father, it has been inferred that he was not divine, as Divinity is not capable of exaltation. The man Christ Jesus receives great reward, great honor, great exaltation in consequence of the part he performed on earth.

He is seated on the right hand of God. If it be admitted that the Son of God was in a state of humiliation when he was upon earth; that he emptied himself of that glory, which he had with the Father before the world was, there will be no difficulty in admitting his exaltation, when he returns to his former glory; and as Savior receives the bowing of every knee, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth; and the confession of every tongue that he is Lord. Such is the union of nature and connexion of office between the Son and the Father, that this exaltation, this glory of the Son will also be "to the glory of God the Father."

The peculiar union of the Son of God with humanity affords no evidence against his Divinity. While he was in the man Christ Jesus, he concealed, in a great measure, the glories of his nature; and he suffered a reproach, an ignominy, which before had not been given him. But this concealment of his glory, this dishonor offered to him does not imply a change in his nature. If a king descend from his throne, assume the appearance of one of his subjects, and receive rude

treatment from them, these circumstances effect no change in his nature, nor do they imply it. We do not attempt to explain the union, which subsists between the Son of God and the son of man. When those, who maintain that God the Father was in Jesus Christ; that the fulness of the Godhead, which dwelt bodily in him was the Father, not the Son, will explain that union of Deity with humanity, their explanation will answer our purpose as well as theirs.

If Adam could with propriety be called Son of God, with the same propriety could Christ, in respect to his human nature, be called Son of God. Adam was formed by the immediate act of divine power. The child Jesus was also formed by the immediate act of the same power. But in a different, and in a higher sense is Christ the Son of God. He is not only called Son, but he is called the own Son; the dearly beloved Son; the first begotten, the only begotten Son. These additions to his name are marks of peculiar distinction.

The term son, when applied to Adam, in relation to his heavenly Father, has a signification different from what it has, when applied to any of the human race, in relation to their earthly parents. If the relative term son, necessarily implied derived existence, then the first man as literally derived his nature from the substance of God, as children derive their natures from the substance of their parents. But a word does not always signify the same thing. Sometimes it is used in an extensive, sometimes in a restricted sense. Sometimes it is used literally, sometimes figuratively. When a word is used figuratively, there is a resemblance between the thing signified by it literally, and the thing signified by it figuratively. When God is called a rock, the propriety of the figure arises from some points of resemblance between God and a rock. The qualities of this hard substance are expressive of the steadfastness and durability of the divine nature. Christ is called a shield. This piece

of armor was formerly used in war to secure the body from the weapons of the enemy. Christ is a defence against the attacks of the great adversary. The Savior is called a vine. A vine has many branches, and it supports them all. The Savior has many members, and they all derive support from him. Christ is called a shepherd. A shepherd feeds and defends his flock. Christ feeds his followers with spiritual food; and he defends them against the attacks of their enemies. Many other names are figuratively applied to Christ. Because he is called a Shield, a Vine, a Shepherd, it does not follow that he is literally a shield, a vine, a shepherd. The propriety and force of these appellations arise from some striking resemblance there is between the Savior and those things, by whose name he is called. Figurative language is peculiarly significant and striking. When it is wished to convey ideas of an object, with which people are but little acquainted, no method is so concise and eligible, as to compare it with something, or call it by a name, with which people are acquainted. Then, by selecting the most prominent qualities of the best known part of the comparison, they may be applied to that part of the comparison, which is less known. By this method ideas are frequently conveyed with greater clearness and force. When Christ wished to impress it upon the minds of people that he pointed out the course, which led to heaven; that only through his merits and mediation mankind could have access to the mercy-seat; that he communicates only truth; that he was the origin and support of spiritual life in the soul, it was with peculiar pertinence and force he said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life."

1

It may be inquired how it can be known when a passage of scripture is to be understood literally, and when it is to be understood figuratively. Without giving any general directions in answer to this inquiry, it is sufficient for the present purpose to lay down one particular rule; viz. if any text or expression of scrip

ture, taken literally, be an impossibility or an absurdity, it must be taken figuratively. For example, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." As it is impossible that a real hating of these near connexions should be a necessary ingredient in the character of Christ's disciples, the word hate, must be understood in a comparative or figurative sense. The phrase, Son of God, cannot be understood in a literal sense; because it is impossible that God should have a Son derived from his nature, as a child is derived from its parents. It is impossible that divine nature, and divine attributes should be communicated, unless the original proprietor sustained a loss of them. It is impossible there should be two separate and distinct divine natures, without admitting the existence of two gods. If the expression, Son of God, cannot be taken literally, it must be taken figuratively.

As Christ is called the Son of God, as he cannot be his literal and proper Son, it may be expected there is a striking resemblance between the relationship, which Jesus Christ bears to the Father, and the relationship, which a son bears to his parents. Although we cannot comprehend the mode of divine subsistence, yet there are points of coincidence in the comparison, which give beauty and force to the figure.

1. There is a similarity of nature between a son and his father. There is often a family likeness. A son often inherits the aspect of his father. He often inherits the distinguishing characteristics of body and md, which his father possessed. His moral nature and character often resemble those of his father. Though there be some dissimilarity between a father and his son; yet there are probably no two objects in the rational world, which sustain a more striking resemblance. Their bodies are of similar substance and of similar configuration. Their minds are of similar natures, and of similar powers and faculties.