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 se sitive. 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 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-existBecause this confounds cause and effect.

ence.

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 prerogative 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.

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

at

Christ was the principal ground of calling him Son of er God, then Adam was Son of God in as high sense as Christ; for his nature was no less the immediate effect of God's power than the humanity of Jesus Christ. 70t The angels, being of a more exalted nature than humanity, they would be sons of God in a higher sense than the human nature of Christ. When the apostle Paul to the Hebrews describes the excellence of Christ, and contrasts him with angels, he infers his superiority from this circumstance, that God called him his Son; but never gave this distinguishing appellation to them; and that he promises to be to him a Father, and that he should be to him a Son. Because this promise is in future tense, it does not follow that his humanity is the primary ground of his sonship, or that his sonship originated with his incarnation. As he had not been clearly manifested to the world by that name and in that relationship to the Father before this prediction, it was proper, in view of the manifestation of him as Son in the flesh to make the promise in future time, although the relationship then actually existed. After God delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage, he promised them saying, I will walk among you; and will be your God; and ye shall be my people. This promise is in future time; but who doubts that God walked among them at that time; and at that time he was their God and that they were his people? As the relationship was to continue, it was proper to make the declaration in future tense. As the relationship between the Father and the Son was permanent, it was no less proper to declare it in future than in present time.

e

"Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." If God's declaration to Christ that he would be his Father and that Christ would be his Son, must necessarily be taken in future tense, this declaration of the Psalmist must, by the same necessity, be taken in the present tense. It would, of course, follow that the Son was begotten at the time the Psalm, containing

this declaration, was written. But in prophetic lan- || guage it is not uncommon that one tense is put for another. The prophet Isaiah described the sufferings of the Messiah many centuries before he suffered, in the present, and in the past tense. The prophetic writings, and the peculiar idiom of the Hebrew language admit some variation of tense. “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." The apostle Paul does not consider this passage to have relation to the nativity of Jesus, but to his resurrection. In his address to the men of Israel he said, "We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise, which was made unto the fathers, 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." It appears, of course, that, when Christ is called the first begotten, the only begotten Son, these terms do not designate the origin of his human nature, but are applied to him in a higher and in a more distinguishing sense. The apostle Paul to the Romans, speaking of Christ says, "Declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." He is also called "the first born from the dead." Hence it follows that the terms begotten and born when applied to Christ are not always to be understood literally; that they do not always apply to his nativity.

The discourse, which Gabriel had with Mary, has, more than once, been used to prove that the filiation of Christ originated from his incarnation. "The angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore, also, that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." The holy thing, which was to be born of Mary, was the holy Child Jesus. This Child was called the Son of God. Christ was called the Son of God, the first begotten, the only begotten Son; when the Father

declared, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." These distinguishing and endearing appellations were not applied exclusively to the humanity of Christ. They were applied to him when Divinity and humanity were united. If the humanity of Christ sustained a nearer relationship to the Father than his Divinity, there would be ground for applying the terms, importing the nearest relationship, primarily to his human nature. But as there is not that nearness of relationship between God and a creature that there is in the divine nature, it is presumable that those appellations, which import the nearest relationship, were applied primarily to that nature of Christ, which bore the nearest relationship to the Father. Consequently they could not have a primary reference to his humanity. So intimate was the union between the Divinity and humanity of Christ, that it is not doubted that the name Son might with propriety, bet applied to either nature distinctly or to both natures conjointly; and at the same time primary reference be made to his divine nature.

The apostle to the Galatians, speaking of Christ, says, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman; made under the law, to redeem them that are under the law." This text does not teach how Christ became God's Son. It does not teach that his Sonship originated from his being made of a woman. The original word in this text, translated made, might with much more propriety be translated born. The text, thus translated, would stand in this manner, "God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law." It is not true that the humanity of Jesus was wholly made of a woman. His human spirit was not derived from Mary. She did not impart any portion of her spirit to his body. Spirit is not divisible; and of course it is not a subject of propagation. The body and soul of Jesus were both born of Mary. It is presumable that Divinity was united to his body before his birth, that it was