united at the time of his conception; that both natures were brought into the world in union. Before Jesus was born, he was called that holy thing. Though the holy thing might embrace only his humanity; yet it was probably called holy, not only on account of his immaculate conception, but on account of his union with Divinity. It is evident that divine nature was in union with the child Jesus immediately after his birth, because he was called Emmanuel, which signifies, "God with us." The name would not be appropriate if divine nature were not united with the human nature of Jesus. As there is nothing recorded, which affords evidence that such union occurred after his birth, it is presumable that it occurred before this event. In view of these suggestions the text under consideration reads naturally, "God sent forth his Son." He sent him forth from heaven. He was "boru of a woman" in conjunction with human nature. He was "born under the law;" he was born under the Jewish dispensation, and was subject to the institutions and ordinances of the ceremonial law. In his human nature he was subjected to death. Though he knew no sin himself; yet he suffered death for the sins of others. Were "The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." These words Christ spoke, when he was in the flesh. When he made this declaration, did he design to convey the idea that his human nature was in the bosom of the Father, and that his human nature had declared him? these the primary ideas that he designed to convey by this declaration? Does the appellation, the only begotten Son, in this text, apply primarily to the humanity of Christ? Christ's Divinity is in more intimate union with the Father than his humanity. When he is said to be in the bosom of the Father, it has of course a primary reference to his Divinity. Christ, in his divine nature has declared the Father much more than he has in his human nature. When . he is said to declare him, it has, of course, a primary reference to his divine nature. Some communication was made in the Old Testament respecting the Father and the Son. If the relationship, which these names import, actually existed at that time, why was it not more fully and distinctly revealed? For the same reason, undoubtedly, for which the doctrine of the Trinity, and the scheme of redemption were not so fully and distinctly revealed in the Old, as in the New Testament. God revealed himself, and unfolded his gracious designs by degrees. So intimate was the connexion between the doctrine of the Trinity and the plan of salvation, that the unfolding of the one would, in a great measure, unfold the other. As God designed not to make a full display of the method of salvation till after the incarnation of his Son, he of course, withheld a propor tionate display of the relationship which subsisted in the divine nature. As the economy of redemption depended on this relationship, it appears proper that they should be revealed proportionably and together. In the Old Testament the divine nature was revealed by many names. Among others, it was revealed by the names Father and Son. Did not a relationship then subsist between these two, which was a proper ground for applying to them these relative names? Or, were these names applied to them only in view of a relationship, which was afterwards to subsist? In support of the affirmative of the latter question it is argued, "We say, when king David kept his father's sheep. But he was not king when he kept them. We say, when king Solomon was born. Yet he was not born king nor Solomon. But afterward being known by both the office and the name, these are carried back to his birth, when his birth is spoken of. One says, my father was born in such a year. He does not mean that he was born his father." From these premises it is inferred that when it is said, "God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son; God sent forth his Son;" these declarations do not import that Christ was son before he was sent; but that "the plain meaning appears to be, God sent his beloved Logos, the darling of his bosom, infinitely dear, as one with himself, who took human nature, and was manifested as the only begotten Son of God." This reasoning does not appear to be correct. Because the examples adduced are not parallel with the subject under consideration. The examples take the present name, relationship and office of persons, and apply the same to them at a past period of their life. But, according to the argument, the subject takes the future name of Christ, and applies it to him at the present time. If it be proper to apply the present name of a person to him in a past condition of life, it does not follow that it is proper to apply the future name of a person to him in his present state. The premises and the conclusion are not analogous; and of course the argument is not correct; and the inference is not conclusive. In the divine nature the same relationship always has subsisted and always will subsist. Among creatures new relationships, arise; and as creatures come into existence relationships arise between them and their Creator. But there is no change in the divine Being. If there be ground in the divine nature now for calling one of the Trinity Father and another Son, there always was ground for the application of these relative names. If one of the Trinity was manifested to the world as Son of God, there was ground in his nature for this manifestation before he appeared in the world. His coming into the world and assuming human nature did not affect his relation to the others of the Trinity. His humanity commenced its relationship with God, but his Divinity no more commenced a relationship with the Father, than it commenced existence. Whatever his human nature may be called, it does not affect the proper name of his divine nature. There is a certain relationship subsisting between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The question now is, whether there appears to be ground in the divine nature for calling one of them Son? There is no dispute that one is called Father. He is not so called in relation to creatures; because when their Father is named, it is God without the distinction of individuality. When one of the Trinity is called Father, it is in relation to another of the Trinity. If it be proper to call the first Father in relation to the second, it is proper to call the second Son in relation to the first. The great love of God toward the human race is argued in the scriptures from his not sparing his own Son; but delivering him up for us all. If God's Son imports no more than the man Christ Jesus, God did not manifest an extraordinary love for the human race in giving him up in sacrifice. If a prince should subject to death one of his subjects for the sake of the preservation of the rest, he would not display an extraordinary love for them. Any prince would do the same. But if, for this purpose he should expose to death his own, and only son, who was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, he would give decisive evidence of his exceedingly great love for his subjects. If God has exposed one of the Trinity, who was in the most near and endearing relationship to himself, to all the insolence and violence, which an ungrateful world could offer him, it cannot be doubted that he entertained an affectionate regard for his human rebellious subjects. Because the sacrifice of his Son was efficacious and satisfactory, there is the strongest evidence that the Son was of higher nature and dignity than mere humanity. The sacred scriptures testify that God sent his Son into the world. This mode of expression conveys the idea that Christ was his Son, when he sent him; and that the act of sending him, or of attaching human nature to him, did not make him his Son. If it be said that a man sends his son on business it is understood that the child is really a son at the time he was sent; and not that he is to be made a son by any future act. God's sending his Son into the world, signifies his sending one of the Trinity upon earth among mankind. This act of sending the Son, cannot have reference to his introduction to the duties of his office, because he was in the world before this time. To say he was sent into the world after he was in the world, would not be a correct mode of expression. If the Son whom God sent into the world, was one of the Trinity, there was the same ground for calling him Son before, as there was after he was sent. No new relation has ever been formed between them; and he that was sent from heaven, has, ever since the apostasy, stood in the same relation to the human race. He has been appointed to no new office since that time. He has acted in no office since that time, which would appropriately give him the name Son. The apostle Paul to the Hebrews, has given infor mation on what ground he received this name. He obtained by inheritance, or he hath inherited, (according to the original) the name Son. "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained, or he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." The apostle gives us to understand that the name, which was better than that of the angels was Son; and he expressly says he inherited this name. Many of his names were official. He was called Messiah, Jesus, Lord, Christ, Mediator, Redeemer. These names he did not inherit in the same sense. They were given him on account of the offices, which he sustained. The name Son, he inherited. He was entitled to it by the relationship, which subsisted between him and the Father |
