Christ was the principal ground of calling him Son of 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. 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.

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 language 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, be 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

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 "born 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.

"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? Were 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 incar nation 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;