pretended, that the Father's begetting the Son signifies appointing him to an office; it is evident, that the phrase will not bear such a construction. Nor can it be understood of his birth of the Virgin Mary, in which he became the Son of man, not the Son of God; or of his resurrection, though the apostle in Acts xiii. 33. in speaking of his resurrection, quotes this text, because by his resurrection he was declared to be the Son of God, Rom. i. 4. But neither in his birth nor in his resurrection did he become the Son of God: for it is plain from the 12th verse of this Psalm, that it was the duty of all in David's time to kiss the Son, to worship him as then the Son of God; his Son who had been begotten from eternity. As with God there is neither yesterday -nor to-morrow; but a perpetual present day; So the expression this day, is fitly used to signify, that the generation of the Son was from all eternity. It is true, God says, I will declare the decree But the generation of Son is not the matter or effect of that decree, for that is inconsistent with the literal meaning of the words, which plainly respects the present time, and from which we are not to depart without necessity. On the contrary, this generation is manifestly the foundation of that decree, the matter of which is set forth in the next two verses; for unless Christ had been the true and eternal Son of God, he could never have been ap pointed to be our Mediator or to obtain the kingdom of grace which belongs to him as such.

Another passage to this purpose is that in Prov. viii. 24, 25. When there were no depths I was brought forth: Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth. Wisdom, as applied to God, signifies an essential attribute of his nature: but here, as in many other places, the abstract is put for the concrete, or wisdom for him who is possessed of it. To understand it of an attribute in the abstract would be quite inconsistent with the context. It cannot be said of the attribute of wisdom, that it was brought forth or set up from everlasting; that it was from everlasting by the Lord as one brought up with him. The more we consider the whole context, we will be the more satisfied

that the party speaking is a person; and that this per son is no other than the Lord Christ. As this wisdom was by the Lord when he gave the sea his decree, when he appointed the foundations of the earth; so the Word was in the beginning, and was with God, John i. 1. As this wisdom was the delight of the Father; so Christ is his beloved Son, Matth. iii. 17. As this wisdom was set up or an'inted from everlasting; so the Son was foreordained to the office of Mediator before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter i. 20. As this wisdom was brought forth before the hills; so Christ was before all things, Coloss. i. 17. As by this wisdom kings reign; so Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. As this wisdom calls men to repentance both immediately by herself and by her maidens; Christ did so both in his personal ministry and by his apostles and other ministers. Christ is also called Wisdom in the New Testament, Luke vii. 35. xi. 49. 1 Corinth. i. 24. But no one, who allows the Lord Christ to be the party speaking here, can rationally deny that the expressions in the 24th and 25th verses are to be understood of his eternal generation. The word brought forth is the very same in the original, which David uses to express his own generation, Psal. li. 5. A very different expression, I was set up or anointed, ver. 23. is used to express the eternal appointment of the Son to be our Mediator.

We have also a remarkable passage to this purpose in Micah v. 2. Out of thee, that is, out of Bethlehem, shall he come forth to me, that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting. This passage is an illustrious prophecy of Christ expressly applied to him in the New Testament, Matth. ii. 6. Here is a going forth from everlasting, distinct from another going forth in time. As the going forth in time is to be understood of one sort of generation, which was to belong to him as man; so the going forth from of old, from everlasting, is to be under stood of another sort of generation which had belonged to him as the second Person of the adorable Trini y from eternity. Goings forth are mentioned in the

plural number to represent the incomprehensible perfection of this eternal generation; just as blessedness is used in the 1st v. of the 1st Psalm, in the original Hebrew, to denote the perfection of that blessedness which is secured to the godly as their portion in Christ. The latter going forth cannot be understood of God's decreeing, that Christ should go forth; for the prophet evidently speaks of his going forth itself, and not of any decree about it. By such a gross perversion of language, the going forth or actual existence of all things might be said to be from eternity, because they were eternally decreed.

II. This truth appears from those texts which represent Christ as the only begotten Son of God, John 1. 14. We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only be→ gotten of the Father. See also John iii. 16. 18. 1. John iv. 9. Others are called sons of God, as the angels on account of their creation after the image of God, Job. xxxviii. 7. believers on account of their adoption, John i. 12. magistrates on account of their office as bearing some shadow or resemblance of God's dominion over the creatures, Psal. lxxxii. 6. Now if Christ were the Son of God by creation, by adoption, or by appointment to an office; or if he were begotten of the Father in any of these senses, then he would not be the only begotten of the father; because, upon this supposition, there are others begotten of him in the same way. Thus, it appears that it is vain for the opposers of our doctrine to say, that Christ is the only Mediator; for what is here represented as making the Sonship of Christ peculiar, is the foundation of it, or the personal property of his being begotten of the Father. Christ's being the Son of God upon the ground of the call and appointment of God to an office (it makes no difference whether the office be more or less important) would not be peculiar to himself. Magistrates are called the children of the most High upon this ground. Aaron also might have been called the Son of God upon this ground. And therefore something else must be meant by that begetting, which is a ground of Christ's sonship peculiar to himself: which is such that it would be horrid blasphemy to say, that any creature

was in any degree or in any respect, begotten of the Father in the same sense. Though the Son's being begotten of the Father be an incomprehensible mystery, yet one thing is certam from Divine revelation, which is, that it necessarily carries in it, the Son's pos sessing the same individual Godhead or Divine nature with the Father. In this respect, he is the only begot ten Son of God; and also his own, or his proper Son, as he is called in Rom. viii. 32. and God is called his own Father, his proper Father, John v. 18. If Christ's Sonship were founded in his Mediatory office, then he would be the Son of God in a metaphorical or figura tive sense, not, as the texts now quoted import, in a strict and proper sense.

III. This truth appears from these texts which represent the sending of Christ to be our Saviour as the greatest demonstration that ever was given of the love of God to mankind, in this respect, that the Person sent was his only begotten Son, his own, his proper Son, John iii. 16. Rom. viii. 32. The force or emphasis of this representation is, in a great measure, if not entirely destroyed, when we understand the mediatory office of Christ as founding or constituting his Sonship. According to this opinion, he is the Son of God, because he was sent as our Mediator: whereas it is evidently the sense of these texts, that he was sent as our Mediator, because he was the Son of God; and consequently the only fit Person for that wonderful office. Nay, this opinion would reduce some texts, pregnant with heavenly instruction, to something little better thàn tautology. Thus when it is said, in John iv. 14. The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. These words according to this opinion, would mean, that the Father sent the Saviour to be the Saviour, or the Mediator to be the Mediator; for the character of Christ as a Mediator includes his character as a Saviour; and therefore there can be nothing in the latter but what is in the former

IV. Christ is also called the Son, where there ap pears to be no reference to his Mediatory office, as in Prov. xxx. 4. Who hath ascended up into heaven, or doscended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists ? 147he

hath bound the waters in a garment ? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell? God who is the su preme Governour of all nature, the only true God is here represented as having a Son, whose Sonship, name and glory are incomprehensible.

V. The title Son of God is continually distinguished from such titles as Jesus Christ, the sent of God, High Priest, &c. signifying his Mediatory office, Matth. xvi. 16. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Acts viii. 37. John vii. 29. I am from him, as his eternal Son; and he hath sent me, in the character of Mediator. John viii. 42. The apostle, in Heb. v. 5, 6. op. poses the character of Christ as a Son to that of a ser vant in prefering him to Moses, saying, Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant; but Christ as a Son over his own house. If by Son here we understand the office of Mediator, we destroy the opposition: for, as Mediator, Christ was the Father's servant Isai. xlii. 1. The same observation holds with regard to the opposition implied in Heb. v. 8. For to suppose his being the Son denotes only his being the Messiah whose of fice it was to suffer and die for sinners: would make the apostle say, though it was his work to learn obedi ence by sufferings, yet he learned obedience by sufferings. He was made Lord and Christ, Act. ii. 16. He was made an High Priest, Heb. vii. 16, 28. But he Is never said to be made the Son of God. VI. This truth appears from Matth. xxviii. 19. and 1 John v. 7. Father and Son are correlates; and if the second Person was not a Son previous to the Mediatory office; neither was the first Person a Father previous to it if the one be not the eternal Son, neither is the other the eternal Father. "These glorious persons," as one observes," are distinguished from each other by per"sonal characters, by personal properties and relations. "But if there be no Father and Son in the Trinity, ❝ there can be no such distinctions. And if all personal • distinctions be lost, a Trinity of persons must be given "up with, or it must land in the distinction of three "Divine Beings,-three Gods."

:

See a view of the Covenant of Grace by Mr. Gib.