cerning the Sonfhip of Chrift have proceeded. And till this fundamental point is properly eftablished, it is impoffible with accuracy to determine in what character our Blessed Saviour is held forth to us in Scripture as the proper and begotten Son of God.. Generation or begetting is fometimes in Scripture, and in common language, applied to things without life, Job. xxxviii. 28. and fometimes to the converfion of mankind to religion, 1 Cor. iv. 15. 1 John v. 1, 18. But this is only in a metaphorical fenfe. In ftrict language it is applicable only to the procreation of living beings; and when used for begetting fons, it is in Scripture reftricted to the production of the human offspring; and from the analogy there is betwixt them, tranf ferred to the generation of the Son of God, Generation confifts not in the production of a being into existence, that had no fort of existence before. That is a creation, not a generation. According to the most accurate difcoveries, every animal, and human being, exifts in a living, animalcular ftate, previous to its generation. It exifts in the father, partaker of his nature, and one with him in effence, yet diftinguished from him by its individual fubfiftence. This its original existence and character depend not on the will of its father; but flow from the fame conftitution of nature as the father himself. Nor does generation confift in any future acceffion of paternal nature for the increase of this human principle. While it continues in this original ftate, it may exift with the father in the fame manhood; but never is, nor can be called his fon and as it cannot be denominated the son of the father, much lefs can it have a filial relation to its mother, with whom it has only a capability of connexion, but is not yet connected. connected. In what then does generation properly confift? It confifts in the unition of this original living principle, communicated by the father as the chief conftituent of the future child, with another and an ad- + -ditional fubftance derived from, the mother in conception, forming the complex perfon procreated of both, and who from this generation, and participation of the substance of both parents, is when born into the world called the son of both. This is the general and acknowledged theory of generation. It fuppofes a pre-existence of the original living principle in the father, and which is of the fame nature with him. It imports the acceffion of a proper fubftance alfo derived from the mother, as neceffary to conftitute the complex perfon or child, and give it connexion with, and relation and refemblance to, each of its parents. This is performed by the agency of the father, the activity of the original and originating principle, and the conception of the mother. The original principle continues through its future exiftence, as the chief conftituent of the perfon begotten: yet by its union with an additional nature, its general character and name are changed. It is now called a fon, a fon begotten by his father, conceived and born of his mother, and partaking the nature of each parent, is indifcriminately denominated from the one, or from the other. Such are the terms in which the generation and conception of our Bleffed Saviour are expreffed in Scripture, and fuch is their juft import. When God reprefents the most important truths of religion, to be perceived and believed by his reafonable creatures, he must represent them in terms the most proper to exprefs the things fignified as C 2 they they really are; and to convey the knowledge of them with greateft clearness to our minds. If metaphors are ufed, they must be fuch as ftrongly refemble the things reprefented by them. In fuch figurative ftyle, indeed, it is neither neceffary nor poffible that the agreement hold in every point. Yet it is abfolutely neceflary that it hold in the capital ones; otherwife the metaphor were ufed in vain; or, mifrepresenting the thing meant to be described by it, were worse than vain. But when the thing reprefented is not only greatly analogous to that from which the reprefentation is taken, but in many things the fame with it; the agreement between the fign and the thing fignified must be more full and particular. Such is the fubject of our prefent confideration. In feveral particulars the Son of God in his generation and character muft widely differ from, and infinitely tranfcend the generation of mere men by which it is explained to us; and there whatever correfponds not to the glorious fubject must be removed, and the comparison ftop. But the conftant unlimited ufe of the metaphor, if we ought to call it fuch, by the God of truth, gives every Chriftian the higheft reafon to believe it will hold in all the inftances in which the comparison is made and ought reafonably to be interpreted: and from the general refemblance of the fubjects, we fhall find that without either ftraining the metaphor, or degrading, in any refpect, the divine perfon and character of our glorious Redeemer, it will apply in more inftances, and contribute more to illuftrate this important article of our holy religion, than at firft view we may be apt to imagine. This declared analogy between the generation of the fons of men, and that of the Son of God, and the juft notion wherein generation con fifts, fifts, must be a proper touchstone for determining the true ground and import of our Saviour's Sonfhip. If in any of the explications that have been given of this article, the effential ideas of generation do not apply at all, we need no other evidence that fuch explications are falfe. The more fully any explication of the fubject correfponds with thofe terms in which God has described it, the greater evidence we shall have of its truth; and that which holds in every effential point will carry every proof that it is the true one. We go on therefore III.To fhew the improper and imperfect fenfes in which our Saviour has been reprefented as the Son of God, and the mistaken or infufficient evidence upon which they have been founded. What fome of these fenfes are, has been intimated in the Introduction: and many more are to ` be met with, especially among Socinian writers, who have reprefented their Saviour as the Son of God in every fenfe imaginable, however nugatory and improper, provided they could deprive him of what is not only his highest glory, but the chief ground of his being the begotten Son of X God, the divinity of his perfon. But it were trifling to confider opinions that are not only without all fhadow of evidence from revelation, or the nature of the thing, but clearly repugnant to both. The chief fenfes in which with any appearance of evidence Chrift has been confidered as the Son of God, are the four following, viz. From the generation of his divine perfon by the Father from all eternity. 2. From the miraculous formation of his human nature by the power of God at his incarnation. 3. From his confecration by God to the character and office of Meffiah. 4. From his refurrection by the divine power from the dead, and the dignity and honour to which he was exalted. Thefe we fhall thortly examinein their order, and shall show that none of them anfwer properly to the character uniformly given. him as the begotten Son of God, nor are fupported with real evidence from Scripture. 1. The first and most received opinion in which Chrift has been believed to be the Son of God, holds him to have been generated as fecond perfon of the Godhead by the first perfon from all eternity, by which the divine effence and perfections were communicated by the first person as the Father to the second, as a Son thus begotten of him. In this fenfe many of the fathers after the apoftolic ages begun incautiously to confider Christ as the Son of God, which paved the way to Arianifm.The Nicene and Poft-Nicene fathers. however adhered to this explication of his Sonfhip, imagining they could best maintain his coeffentiality with the Father in oppofition to the Arians upon this ground. In this however there. is a real mistake; for though by holding Chrift thus begotten of the Father, they feemed to enfure to him the fame effence, yet by giving him not an original felf-exiftent, but a derived divinity, they deprived him of fome of the moft eflential characters of fupreme Deity, and fo exposed the caufe they meant to defend. The schoolmen afterwards, founding more upon the fathers and their own metaphyfical theories, than upon an accurate ftudy of the facred oracles, made it the diftinguishing character of the firft perfon in the Godhead to generate the fecond; and the perfonal property of the fecond perfon, that he was generated by the firft, and fo held Chrift to be the Son of God by the generation of his divine perfen. The divines of the reformed religion adhered to the doctrines of |