“Whether the terms, Son of God, and only-begotten Son of God, be not expressive of his divine personality, antecedent to all consideration of his being conceived of the holy Spirit, in the womb of the Virgin, let the following things determine.
“First: The glory of the only-begotten of the Father, and the glory of the Word, are used as convertible terms, as being the same: but the latter is allowed to denote the divine person of Christ, antecedent to his being made flesh; the same therefore must be true of the former. The Word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory; that is, the glory of the Word, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John i. 14. It is true, it was by the Word being made flesh, and dwelling amongst us, that his glory became apparent; but the glory itself was that of the eternal Word, and this is the same as the glory of the only-begotten of the Father.
“Secondly: The Son of God is said to dwell in the bosom of the Father; that is, he is intimately acquainted with his character and designs, and therefore fit to be employed in making them known to men. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John i. 18. If this be applied to his divine person, or that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us, 1 John i. 2. it is natural and proper; it assigns his omniscience as qualifying him for making known the mind of God: but if he became the only-begotten of the Father by his miraculous conception, or by any other means, the beauty of the passage vanishes.
“Thirdly: God is frequently said to have sent his Son into the world: John vii. 17. x. 36. 1 John iv. 9, 10. but this implies that he was his Son antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no less absurd than supposing that when Christ is said to have sent forth his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but in consequence of his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their mission.
“Fourthly: Christ is called the Son of God antecedently to his miraculous conception, and consequently he did not become such by it.—In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law—God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh. Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 3.—The terms, made of a woman, made under the law, are a parenthesis. The position affirmed is, that God sent forth his Son to redeem the transgressors of the law. His being made of a woman, and made under the law, or covenant of works, which man had broken, expressed the necessary means for the accomplishment of this great end; which means, though preceding our redemption, yet follow the sonship of the Redeemer. There is equal proof that Christ was the Son of God before he was made of a woman, as that he was the Word before he was made flesh. The phraseology is the same in the one case as in the other. If it be alleged that Christ is here called the Son of God on account of his being made of a woman, I answer, If so, it is also on account of his being made under the law, which is too absurd to admit of a question.—Moreover: To say that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, is equal to saying that the Son of God assumed human nature: he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation.
“Fifthly: Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his being manifested to destroy the works of the devil: but he was manifested to destroy the works of the devil by taking upon him human nature; consequently, he was the Son of God antecedent to the human nature being assumed. There is equal proof from the phraseology of 1 John iii. 8. that he was the Son of God antecedent to his being manifested to destroy the works of the devil, as there is from that of 1 Tim. iii. 16. that he was God antecedent to his being manifested in the flesh; or from 1 John i. 2, that that eternal life, which was with the Father, was such antecedent to his being manifested to us.
“Sixthly: The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matt. xxviii. 19. The terms, Father and Holy Spirit, will be allowed to denote divine persons; and what good reasons can be given for another idea being fixed to the term Son?
“Seventhly: The proper deity of Christ precedes his office of Mediator, or High Priest of our profession, and renders it an exercise of condescension. But the same is true of his sonship: He maketh the Son a High Priest—Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience. Heb. vii. 28. v. 8. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the same thing as his being a divine person.
“Eighthly: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives dignity to his office of Mediator: but this dignity is ascribed to his being the Son of God. We have a GREAT High Priest; Jesus, the Son of God. Heb. iv. 14. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the same thing as his being a divine person.
“Lastly: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives efficacy to his sufferings—By HIMSELF he purges our sins. Heb. i. 3. But this efficacy is ascribed to his being the Son of God—The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John i. 7. His being the Son of God therefore amounts to the same thing as his being a divine person.