The term Son, I fuppofe, was then firft affumed when the λογος σαρξ εγενετο, and that therefore the λογος was not necefarily ύιος.

The Aoyos, who exifted in the beginning, who exifted with GOD, who was GOD, who exifted from all eternity, vagy, with GoD, became incarnate, and, in confequence of this incarnation, sarapeda

την δόξαν αυτου δοξαν ὡς μονογενους παρα πατρος, we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. After this, the Evangelift drops the term λογος, and ufes only υιος; and of the ύιος he fays, Ο πατηρ αγαπα τον ύιον και παντα δέδωκεν εν τη XELL AUTOV. But, it is be observed, that this is not faid of the λoyos, but of the Son, i. e. of the man who, by the union of the λoyos with him, became the vos, the Son of GOD. Until then the final period of the difpenfation, all things are delivered into the hands of the Son; but, when that period fhall be fully come, and the victory over death and hell be completely accomplished; when all things fhall be fubdued unto him; then, faith St. Paul, fhall the Son, vos, alfo himself be fubject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. The λoyos will then be altogether in the unity of the Godhead; the delegated power will be revoked from the Son, on whom it had been conferred; and the whole of the difpenfation will be finally clofed, because all its purposes will have been accomplished..

In this view of things JESUS CHRIST, in union with the hoyos, and in that union born the Son of God, is GOD, because the Aoyos is GOD.

In this view also, the application of the word de, in the above-cited inftance, as alfo in many other in frances of a fimilar kind, does not detract at all from the Divinity of the 20yos; for it is fo apyed, in confequence of the filiation which, if I do

น.

err, then took place, when the λoyos vag eye

My reafon for thinking that the filiation then took place, when the λoyos σac eyeveto, is not only derived from what St. John fays, but from the language of the Angel to the Bleffed Virgin, as recorded by St. Luke, i. 35. Πνεύμα άγιον επελεύσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψίςου επισκιασει ο οι· διο και το γεννωμενον άγιον κληθεσεται ύιος Θεου. Therefore, then, it may be concluded, the title, Son of GOD, would be when this event fhould have taken place, and, of course, that in the birth of the λoyos, in union with the σap avρwin, confifted the filiation, and, confequently, that there was no filiation prior to that

event.

The reader is requested to be very particularly attentive to the language of St. John: "In the beginning was the Word," and "the Word was with "GOD," and "the Word was GOD," and "He

66

was

મંદ was in the beginning with GOD;" and after this he adds, "And the Word became flesh, and pitched "his tent with us, and we beheld his glory," that is, the glory of the Word in his becoming flesh," the "glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full "of grace and truth." The Evangelist doth not fay, that the glory of the Word, in his eternal exiftence with GOD, εv apyn weos тov :oy, was the glory as of the only begotten of the Father; but he faith, that the glory of the Word, when he became flesh, was fuch. Therefore, it appears to be the express doctrine of the Evangelift, however it may have been overlooked, that the filiation confifted, and confifted only, in the Word's becoming flesh.

с

The difpenfation of the eaveparos is the difpenfation of the λoyos united with man's nature, and in that difpenfation was the revelation of what the Prophet Jeremiah calls a new thing in the earth, the manifeftation of the Son of GOD, the Xoyos in uniting himfelf with man's nature, εταπείνωσεν εαυτον γενομε vos ηoos. Hence all thofe expreffions of commifνος υπήκοος. fion, delegation, &c. at which so many have ftumbled, they are the neceffary confequence of the new covenant, which God made with man in JESUS CHRIST.

The λoyos, alfo, in uniting himself with man's nature became the Son of GOD. But, as the Son neceffarily must have the nature of that of which it is

1

the Son; fo doth the term Son neceffarily imply fubordination and fubjection to the will of the Father, which fubordination and subjection are as truly such, if voluntary, as if by the neceffity of nature. Therefore, it is no impeachment of our LORD's Divinity, that he was fubordinate, and fubject; therefore, it is no impeachment of it, that he was what a Son neceffarily must be, inferior in respect of the filiation, although not in refpect of nature.

If this reprefentation should be a just one, and it is with the utmoft diffidence and dread that I fuggeft it as fuch, then, I think, many, if not all, those difficulties with which the minds of fome men have been perplexed, will be entirely removed; the feeming contradictions will disappear; and we may all unite in the acknowledgement of the GoD, and of the Man CHRIST JESUS, of the incarnate Word becoming the Son of GoD by his birth in union with man's nature, and of the fubordination and fubjection, as truly annexed to that character as the Divine Nature is by neceffity. But upon a fubject of fuch great importance as this, I dare not take upon myself to decide. If it is true, it will force itfelf upon the minds of all who are rational and temperate; if it is otherwife, I wish it not to be received by any. I acknowledge, that the fuggeftion does not entirely agree with one article in the Nicene Creed as we have it at this day; and, if that shall be thought a fufficient objection to it, I fhall think

it

it

my duty to fubmit: but I am to observe, that the words τον εκ του πατρός γεννηθέντα προ παντων των αιω

wy, are not in the Creed, as it was originally delivered in, and adopted by, the Nicene Fathers, but were added afterwards, although by whom is not certainly known; by fome it is conceived, they were added in the second general council at Conftantinople; by others, that they were added by the Nicene Fathers after the diffolution of the Council. This latter opinion is adopted by the learned Archbishop Uther, in his tract De Symbolis; but, at the same time, he adds, that nothing can, with pofitive certainty, be determined upon the subject, as the acts of the Nicene Council are entirely loft. If, however, they were not added, till after the diffolution of the Council, their authority, I think, will thereby be very much diminished: and at all events, even if they had been in the Creed, as it was originally adopted by the Council, I do not fee how the yevγεν νηθεντα προ πάντων των αιώνων is to be fupported by any thing in the New Teftament; neither do I fee how, by the use of these words, we affirm more ftrongly the Divinity of the Son of GOD than by their omiffion. If we acknowledge him to be oμoovσos, it is fufficient, without endeavouring to reach what lies fo very much beyond us. However, I muft not decide; and, therefore, fhall proceed upon the fame plan as that on which I began.

St.