sideration 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. It is true, it was by the Word being made flesh, and dwelling among 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 onlybegotten 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. If this be applied to his divine person, or that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us, 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 but this implies that he was his Son antecedently to his being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no less absurd than supposing that when Christ sent forth his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but that they became such 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. The terms, made of a woman, made under the law, are a paren

thesis. 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, expresses 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. The terms, Father and Holy Spirit, will be allowed to denote divine persons; and what good reasons can be given for another idea 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. 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. 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. But this efficacy is ascribed to his being the Son of God: The blood of Jesus Christ, HIS SON, cleanseth us from all sin. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the same thing as his being a divine person.

Those who attribute Christ's sonship to his miraculous conception, (those however to whom I refer,) are nevertheless constrained to allow that the term implies proper divinity. Indeed, this is evident from from John v. 18. where his saying that God was his own Father, is supposed to be making himself equal with God. But if the miraculous conception be the proper foundation of his sonship, why should it contain such an implication? A holy creature might be produced by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, which yet should be merely a creature; that is, he might, on this hypothesis, profess to be the Son of God, and yet be so far from making himself equal with God, as to pretend to be nothing more than a man.

It has been objected, that Christ, when called the Son of God, is commoly spoken of as engaged in the work of mediation, and not simply as a divine person antecedent to it.—I answer, In a history of the rebellion in the year 1745, the name of his Royal Highness, the commander-in-chief, would often be mentioned in connexion with his equipage and exploits; but none would infer from hence that he thereby became the king's son.

It is further objected, that sonship implies inferiority, and therefore cannot be attributed to the divine person of Christ.-But, whatever inferiority may be attached to the idea of sonship, it is not an inferiority of nature, which is the point in question: and if

any regard be paid to the scriptures, the very contrary is true. Christ's claiming to be the Son of God, was making himself not inferior, but as God, or equal with God.

Once more: Sonship, it is said, implies posteriority, or that Christ, as a Son, could not have existed till after the Father: to attribute no other divinity to him, therefore, than what is denoted by sonship, is attributing none to him; as nothing can be divine which is not eternal.-But if this reasoning be just, it will prove that the divine purposes are not eternal, or that there was once a point in duration in which God was without thought, purpose, or design. For it is as true, and may as well be said, that God must exist before he could purpose, as that the Father must exist before he had a Son: but if God must exist before he could purpose, there must have been a point in duration in which he existed without purpose, thought, or design; that is, in which he was not God! The truth is, the whole of this apparent difficulty arises from the want of distinguishing between the order of nature and the order of time. In the order of nature, the sun must have existed before it could shine; but in the order of time, the sun and its rays are coeval: it never existed a single instant without them. In the order of nature, God must have existed before he could purpose: but in the order of time, or duration, he never existed without his purpose; for a God without thought or purpose were no God. And thus in the order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son; but in that of duration, be never existed without the Son. The Father and the Son therefore are properly eternal.

THE CHANGES OF TIME; A NEW YEAR'S MEDITATION.

The acts of David, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, with all his reign, and his might, and the times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries.

1 Chron. xxix. 29, 30.

THERE is something in the manner of the sacred writers peculiar to themselves. A common historian might have glanced at the reign of David, and referred to other books in which it was described; but viewing the events of it only with the eye of a politician, his diction, though elegant and instructive, would leave no impression upon the heart. The sacred historians felt what they wrote. Eyeing the hand of God in all things, they conceive of them, they represent them, in an affecting light. There is something in the phraseology of this passage which is singularly impressive. It opens at once to our contemplation, the constant vicissitudes of human affairs. We see and feel, as in a moment, that the same affecting scenes which are passing over the world in our times have passed over it in former ages. Society may assume different shapes and forms; but it is essentially the same. The things that are, are the things that have been; and there is no new thing under the sun.

We are also led to view the great current of human affairs, as moving on without our consent, and without being subject to our control. We bear a part in them, but it is like the fishes playing in the stream; which passes over them independent of their will, and returns no more. What an idea does it give of our insignificance, and entire dependence upon God! But though our influence in counteracting the great events of time be very small, yet their influence upon us is great. They bear a relation to us, as