before for to bring that into being which was not in being before, is nothing less than a creation, and creation is too much to ascribe to the fathers of our flesh; they are not our creators, they do not give us our being; they do not bring us out of a state of none existence, into a state of existence; God only is the creator. According to the later discoveries in natural philosophy respecting generation, it appears that every man is born of an animalcula; that generation, so called, is no other than a motion of the animalcula into a more convenient place for nourishment and growth. All generation, say our modern philosophers, is with us nothing, so far as we can find, but nutrition, or augmentation of parts: they conclude, that the animalcula of every tribe of creatures, were originally formed by the almighty Parent, to be the seed of all future generations of animalsh; and that it seems most probable, that the semina, or stamina, as of all plants, so of animals that have been, or ever shall be in the world, have been formed ab origine mundi, by the Almighty Creator, within the first of each respective kindi; and that these are no other than the entire bodies themselves in parvo; and contain every one of the saine parts and members, with the compleat bodies themselves, when grown to maturity *; all which they say, evidently appears, by the help of microscopes: and this is the rather to be attended to, because it so greatly agrees with the sacred scriptures, by which it appears, not only that Levi, the great-grandson of Abraham, was in his loins, that is, seminally in him, before his father Jacob was born; but that all mankind were in Adam, that is, seminally in him, as well as representatively; the former being the foundation of the latter, Rom. v. 12. 1 Cor. xv. 22. If, therefore, the semina of all mankind were created together in the first man; and all men were seminally, and in animalcula together in Adam, then not one before another, no priority nor posteriority among them: so that these things, rightly considered, instead of weakening, serve to strengthen and illustrate the doctrine pleaded for'. How far this philosophy is defensible, I will not say; I only observe it to abate the force of the objection; and the confidence of those who make it, it being not easy to disprove the said hypothesis. 11. As to the objection taken from dependence, suggesting that the doctrine of Christ's Sonship by generation, is contrary to the independence of Christ as a divine Person. It may be asked, what dependence has a Son upon a Father, in animal generation? Does he depend upon him as the cause of his existence? He does not. He does not bring him into being. God only is the efficien: Cause and Author of his Being. He is, at most, only an instrument of remov ing the animalcula, created of God, into a more convenient situation for nourishment and growth; in order, at a proper time, to come forth into the world, & Whiston's New Theory of the Earth, book 4 chap. 1. p. 299, 300. ligion of Nature delineated, s. §. p. 160, 164. Ed. 8. Philosophical Transact. abridged, vol. 2. p. 912. Nieuwentyt's Religious Philosopher, contempl. 23.3. 13. p. 711. Ed. 5. see vol. 3. contempl. 27. s. 9. p. 1019. * Whiston, ut supra. See a farther use made of this philosophy in the articles of Original Sin, book 3. ch. 10, and of the Incarnation of Christ, part: 2. book a. chap. i.

Wolaston's Re

according to the above hypothesis: a parent has no concern in the formation of his child; it is formed without his knowledge, and without asking his consent and will; he knows nothing of its shape, features, and sex, until its birth; and when it is born, its life, and the continuance of its being, do not depend upon him; a son lives when a father dies, and often many years after him; it is true, in some sense, he may be said to depend upon him with respect to some circumstances, especially in the former part of life; as, for the cate of him, provision for him, assistance and protection given him, circumstances which argue weakness in the human nature; but not to be found in the divine nature, nor any thing analogous to them; and does not a father oftentimes depend upon his son, as in case of distress, sickness, penury, and old age. But be these things as they may, Christ, as all sound divines hold, is autodeos, God of himself, and independent of any other, though he is the Son of the Father; and as the distinct personality of the Son of God arises from his relation to his Father as such, so the distinct personality of the Father arises from his relation to his Son as such; hence the distinct personality of the one, is no more dependent, than the distinct personality of the other; and both arise from their mutual relation to each other; and both arise and commence togeher, and not one before the other; and both are founded in eternal generation.

III. As to subordination and subjection, and inequality, which it is supposed the Sonship of Christ by generation implies; it may be answered, that Christ in his office-capacity, in which he, as Mediator, is a Servant, and as he is man, and appeared in the form of one; it will be acknowledged, that he is subordinate and subject to the Father; but not as he is the Son of God; and whatever inequality sonship may imply among men, it implies no such thing in the divine nature, among the divine persons; who in it subsist in perfect equality with one another; and in particular, the scriptures represent the Son of God as equal to his Father, as one who thought it no robbery to be equal with God; being of the same nature, and having the same perfections with him, and that he is equal to him, with respect to power and authority; for with respect to power he says, I and my Father are one; and they represent him as having the same claim to equal honour, homage, and worship; since all men are to honour the Son, as they honour the Father; not as in subordination to him, but as equal with him. There is a passage which is preverted by some to the sense of subordination and subjection of the Son of God to the Father, which is in 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father-and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him; and put all things under him; that God may be all in all. It should be observed, that all this is said of something that is future; and which, as yet, is not, and so no proof of what is, or has been. Besides, there is a twofold Sonship of Christ, divine and human; from the one he is denominated the Son of God, and from the other the Son of man. the text, is only called the Son, which does not determine which Sonship is

Now Christ in

meant. This is to be learnt from the context, where he is spoken of throughout as man, as man who died, and rose again from the dead; from whence, by various arguments, is proved the general resurrection; and so he is continued to he spoken of to the passage under consideration; the plain and easy sense of which is, that at the end of the world, at Christ's second coming, when all the elect of God shall be gathered in, and Christ shall have compleatly finished his work, as Mediator, he will deliver up the mediatorial kingdom compleat and perfect, that is, the whole body of the elect, the kingdom of priests, to the Father, and say, Lo, I, and the children whom thou hast given me; and then the delegated power under which he acted, as the Son of man, will cease, and be no more; and that sort of rule, authority, and power, will be put down; and he, as the Son of man, be no longer vested with such authority, but shall become subject to him that put all things under him; and then God, Father, Son, and Spirit, will be all in all; and there will be no more distinction of offices among them; only the natural and essential distinctions of the divine Persons will always continue. There are various passages of scriptures in which Christ, as the Son of God, addresses his divine Father, without the least appearance of any subordination or subjection to him, but as his equal, as Jehovah's fellow, particularly John xvii. 24. But I shall proceed to examine more particularly, in what sense Christ is the Son of God, or what is the true cause and reason of this relation. The Socinians, unwilling to own the eternal Sonship of Christ, or that he was the Son of God before he was the Son of Mary; and not caring to acknowledge the true cause and reason of it, which is but one, have devised many; which shews the puzzle and confusion they are in; Calovius" has collected out of their writings, no less than thirteen causes, or reasons of Christ's Sonship; some of them are so weak and trifling, as not deserving to be mentioned; and others require but little to be said to them; I shall take notice of some of the principal ones: and then proceed to place the Sonship of Christ on its true basis, and assign the proper sole cause and reason of it; his being begotten of the Father.

1. They say he is called the Son of God because of the great love of God to him, and make beloved and begotten to be synonymous terms; that Christ is the object of the love of God, the Son of his love, his dearly beloved Son, is most certain; but then it is not his love to him that is the foundation and cause of relation to him; he is not his Son because he loves him; but he loves him because he is his Son; it is not love among men that produces such a relation; there may be great love where there is no such relation; Jonathan loved David as his own soul; but this strong love bore to him, did not make him nor dencminate him his son. On the other hand, there may be relation and not love; a father may not love his own son; neither love nor hatred effect relation; the one does not make it, nor the other destroy it.

11 Sometimes they ascribe the Sonship of Christ to his likeness of God, and Socinism. Profligat. art. 2. controv. 6. p. 201.

make that to be the cause of it: that Christ is the image of the inv isible God the express image of his Father's Person, and so like him, that he that has seen the one, has seen the other, because the same nature and perfections are in both, is true; yet the reason why Christ is called the Son of God, is not because he is like him, but he is like him because he is his Son; of the same nature and essence with him.

111. At other times they tell us, he is the Son of God by adoption; of which the Scriptures give not the least hint. To which may be objected, that Christ is God's own Son, his proper Sun, the Son of himself; and therefore not adopted: who ever adopts an own son? or what reason can there be for it? adoption among men, is not of their own sons: but usually when they have none of their own; as the instances of the adoption of Moses by Pharaoh's daughter, and of Esther by Mordecai shew: besides, Christ is the begotten Son of God; and if begotten, then not adopted; these are inconsistent; yea, he is his only begotten Son; whereas, if he was his Son by adoption, he could not be said to be his only Son, since he has many adopted ones; even as many as are predestinated to the adoption of children, by Christ; as many as the Father gave unto him; as many as he has redeemed, "that they might receive the adoption of children;" as many as receive him, that is, believe in him, " to whom he gives power to become the sons of God;" even as many sons as he brings to glory; which is a number no man can number: but the more principal causes of Christ's Sonship they insist upon, and which seem to have the most countenance from scripture, are as follow, and which I shall more particularly and largely consider.

IV. The miraculous conception and birth of Christ, or his wonderful incarnation, is assigned as the reason of his Sonship; and this is founded on Luke i 35. the words of the angel to Mary, in answer to the difficulties objected by her, to Christ being born of her; The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, also, that holy Thing that shal be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. Now let it be observed, that the angel does not say the holy Thing born of the virgin should be, but should be called the Son of God; for though sometimes the sense of such a phrase is the same as to be, as in Isai. ix. 6. 1 John iii. 1. yet seems not intended here; since this appellation, the Son of God, is a name which Christ has been, and is usually called by; and the angel is not giving a reason of Christ's being the Son of God; for he was so before his incarnation; but of the manifestation and de claration of him as such in the human nature: nor does the angel predict that Christ should be called the Son of God, for this reason, because of his miraculous birth; for either he was to call himself so, or others were to call him so, for this reason, which neither have been; or else the angel's prediction must be false, which cannot be admitted. Moreover, the particle therefore, is not casual, but consequential; the angel is not giving a reason why Christ should be called the Son of God, but why he should be received and owned as such by his people; who would infer and conclude from his wondrous birth of a virgin, that

he must be the Immanuel, the child to be born, the Son given, &c. prophesied of in Isai. vii. 14. and ix. 6. where he is called the child born, with respect to his human nature, and the Son given, with respect to his divine nature"; see John iii. 16. and iv. 10. Once more, the particle also, ought not to be neglected; Therefore, also, that holy Thing, &c. not only the divine person of Christ should be owned and called the Son of God; but also the human nature of Christ thus wonderfully produced, being taken up into personal union with him, should bear the same name: so that it is not the wonderful birth of the human nature that so much as gives the name; but the union of this nature to the person of the Son of God; whence it is called by the same name he is. The reasons why Christ cannot be the Son of God, on account of his wonderful incarnation are the following.

1. If so, then the holy Spirit must be the Father of Christ, since he had such a special and peculiar concern in it; as the above passage shews; and then there must be two Fathers in the Trinity; which would introduce a wretched confusion there. But there is but one, distinct from the Word and Spirit, 1 John v. 7. Matt. xxviii. 19. Besides, the Father of Christ is, in many places, distinguished from the Spirit, and therefore cannot be the same, John xiv. 16, 17, 26. and xv. 26. Eph. i. 17. and iii. 14, 16. To which may be added, that the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, Gal. iv. 6. whereas, if this was the case, rather the Son should be called the Son of the Spirit; which he never is.

2. If the incarnation of Christ is the cause of his divine Sonship, then there was no God the Father of Christ under the Old Testament; this was what the Marcionites of old asserted; which put the ancient writers on proving, as they did, that it was the Father of Christ who made the world, gave the law, spoke by the prophets, and endited the books of the Old Testament; all which appears from Heb. i. 1, 2. Besides, God existed as the Father of Christ, before the foundation of the world; for so early as such he blessed his people, and chose them in Christ, Eph. i. 3, 4.

3. If Christ was the Son of God with respect to his human nature only, the distinctive phrase according to the flesh, when used in speaking of him, would be quite impertinent; for it is never said of any mere man, that he is the son of such an one according to the flesh, but only, that he is his son; but the phrase is very pertinently used to distinguish Christ, the Son of God, according to his divine nature, from his being the Son of David, and of the fathers, according to his human nature, Rom. i. 4. and ix. 5.

4. The incarnation of Christ is not the reason of his being the Son of God, but the manifestation of him as such; he was not made, but manifested thereby to be the Son of God, 1 John i. 1, 2. and iii. 8. In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son-for what? not to be made a Son; he was so before he sent