the Name Son of God, when applied to Chrift, may fignify his peculiar Derivation from the Father as to his Soul, or as to his Body, or his fubordinate Character in his Miffion by the Father, or his being appointed by the Father to be his Vicegerent in the Kingdom, or his Likeness to the Father in his natural Qualifications and Powers, or in his kingly Office, together with his being another Individual diftinct from the Father?

Why may not one or two of these Ideas, and much more all of them, be fufficient to account for the Use of this Name Son of God, without making it neceffary that the Word Sonship in this Place muft include a Sameness of Nature?

Befides, it is evident that the word Son of - God is applied to Angels, Job 1. 6. and to Men, Phil. 2. 15. 1 John 3. 1, 2. and even the Term of begotten Son is applied to Men, 1 John 5. 1. Yet neither Men nor Angels are of the fame Kind or Nature with God their Father, and in these Instances 'tis impoffible that the Idea of Sameness of Kind or Nature fhould be included.

Anfw. 2. The word Son in the Language of Men, wherefoever it means a Sameness of Nature, it always means the fame Specific Nature, or a Nature of the fame Kind and Species; but it never means the fame individual Nature, for it always denotes a diftinct individual Being. Therefore, in order to keep

D 3

keep this part of the Idea of Sonship, and to maintain the Parallel in this Point, if we will have the Son of God to fignify one of the fame Nature with the Father, it must mean one of the fame Specific Nature, that is, a diftinct individual Being of the fame kind with the Father; and thus we fhall be in danger of making two Gods *. But it is plain, that in order to fupport the Analogy of the Name Son, we can never make the word Son of God to fignify one of the fame individual Nature or Effence, because it never fignifies fo in the Language of Men; and therefore there is no Neceffity that it fhould fignify one of the fame Nature in any Senfe when applied to Chrift.

Anfw.3. There are many places of Scripture wherein Chrift is called the Son of God, and the Son abfolutely, and where God is faid to be his Father, wherein we cannot suppose the Godhead of Chrift is or can be defigned in the moft juft and natural Interpretation of the Text; fuch as are moft of thefe which follow, viz.

John

That it cannot mean one of the fame specific Nature, and that Chrift is not another individual Spirit Specifically the fame with the Father, I have proved at large in other Places: For it belongs to the very Nature of a Father to be self-existent and underived, and it belongs as much to the Nature of a Son not to be self-exiftent, but to be derived: therefore their Natures cannot be fpecifically the fame. A Nature which is not felf-existent and self-sufficient, nor could exift but by Derivation, is not the fame fpecifical Nature with that which is felf-fufficient and felf-exiftent, and which cannot be derived.

John 5. 18, 19. When the Jews had made a ftrange Inference, and charged Chrift with making himself equal to God, because he called God his Father, he answered, Verily, verily I fay unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he feeth the Father do, &c. This is not an Expreffion which represents the Son as the truc and eternal God, or that grants their Inference; for it is plain that this Expreffion reprefents him under a Degree of Impotence and Dependence, that he could do nothing of himself. Nay this contradicts their Inference, and denics his Equality with God, rather than confirms or allows it.

The Senfe of this Expreffion may be learn'd from John 8. 38. I speak that which I have feen with my Father, and you do that which ye have feen with your Father. . 44. Te are of your Father the Devil, &c. Now 'tis plain that the Jews had never seen the Devil do thofe Things which they did, but it fignifies only that by the Devil's Influence and Direction they practifed evil Actions: And fo alfo, that Chrift doth all by God's Influence and Direction, is the plain Meaning of Christ's Speaking or doing what he has feen with his Father.

Nor will the following Words destroy this Interpretation, What foever things the Father doth, thefe alfo doth the Son likewife; that is, whatsoever things the Father contrives and appoints,

D 4

appoints, the Son executes and performs as commiffioned by the Father, or the Son performs them by the Father's Influence.

Then it proceeds, . 20. The Father loveth the Son, and fheweth him all things that himself doth, and he will fhew him greater Works than thefe, that ye may marvel. Hence it follows that the Father had not then fhewn to the Son thefe greater Works, or given him Commiffion and Power for the Performance of them. But this can never be faid concerning the Divine Nature of Chrift, which can receive and learn nothing hew.

And tho' there are fome Expreffions in that Paragraph of Scripture down to the 30th . which feem fuperior to the Character of any mere Creature, and which would have been hardly applied to Chrift the Man, if not united to Godhead; yet Chrift confidered as the Son of God throughout that Paragraph, is reprefented as dependent on the Father for all, and receiving all from the Father, which is hardly confiftent with the Idea of fupreme Godhead, if that were included in Sonship.

Wherefoever Chrift calls God his Father, he himself stands under the fpecial Character of a Son. Now John 5. 30. when he fays, I can of myself do nothing, I feek not mine own Will, but the Will of the Father which hath sent me. And John 6. 38. I came down from Heaven not to do mine own Will, but the Will of him that fent me; that is,

the

the Father, as . 39. This does not found like the Language of Godhead, which is fupreme and independent, and can do all things of itself, and by its own Will.

John 14. 28. My Father is greater than I. 'Tis hardly to be fuppofed that Chrift here intends to speak of his Divine Nature. The Expreffion itself, as well as the Context, would lead one to think that Chrift confidered as a Son is not here fpoken of as the true and eternal God, who is the greatest of Beings, and can acknowledge no greater than himself.

John 14. 31. As the Father gave me Commandment, even fo I do. This does not feem to be the Language of fupreme Godhead, which receives no Commandments from another.

John 17. 5. Father, glorify me with thy felf, with the Glory which I had with Thee before the World was. Surely Chrift as God does not offer up Prayers to the Father, and much lefs could he pray for the Restoration of a Glory which his Divine Nature once had, of which he feems divefted at prefent. All this is hardly confiftent with fupreme Deity belonging to his Sonship, i. e. either to be divested of Glory, or to pray for the Reftoration of it.

John 20. 17. Chrift fays, I afcend to my Father and your Father, to my your Father, to my God and your God. So 2 Cor. 11. 31. and1 Pet. 1. 3. the Father is called the God and Father of our

Lord