QUESTION I. 395 enquiry a fuller consideration, we will survey the several senses which have been usually put upon it ; and. this'shall be the first argument which I shall use toward the proof of the true significa- tion of this name in the New Testament, that is, by way of a disjunctive syllogism proposing several and excluding some of them. SECT. I.--The First Argument toward the Proof of the Sense of this Name, Son'of God. This name, Son of God, hath been supposed to be given to our Lord Jesus Christ upon some or all of these five accounts. - 1. Because of an eternal and inconceivable generation by the person of the Father in the sameness of the divine essence.-2.. Because of the glorious derivation of his human soul from God before the creation of the world. -3. Because of Isis incarnation or coming into this world by an extraordinary conception, and birth of a virgin without an earthly father, by the immediate operation of God.-4. Because of his resurrection from the dead, and high exaltation.-5. In order to point out that glorious per- son who bath in general some sublime and singular relation to God, and who also was to sustain the character and office of the Messiah, the Saviour of the world. 1. The first of these senses is patronized by many writers, viz. G0 That an eternal inconceivable generation of the personof the Son by the person of the Father in thesameness of the divine essence consubstantial, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father," is included in the name Son of God. But I am persuaded this can never be the sense of this naine in those several texts before cited : Theycan never signify, that it is necessary to salvation to believe Christ to be the " eternal Son of God as a distinct person in the same divine essence, pro- ceedingfrom the Father by such an eternal and incomprehensible generation." For, 1. If this he ever so true, yet it is confessed to be inconceiv- able. Now, if it be so very inconceivable, so mysterious and sublime a doctrine, then I. do not think the gracious God would put such a difficult test upon the faithof young disciples, poor illiterate men and women, in the very beginning of the gospel, and exclude them from heaven for not believing it. 2. Nor indeed is this eternal generation and consubstantial sonship clearly enough revealed in scripture for us to make it a fundamental article in any age, and to damn all with do not re- ceive it. I cannot see evidence enough in the word of God to snake the salvation of all mankind, the poor and the ignorant, the labouring men and the children, even in such a day of know- ledge as this is, to depend on such a doctrine, which the most learned and pious christians in all ages have confessed to be at- tended with so many difficulties, which, after the labour and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=