410 QUESTIONS JESUS. deduced by just consequences;. for it is sufficiently manifest to us, who have the whole New Testament to compare with the Old, that the Messiah must be the true God,,or that godhead must he united to human nature, to make up the complete person and character of the Messiah. SECT. III: Objections against this Sense (f the Name answered. Objection I. The word son among men properly signifies one of the same nature-with the Father ; and therefore Son of God, when it is applied to Christ, must, signify one of the same nature with God the Father, that is, one who is true and eter- nal God; and it lias been generally so taken in. this controversy by our divines. Now this sense implies much more than a mere likeness to God, or a derivation from hire, or deputation to an office. Answer I. The word son taken in its common senses and sises amongmen may be applied to several ideas, viz. a deriva. tion from the father, a likeness to, or imitation of the father, a subordination, or some sort of inferior relation to the father, or a being of the same species, kind or naturewith the father, and an individual being distinct from the father. Now it is plain that when human words and siinilies are used to represent divine things, there is no necessity that those words should include all their original ideas, nor indeed is it possible : It is enough to support the analogy, if but one or two of the saine ideasare de- noted by the use of thesameword. Why. may we not then sup. pose that the name Son of God, when applied to Christ, may signify his peculiar derivation from the Father as to his soul, or as to his body, or his subordinate character in his mission by the Father, or as being appointed by the Father to be his vicegerent in the kingdom, or his likeness to the Father in his natural qua- lifications and powers, or in his kingly office, together with his being another individual distinct from the Father? Whymay not one or two of these ideas, and much more all of them, be sufficient to account for the use of this name Son of God, with- out making it necessarythat the Word sonship in this place mist include a sameness of nature ? Besides, it is evident that the word Son of God is applied to angels ; Job. i. 6. and tomen'; Phil. ii. 15. 1 John iii. 1, 2. and even the term of begotten Soli is applied to men ; 1 John v. 1. Yet neither men nor angels are of .the same kind or nature with God their Father, and in these instances it is impossible that the idea of sameness of kind or na= turc- should be included. II. Tlie word son in the language of men, wheresoever it means a sameness of nature; -it always means the same specific nature; or a nature of the saine kind and species; but it never
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=