t2UESTION Y. 411 means the same individual nature, for it always denotes a distinct individual being. Therefore, in order to 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 signify one of the same nature with the Father, it must mean one of the same specificnature, that is, a distinct individual being of the same kind with the Father; and thus we shall be in danger of making two Gods.* But it is plain, that in order to support the analogy of the name Son, we cannever make the word Son of God to signify one of the same individual nature or essence, because it never signifies so in the language of men ; and therefore there is no necessity that it should signify one of the same nature in any sense svi4en ap= plied to Christ. III. There are many places of scripture wherein Christ is called the Son of God, and the Son absolutely, and where God is.said to be his Father, wherein we cannot suppose the godhead of Christ is or canbe designed in the most just and natural inter- pretation of the text; such as are most of these which follow, viz. John v. 18, 19. When the Jews had made a strange infer- ence, and charged Christ with nicking " himself equal to God, - because he called God his Father," he answered,- verily, verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself; but &hat lee seeth the .father do, d'e. This is not an expression which repre- tents the Son as the true and eternal God, or that grants their inference ; for it is plain that this expression represents him under a degree of impotence and dependence, that he could do nothing of himself. Nay this contradicts their inference, and denies his equality with God, rather than confirins or allows it. The sense of this expression may be learned from John viii. 88. I speak that whirls I have seen with my. Father, and you do that which you have seen with your,father. Ver. 44. Ie areof your father the devil, Fc. Now it is plain that the Jews had never seen the devil do these things which they did, but it sig--ni- fies only that by the devil's influence and direction they practised evil actions-: And so also, that Christ doth all by God's influ- ence and direction, is the plain meaning of Christ's speaking or doing what he has seen with his Father. Nor will the following words destroy this interpretation, Whatsoever things the Father Both, these also Both the Son likewise; that is, whatsoever things S That it cannot mean one of the same specific nature, and that Christ is not another individual spirit specifically the -same with the- Father, I have proved at large in other places: For it belongs to the very nature. of the Father to be self 'existent and underived, and it belongs as much to the nature of a Son not ,to be srif- existent, but to be derived; therefore their natures cannot be specifically thesame. Anature which is not self-existent and self-sufficient, nor, could ekist, but by derivation, is not the same specifical nature with that which is self-sums Cieotand self-existent,. and which cannot be derived. .
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=