411 QUESTIONS, COCE.RNIt7G JESUS. This text n^ill not prove that Christ is not God, for he is so by personal onion to the divine nature, he is God manifest in thé jst sii, lie is God and mati in one complex person. But this text, h?tltiuh, does prove that bis sonship doth not include godhead.' Airs hot only in this text, but in most or all these scriptures it is, manifest, that the character of Christ as a Son is set far below' the Father, n'ot only in order or in office, but in knowledge, power, sovereignty, self-sufficiency and authority, which would' naturally lead one to believe that his sonship in scripture cannot' refer to his godhead or divine nature, whereinhe is by our great- est divines acknowledged tobe equal to the Father inpower and` glory. : Now while we maintain the true Deity of Christ, and that. his complete person is God and man united ; I see no necessity of applying all these texts to his godhead where his sonship is.spo- ken of; since his sonship may be better referred to his inferior nature, or to his offices. And this will free us from those embarrassments and hardships to which we have been driven to keep up the sublime idea of 'godhead in these scriptures which' call him a Son, and which at the same time carry so much of de- pendence and inferiority in them. Objection II. Though it should be granted that there are several texts. wherein Christ is called the Son of God, which cannot so well be referred to his divine nature, yet there are several other texts wherein Christ is represented as the Son of God, begotten and born of God, which seemmuch more natu- rally to refer to his godhead, and canhardly be construed into a lower sense, via. Text I. Prov. viii. 24, 25. where wisdom says, Before the hills roas 1 brought forth, tie. which whole chapter is generally. interpreted concerning the divine nature of Christ. Answer I. It is not the design of my present discourse to prove that the divine nature of Christ lias no sort or manner of derivation from the Fattier, real or relative : I neither affirm it nor deny it here. But that the name Son of God, in the New Testament, does not generally, if ever, signify his divine na- ture ; this is my present theme : And therefore the allegation of this text out of Proverbs is not to our present purpose, nor is the name Son of God there used, nor is God called his Father. II. I darenot deny this chapter to relate to Christ ; yet it does not fellow, that it refers only to his divine nature, as I shall shew immediately. And it must be acknowledged that it is very hard to prove, that this eighth of Proverbs does certainly denote the person of Christ. Athanasius imself sometimes explains it another way, Bishop Patrick, that noble commentator, will scarce allow it ; and many others have been of the opinion, that Solomon means only wisdom as a principle of contrivance and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=