Lord Jefus Chrift. Now the Father cannot properly be the God of the Deity of Chrift, i. e. his Creator, his abfolute Governor, and his Object of Worship, which is the proper Senfe of my God in all other Scriptures. Nor is there any fufficient Reason then why we fhould conftrue the Words my Father, as relating to the Deity of Chrift, fince the Words my God cannot be fo conftrued, and fince both thefe Titles feem fo intimately connected and referring to one and the fame Subject.

Mark 13. 32. Of that Day and Hour knoweth not the Son, but the Father. Iconfefs it may be faid in that Paragraph he is called the Son of Man, y. 26. yet it must be granted that the more natural Senfe of the Words is, of that Hour knoweth not the Son of God, but only God the Father. This Text does fo plainly fhew Chrift's Ignorance of the Day of Judgment as he is the Son, that tho' it be granted the Divine Nature of Chrift knows the Day of Judgment, yet as a Son he does not: therefore as a Son he hath not a Divine Nature, or true Godhead.

John 3. 35. The Father loveth the Son, and bath given all things into his hands. . 34. God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. All this implies an Inferiority and Dependency. As a Son he receives all from another, which Godhead cannot do,

Luke 23.47. When the Centurion or Captain faw the Miracles at the Death of Christ,

he

he cried out, Verily this Man was the Son of God. He cannot be fuppofed to mean that this Man was the true and eternal God, but only that he was a great and glorious Perfon, like God, or fome way related to God: or he was the Perfon whom the Jews expected for their Meffiah. This Roman Captain could not imagine Chrift to be God himself.

1 Cor. 15. 28. Then fall the Son also himfelf be fubject to him that has put all things under him, that God may be all in all. This is a Character of too much Inferiority for truc Godhead. The Argument ftands thus: If the Son of God be true God confidered as a Son, then he is originally and neceffarily Lord of all, and then it must be faid 'tis by his own voluntary Condefcenfion that he is fo far de•preffed and humbled by the Oeconomy, as to become the Father's Deputy and Vicegerent; and when that Occonomy ceafes, he is of courfe exalted to his Equality with the Father, and to his effential and natural Lordship over

all.

But the Reprefentation of St. Paul is juft the contrary: In many parts of his Writings (particularly Phil. 2.) he fhews us, that the Son of God is not depreft but exalted by the Oeconomy to the Kingdom. And he tells us in this Text, that when the Son gives up this Oeconomical Kingdom, he comes again into Subjection; Then fhall the Son himself be fubject to the Father; which plainly fhews, that confidered as a Son, he is naturally fub

je&t

ject to the Father, and that at the end of this economical Exaltation he fall return to his natural Subjection, and fhall be fo for ever when God appears all in all. This is most evidently the meaning of the great Apoftle.

This Text will not prove that Chrift is not God, for he is fo by perfonal Union to the Divine Nature, he is God manifeft in the Flesh, he is God and Man in one complex Perfon. But this Text (I think) does prove that his Sonship doth not include Godhead. And not only in this Text, but in most or all these Scriptures it is manifeft, that the Character of Chrift as a Son is fet far below the Father, not only in Order or in Office, but in Knowledge, Power, Sovereignty, Self-fufficiency and Authority, which would naturally lead one to believe that his Sonship in Scripture cannot refer to his Godhead or Divine Nature, wherein he is by our greatest Divines acknowledged to be equal to the Father in Power and Glory.

Now while we maintain the true Deity of Christ, and that his compleat Perfon is God and Man united; I fee no Neceffity of applying all these Texts to his Godhead where his Son-. fhip is fpoken of, fince his Sonship may be better referred to his inferior Nature, or to his Offices. And this will free us from thofe Embarassments and Hardships to which we have been driven to keep up the fublime Idea of Godhead in these Scriptures which call him a Son, and which at the fame time carry fo

much

D

much of Dependance and Inferiority in them.

Obj. II. Tho' it fhould be granted that there are feveral Texts wherein Chrift is called the Son of God, which cannot fo well be referred to his Divine Nature, yet there are feveral other Texts wherein Chrift is reprefented as the Son of God, begotten and born of God, which feem much more naturally to refer to his Godhead, and can hardly be conftrued into a lower Sense, viz.

ift Text, Prov. 8. 24, 25. Where Wif dom fays, Before the Hills was, I brought forth, &c. which whole Chapter is generally interpreted concerning the Divine Nature of Chrift.

Anfw. 1. 'Tis not the Defign of my present Difcourfe to prove that the divine Nature of Chrift has no fort or manner of Derivation from the Father, 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) fignify his divine Nature; this is my prefent 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.

Anfw. 2. I dare not deny this Chapter to relate to Chrift; yet it does not follow, that it refers only to his divine Nature, as I fhall. fhew immediately, And it must be acknow

ledged

ledged that 'tis very hard to prove, that this 8th of Proverbs does certainly denote the Per fon of Chrift. Athanafius himself sometimes explains it another way. Bifhop Patrick, that noble Commentator, will fcarce allow it; and many others have been of the Opinion, that Solomon means only Wisdom as a Principle of Contrivance and Counsel, whether human or divine; or at moft, the ideal World in the Mind of God, tho' he uses fuch fort of perfo nal Characters in his Defcription of this Wif dom, in the Hebrew Idiom.

'Tis granted that many of the Ancients explained it of Chrift, but fome of the Fathers fuppofed it to mean the Holy Spirit; and all Men know they were but very poor Expofitors, who dealt much in Allegory, and in ftraining of plain Texts to their Purposes: and fince they can't tell whether the Son or the Spirit be meant here, 'tis poflible it may mean neither of them, by all the Arguments which they have produced; for none of them are very conclufive.

Anfw. 3. Suppofing the divine Wisdom in Prov. 8. primarily to fignify the Idea of the divine Counfels and Decrees about Creation and Redemption, it may be properly faid, This Wisdom was begotten or brought forth before the Creation, and all this Syftem of divine Counfels being depofited with the pre-exiftent Soul of Chrift, (in whom are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge,) this

human