In fhort, our Saviour's Answer muft neceffarily mean one of these two things, (viz.)

Either when he called himself the Son of God, he did defign to let them know that he was equal to God, but that he was no Blafphemer, because it was a great Truth:

Or he defigned to tell them, that his Words did not neceffarily fignify that he was equal to God, and therefore he was no Blafphemer; that their Inference was not juft, and that they carry'd the Charge further than his Words would bear. One of these two muft (I think) be our Saviour's Defign.

Now that he did not defign the first of thefe, i. e. to fhew that he was equal to God, feems evident to me, because his Answer cannot reach this Senfe; and if ftrained to this Senfe, 'tis very obfcure and far-fetch'd: It might also have been spoken in much plainer Language twenty ways, if it had been his Design to tell the Jews, that he was equal with God; and he would doubtless have proved it by plainer Citations out of the Old Teftament, which affert the Divinity of the Meffiah, had it been his Defign to declare and maintain his Godhead at that time.

But if we fuppofe his Design was only to fhew the Falfhood of their Inference, and that they had ftrained his Words too far, then the whole Paragraph

Christ's own Expreffion clearly convict him of meaning more than that he was GOD, in the improper Senie of the Word, as it had been used, Pfal. 82. 6. See his Vind.c. of Chrift's Divinity, P. 55.

Paragraph is natural, and easy to be understood, in the manner I have explained it.

From all this it will follow, That the Belief of Chrift to be the Son of God in some more eminent Sense than all the ancient Prophets and Kings were, i. e. to be the glorious Meffiah, is all that Chrift directly and plainly defigned in calling himself the Son of God; and this must be all that was made neceffary to Salvation in thofe Scriptures which required their Belief in him as the Son of God.

Thus I have made it appear that the Name Son of God cannot neceffarily imply his divine Nature, much less the incomprehenfible eternal Generation of the Son in one Effence with the Father. For tho I firmly believe him to be true God, and in that Senfe one with the Father, yet I would not place the chief weight of this Doctrine on fuch Arguments as will not fupport it, nor build fo important a Truth on an infufficient Foundation.

But this Thought leads me to the next Section.

SECT. IV. What advantage is there in not applying the Name Son of God to the Divine Nature of Chrift?

A FTER all, many a pious Christian will

be ready to enquire and fay, Since you acknowledge Jefus Christ to have a Divine Nature, and to be truly and properly God,

why

why have you taken fo much pains to fhew that his Name the Son of God in Scripture does not neceffarily fignify either his Godhead or his Coeternal Generation and Sonship?

To this Enquiry I hope I can give some fatisfactory Answers, and offer fuch Reasons as may justify and fupport this Attempt, and guard it from the juft Cenfures of every reafonable and intelligent Reader.

I. I was willing to fearch the true Senfe of Scripture in this Point, and to understand the Meaning of God in his Word.

Where any Expreffion is used fo very frequently in the Bible as this Name the Son of God is, and that in Texts of awful and folemn Importance, which determine the things neceffary to our Salvation, 'tis of great moment to know the Meaning of that Expreffion, that we may not include too little or too much in it: and this in order to understand the Scripture aright in things neceffary to Salvation, and to have a true Idea of what the Spirit of God means and intends; that we mayn't flatter careless Hypocrites with vain Hopes of Salvation, by letting the Mark too low, nor difcourage humble Believers by fetting it too high: and that we may not abuse ourselves by falfe and mistaken Notions, and imagine that we derive them all from the Word of God.

II. I was afraid to build my Belief of the Deity of Chrift upon feeble and infufficient Foundations, and therefore I thought it ne

ceffary

ceffary to examine this Argument which is drawn from his Sonship.

The great Doctrine of the Godhead of our Lord Jefus Christ, and Faith in him as the true God, has been by many Perfons built chiefly on this Name which is given him, viz. the Son of God; and that upon this bare Prefumption, that as a Son amongst Men has the fame Specific Nature with his Father, fo the Son of God muft have the fame individual Nature with his Father; but how weak this Argument is to fupport fuch a Doctrine, appears in the foregoing Discourse. Now I would not have the Faith of Chriftians in any important Doctrine, that is divinely true, built upon a Suppofition that is feeble or false, left the Adverfaries take occafion to infult the Faith of Chriftians, and to decry the Doctrine itself, as tho' it had no better Arguments or Foundations to fupport it.

Befides, when Chriftians have built their own Faith andHopes upon a Foundation fofeeble and uncertain, they are more liable to have their Creed fhaken, and to part with the glorious Doctrine itfelf; and therefore I would perfuade them rather to build their Faith on fuch Arguments as will ftand the Test against all Oppofers: And I think moft of those which I have made ufe of in the eighth and ninth Propofitions of the Treatife of the Chriftian Doctrine of the Trinity may lay a claim to this Character, and will better fupF

port

port this Faith than any Argument derived from his mere Generation or Sonship.

III. 'Tis necessary as far as poffible to remove all Cavils from every important Doctrine of Christianity, and fuch is that of the Deity of Chrift.

Now if the Doctrine of his Deity be built on his Sonship, then he must be true God confidered as he is a Son; but the Notion of a SON in all Languages of Mankind importing fome fort of Derivation and Dependence, and the Notion of Godhead importing Independence and Self-existence, seem to carry a fort of Contradiction in them. And this becomes a mighty Prejudice to the Minds of Men against their Belief of the Deity of Christ, when they are told, that he is God as he is a Son, or that his Deity depends on his Sonfhip, i. e. his Deity is included in his derived and dependent Character.

Tho' I will not here affert that abfolute Selfexiftence and Independence belong to every thing in and of God, (for I know not what Powers or Properties of Godhead depend on each other) yet I would not willingly prove the Godhead of Chrift from the very Name which feems to exclude Self-existence and Indepen dence, fince there are many other and better Proofs of it.

And tho' I dare not utterly renounce all those Schemes of explaining the Trinity, which make the Divine Nature of Chrift to be in any

way