[95]. A late learned author has given us this definition of a single person, “That it is an intelligent agent, having the distinctive characters of I, thou, and he, and not divided or distinguished into more intelligent agents, capable of the same characters.” [Waterland’s second Defence,] and thereupon he thus argues in another place, “Our ideas of person are plainly taken from our conceptions of human persons, and from them transferred to other subjects, though they do not strictly answer in every circumstance. Properly speaking, he and him, are no more applicable to a divine person, than she or her;” but we have no third way of denoting a person, and so, of the two, we choose the best, and custom familiarizes it.—His Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lectures.
[96]. It has, with good reason, been supposed by the Catholick writers, that the design of the word Λογος was to intimate, that the relation of Father and Son hears some resemblance and analogy to that of thought, viz. that as thought is co-eval with the mind, so the Son is co-eval with the Father; and that as thought is closely united to, proceeds from, and yet remains in the mind, so also may we understand that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, proceeding from him, and yet never divided or separate, but remaining in him and with him.—Waterland’s Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lectures.
[97]. Some, who take delight in darkening this matter, by pretending to explain it, call the former a το νυν, stans; the latter, fluens.
[98]. “In the Saviour’s exalted relation to his Father, the name Son of God comes chiefly under observation. It is known that in the sacred word, rational creatures are often dignified with the honorary title of Sons or Children of God; and that in various respects, and for obvious reasons. But certainly that name in Christ signifies something higher. John x. 35-38. He is not only a Son of God, but the Son, by way of eminence above all ο υιος: So that he is by this, as a peculiar and proper denomination, distinguished from other subjects. We know, that the Son of God is come. 1 John v. 20. John viii. 36.—He is God’s only-begotten Son. John i. 14, 18. iii. 16. God’s own Son. Rom. viii. 32. ‘To which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?’ Heb. i. 5. When Christ spoke to his disciples concerning the Father, he never said, our Father, (as he had taught them to pray;) but always with an express distinction my Father. Luke ii. 48, 49. John ii. 16. chiefly John xx. 17.——From the prophetic doctrine, that name was known in Israel, as in its full force applicable to the Messias; which can be clearly evinced from various passages. Mat. xvi. 15, 16. xxvi. 63. Mark iii. 11. John vi. 69. xi. 27. x. 36. Amidst all the confusion of their apprehensions, they found so much emphasis in it, that the acknowledgment of it was among them a ground of adoration, Mat. xiv. 33. John ix. 35-38.; so that when Jesus, with the distinction and appropriation of the divine works, called God his Father, they thence concluded, which the Saviour did not contradict, that he held God for his own Father, and thus made himself equal to God. John v. 18. x. 33-36. Indeed, however intimate the connexion is betwixt being the Messias, the Christ, and being the Son of God, this last signifies still something different, something more original. For Paul preached Christ, that he was the Son of God[[99]]. In the love of the truth, let us observe the divine testimony, he did not become the Son of God by or after his coming in the flesh, by or after the execution of his ministry; but herein is God’s great mercy celebrated, that ‘he sent him who was his Son, made him under the law, and delivered him up for us all.’ This is evident, from a variety of passages. Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 32. Heb. v. 8. 1 John iv. 9, 10. It is plainly supposed in the parable, the lord of the vineyard sent to the husbandmen many servants, some of whom they beat, and others they slew. Having therefore yet one son who was dear to him, he sent him last of all to them, saying, ‘they will surely reverence my son.’ Mark xii. 6.——In his supreme excellence, as the Son of God, lies the reason of punishing unbelief. As the Son of God, ‘he is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.’ Heb. i. 3. On the self-same account, he is, according to the language of men, his heir, that is, has a natural right to all the works of God, especially to his church; which are also made by him, in communion with the Father. See this described in a lofty strain by the apostle, Heb. i. 1-3. iii. 3-6. Col. i. 15-17. and also by Jesus himself. Mark xii. 6, 7.——Though, therefore, a further theological illustration of Christ’s divine sonship should best be preceded by the proof of his true Deity, yet in the meantime, the name Son of God, as ascribed to him, points us not only to his distinguished elevation above all creatures, which Arius acknowledged, but also to his unity of nature with the Father,[[100]] and to the ground of his existence in the eternal and necessary existence of the Father.”
Wynpersse.
[99]. Acts ix. 20.; see also chap. viii. 37. In both these places, however, there is a different reading in the Greek. But compare Jesus’ first accusation before Pilate, that he said he was the Christ. (Luke xxiii. 2.) with a new and a later, that he made himself the Son of God. (John xix. 7.
[100]. Unity of nature with the Father. In the original it is equality of his nature. But apprehending that, by an error of the press, gelykheid is put for eenigheyd, I have adventured to translate the passage as above; and that in the fullest consistency with the design of the worthy author, in the whole of this treatise, and with his express words in the close of the second paragraph of this very section, where he says, “we dare not esteem Christ less than ὁμοουσιος, that is, of the same nature or essence with God.”
[101]. “The meaning of the terms, Son of God, only-begotten Son of God, must needs be of importance, inasmuch as the belief of the idea signified by them was made a leading article in the primitive professions of faith. John vi. 69. iii. 18. xx. 31. Acts xviii. 37. 1 John iv. 15. Whatever disputes have arisen of late among christians, there seems to have been none on this subject in the times of the apostles. Both Jews and Christians appear to have agreed in this: the only question that divided them was, whether Christ was the Son of God, or not? If there had been any ambiguity in the term, it would have been very unfit to express the first article of the christian faith.
“It has been frequently suggested, that the ground of Christ’s sonship is given us in Luke i. 35, and is no other than his miraculous conception: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.
“It is true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that such a conception was peculiar to him; but it does not follow that by this he became the Son, or only-begotten Son of God. Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It has been thought that the phrase Son of God, in this place, is used in a peculiar sense, or that it respects the origin of Christ’s human nature, as not being by ordinary generation of man, but by the extraordinary influence of God; and that he is here called the Son of God in the same sense as Adam is so called, (Luke iii. 38.) as being produced by his immediate power. If this be the meaning of the term in the passage in question, I should think it will be allowed to be peculiar, and therefore that no general conclusion can be drawn from it, as to the meaning of the term in other passages. But granting that the sonship of Christ, in this place, is to be understood in the same sense as it is commonly to be taken in the new testament, still it does not follow that the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It may be a reason given why Christ is called the Son of God; but not why he is so. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events? This is impossible; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from his miraculous conception, it could not for that reason arise from his resurrection, or exaltation: and so on the other hand, if it arose from his resurrection, or exaltation, it could not proceed from his miraculous conception. But if each be understood of his being hereby proved, acknowledged, or, as the scriptures express it, declared to be the Son of God with power, all is easy and consistent.