Sermons Preached on Romans 8, Chapter 11

Sermons Preached on Romans 8 · Chapter 11

p. 318ROM. 8.3.

God ſending [his own Son] in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh, &c.

CHAP. XI. Of Chriſt's being the Natural and Eternal Son of God.

The Second Obſervation ſpoken to. Of Chriſt's being God's Son. How his Sonſhip is atteſted in Scripture. Of his being God's own Son. That opened as he is conſidered both relatively and abſolutely. That He is the Natural Son of God, coaequal, coeſſential, coaeternal with the Father, is aſſerted and proved by ſundry Scriptures. The true Notion and Ground of Chriſt's Sonſhip vindicated againſt the Socinians. Where 'tis made good againſt them, that He is not the Son of God

1. in reſpect of his miraculous Conception: Nor

2. of his extraordinary Sanctification: Nor

3. of his Reſurrection: Nor

4. of the Dignity and Advancement of his Perſon: Nor

5. of the Father's Special Love to him: Nor

6. of Adoption: Nor

7. of his Likeneſs to God.

But he is the Son of God in reſpect of his participation of his Father's Eſſence, and of his eternal Generation. Some Others (beſides Socinians) ſomewhat concern'd in this Controverſie. Of the different communication of the Divine Eſſence from the Father to the Son and to the Holy Ghoſt. Uſe 1. In p. 319which by way of Inferenee 'tis ſhown,

1. That Chriſt is God.

2. That he is a very great and glorious Perſon.

3. That the work of Redemption was an high and coſtly Work.

Uſe 2. Chriſtians from hence are exhorted

1. To ſtudy Chriſt in this Relation, as God's own Son. Some Directions given about that.

2. To believe him and on him as Such.

3. To honour and adore Chriſt.

4. To admire the greatneſs of God's Love.

Uſe 3. To draw forth the Comfort wrapp'd up in this Relation of Chriſt.

I Proceed to the Third General obſerved in the Words,2. Obſerv. Chriſt God's Son and his own Son. the Deſcription of the Perſon ſent: he is deſcribed by his near and ſpecial Relation to God as being God's own Son. From whence the Second Obſervation will be this, That the Lord Jeſus the Perſon ſent by God (as you have heard) was his Son, yea his own Son. 1 Joh. 4.14. We have ſeen and do teſtifie, that the Father ſent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

Here Two things are to be ſpoken to;

1. Chriſt was God's Son:

2. He was God's own Son.

1. Firſt Chriſt was God's Son. He was truly the Son of man but not only the Son of man, for he was alſo the Son of God; and he was as truly the latter as the former. In reference to his Humane Nature he is ſtiled the**Gen. 3.15.Gen 3:15 Seed of the Woman, the††Gal. 3.16.Gal 3:16 Seed of Abraham, the‖‖Matth. 1.1.Matt 1:1 Son of David, the**Iſa. 11.1. Jer. 23.5, 6. Zech. 6.12.Isa 11:1Jer 23:5Jer 23:6Zech 6:12 branch of the root of Jeſſe, the Son of man: in reference to his Divine Nature he is ſtiled the Son of God. This Relative Appellation or Title is ſo frequently apply'd to Chriſt, that if I ſhould cite the ſeveral Texts where it occurs, I muſt tranſcribe a great part of the New Teſtament.

Several atteſtations of Chriſt's Sonſhip.Yet it will not be amiſs to take notice of the ſeveral atteſtations there upon record to this great Truth. As that of John Baptiſt, Joh. 1.34. I ſaw, and bare record, that this is the Son of God: That of Nathanael, Joh. 1.49. Rabbi, thou art the Son of God: That of Peter, Matth. 16.16. Thou art Chriſt the Son of the living God: That of the Centurion, Matth. 27.54. Truly this was the Son of God: That of the Eunuch, Acts 8.37. I believe that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God: That of Martha, Joh. 11.27. Yea Lord, I believe, that thou art the Chriſt, the Son of God, which ſhould come into the world: The Devils themſelves witneſſed to it, Matth. 8.29.— p. 320they cryed out ſaying, What have we to do with thee, Jeſus thou Son of God? Mark 3.11. Ʋnclean Spirits when they ſaw him fell down before him, and cryed, ſaying Thou art the Son of God. Chriſt himſelf (even when he was ſpeaking to God the Father) often aſſerted and pleaded his Sonſhip: And the Father himſelf in a moſt ſolemn and open manner atteſted it; Firſt at Chriſt's Baptiſm, Matt. 3.17. Lo, a voice from heaven ſaying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed; and then at his Transfiguration, Matth. 17.5. Behold a voice out of the cloud which ſaid, This is my beloved Son. The Apoſtle 1 Joh. 5.7, 8. ſpeaks of the Witneſs of Heaven and of Earth; There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoſt, and theſe three are one: And there are three that bear witneſs in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and theſe three agree in one: Now what is the thing which they bear witneſs to? 'tis Chriſt's Sonſhip; for that is inſtanc'd in as to the Firſt and Supream Witneſs (Verſ. 9.), If we receive the witneſs of men, the witneſs of God is greater: For this is the witneſs of God, which he hath teſtified af his Son. You ſee how fully this Truth is atteſted, and how abundantly God was pleas'd to clear it up in the firſt promulgation of the Goſpel, (it being the great thing neceſſary to be known and believed). Indeed the Jews (as to the Body of them) had a vail before their eyes, ſo that they could not) diſcern this near relation of Chriſt to God; they ſaw the Son of man but they did not ſee the Son of God: they went no higher than**Matth. 13.55, 56.Matt 13:55Matt 13:56 Is not this the Carpenters Son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joſes, and Simon, and Judas? and his ſiſters, are they not all with us? **Joh. 6.42.John 6:42Is not this Jeſus the Son of Joſeph, whoſe Father and Mother we know? how is it then, that he ſaith, I came down from heaven? Nay, when Chriſt plainly and boldly told them that he was the Son of God, they could not bear it: Joh. 10.33. For a good work we ſtone thee not, but for blaſphemy, and becauſe that thou being a man makeſt thy ſelf God: (you may know what they meant by this by Chriſt's reply (Verſ. 36.) Say ye of him whom the Father hath ſanctified, and ſent into the world, Thou blaſphemeſt, becauſe I ſaid, I am the Son of God?) Nay, they were ſo offended at it that for this very thing they took away his life: Joh. 19.7. The Jews anſwered him, we have a Law and by our Law he ought to die, becauſe he made himſelf the Son of God. You have a full account of it, Mark 14.61, to 65. Again, the High Prieſt asked him, and ſaid unto him, Art thou the Chriſt, the Son of the Bleſſed? And Jeſus ſaid I am: &c. Then the High Prieſt p. 321rent his cloaths, and ſaid, What need we any further witneſſes? Ye have heard the blaſphemy, what think ye? and they all condemned him to be guilty of death. Thus the eyes of that people were then (and O that they were not ſo ſtill!) ſo blinded, that they could not perceive Chriſt to be the Son of God; but the Lord hath given ſufficient evidence thereof to all who do not willfully ſhut their eyes upon the light. 'Tis a Truth out of all queſtion to us who are called Chriſtians; (yet about the Nature and Manner of Chriſt's Sonſhip there are ſome unhappy Controverſies rais'd amongſt us).

2. Secondly Chriſt was God's own Son: ſo 'tis here ſignanter, God ſending hîs own Son. I have told you in the Original 'tis**foreign. the Son of himſelf, or his‖‖foreign. proper Son (as 'tis Verſ. 32.); God is Chriſt's proper Father [foreign] Joh. 5.18, and Chriſt here is God's proper Son [foreign]. He is not barely a Son but a Son in a ſpecial and peculiar manner, God's own Son. This being a Truth of very high import, a moſt Fundamental Point, I will endeavour firſt to explain and prove it, and then to vindicate and make good its true and genuine Notion againſt Oppoſers.

Our Lord Jeſus Chriſt is God's own Son, whether you conſider him comparatively and relatively (I mean,How Chriſt is God's own Son. in reference to other Sons), or abſolutely as he is in Himſelf, abſtractly conſidered from all Other Sons:

God hath three ſorts of Sons, By Creation, by Grace, by Nature.1. Conſider him Comparatively: And ſo he is thus ſtiled to difference or diſtinguiſh him from all Other Sons. For God hath three ſorts of Sons,

(1.) Some are ſo by Creation (or in reſpect of their immediate Creation by God), ſo the Angels are the Sons of God; of whom Divines commonly interpret thoſe paſſages in Job, Chap. 1.6. There was a day when the Sons of God came to preſent themſelves before the Lord: Chap. 38.7. When the morning Stars ſang together, and all the Sons of God ſhouted for joy. So Adam upon this account, he being immediately made by God, is called the Son of God Luke 3.38.

(2.) Some are the Sons of God by Grace, (viz.) the Grace of Regeneration and Adoption: thus Believers are the Sons of God, as they are ſpiritually begotten of him and adopted by him. Joh. 1.12, 13. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God &c. which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the fleſh, nor of the will of man, but of God: Jam. 1.18. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth &c. Gal. 4.3. To redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of Sons: Eph. 1.5. Having predeſtinated us p. 322unto the adoption of Chrildren by Jeſus Chriſt to himſelf, according to the good pleaſure of his will: Rom. 8.14. As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God: Gal. 3.26. Ye are all the Children of God by Faith in Chriſt Jeſus: 1 Joh. 5.1. Whoſoever believeth that Jeſus is the Chriſt, is born of God; and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him alſo that is begotten of him. Then

(3.) in contradiſtinction to theſe there is God's own Son or his Son by Nature; one that is a Son of another rank and Order than the former: in this reſpect God hath but One Son namely Chriſt: True Believers are his Sons (which ſpeaks the exuberancy of Divine Love towards them,**1 Joh. 3.1.…1 John 3:1 Behold what manner of Love the Father hath beſtowed upon us, that we ſhould be called the Sons of God!) therefore Chriſt owns them for his Brethren; Heb. 2.11. Both he that ſanctifieth, and they who are ſanctified, are all of one, for which cauſe he is not aſhamed to call them brethren: and (Verſ. 17.) In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren.

But yet they are not Sons as Chriſt is, his Sonſhip and theirs are of a very different nature, differing no leſs than ſpecifically. Upon which account he ſometimes appropriates the paternal relation in God unto himſelf; Luke 10.22. All things are delivered to me of [my Father &c.] Joh. 14.2. In [my Fathers] houſe are many manſions: And elſewhere he diſtinguiſhes 'twixt God as being his Father and as being the Father of Believers; Joh. 20.17. Go to my brethren, and ſay unto them, I aſcend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God: where he plainly makes a difference, for he doth not ſay I aſcend to our Father as though He and They had one and the ſame common intereſt in this near relation to God, (as he teaches us to ſay Our Father, becauſe we all ſtand upon the ſame foot and bottom of Filiation); but he ſaith I aſcend to my Father, and your Father, thereby intimating that there was a difference betwixt God's being a Father to him, and a Father to them. And ſo indeed there is a vaſt one, for he is the Father of Chriſt by**foreign. Cyrill. Hieros. Nature and by eternal generation; but he is the Father of Saints only by Grace, by Adoption and Regeneration, which alſo are not eternal but accomplished in time. Thus in this comparative notion Chriſt may be called God's own Son.

2. Conſider him abſolutely, and abſtractly from all Other Sons, ſo he is God's own proper Son. It will be ask'd, how or wherein?

That I may a little inſiſt upon the explication of this ſublime Myſtery, I anſwer, Chriſt is God's own Son not only as God hath a ſpecial intereſt or propriety in him, (as Believers are ſaid to be p. 323[foreign] Chriſt's own Joh. 13.1.); nor only as Chriſt is the Son of no other Father but of God (as the**Proprius Dei Filius jure optimo dicitur, proptereà quod non ſit alienus, nec cujuſpiam alterius &c. Slichting. Socinians would turn off the word foreign); for ſo the Saints themſelves may be called God's own Sons, they being Sons as to their ſpiritual Sonſhip by and from God the Father only: there muſt be therefore ſomething higher than this intended in this glorious Title of God's own Son. What may that be? Anſw. that Chriſt was (and is) God's Natural and Eſſential Son, that he was in a peculiar manner begotten of him and from him in his eternal Generation, that he did participate of the Fathers own Nature and Eſſence, that he was a Son coequal, co-eſſential, co-eternal with God the Father.

To draw all into as narrow a compaſs as may be! Our Lord Jeſus is God's own Son, as God the Father did from all eternity, in an ineffable manner, beget him in his own Divine Eſſence: So that it points to two things, to his being eternally begotten, to his being begotten in the Divine Eſſence. As to the latter, I chuſe to expreſs it ſo becauſe 'tis more ſafe (if not more true) to ſay that the Son was begotten in that Eſſence, rather than out of it. And Some (who endeavour to open theſe profound Myſteries) tell us, that here we are not to conſider Chriſt eſſentially as he is God, but Perſonally as the Divine Eſſence ſubſiſts in him as the Second Perſon: In the Firſt conſideration as he was God he had the Divine Eſſence in and of himſelf, and ſo he could not be begotten to it; for he was foreign God from himſelf, (though**Amongſt Others ſee Armin. Declarat. Sent. p. 100 &c. & Reſp. ad Artic. p. 131. Some who yet were no Arrians, do not agree to this): In the Second notion as he was God perſonally conſidered or as he was the Second Perſon and the Son, ſo he was of the Father and not of himſelf; for though he was foreign God of himſelf yet he was not foreign Son of himſelf. The uſual language of the Ancients was God of God, very God of very God &c. and this was very true; but then you muſt take it as ſpoken of God p. 324**Chriſtus non eſt Filius Eſſentiae ſed Perſonae; non Dei Eſſentiae ſed Dei Patris: Genitus enim eſt non eſſentiatus, ergo non ſuae Eſſentiae, vel ſui Filius. Eſt Filius unius veri Dei, vid. Patris, non Divinae in Patre Eſſentiae &c. Hoorneb. Socin. Conf. Lib. 1. ca. 1. p. 36). Cum dicitur quod Filius eſt à Patre, novimus ex ipſis Fidei principiis hoc ita eſſe explicandum, ut Filius ſit à Patre quoad Perſonalitatem, nimirum ſecundum quod eſt Filius, non quoad Deitatem & ſecundum quod eſt Deus. Siquidem cum Deitas Filii ſit una illa ſimplex & ipſiſſima Patris Deitas, ab alio eſſe non poſſit; nam & Filius juſte foreign dicitur. Cum idcò in Symbolo Nicaeno de Chriſto occurrit, quod ſit foreign, hoc ſenſu Catholico intelligendum eſt, ut ſit Deus de Deo, non quoad Deitatem & Eſſentiam, ſed potius quoad Perſonalitatem & ſubſiſtentiam &c. Barlow. Exercit. 5. p. 107. &c. The Son in reſpect of his Perſon is of the Father, but in reſpect of his Godhead he is of none. The Son of God conſidered as he is a Son, is of the Father, God of very God; But conſidered as he is God, he is God of himſelf, becauſe the Godhead of the Son is not begotten more than the Godhead of the Father. Perkins on Gal. p. 271. See Cheyn. Trin-unity. p. 134.Perſonally conſidered, with reſpect both to the Perſon begotting and the Perſon begotten; for in the Sacred Perſons Eſſence doth not beget Eſſence, but Perſon begets Perſon (as 'tis**Alting. Theol. Probl. Loc. 30. Probl. 32. & 34. uſually expreſs'd). I fear theſe things may be too high for our weak capacities, that they do but darken rather than illuſtrate the Sonſhip of Chriſt: yet Divines know not how to ſpeak more plainly concerning theſe Myſteries. Well! I (for my part) will not venture too far into theſe great depths: that Chriſt is the Son of God, yea thus the Son of God (as hath been laid down), is evident enough; but he that will engage in a curious inquiſition into all Particulars reſulting from or referring to Chriſt's Natural and Eternal Sonſhip, will find at laſt he attempted that which was infinitely too high for him.

Chriſt's Natural and Eternal Sonſhip proved by Scripture.Contenting our ſelves therefore with this more General Explication of it and not launching out too far into Particulars, that we may be the more firmly rooted in the belief of this great Article of the Chriſtian Faith, (viz.) that Chriſt is the natural and eternally begotten Son of God (and therefore called his own Son), it will be neceſſary for us to look into the Word of Truth to ſee what Foundation we have there for this our belief: For it would be equally dangerous for us to believe it if the Word doth not affirm it, as not to believe it if the Word doth affirm it becauſe we cannot fathom ſeveral things in it by the plummet of Reaſon. I ſhall deſire you therefore to weigh the following Scriptures.

Joh. 7.29. I know him, for I am [from him], and he hath ſent me. They are the words of Chriſt uttered with reference to God the Father, concerning whom he ſaith that he was [foreign] from him. How was Chriſt from the Father? I anſwer, not only in reſpect of his Miſſion by and from the Father, (that indeed follows immediately upon it [and hath ſent me], but not as the ſole or main thing in reſpect of which Chriſt is ſaid to be from his Father; I conceive, his being ſent is brought in as a quite Other thing and diſtinct from that): But Chriſt ſaith he was from the Father in reſpect of his eternal Generation by the Father; that was the Thing principally intended by him in this Expreſſion. As the Holy Ghoſt is ſaid to be [from the Father] becauſe of his proceſſion from him, (that's the reaſon I go upon); Joh. 15.26. [foreign] he proceedeth from the Father: ſo the Son the Second Perſon is ſaid to be from the Father becauſe of his Generation by him; (and I find the**Ab ipſo (inquit) ſum, quia Filius de Patre, & quicquid eſt Filius de illo eſt cujus eſt Filius. Ideò Dominum. Jeſum dicimus Deum de Deo; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, ſed tantum Deum. Auguſt. Antients thus opening the place).

p. 325Another Text for the proof of this eternal Sonſhip of Chriſt, is Pſal. 2.7. The Lord hath ſaid unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. To me, this is a very conſiderable Scripture for the confirming the Truth in hand, (though our Adverſaries (I know) make a contrary uſe of it, and Some **As the learned Dr. Jackson who ſaith he dares not inſiſt upon this Text to prove Chriſt's eternal Generation. On the Creed 7. B. Sect. 3. Ch. 25. p. 257.Others who are Friends ſpeaks ſomewhat diminutively about it). 'Tis beyond all diſpute that Chriſt was the Perſon here ſpoken of; 'twas not ſaid to David (further than as he was a type) but to Chriſt himſelf, Thou art my Son &c. thus Some of the††One of which hath this notable paſſage about this 2d Pſalm: Magiſtri noſtri quicquid hoc Pſalmo canitur, de Rege Meſſiâ interpretati ſunt; ſed ſecundum verborum ſonum, & ob refutationem Haereticorum (be means us Chriſtians) convenit, ut eum interpretemur de ipſo Davide. Rabbi Salomon Jarchi. Jewiſh Writers themſelves do carry it; and the matter of the Pſalm with the ſeveral expreſſions in it, are only applicable to Chriſt; (See Verſ. 8, 9, &c. to the end): and as to that Verſe which I have to do with, you have it thrice cited in the New Teſtament and 'tis always apply'd to Chriſt; (ſo Acts 13.33. Heb. 1.5. Heb. 5.5.) Well then! what doth God here ſay concerning Chriſt? why, Thou art my Son: but how did Chriſt come to be his Son? why, as he had begotten him (for that comes in as the fundamentum relationis), Thou art my Son, I have begotten thee: but when did God thus beget him? why, from all eternity, [to day] have I begotten thee. Various are the apprehenſions of men about the import and reference of this word [to day], and what that matter or period of Time is to which it refers: Some make it to point to the time of the rage and oppoſition of Enemies againſt Chriſt (ſpoken of Verſe 1. &c.); Some to the time of the New-Teſtament-adminiſtration: Some to the time of Chriſt's reſurrection and advancement (as we ſhall ſee hereafter). But I concur with**Hodie non tempus certum, ſed aeternitatem deſignat: Eſt deſcriptio Naturae aeternitatis optimè come niens, omne praeteritum á Deo removers, omne futurum à Deo praeſcindens, omnem ſucceſſionem excludens, aeternitatem his omnibus carentem optimè explicans. Arnold. Catch. Racov. Major. p. 208. Thoſe who do not underſtand it of this or that particular, determinate day or time, but make it to point to and to be expreſſive of eternity. This Eternity is but one day or but one continued Now, in which there being no ſucceſſion whatever God doth from eternity he may be ſaid to do it now or to day: So here, this day have I begotten thee, that is from everlaſting. True indeed,††Non volunt Noſtri Vocem Hodie aeternitatem ſignificare, ſed pro ſubjectâ materiâ exponi debare; & quando Deo tribuitur, non infringere ejus aeternitatem, ſed ei propter nos & foreign duntaxat adjungi. Hoornb. de Chriſto. cap. 1. p. 17. the Word it ſelf (in its firſt and p. 326ſtrictect ſenſe) doth not ſignifie or import eternity; yet becauſe in this place it muſt be interpreted according to the matter ſpoken of, therefore here it muſt have that ſignification the Nature of the Thing ſo determining it. For God's begetting of his Son being an immanent act, it muſt (as all acts of that nature are) be from everlaſting: and it being ſpoken after the manner of men, it muſt be ſo underſtood as may beſt ſuit with the Nature of God and with the Nature of the Thing which it ſpeaks of. When therefore you read [thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee], 'tis as if God had ſaid, O my Son I own thee to be ſo before the world, and I here atteſt that from all Eternity I have begotten thee, and that thou art my Son by eternal Generation. And thus the great Lights of the Ancient Church in their Conteſts with the Arrians did make uſe of and expound it.

That Text in Prov. 8. is exceeding full and clear: Verſ. 22, 23, 24, &c. The Lord poſſeſſed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was ſet up from everlaſting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was: When there were no depths, I was brought forth: when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the Mountains were ſetled, before the Hills, was I brought forth. (this is further with great elegancy ſet forth Verſ. 26, 27, 28.) He concludes (Verſ. 29, 30.), When he gave to the Sea his decree, that the waters ſhould not paſs his Commandment, when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him, and I was daily his delight, rejoycing alwayes before him. **Vide Synopſis Critic. V. 2. in Cap. 8. Prov. in initio.Of whom can all this be underſtood but of Chriſt? to whom is it applicable but to him who is the Perſonal Wiſdom of God the Father? and if ſo, doth it not then plainly hold forth his eternal Exiſtence and alſo his eternal Generation? So Micah 5.2. Thou Bethleem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thouſands of Judah, yet out of thee ſhall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Iſrael, whoſe goings forth have been from of old, from everlaſting; (in the Hebr. 'tis from the dayes of eternity).

If we look into the New Teſtament this will yet be more clear. There Chriſt is ſtiled the only begotten of the Father, which Title the Evangeliſt John often repeats; the Other Evangeliſts ſpeak much of Chriſt's Manhood and of his Birth as Man, but**foreign. Epiphan. adv. Her. lib. 2. tom. 2. p. 747. John is altogether taken up with the Godhead of Chriſt and with his eternal Generation as the Son of p. 327God; (whence Nyſſene ſaith of him that he did indeed foreign; and Some think he was from hence call'd John the Divine). In reference to which he calls him over and over God's only begotten Son, (as you ſee Joh. 1.14.18. Joh. 3.16.18. 1 Joh. 4.9.) Now how is Chriſt the only begotten Son of God? ſurely it muſt be in reſpect of ſome extraordinary way and manner of his Sonſhip peculiar to himſelf; and what can that be but that which I am upon? Never was any perſon**foreign. Damaſc. Naianz. Orat. 2. de Filio & Sp. Sancto. Pag. 590. puts in another word, foreign. ſo begotten of the Father as he was; God hath other Sons begotten of him (as ſome prealledged Scriptures teſtifie), but yet Chriſt is ſtiled his only begotten Son becauſe of his ſpecial and incommunicable Generation, becauſe he is the Son of God by Nature and hath that very Nature and Eſſence which God the Father hath. Take away this ſpeciality of his Sonſhip and how ſhall we interpret this excluſive title of Chriſt, the only begotten of God? He is not only called God's own Son but alſo his only Son; and nothing can make him to be ſo (as will appear by and by), but his being the Natural Son of God and by eternal Generation. 'Tis obſervable, after the Evangeliſt had been ſpeaking of the Sonſhip of Chriſt (Verſ. 14.); and he ſpeaks of this as being of a different kind and order from the former, upon which he calls him the only begotten of the Father. The old Arrian Hereticks had a pretty evaſion for this; Chriſt ſayes Eunomius (whom Baſil and his Brother Nyſſen have ſo profoundly confuted,) was the only begotten of the Father in as much as he was begotten only of the Father; (which evaſion exactly falls in with that modern Gloſs which ſome Socinians give upon the Text, Chriſt was God's own Son (i.e.) he was the Son of no other but of God): But to this 'tis anſwered, there's a great difference betwixt being begotten only. of the Father and being the only begotten of the Father; the firſt makes God to be the only begetter but not Chriſt to be the only begotten: without which this Title of his would ſignifie nothing. For 'tis true as to the Saints they are begotten only of the Father, but yet 'tis not true that they are the only begotten of the Father, (indeed this belongs not to them at all, but only to Chriſt); their Sonſhip by regeneration and Chriſt's Sonſhip by eternal Generation are things of a quite different Nature and Species, and it muſt be ſo or elſe he could not truly be ſtiled the only begotten of the Father.

p. 328The Apoſtle in this Chapter (Verſ. 32.) calls Chriſt God's own Son, He that ſpared not his own Son &c. now the word [foreign] imports as much as God's proper or natural Son. That's the fignification of it in other references; Luke 6.44. Every tree is known by his own fruit: 'tis foreign that fruit which is proper and natural to it; ſo that foreign is to be taken 1 Cor. 15.38. God giveth it a body as it hath pleaſed him, and to every ſeed his own body: And ſo Chriſt is foreign God's own Son (that is) his Son who hath the ſame Nature and Eſſence with himſelf.

There are three Properties (if the two Firſt be not one and the ſame,) belonging to Chriſt in his Sonſhip which are incommunicable to any other: As

1. He is a Son Co-equal with his Father: Joh. 5.18. The Jews ſought the more to kill him, not only becauſe he had broken the Sabbath, but ſaid alſo that God was his Father, making himſelf equal with God: The Jews were in the right as to the thing only they erred as to the Perſon, becauſe they would not ſee that Chriſt was this Son of God and therefore equal to the Father; their Argument was good and their Inference proper and genuine, if Chriſt do claim to be the proper Son of God then he muſt be equal with God; nothing could be more true. And he had and muſt have ſuch a Sonſhip as will riſe up to this, therefore his whole diſcourſe (in which he is very large Joh. 5. & 10 Chapt.) tends to the proving of nothing lower than his Natural Sonſhip, and conſequently his equality with his Father. And if he had been only the Son of God in a lower way why did he not ſo explain himſelf? why did he ſuffer the charge of blaſphemy upon it? nay, why did he loſe his life upon it? Had he been the Son of God only as others are, the very telling of that had quieted the people, acquitted him from blaſphemy, and ſaved his life; but he lets them alone to go on in their malice againſt him, becauſe that was the very truth which they pitched upon and which he would have to be known, namely, that he was ſo the Son of God as to be equal with God. For a further proof of this take that of the Apoſtle where he ſpeaks it out expreſly, Phil. 2.6. Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: ſurely there is more in this [being equal with God] than what Some (particularly**foreign eſt ſpectari tanquam Deum. Grotius. As though there were no more in foreign, than in foreign Dr. Pearſon on the Creede. p. 246. Grotius) are pleas'd to make it to be; it notes equality of Nature and Eſſence, not only ſome external ſhow p. 329or appearance, or eſtimation by others. The latter Clauſe muſt be expounded as 'tis joyn'd with the former, and then its ſenſe and emphaſis will be clear enough; Chriſt being in the form of God (exiſting in the Divine Nature and really participating of that Nature) thought it no robbery (no bold encroachment upon the honour of God) to be equal with God, (to aſſume and apply that Nature to himſelf which he had in truth). And (which will much ſtrengthen this expoſition of the words,) as that which follows Verſ. 7, 8. ſpeaks Chriſt's Natural equality with us (as he was Man) and muſt be ſo interpreted, ſo this here ſpeaks Chriſt's Natural equality with the Father (as he was God) and muſt be ſo interpreted alſo.

2. Chriſt is a Son Co-eſſential with the Father. He is not only like him but of the ſame Nature and Eſſence with him, not only under ſome reſemblance of God (foreign), but under a perfect identity and oneneſs of Eſſence with God (foreign): Joh. 10.30. I and my Father are one. Hence he is ſtil'd the image (the eſſential and ſubſtantial image) of God, Col. 1.15. Heb. 1.3. This was that great Truth which the Nicene Fathers aſſerted and maintain'd with ſuch renowned courage and zeal. (But I will but touch upon this Head becauſe 'tis the ſame with the former; that is more comprehenſive but in its main import it perfectly agrees with this).

3. Chriſt is the Co-eternal Son of God the Father. They were both of the ſame ſtanding (if I may with reverence ſo expreſs it), both from everlaſting. Chriſt was eternally a Son, there never was any time when he was otherwiſe or when he began ſo to be, foreign (as the Ancients uſed to expreſs it). If the**foreign. Najanz. Orat. 35. tom. 1. pag. 563. foreign &c. foreign; &c. Epiph. adv. Haereſ. lib. 2. tom. 2. p. 796. foreign. Id. p. 794. Father was eternal and always a Father then the Son was eternal and alwayes a Son, for Relatives muſt be ſimultaneous. This was that which greatly troubled and vexed Arius ſo often to hear the Orthodox ſpeaking of, ſemper Pater ſemper Filius, ſimul Pater ſimul Filius, (I ſay) this offended him very much, (as appears by what p. 330he himſelf wrote in his Letter to Euſebius): but the thing is never the leſs true becauſe he was offended at it. The Scriptures are very plain concerning Chriſt's eternity and eternal generation, (ſome of which have been already cited, take a few more) Rev. 1.8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, ſaith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev. 2.8. Theſe things ſaith the Firſt and the Laſt, which was dead and is alive. As ſoon as the Apoſtle had ſpoken of Chriſt's Sonſhip Heb. 1.5. preſently he falls upon his eternity Verſ. 8. Ʋnto the Son he ſaith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever. Thus I have ſhown in what reſpects Chriſt is ſtiled God's own Son, and how far thoſe are grounded upon the**He that would ſee the Texts (which have been cited, and divers Others) opened and improved in reference to Chriſt's Sonſhip (as it hath been ſtated), let him read Zanch. de Tribus Elohim Lib. 4. Cap. 6. &c. p. 125. &c. Word of truth.

But all this being vehemently deny'd and oppoſed by Some, and it highly concerning us truly to apprehend and firmly to believe a Thing of ſo high a Nature, upon theſe conſiderations I judge that it will not be enough barely to aſſert the Truth, but it will be neceſſary alſo to hear what Oppoſers ſay againſt it and how they endeavour to undermine it; give me leave therefore to ſpend ſome time about that.

Chriſt's Natural and Eternal Sonſhip vindicated againſt the Oppoſers of it.I think I may confidently and warrantably affirm that amongſt all the Articles of Faith which make up the Chriſtian Religion, not any One of them ever met with ſo much Oppoſition and was the ground of ſo many and ſo fierce Diſputes, as this great Article which refers to the Godhead of Chriſt and to his being the Natural and Eſſential Son of God. They who know any thing of what hath paſs'd in former Times in the matters of Religion, know what Conteſts there were about it in the firſt Ages of the Church: In the very infancy of the Goſpel Satan ſtirred up Some (as**Of whom Ignatius is conceived to ſpeak when he ſaith foreign; they made the Son to be of another and different Eſſence from the Father, and ſo the Father from the Son; (ſo the expreſſion is uſually opened). Ep. ad Trallian. p. 69. Edit. Ʋſſer. Ebion, Cerinthus &c.) to oppoſe it, for it being the great fort and bulwark of Chriſtianity he would be ſure firſt to make his batteries againſt it. But things never came to their full height till about 300 years after Chriſt, when††Vide Hiſt. Trip. Lib. 1. Cap. 12 & 13. Arius and his Party with great zeal (ſuch as it was) ſet themſelves againſt it, boldly denying Chriſt to be God or the eternal Son of God. After a long flux of time, theſe Controverſies p. 331were pretty well compos'd, yea the Church had (in a great meaſure) after its ſharp Conflicts gained the belief of this fundamental Truth and was in the quiet poſſeſſion of it: till in theſe latter Ages that unhappy SOCINƲS came upon the ſtage, and he muddy'd the waters again, reviv'd the old Arrian Hereſies which ſeem'd to be dead and rotten, and did (with no leſs boldneſs and more ſubtilty) veterem ſerram reciprocare. With**Socinus contra Wiekum. Lib. Suaſor: Animadv. in Aſſert. Poſnan. Smalcius de verâ Divinit. Jeſu Chriſti. Refut. Franz. Contra Smiglet. Crellius de uno Deo Patre. Slichting: contra Meiſner. Oſtorod. contra Tradel. Enjedinus. Catech. Racov. de Perſ. Chriſti. cap. 1. Him and his Followers (all of which do unanimouſly agree in their denial of Chriſt's Sonſhip in that ſenſe wherein it hath been opened) we now have to do: & the difference 'twixt them and us ſtands thus; they agree with us that Chriſt is the Son of God, but as to the nature, quality, manner, foundation of his Sonſhip, there they differ from us. We ſay he is the proper, natural Son of God, they make him (in effect) no better than an improper, alluſive, Metaphorical Son of God; we ſay he is the eternal Son of God, they ſay he is only ſo in time; The Socinian falſe Grounds of Chriſt's Sonſhip refuted: and the true Ground thereof eſtabliſhed.We ſay he is the Son of God by eternal Generation and thereupon called God's own Son, they ſay he's God's own Son upon other Grounds and Cauſes; which what they are we are now to enquire after and whether they be true and conſonant to the Word. This is a work which hath been done over and over by many, (by Some in our own language), yet the Subject in hand neceſſarily leads me alſo to ſpeak ſomething to it.

The Firſt falſe Ground propounded.1. Firſt they affirm that Chriſt is God's own Son in reſpect of his miraculous Conception and production in the womb of the Virgin by the holy Ghoſt. For the proof of which they alledge Luke 1.35. The Angel anſwered and ſaid unto her, 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].

That refuted, and 'tis proved that Chriſt is not God's own Son in reſpect of his miraculous Conception.Here the Defenders of the Truth take notice of the Adverſaries fallacious and fraudulent dealing, which indeed is very groſs; for the greateſt of them ſometimes ſeem to grant that Chriſt is the Natural and Eſſential Son of God, ('tis the very Title which they prefix before ſome of their Treatiſes); in which One would think that they did concur with us, holding the ſame thing which we do and giving the ſame honour and reſpect to Chriſt which we do: when in truth there's no ſuch thing, they do but ſpeak p. 332fraudulently (according to the cuſtom of their**foreign &c. See much of the fraud of the Arrians in this, in Epiphan. adv. Haereſ. lib. 2. tom. 2. p. 738 Of them Hilarius ſpeaks to the ſame purpoſe: Tribuunt Chriſto Dei nomen, quia hoc & hominibus ſit tributum. Fatentur Dei verè Filium, quia Sacramento Baptiſmi verè Dei Filius unuſquiſ que perficitur. Ante tempora & ſaecula confitentur, quod de Angelis & Diabolis non eſt negandum. Ita Domino Chriſto ſola illa tribuuntur, quae ſunt vel Angelorum propria vel noſtra. Caeterum quod Deo Chriſto legitimum & verum eſt, Chriſtus Deus verus, i.e. eadem eſſe Filii quae Patris Divinitas denegatur. Contra Auxent. Mediolan. old Predeceſſors): for here's the Fallacy, they me an by all this nothing more than that Chriſt was the Son of God in regard of his wonderful Conception and Nativity by the Virgin Mary. (But to paſs by their frauds let us come to the thing!) We ſay Chriſt's filiation or Sonſhip was grounded upon ſomething of a far higher nature than this, that he was the Son of God antecedently to it, even from all eternity; they ground his Sonſhip upon it only, making it but then to commence when he was begotten by the holy Ghoſt, conceived and born by the Virgin.

Againſt which dangerous Opinion we argue thus;

1. If Chriſt's Sonſhip did reſult from this as the true and proper ground of it, then the **Vide Stegm. Photin. Dip. 16. p. 180. Arnold. Catech. Racov. major. p. 176.Holy Ghoſt (the third Perſon) ſhould rather be intituled the Father of Chriſt than the Firſt Perſon; becauſe that effect which was the foundation of Chriſt's Sonſhip was more immediately produced by him than by the Firſt Perſon. But this is notoriouſly falſe, for all along in the whole current of the Word Chriſt is brought in as the Son of the Father and as ſtanding in this relation to the Father, and not to the Spirit.

2. Chriſt himſelf never reſolves his Sonſhip into his miraculous Conception or Birth. You find him ſometimes profeſſedly treating upon it and giving the world' an account about it, & what doth he then ground it upon? why, he carry's it up to his doing what the Father did Joh. 5.19. to his quickning whom he will, even as the Father doth Joh. 5.21. to his having life in himſelf, as the Father hath life in himſelf Joh. 5.26. to his being one with the Father Joh. 10.30. to his being in the Father and his Father in him Joh. 10.38. He doth not at all mention his miraculous Conception (which in all probability he would have done if that had been the proper Ground of his Sonſhip), but he inſiſts altogether upon things tending to the proof of his participating of his Fathers Nature and Eſſence, and by them he deſigns to make out his Sonſhip, yea, and that it was ſuch a Sonſhip as did render him equal with his p. 333Father; but this he could not have done either with truth or evidence had he been only the Son of God upon what is here pretended.

3. Though Chriſt's Conception and temporal Generation was very wonderful, yet that did but reach to his Fleſh or Humane Nature and there terminate. Now the Scripture doth not place his great Sonſhip in his Humane but in his Divine Nature; therefore as to that it ſpeaks him to be the**Qui factus eſt ex ſemine David ſecundum carnem, hic erit Homo & Filius Hominis, qui declarandus eſt Filius Dei ſecundum Spiritum Sanctificationis, hic erit Deus, & ſermo Dei Filius. Tertul. adv. Praxean. Torquetur fruſtra locus Luc. 1.35, &c. A nuda enim conceptione & nativitate Carnis ex Virgine, manavit non Filii Dei, ſed Filii hominis appellatio. Quod verò Angelus porrò affirmat, illud eſt, hâc Filiatione non obſtante, etiam vocandum Filium Dei; adhibitâ exactè particulâ foreign, ad conciliandam utram que Filii Hominis & Filii Dei uni Chriſto tribuendam appellationem, per communicationem idiomatum &c. Cloppenb. Ant. Smalc. p. 71.Luke 1:35 Son and Seed of David or the Son of Man, in contradiſtinction to his being the Son of God. And his Sonſhip to God cannot be grounded upon that which was the ground of his Sonſhip to Man, for where the Sonſhips are ſo different they muſt needs have different Grounds and foundations. Pray let theſe two Texts be well weighed and they will ſufficiently prove what I ſay; Rom. 1.3.4. Concerning his Son Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, who was made of the ſeed of David according to the fleſh, and declared to be the Son of God with Power, according to the Spirit of Holineſs, by the reſurrection from the Dead. Rom. 9.5. Whoſe are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the fleſh Chriſt came, who is over all God bleſſed for ever. The ſum of all, Chriſt hath two Natures, according to which two Natures he hath two diſtinct Sonſhips (he is the Son of God and he is the Son of Man), theſe different Sonſhips muſt have different cauſes & grounds; therefore his Conception upon which he was the Son of Man cannot make him alſo to be the Son of God.

4. As to the Text alledg'd by our Adverſaries to prove their Opinion, there's a double Anſwer commonly given to it.

1. The particle [therefore] in it is not cauſal but illative. 'Tis not brought in as ſignifying the Ground of Chriſt's Sonſhip, but as a note of inference wherein ſomething is inferr'd from what went before. The Angel had told Mary that the Holy Ghoſt ſhould come upon her, and the power of the Higheſt ſhould overſhadow her; (and then adds) therefore alſo the Holy thing which ſhall be born of thee, ſhall be called the Son of God: therefore? what may be the force of this word in this place? 'tis a meer deduction drawn from the premiſes, to this effect, Since ſuch a thing ſhall be done by the Holy Ghoſt, therefore (according to what was propheſied) Chriſt ſhall be called the Son of God. The words plainly refer to the p. 334propheſie Iſa. 7 14. Therefore the Lord himſelf ſhall give you a ſign, Behold a Virgin ſhall conceive, and bear a Son, and ſhall call his name Immanuel: The Evangeliſt brings them in expreſly in that reference, Matth. 1.21, 22, 23. And ſhe ſhall bring forth a Son, and thou ſhalt call his name Jeſus, for he ſhall ſave his people from their ſins. (Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled, which was ſpoken of the Lord by the Prophet, ſaying, Behold a Virgin ſhall be with Child, and ſhall bring forth a Son, and they ſhall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us). And their ſenſe and tendency is the ſame here, Therefore alſo that Holy thing &c. as if the Angel had ſaid, this being the thing which was foretold (which muſt be accompliſhed and is now neer to be accompliſhed) therefore it ſhall ſo be, that which ſhall be born of thee ſhall be called the Son of God. So that this [Therefore] is only a note of Conſequence as to the Event or the fulfilling of the Propheſie, not a note of cauſality as to the thing it ſelf (viz.) Chriſt's Sonſhip to God.

2. 'Tis therefore he ſhall be [called] the Son of the moſt High: 'tis not therefore he ſhall be the Son &c. but therefore he ſhall be called. &c. And ſo it points not to that which was conſtitutive of Chriſt's Filiation, but only to that which was**Angelus non dixit quare ſit Filius Dei, ſed quod ſit Filius Dei, & quare fideles ipſum pro Filio Dei ſint agnituri. Chriſtum autem ab aeterno à Patre eſſe genitum, humanam que Naturam in Unitatem Filii eſſe aſſumendam, ſatis indicavit, dum dixit, quod naſcetur ex te Sanctum, Filius Dei vocabitur &c. Nec tamen hoc vult, quod Mariae Filius, quâ Mariae Filius eſt, etiam ſit Filius Dei; ſed quod inter alia ſigna ex quibus Chriſtum Dei Filium eſſe agnoſcatur, etiam hoc ſit. Biſterf. contra Crellium lib. 1. ſect. 2. cap. 31. p. 305. manifeſtative and declarative of it. Chriſt was God before he aſſumed Fleſh, but he was God manifeſted in the Fleſh (1 Tim. 3.16.) ſo Chriſt was the Son of God before he was thus conceived but this was a great manifeſtation or declaration that he was the Son of God. 'Tis true, as to us our being ††1 Joh. 3.1.1 John 3:1called the Sons of God notes our being made the Sons of God; but here as to Chriſt it only notes that he ſhould be declared, evidenced; acknowledged to be the Son of God: he was not now made the Son of God (that was done by his eternal Generation), only it was now made to appear that he was the Son of God. In ſhort, the Lord Jeſus who was thus miraculouſly conceived was the very Son of God, but as he was thus conceived or becauſe he was thus conceived, ſo he was not the Son of God; for of this there was an antecedent foundation, that which was of a far more ancient date, namely his being begotten of the Father from everlaſting.

p. 335The Second Falſe Ground of Chriſt's Sonſhip.2. Secondly 'tis ſaid, that Chriſt was the Son of God in reſpect of his Sanctification and Miſſion. Joh. 10.36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath ſanctified, and ſent into the world, Thou blaſphemeſt, becauſe I ſaid I am the Son of God? Chriſt being ſanctified by the Father (that is) the Spirit of Grace and Holineſs being in ſo eminent a degree poured out upon him, and he being deſigned and ſet apart and fitted by God to and for a moſt high and eminent Office, as alſo he being ſent upon a great work for an extraordinary end to redeem and ſave loſt Sinners; therefore upon theſe Grounds (and not upon his being eternally begotten of the Father) he was God's Son.

Chriſt not God's own Son in reſpect of his Sanctification or Miſſion.Anſw. More is inferr'd from this Text than what it will bear; we may thus far very well argue from it He who was ſanctified and ſent was undoubtedly the Son of God; but if we go further and infer, He who was ſanctified and ſent was therefore the Son of God (as if the ſanctification and miſſion were the ground of his being ſo),**Ex loco Joh. 10.36. negamus hoc effici poſſe, Jeſum Chriſtum Deum, ac Filium Dei unigenitum dici aut eſſe &c. Sanctificatiò & Miſſio quâ Pater Filium Sanctificavit & miſit in mundum, nec Deita…en… Filii nec Filiationem fundat, ſed fundatur in illâ, at que illam demonſtrat à poſteriori: Quia ad munus mediatorium ſanctificari & mitti in mundum non poterat, qui non eſſet co-aeternus & co-eſſentialis Patri mi…tenti Filius. Cloppenb. Compend. Socin. p. 38.John 10:36 we ſtretch the words too far and endeavour to fetch that out of them which is not at all in them. There's a great difference betwixt the applying of ſuch a relation to ſuch a Perſon, and the aſſigning of the proper cauſe and foundation of that relation: Chriſt being ſanctified and ſent is the Son of God, upon theſe that relation may truly be attributed to him; but yet they do not amount to the being the Cauſe of that relation. Chriſtus qui fuit ſanctificatus & miſſus eſt Filius Dei is a Propoſition very true, but Chriſtus quà fuit ſanctificatus & miſſus eſt Filius Dei (as pointing to the fundamentum Filiationis), is a Propoſition very falſe; (and there lies the Controverſie betwixt us and our Opponents). The words cited have reference to the preceding Verſes, where Chriſt is vindicating himſelf from that blaſphemy which the Jews charged him with becauſe he made himſelf God, (Verſ. 33.): now this he doth firſt in a lower way, by an Argument drawn from the Title uſually given to Men in places of Office and Authority; they are called Gods, and if ſo then (ſaith Chriſt) do I blaſpheme becauſe I call my ſelf God & the Son of God whom God hath ſanctified and ſent and inveſted with ſuch high Offices? Do not miſtake here, Chriſt is not God only in a titular way becauſe of his Office, he is ſo truly, properly, in reſpect of his Nature and Eſſence, (this he ſpeaks p. 336to Verſ. 30, 37, 38.) but he inſtances only in his Office in this place and from thence fetches that Argument which was very proper to his preſent deſign, (viz.) the vindicating of himſelf as to the charge of blaſphemy. Verſes 34, 35, 36. Jeſus anſwered them, is it not written in your Law, I ſaid ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken: Say ye of him, whom the Father hath ſanctified, and ſent into the world, Thou blaſphemeſt, becauſe I ſaid I am the Son of God? Now what is there in this to undermine Chriſt's eternal Sonſhip? or to make his ſanctification and miſſion the**Hoc non dicit cauſam ſuae Filiationis, ſed praeſtantiae ſupra alios, unde potiùs queat nuncupari Dei Filius quàm illi Dii. Hoornb. Socin. confut. de Chriſto c. 1. p. 39. ground of his filial relation to God? One word further (as to the latter of theſe), if Chriſt was the Son of God before he was ſent then his ſending did not make him to become the Son of God; but ſo he was, for 'tis ſaid here in the Text God ſent his Son implying he was a Son before he was ſent; had it not been ſo, it muſt have been ſaid God ſent him to be his Son and not God ſent his Son (which ſuppoſes him before the ſending to be actually a Son).

The Third Falſe Ground of Chriſt's Sonſhip.3. Another Cauſe aſſigned of Chriſt's Sonſhip and of the apellation here given him, God's own Son, is his Reſurrection. That begetting which the Pſalmiſt ſpeaks of Pſal. 2.7. is not (ſay they) to be interpreted of Chriſt's being eternally begotten of the Father, but only of what the Father did when he raiſed him up from the dead: for ſo the Apoſtle brings it in Acts 13.32, 33. We declare unto you glad tydings, how that the promiſe which was made unto the Fathers, God hath fulfilled the ſame unto us▪ their children, in that he hath raiſed up Jeſus again: as it is alſo written in the Second Pſalm, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee.

Chriſt not God's Son in reſpect of his Reſu…rection.For anſwer to this, 1. How many Cauſes and Grounds ſhall we have of Chriſt's Sonſhip? we have had two already here's a third, we ſhall have by and by a fourth and a fifth and I know not how many more, where ſhall we ſtop? Chriſt's Sonſhip is but one (I mean as he is the Son of God), and therefore admits not of the multiplication of Cauſes. In all relations there is ſome ſingle act which is the foundation of them, upon which in their relative notion they are compleat: and why ſhould it not be ſo here in the relation betwixt God and Chriſt? Our Opponents tell us that Chriſt upon his miraculous Coneeption was the Son of God? I then ask, was he ſo, truly, fully, perfectly, compleatly? if ſo (which they by their Principles cannot deny) then what need is there of any thing further? or how doth the nature of the thing admit of any thing further? for he that is a Son already perfect and compleat p. 337cannot by any addition or new emergency be made more a Son; becauſe the Eſſence of things (whether abſolute or relative) cannot be intended or remitted. We are enquiring what is it which makes Chriſt the Son of God? we ground it (as we ſhould and muſt) upon one thing, namely upon the Father's begetting of Chriſt from all eternity and communicating his own Nature and Eſſence to him; they (who oppoſe) lay it upon ſeveral things (as you have already heard in part and will yet further hear in what follows): now we ſay this cannot be, for there can be but one foundation of one and the ſame relation, therefore they muſt pitch upon ſome ſuch one foundation and wave all the reſt. I know what they ſay, Chriſt upon his Conception &c. was the Son of God in a way of inchoation, but upon his Reſurrection and Exaltation he was the Son of God in a way of conſummation: I reply, (1.) Then the Texts urged before are out of doors and ſignifie little or nothing; for they only prove that Chriſt (upon his Conception and Sanctification and Miſſion) began to be a Son of God, but he was not ſo indeed, fully, and properly; for there muſt be yet ſomething more which muſt follow after to compleat and conſummate his Sonſhip. (2.) This is a very ſtrange and moſt ungrounded diſtinction, it arguing a growth and progreſs in Chriſt's Sonſhip (for which there is not the leaſt warrant from the Word of God): we read of Chriſt's**Luke 2.52.Luke 2:52 increaſing in wiſdom and ſtature and in favour with God and Man, but we never read of his increaſing in his Sonſhip; that admitted of ſeveral manifeſtative evidences (as to us) but not of ſeveral perfective degrees (as to it ſelf). Even the Sonſhip of Believers at the firſt moment of their Converſion is entire and full; they may grow and be more perfect in their Gifts, Graces, Comforts, but as to their Covenant-ſtate and Relation to God that's compleat at the firſt and admits of no further addition. And ſhall the Sonſhip of the bleſſed Son of God be a partial, imperfect, progreſſive thing? neither the glory of the Perſon nor the nature of the Relation it ſelf will bear ſuch a thing.

2. Secondly, nothing more evident than that Chriſt was the Son of God before his Reſurrection: Matth. 3.17. Lo, a voice from heaven ſaying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed: was not this witneſs given of Chriſt before his Reſurrection? Rom. 8.32. He that ſpared not his own Son but gave him up for us all, how ſhall he not with him alſo freely give us all things? Chriſt here is called God's own Son, which muſt be underſtood of him before his Reſurrection for the Father's not ſparing of him was antecedent to p. 338that, and yet then he was his own Son otherwiſe how could it be ſaid that God ſpared not his own Son? Matth. 16.16. Thou art Chriſt the Son of the living God: was not this Confeſſion made by Peter before Chriſt's Reſurrection? I might go much higher in the dating of Chriſt's Sonſhip than meerly before his Reſurrection; but that is high enough to ſhow the falſity of what is aſſerted by the Adverſary.

3. We ſay Chriſt was **Non quod tum Filins Dei eſſe caeperit, qui ab aeterno fuerat, ſed quia tunc res aliqua fieri dicitur, quando talis cognoſcitur; ſeu tum demum dicitur facta foreign cum fuit facta foreign. Portus contra Oſtorod. cap. 9. p. 67.declared and manifeſted but not made or conſtituted the Son of God by his Reſurrection. So the Apoſtle himſelf ſtates it Rom. 1.4. Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holineſs, by the reſurrection from the dead: (that the word foreign is truly rendred by [declared], is ſufficiently proved by many). 'Tis one thing to be made God's Son, another thing to be declared God's Son, the Firſt Chriſt had from his eternal Generation 'twas only the Second that he had from his Reſurrection. You read Verſ. 19. of this Chapter of the manifeſtation of the Sons of God, Believers are not made the Sons of God when they enter upon the glorified eſtate, but they are then manifeſted both to be the Sons of God as alſo what their glory is upon their being ſo. 1 Joh. 3.2. Now are we the Sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we ſhall be; but we know, that when he ſhall appear, we ſhall be like him: mark it, the relation it ſelf is preſent [now we are the Sons of God], but the dignity and glory which is to follow upon this relation, that doth not yet appear but hereafter it ſhall: So here, Chriſt was the Son of God long before his reſurrection, but the manifeſtation thereof was when God raiſed him from the dead; till then his Sonſhip and Glory had been very much vail'd and hid, but then it broke forth like the Sun after it hath been ſhut up under a dark and thick cloud: then God owned him as his own Son before all the world, and made it to appear who and what he was. And this is that which the Apoſtle aimed at in the place cited: his onelyonly deſign there being to prove that God had given the World ſufficient Evidence that Chriſt was his very Son; and amongſt other Evidences of it he inſtances in the miraculous raiſing of him out of the Grave. So that the begetting in Pſal. 2. and in Acts 13. are of a quite different nature, the one being proper as relating to the thing it ſelf, the other improper as relating only to the declaration or manifeſtation of the thing: We argue from the proper and primary p. 339ſenſe of the words [Thou art my Son &c.] the Adverſe Party from their improper and ſecondary ſence (as the Apoſtle makes uſe of them in that place). In the Scripture dialect ſeveral things are ſaid to be done when they are declared and manifeſted to be done: ſo Paul brings in Chriſt as begotten at the day of his Reſurrection, becauſe it was then declared that he was the eternally begotten Son of God.

A Fourth Falſe Ground of Chriſt's Sonſhip.4. 'Tis ſaid, Chriſt is God's Son (and ſo called) becauſe of the preheminence and dignity of his Perſon, or becauſe of his great advancement and exaltation to the Offices of King and Prieſt. Heb. 1.4, 5. Being made ſo much better than the Angels, Deus miſit ſuum Filium i. e. Chriſtum illum ſuum, cui communis alioqui Filii Dei Titulus, propter ſingularitatem & excellentiam, proprius eſt factus. Slichting. in Loc.as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they: For unto which of the Angels ſaid he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he ſhall be to me a Son. Heb. 5.5. Chriſt glorified not himſelf to be made an high Prieſt: but he that ſaid unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee: Here you ſee Chriſt's Sonſhip comes in upon his exaltation with reſpect to his Perſon and Office.

Chriſt not God's Son in reſpect of his dignity and advancement.I anſwer, this proves as little as that which went before; for here alſo

1. 'Tis clear that Chriſt was the Son of God before he was thus exalted.

2. His Exaltation was not the ground but the reſult and conſequent of his Sonſhip: he was not a Son becauſe he was exalted, but he was exalted becauſe he was a Son. Firſt the Apoſtle deſcribes him in what relates to the formality and Eſſence of his Sonſhip, Heb. 1.3. Who being the brightneſs of his Glory, and the expreſs image of his Perſon: and then he ſets down the Honour which the Father put upon him, not to be a Son (for that he was already) but becauſe he was a Son, (for that's the ground of the more excellent name given to him, and ſo the words in Verſ. 4, 5. come in).

3. 'Tis ſtrange that this day of Chriſt's begetting ſhould be ſo multiplied: there's the day of his Nativity, and then it was [to day have I begotten thee; there's the day of his Reſurrection, and then too it was [To day have &c.] there's the day of his Exaltation, and then again it was [To day have] &c. Had this Text been cited forty times in forty ſeveral Caſes, we muſt have had ſo many ſeveral grounds and Cauſes of Chriſt's Sonſhip.

p. 340But why then (Some may ſay) is this place ſo often repeated in the New Teſtament?

I anſwer, not only becauſe 'tis apply'd to the ſeveral declarations of Chriſt's Sonſhip, but alſo to ſhew that all which the Father did to and for Chriſt was all to be reſolv'd into his eternal Sonſhip as the ground thereof: he was raiſed again becauſe he was the Son of God, exalted to great Honour and Dignity becauſe he was the Son all was grounded upon this his Relation. And therefore when ever ſuch great things are brought in concerning Chriſt, this Text is mentioned as pointing to that Sonſhip which was the ground of them, but not to aſſert that they were the ground of it.

**Chriſt not the Son of God becauſe of his Kingly Dominion. Vide Jacob. ad Portum contra Oſtorod. Def. Fid. Orthod. c. 37. p. 512 ad 518. Not becauſe of his preheminence &c. Epiph. adv. Hereſ. p. 740. foreign &c.4. Though the glory which the Father hath conferr'd upon Chriſt, (as King, Prophet, and Prieſt) be very great, yet it will not reach that which is wrapp'd up in his being the proper and only begotten Son of God. Sonſhip and Office are different things, and the higheſt Office can never come up to what is in Sonſhip by eternal Generation.

A Fifth Falſe Ground of Chriſt's Sonſhip.5. Fifthly 'tis ſaid that Chriſt is the Son of God in reſpect of that ſpecial love and affection which the Father bears to him. Matth. 3. 17. Lo, a voice from heaven, ſaying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed: And whereas Chriſt is called the only begotten Son of God, they (with whom I have to do) ſay there's no more in it than only this that Chriſt is the moſt beloved of God: As Iſaac is ſtilled Abraham's only Son Gen. 22.2. his only begotten Son Heb. 11.17. now how is this to be taken? had not Abraham an Iſhmael as well as an Iſaac? how is Iſaac then called his only begotten Son? why, only as he had a greater ſhare in his Fathers love than Iſhmael had. For the ſame reaſon Solomon calls himſelf an only Son Prov. 4.3. therefore the Septuagint render the word there uſed [foreign] by foreign, the beloved; and ſo our Tranſlators fill it up [and only beloved in the ſight of my Mother]. So (ſay they) 'tis here as to Chriſt's being the only begotten Son of God, God hath a ſpecial love for him and that's all.

Chriſt not the Son of God in reſpect of his Fathers ſpecial Love,Anſw. But we muſt not ſuffer this great Title of our Lord Jeſus to be thus wreſted out of our hands: Without all queſtion God hath tranſcendent, ſuperlative love for Chriſt, (his dear Son he is called Col. 1.13.) but yet we ſay,

p. 3411. (As before) this Love is not the Cauſe of his Sonſhip but his Sonſhip the cauſe of it: He is not a Son becauſe belov'd, but he is belov'd becauſe a Son; therefore it cannot be the Cauſe which is but the Effect.

2. If this was the proper foundation of Chriſt's Sonſhip, then there would be only a **foreign. Epiph. adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 2. p. 741.gradual difference betwixt his Sonſhip and the Sonſhip of Believers. For they being belov'd of the Father as well as he and even as he is, (for the nature and quality of the Love though not for the degree of it; Joh. 17.23. &c.—and haſt loved them as thou haſt loved me); I ſay it being ſo, if the Love of the Father to Chriſt was the proper ground of his Sonſhip, it would then follow, that they are Sons juſt as Chriſt is (only in a lower degree). But ſurely the Scripture holds forth more than a gradual difference betwixt his Sonſhip and theirs; that [foreign]††Heb. 1.4.Heb 1:4 more excellent name (which the Apoſtle ſpeaks of) carry's more in it than barely an higher degree of Sonſhip, it points even to a different kind and order thereof.

3. As to the Inſtances alledged for that uſe and ſignification of the word which might undermine that which we put upon it, 'tis anſwered that Iſaac is called the only Son and the only begotten of Abraham, not only becauſe of all the Sons he had his greateſt love, but there were other grounds and reaſons of it; he was the only Son by Sarah, the only Son by Promiſe, and the only Heir of the Promiſe, upon which accounts (as well as upon the higheſt proportion of his Fathers love to him), he is ſtiled the only begotten Son: The ſame (under different Circumſtances) may be ſaid concerning Solomon. But ſuppoſe that this was the only thing held forth in the Ʋnigeniture of theſe Perſons, will it follow that therefore 'tis all in the unigeniture of Chriſt too? when there is ſo great a diſparity 'twixt Perſon and Perſon, Sonſhip and Sonſhip (as hath been already, and might yet further be demonſtrated if it was needful)?

4. There is in Scripture another Title given to Chriſt, to which the Father's greater love towards him than towards others doth more properly belong; namely his being the [foreign] the firſt-born or the firſt-begotten. Heb. 1.6.—When he bringeth in the firſt begotten into the world &c. Col. 1.15. The image of the inviſible God, the firſt-born of every Creature: And elſewhere (upon ſome ſpecial and particular Conſiderations with reſpect to his Reſurrection,) he is called the firſt-born from the dead. Col. 1.18. the firſt-begotten from the dead, Rev. 1.5. (but as the Title in that reference p. 342is applied to Chriſt I am not now to meddle with it).

What doth his being the Firſt-born or Firſt-begotten hold forth?

Anſw. **Quomodo primogenitus eſſe potuit, niſi quia ſecundum Divinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex Deo Patre ſermo proceſſit. Tertull.Some expound it of his eternal Generation by the Father; Some, of the preheminence and dignity of his Perſon, as alſo of the immunities and priviledges which belong to him above others: As the Firſt-born under the Law had an excellency put upon him from his Primogeniture, to him the dominion and††Gen. 27.29. & 49.8.Gen 27:29Gen 49:8 authority over the Family did belong, as alſo the‖‖Deut. 21.15, 16, 17.Deut 21:15Deut 21:16Deut 21:17 double portion in the inheritance, and he was the moſt beloved: In reference to which the people of Iſrael are ſtiled Gods firſt-born, Exod. 4.22. Iſrael is my Son, even my firſt-born; becauſe of that great glory which God put upon that people and that ſingular affection which he bore to them. In all theſe reſpects Chriſt is God's Firſt-born; if you underſtand it of his eternal Generation ſo 'tis incommunicable to any Other, ſo he is primogenitus & unigenitus, firſt-begotten and only begotten too; but if you underſtand it of the excellency of his Perſon and of the Other particulars mentioned, ſo (in ſuch a degree) 'tis communicable to others. For Iſrael you ſee in a ſubordinate and alluſive ſenſe was ſtiled God's firſt-born; and all Believers too may be ſo ſtiled in reſpect of the dignity of their Perſons and of God's ſpecial love towards them. As Chriſt is the Only begotten of the Father that's excluſive to all, as he is the firſt-begotten of the Father that ſignifies praelation but not excluſion. Saints are excellent though not ſo excellent as Chriſt, beloved though not ſo beloved as Chriſt, heirs though not ſuch heirs as Chriſt. And therefore had Chriſt been called only the firſt-born, and that too in its ſecond import and ſignificancy, ſomething then might have been inferred from it for the nulling of that Sonſhip which we plead for, as only belonging to him: but beſides this he is alſo called the only begotten, wherefore he muſt be alone in this relation. And though the Saints do in a lower degree ſhare with him in the Father's love as he is the firſt-born, yet they do not at all ſhare with him in the glory of his eternal Generation as he is the only begotten.

A Sixth Falſe Ground of Chriſt's Sonſhip.6. Sixthly we are told that Chriſt is the Son of God in reſpect of Adoption: that he is not the Natural or Eſſential, only the adopted Son of God.

This our Oppoſers are not afraid nor aſhamed to aſſert; O how low will they bring the Sonſhip of our bleſſed Lord and Saviour!Chriſt not Gods Son in reſpect of Adoption. they'l make him any thing rather than grant what indeed he is; but for Anſwer. This is no novel Opinion or that which was never broached in the Church before; 'twas the old Hereſie of thoſe p. 343two Spaniſh Biſhops **See Forbeſii Inſtruct. Hiſtorico-Theolog. L. 6. C. 1.Felix and Elipandus, (condemned in a††Concil. Tom. 20. p. 82. &c. ſecundum Edit. Reg. Paris. Council held at Frankford very near a thouſand years ago); both‖‖foreign. Cyrill. Hieroſol. Quod ſi etiam unigenitùs Filius dicitur ex Gratiâ, non verè genitus ex naturâ, proculdubio Nomen & veritatem unigeniti perdidit, poſtquam Fratres habere jam caepit. Privatur enim hujus veritate nominis, ſi in unigenito non eſt de Patre veritas naturalis. Fulgent. Si quaeritur, an Chriſtus ſit adoptivus Filius ſecundum quod Homo, ſive alio modo: Reſpondemus, Chriſtum non eſſe adoptivum Filium aliquo modo, ſed tantum Naturalem, quia Naturâ Filius Dei eſt non Adoptionis gratiâ. Lombard. Vide alios è Scholaſticis in Hoorneb. Socin. Confut. tom. 2. c. 1. de Chriſto. p. 30. & è Patribus in Zanch. de Tribus Elohim. p. 249. Fathers and Schoolmen (all but Durandus) argue much againſt it.

Take (in brief) theſe Four Arguments againſt it.

1. In all the **Legi, & relegi Scripturas, Jèſum Filium Dei Adoptione nuſquam inveni. Ambroſ.Scriptures Chriſt is never ſtiled the Adopted Son of God: nay, there's nothing there to be found in the leaſt to countenance the attributing of ſuch a Sonſhip to him; 'tis a meer forgery of man to evade and put off what the Word expreſly aſſerts. We read much of God's adopting of Saints but nothing at all of his adopting of Chriſt.

2. Then Chriſt and Believers would have the ſame Sonſhip, they being Sons by Adoption as well as he, and he having no higher foundation for his Sonſhip than they.

3. Chriſt is the true and proper Son of God, but ſhould he be his Son by Adoption he would then ceaſe to be**In materiâ & negotio Filiationis, pròprius & adoptivus opponuntùr; ut proprius non ſit adoptivus, & adoptivus non ſit proprius; ſed adoptivus opponitur naturali, & proprio, & Naturalis non eſt adoptivus; Adoptivis Liberis opponuntur naturales ac veri, dicunt Juriſconſulti. Hoorneb. his true and proper Son: for he that is adopted is only a Son in an improper and alluſive notion, and but in the eſteem and repute of him who doth adopt. Socinus himſelf ſo deſcribes ſuch an one,††Adoptivus Filius eſt, qui pro Filio quidem habetur, ſed tamen reverà non eſt Filius. An adopted Son is one who is accounted a Son but in truth and reality he is not ſo: then according to his own explication of it, if Chriſt be an adopted Son he is no true and proper Son, but only ſo as the Father doth ſo repute him. And is not Chriſt now greatly beholden to theſe perſons? is he not highly advanced by them? do they not ſhew great reſpect and give great honour to him (according to what they pretend), in making of him only a putative Son? Adoption indeed is not ſo much too high for us but 'tis as much too low for Chriſt.

4. If begotten then not adopted, for theſe two are incompatible p. 344or inconſiſtent: the ſame Son cannot be begotten and adopted too, therefore adoption comes in to ſupply the want of Generation. Chriſt muſt be the one or the other, and if he be the one he cannot be the other; if begotten then not adopted, and if adopted then not begotten. 'Tis true, in the Sonſhip of Believers there is both, they are Sons by regeneration and adoption too; but the reaſon of that is becauſe they are Sons but in an improper and Metaphorical reſpect, (I mean in contradiſtinction to Chriſt who is the very true and natural Son of God).

A Seventh Falſe Ground of Chriſt's Sonſhip.7. Once more, they ſay Chriſt is God's own Son becauſe of his reſemblance and likeneſs to him.

This comes exceeding ſhort for 'tis not likeneſs but oneneſs, not reſemblance but equality upon which Chriſt is called God's Son; Chriſt not Gods Son in reſpect of his likeneſs to God.he himſelf draws it up to that (as you have already heard). No likeneſs here will ſuffice but Eſſential likeneſs, (anſwerable to that Gen. 5.3. Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and beg at a Son in his own likeneſs, after his image. Amongſt us you know likeneſs is not the foundation of Sonſhip; the Son is a Son not becauſe he is like his Father but becauſe he is begotten by his Father; and ſo 'tis with reſpect to Chriſt. There may be reſemblance where yet there no filial relation: in the glorified ſtate we ſhall be**Luke 20.36.Luke 20:36 like the Angels, yet I never read of any paternal and filial relation 'twixt them and us. In time I fear (according to the old Hereſie of Some) it will come to Chriſt's being the Son of Man too but in likeneſs. He is the Son of Man as he hath the very Nature and Eſſence of man, and why is he not the Son of God alſo as he hath the very Nature and Eſſence of God?

Thus I have both laid down the truth and alſo made it good againſt Oppoſers: And now the falſe Grounds and Notions of Chriſt's Sonſhip being remov'd, the true Ground and Notion of it is the more evident, (viz.) that he is God's own Son as he partakes of his Eſſence and was from everlaſting begotten by him. He that would read full and large Diſcourſes upon this great Subject, let him peruſe the Writings of thoſe**Biſterf. contra Crell. Lib. …. Sect. 2. cap. 31. Smiglet. de Vero & naturali Dei Filio contra Smalcium. Jacob. ad Portum adv. Oſtorod. Def. Fid. Orthod. cap. 9. Arnold. Catech. Racov. Maj. cap. 1. de Perſon. Chriſti. Idem againſt Biddle, cap. 7. Calov. Socin. Proflig. De Filio Dei Controv. 4. Hoorneb. Socin. confut. tom. 2. cap. 1. de Chriſto. Dr. Owen againſt Biddle ch. 7. Eſtwick againſt Biddle p. 110 &c. & 375. Cheynal Trin-unity. p. 190 &c. Alting. Theol. Elenctica. p. 149. ad 187. Worthy Inſtruments whom God hath raiſed up and enabled to aſſert and defend it: If any think I have been too long or have unneceſſarily troubled my ſelf and p. 345the Reader about it, I muſt (for ſeveral Reaſons) crave leave to differ from them. We cannot ſay too much, or too often go over thoſe things in which the Honour of God's own Son (our Lord and Maſter) and the good of Souls are ſo highly concerned. Give the Socinians their due ('tis but a ſad commendation) all along they make their thruſts at the very heart of Religion, they fight againſt neither great or ſmall but only againſt the great King of all the World, the very Son of God; whom they ſtrike at in his Deity, eternal Sonſhip, Incarnation, Satisfaction, in what not? Surely we cannot too much endeavour to antidote men againſt their deſperate Soul-deſtroying venome and poyſon, eſpecially in Times wherein men ſeem more than ordinarily to incline to cloſe with their peſtilent Opinions; upon which Conſiderations I would encourage my ſelf to hope, that ſuch who are Friends to Chriſt and Souls will put a candid interpretation upon what hath been done. Yet as to the Learned (if any ſuch ſhall caſt their eye upon theſe Papers) I beg their pardon for the repeating of things ſo well known and common to them, and which they have elſewhere with great advantage: I have only this to ſay for my ſelf, my eye hath been upon private Chriſtians to make things plain to them, and to ſet that before them here which (as written in other Languages) they could not reach.

Whether Chriſt may not be the Son of God by eternal Generation and by the other ways too?So much for theſe! But (though I have been too prolix already) I have not yet done: there are ſome Others (of a different party and denomination) who do (in part) concur and ſymbolize with the 'forenamed Diſſenters. For though they hold that Chriſt in a more ſpecial manner is the Son of God by eternal Generation, yet they alſo hold that he is the Son of God too in reſpect of his Conception, Office, Reſurrection, and Exaltation. **Vid. Diſput, publ. Theſ. 5.Arminius himſelf pitches upon the firſt (as the only ground of the Sonſhip of Chriſt), but his Succeſſors take in the latter alſo; ſo the††Confeſſ. c. 3. ſect. 2. p. 14. & Apolog. contra Cenſur. c. 2. p. 48. Remonſtrants, ſo‖‖Inſtit. Theol. l. 4. ſect. 2. c. 33. Epiſcopius (a perſon of great eminence). Theſe tell us that God is the proper Father of Chriſt and he the proper Son of God, but how? why not only as he was eternally begotten by him, but alſo as he was miraculouſly Conceived by the Virgin Mary (that agreeing to none but only to him): And therefore in this Point (upon their blending of theſe things together) they are judged by Some**See Peltius Harm. Remonſtr. & Socin. Art. 4. to Socinianize.

Now though this Opinion doth come incomparably ſhort of that which abſolutely deny's Chriſt's eternal Generation, (provided) that the abettors of it who ſeem to grant this Generation do ſtate it p. 346right, (that is) that they hold Chriſt to be begotten in the very Nature and Eſſence of God and therein equal to him, foreign; (of which there is juſt matter of doubting as to the **Inſtit: Theol. lib. 4. cap. 32.Perſon nam'd but now, he making the Son in the Deity it ſelf not co-ordinate but ſubordinate to the Firſt Perſon): I ſay, though this Opinion (thus ſtated) be nothing neer ſo bad as the former, yet††Cenſura Profeſs. Leid. in c. 3. p. 51. Trigland. in Exam. Ap…log. cap. 5. Alting. Theol. Elenc. p. 151. &c. et p. 181. &c. Divines of another perſuaſion cannot cloſe with it or let it paſs without ſome Confutation.

The Arguments againſt it do very much fall in with thoſe which have been inſiſted upon already:

1. Firſt if Chriſt be the Son of God as eternally begotten with reſpect to his Divine Nature, and alſo the Son of God as conceived in time &c. with reſpect to his Humane Nature, then the Scripture doth groundleſly and needleſly diſtinguiſh betwixt his being the Son of God in reference to the one, and his being the Son of Man in reference to the other Nature: Why doth it make him to be**Rom. 1.3, 4.Rom 1:3Rom 1:4 God's Son according to the Spirit of Holineſs (i. e. his Divine Nature), and the Son of David according to the Fleſh (i. e. his Humane Nature), if with reſpect to both he be the Son of God? this is to confound thoſe things which the Scripture makes diſtinct and places under ſeveral references. Chriſt's Sonſhips, as the Son of God and as the Son of Man, are two very different things, and therefore they cannot have the ſame foundation. 'Tis true, he who is the Son of Man is alſo the Son of God, but as he is the Son of Man or in what is proper to him as the Son of Man, ſo he is not the Son of God: And 'tis true, theſe two in concreto may convertibly be predicated each of the other, thus, the Son of God is the Son of Man and the Son of Man is the Son of God; but this is founded not upon the oneneſs of the foundation of the Relation, nor upon the oneneſs of the two Natures, but upon the**Inficiamur Chriſtum eſſe foreign &c. quamvis propter Naturam Humanam perſonae divinae hypoſtaticè unitam, dicamus etiam in concreto, hunc hominem Jefum Deum ac Filium Dei unigenitum eſſe, per communicationem idiomatum &c. Cloppenb. Comp. Socin. p. 38. communication of properties and the union of the two Natures in one Perſon. It comes to this, where the relations are diſtinct the grounds of theſe relations muſt be diſtinct; and therefore Chriſt's Sonſhip (as the Son of God and as the Son of Man) being diſtinct, there cannot be one and the ſame ground of them.

2. If this was ſo, that Chriſt was the Son of God conjunctly upon his eternal Generation and alſo upon his conception and advancement in time, then he would ſtrangely differ in the ſame relation. I do not contradict my ſelf in what I ſaid but now under p. 347the former head; for there I ſpake of both the Sonſhips of Chriſt which differ very much and muſt not be confounded, but here I ſpeak only of his ſingle Sonſhip as he is the Son of God, which is but one and muſt not be divided. Obſerve me, as the difference of the Sonſhips of Chriſt (as the Son of God and as the Son of Mary) depends upon the difference of their Grounds, (eternal Generation being the ground of the one, and temporal Generation being the ground of the ooher); ſo the oneneſs of the ſame ſingle Sonſhip of Chriſt (as the Son of God) depends upon the oneneſs of the ground of it, viz. his Generation by the Father: for if you add any other ground to this then Chriſt ceaſes to be one Son, then he is the Son of God partly by Nature and partly by Grace, partly begotten and partly made, partly from eternity and partly in time: what a ſtrange Son would Chriſt be upon theſe terms!

3. There can be but one true and proper Cauſe of one and the ſame Filiation; (this hath been already proved). Divines are ſo tender of multiplying this relation of Chriſt, that ſeveral of them (though they grant the diſtinction of his Natures and hold his twofold Generation, yet) they argue but for one Sonſhip to belong to him; for (ſay they,) Sonſhip belonging to the Perſon and being founded upon the Perſon, Chriſt being but one Perſon therefore he can have but one Sonſhip; (ſo**3. p. Queſt. 35. Art. 5. in corpore Art. Aquinas argues). I concur with††See Durandus, Rada &c. Junius, Martinius, Ameſius in Hoorneb. Socin. Conf. tom. 2. de Chriſto. c. 1. p. 30, 31, 32. Others who attribute a twofold Sonſhip to Chriſt; but then I affirm that each of them have but that one ſingle Cauſe or foundation which is reſpectively proper to them; 'tis only eternal Generation of the Father which makes Chriſt to be the Son of God, and 'tis only temporal Generation of the Virgin which makes him to be the Son of Man.

4. We ſay Oppoſitorum oppoſita ratio, if Chriſt be the Son of Man only becauſe he was conceived of the ſubſtance of his Mother, then he is the Son of God only upon the account of his being begotten of the ſubſtance of his Father, (as a**Dr O. ag. B. p. 179. Worthy Author argues).

5. Whatever is over and above eternal Generation is but manifeſtative and not conſtitutive of Chriſt's Sonſhip: (this hath been made out in the ſeveral particulars alleadg'd, therefore it will be needleſs to add any thing further upon it).

I have ſhown wherein and how Chriſt is the Son of God, his own proper Son, I'le but propound one Queſtion and very briefly Anſwer it and then I ſhall have finiſh'd the Explicatory part: 'Tis this, p. 348if Chriſt be God's Son becauſe in his ineffable Generation the Divine Eſſence was communicated to him,Quest. Of the different Communication of the Divine Eſſence from the Father to the Son and to the holy Ghoſt. Anſw. why may not the Holy Ghoſt the third Perſon alſo be ſtiled the Son of God to whom the ſame Eſſence was communicated as well as unto Chriſt?

I anſwer No, for two Reaſons:

(1.) Becauſe 'tis the ſame Eſſence in both yet not the ſame Perſon. When we ſpeak of the communicating of the Divine Eſſence from the Firſt to the Second and Third Perſons, we muſt be underſtood (as was before hinted) to ſpeak this of them as Perſons or as they are perſonally conſidered: for that Eſſence ſimply and abſolutely conſidered is not communicated to the Son and Spirit, but only as it ſubſiſts in them as ſuch Perſons: the Godhead it ſelf they have in and from themſelves, but their diſtinct Perſonalities (in which the Godhead ſubſiſts) are of the Father. It being thus, from hence it follows that according to the diſtinction of the Perſons there muſt alſo be a diſtinct communication of the divine Eſſence; not that there is one Eſſence in the Son and another in the Spirit (for both are God); only that is diſtinguiſh'd according to their Perſonal Conſideration and the Perſonal Properties belonging to them, (which notwithſtanding their oneneſs in Nature do alwayes remain). Well then, Chriſt's Sonſhip being a Perſonal thing proceeding not ſimply from the Divine Eſſence but as it ſubſiſts in the ſecond Perſon, therefore it muſt be proper and peculiar to him and not common to the Holy Ghoſt, he being another Perſon and the Divine Nature ſubſiſting in him accordingly (with reſpect to his Perſonal Properties).

(2.) Becauſe though the ſame Divine Eſſence be communicated to both yet not in the ſame way and manner. For though both come from the Father yet 'tis in divers reſpects, the Son coming from him by Generation, the Spirit by Proceſſion. And therefore though both are God and both come from God yet both are not the Sons of God, becauſe 'tis coming from God in the way of Generation only which entitles to Sonſhip. Thus**Quaeris à me ſi de ſubſtantiâ Patris eſt Filius, de ſubſtantiâ Patris eſt etiam Spiritus Sanctus, cur unus Filius ſit, & alius non ſit Filius? Ego reſpondeo, ſive capias ſive non capias, De Patte eſt Filius, de Patre eſt Spiritus Sanctus, ſed ille genitus eſt, iſte procedens. Auguſt. contra Maxim. lib. 3. cap. 14: Auſtine anſwers it, Thou askeſt of me (ſaith he) if the Son be of the ſubſtance of the Father, and the Holy Ghoſt be of the ſubſtance of the Father alſo, why is one the Son and not the Other? I anſwer, whether you comprehend it or not, the Son is of the Father, the Holy Ghoſt is of the Father, but the Son p. 349is begotten, the Spirit proceeds. Thus this great Divine did ſolve this difficulty ſtopping here and going no further: If any will be ſo curious as to enquire further wherein the difference lies betwixt eternal Generation and eternal Proceſſion? I am not aſham'd to give them this anſwer I cannot tell, 'tis a myſtery far above my reach; God hath not revealed it and there is nothing in Nature which will give us any light about it, therefore it becomes us rather to adore than to be inquiſitive. I know the Schoolmen (who are privy to all ſecrets, and have a key to open every difficulty though it be lock'd up never ſo cloſe) attempt the opening of it, but they had better have let it alone: here humble ignorance is better than ſawey curioſity. I think**foreign hujus differentiae ſcire & credi ex divina revelatione: At foreign eſt nobis incomprehenſibile & ineffabile. Alting. Theolog. Prolem. loc. 3. Problem. 38. p. 238. they ſpeak beſt who ſay, we know and believe there is a difference 'twixt Generation and Proceſſion, but what that is and wherein it lies, that is to us incomprehenſible. 'Tis time therefore for me to leave this Point and to come to the Application of the main Truth.

Is Chriſt thus God's own Son? I infer then

Uſe 1. Three Things inferr'd from Chriſt's Sonſhip. 1. That he is God.1. That he is God: Not a meer titular or nuncupative God, not a God by Office only, not a made God (a contradiction in the adject); but he is God truly, properly, eſſentially. Which great Truth is moſt ſtrongly aſſerted and proved by various convincing Arguments againſt Jews, Arrians, Socinians, all the Oppoſers of it; I muſt not engage in ſo vaſt a Subject, I'le only argue from this Relation wherein Chriſt ſtands to God as he is his own Son, which indeed by its ſelf is ſufficient (if there was nothing more) to demonſtrate his Godhead. He who is the true Son of God and ſuch a Son of God is truly God, but Chriſt is the true Son of God and ſuch a Son of God (his own Son), therefore he is truly God &c. The Apoſtle joyns the true Son and the true God together, therefore the Argument is good: 1 Joh. 5.20. We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an underſtanding that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jeſus Chriſt: this is the true God, and eternal Life. I do not ſay that every Son of God is God for the Saints are Sons and yet not God; but I ſay he who is ſuch a Son as God's own, proper, natural, conſubſtantial, coeſſential, only begotten Son, he is God; where-ever this Sonſhip is there's the Deity or the Divine Eſſence: now Chriſt is thus God's Son therefore he is God. What the Father is as to his Nature that the Son muſt be alſo; now the firſt Perſon the Father of Chriſt is God whereupon he too who is the Son muſt be God alſo. A Son alwayes participates of his Fathers Eſſence, there is betwixt them p. 350more an identity and oneneſs of Nature; if therefore Chriſt be Gods Son (as hath been fully proved) he muſt then needs have**Niſi eſſet Jeſus Chriſtus foreign Naturâ Deus, non eſſet foreign Naturâ ſeu Naturalis Dei Filius. Cloppenb. Anti-Smalc. c. 3. p. 72. Vide Jacob ad Portum contra Oſtorod. c. 9. p. 59. Eſtwick againſt Bidale p. 442 &c. that very Nature and Eſſence which God the Father hath; in ſomuch that if the ſecond Perſon be not really a God, the firſt Perſon is but equivocally a Father. Therefore he himſelf tells us††Job. 10.30.Job 10:30 I and my Father are one: where he is ſpeaking of a far higher oneneſs than that of Conſent or Will only. Chriſt being both the natural Son of God and alſo his Son by eternal Generation, that makes the thing unqueſtionable; for what is that Generation but the Fathers communicating of his own Nature and Eſſence to him? This is that which is done in all Generations, for Generation is alwayes the production of another in the ſame Nature; **foreign &c. Epiph. Haereſ. 69. p. 750. foreign Phot. Ep. p. 4. foreign &c. Najanz. Orat. 35. tom. 1. p. 568.like ever begets like, (as 'tis ſaid of Adam he begat a Son in his own likeneſs after his image Gen. 5.3.) and muſt it not be ſo here in the Father's begetting of Chriſt? If Man begets Man then God begets God, (this being taken in that ſenſe which I laid down in my firſt entrance upon this Subject); I know this will not hold as to all modes and circumſtances (with reſpect to which I grant there is a great diſparity), but as to the conveyance of the ſame Nature and Eſſence, ſo far it will hold. The Jews therefore Joh. 5.18. argued very well, if God was Chriſt's Father and he God's Son then he was equal with▪ God, for ſuch an equality muſt naturally and neceſſarily reſult from ſuch a Relation. Joh. 10.36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath ſanctified, and ſent into the world, Thou blaſphemeſt, becauſe I ſaid I am the Son of God? why doth he ſay becauſe I ſaid I am the Son of God? he ſhould have ſaid becauſe I ſaid I am God, for that was the blaſphemy charged upon him (Verſ. 33.) becauſe that thou being a man makeſt thy ſelf God: but the anſwer is obvious, Chriſt knew that theſe were equipollent terms, to be God and to be the Son of God are all one, if Chriſt be the one he muſt be the other too. You find Nathaneel breaking forth into this witneſs concerning p. 351him,**Joh. 1.49.John 1:49 Thou art the Son of God &c. his meaning was thou art God; for that which drew this Confeſſion from him was that which was proper to him as God, namely his Omniſciency; (See Joh. 1.48.) God and the Son of God are ſo much one that he who ſpeaks Chriſt to be the Son of God ſpeaks him to be God alſo. As ſoon as the Apoſtle had ſet down Chri'ſts Sunſhip Heb. 1.5. preſently he falls upon thoſe teſtimonies which relate to his Godhead; Verſ. 6, 8, 10, 11, 12. When he bringeth in the firſt begotten into the world, he ſaith, And let all the Angels of God worſhip him. Ʋnto the Son he ſaith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a Scepter of Righteouſneſs is the Scepter of thy Kingdom: Thou Lord in the beginning haſt laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands: They ſhall periſh, but thou remaineſt: and they all ſhall wax old as doth a garment. And as a veſture ſhalt thou fold them up, and they ſhall be changed, but thou art the ſame, and thy years ſhall not fail. You ſee how Chriſt's Sonſhip is link'd with the Godhead; therefore the Argument is good to prove the latter by the former. And indeed as his being the Son of Man doth moſt evidently evince him to be truly Man, ſo his being the Son of God doth as evidently evince him to be truly God.

The Second Inference, that Chriſt is a great a glorious Perſon.2. Is Chriſt God's own Son? I infer, ſurely then he is a very great and glorious Perſon; ſuch a relation cannot but be the foundation of great glory. Though Chriſt's dignity and preheminence is not the gróund of his Sonſhip, yet his Sonſhip is the ground of his dignity and preheminence. He is ſtiled a great high Prieſt Heb. 4.14. not only becauſe of the greatneſs of his Sacerdotal Office, but alſo becauſe of the greatneſs of his Perſon who doth manage that Office (he being God's own Son); therefore it follows, ſeeing we have a great high Prieſt &c. Jeſus the Son of God. 'Tis no ſmall honour amongſt us to be the ſon of ſome great man, O what an honour is it to Chriſt to be the own and only Son of the great God! It puts a marvailous-glory and greatneſs upon the Saints that they are the adopted Sons of God, upon the Angels that they are the created Sons of God; but what is this to Chriſt's being the natural, only begotten Son of God? herein and hereby he hath obtained**Heb. 1.4.Heb 1:4 a more excellent name than either Angels or Men, for††Col. 1.18.Col 1:18 in all things (or amongst all perſons) he muſt have the preheminence. The higher and nearer the relation is to God the higher and greater is the glory which accrews to a perſon ſtanding in that relation; now what relation to God can be higher and nearer than this of Chriſt (as he is his own Son)? therefore his glory muſt needs be p. 352exceeding great; O let not any entertain low thoughts of him who is thus the Son of God. The Lord Jeſus is the Father's beſt Son (for Gifts, Grace, Holineſs &c.) and he's the Father's greateſt Son (for Dignity, Glory and Majeſty): I ſay he's the Father's beſt Son, how ſhort do all Sons come of this Son! we read of**Micipſa in Saluſt. Ne ego meliores Liberos ſumpſiſſe videar quam genuille. One who fear'd he might ſeem to adopt better Sons than thoſe whom he begat; there's no ſuch thing to be imagin'd with reſpect to God, to be ſure his only begotten Son ſhall infinitely exceed all his adopted Sons, for God hath anointed him with the oyl of gladneſs above his fellows, Pſal. 45.7. And he's the greateſt Son too, for God hath ſet him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but alſo in that which is to come. Eph. 1.20, 21. True indeed this great Son for a time**Phil. 2.7.Phil 2:7 emptied himſelf of his glory and for our ſake ſubmitted to great abaſement, but yet even then in himſelf he was very high and glorious: he who cloathed himſelf with our raggs, put on our fleſh, condeſcended to lie in the manger, to die upon the croſs, he even under all this was the proper Son of God and therefore full of glory. And 'tis very notable to conſider how in Chriſt even when he was under his loweſt abaſement, when this Sun was hid under the thickeſt cloud, I ſay how even**Infantia parvuli oſtenditur humilitate cunarum, magnitudo altiſſimi declaratur vocibus Angelorum; ſimilis eſt rudimentis Hominum quem Herodes impius molitur occidere, ſed Dominus eſt omnium quem Magi gaudentes veniunt ſupplicitèr adorare. Leo Magn. Ep. ad Flavian. Ep. Conſt. Najanzen Orat. 35. tom. 1. p. 375. inſtances in ſeveral particulars about this and very clegantly enlarges upon them. then there were ſome beamings out and breakings forth of his glory ſuitable to this his relation: he's laid in the manger but there the Wiſe men come and worſhip him, he's tempted by Satan but then the Angels miniſter unto him, he's crucified but then the vail of the Temple was rent, the earth quaked, the rocks were rent, the graves open'd, the Sun ſtepp'd in and hid it ſelf (as being aſham'd to be ſeen in its glory when the far brighter Sun was under ſuch an Eclipſe); upon all which the Centurion might well cry out truly this was the Son of God. But what a perſon is Chriſt now? when the time of his humiliation is over, and when he appears in all things like himſelf as the Son of God in his greateſt glory!

The Third Inference: that the Work of Redemption was a very great Work.3. Thirdly, was Chriſt God's own Son? I infer, certainly then the work of Redemption was a very great work; for God ſent his own Son about it and therefore ſurely 'twas no ordinary or common thing. Alwayes the greater the Perſon is who is imployed in the work the greater is that work; 'tis thus from the wiſdom p. 353of a Man, much more ſhall it be thus from the wiſdom of a God: Kings do not uſe to ſend their Sons upon mean and petty ſervices but only upon ſuch as are high and weighty; and can it be imagined that ever God would have ſent his own Son into the world to redeem Sinners, if this had not been a work very high and great in his eye? Indeed this makes Redemption to be the greateſt work that ever was done by God himſelf; the making of the World was a great thing but God never ſent his Son about that, that was diſpatch'd by a word, he did but ſpeak the word and it was done: Works of Providence are very great but there's no ſending of a Son about them; but when Redemption-work was to come upon the ſtage, in order to that Chriſt (God's own Son) muſt come from heaven, and be incarnate, and do, and die, and all was neceſſary for the accompliſhing of that; O how great a work was this! (So much for the Firſt Ʋſe by way of Inference).

Uſe 2. For Exhortation. 1. Branch of the Exhortation, to ſtudy Chriſt as the proper Son of God.2. Secondly, was Chriſt God's own Son? let me from hence urge a few things upon you.

1. Study Chriſt much in this relation, that you may know him as the proper, natural, eſſential Son of God. The knowledge of Chriſt (in whatever notion you conſider him) is very pretious, it was ſo to Paul who**1 Cor. 2.2.1 Cor 2:2 determined not to know any thing ſave Jeſus Chriſt &c. and††Phil. 3.8.Phil 3:8 who counted all things but loſs, for the excellency of the knowledge of Chriſt Jeſus: but to know him as he ſtands in this near relation to God, as God's own Son, O this is precious knowledge indeed! Now (Sirs) you have heard much of him, read much of him, but do you know him and know him as the eternal only-begotten Son of God? This is that Truth upon which all Religion depends, in which you have the very heart and ſpirit of the Goſpel, upon which the whole ſtreſs of your happineſs is laid, 'tis one of the moſt fundamental Articles of the Chriſtian Faith; and yet will you be ignorant of it? You all have ſome general knowledge of it, and you all profeſs to believe it ('tis a part of your Creed), but do you diſtinctly and clearly know (alwayes allowing for the myſteriouſneſs of the Object and the dimneſs of your Facultys,) how Chriſt is the Son of God, how his Sonſhip was brought about and wherein it lies? that he is God's natural Son begotten by him from all eternity in a moſt myſterious and admirable manner, do you underſtand any thing about this?**Cognoſcere quando Filius Dei primùm extiterit, & utrum ex ipſius Patris eſſentiâ necne genitus fuerit, non eſt neceſſarium creditu ad ſalutem. Socin. Solut. Scrupul. reſp. ad Scrup. 1. So Epiſcopius Iuſt. Theol. lib. 4. cap. 34. per totum. Some tell us, that the knowledge and belief of Chriſt's Sonſhip p. 354(according to the particulars wherein it hath been opened) not neceſſary to Salvation: I'le not engage in this Controverſie (wherein Some do as much affirm as Others deny); but this I ſay, it being ſo momentous a Truth in it ſelf, and the Scriptures ſpeaking ſo much of it and giving ſo much light about it, 'tis of great Concern to all who live under Goſpel-revelation to endeavour to know as much of it as the height of the thing and the lowneſs of their capacities will admit of.

Directions in the ſtudying of Chriſt as the Son of God.And becauſe I would hope, that there are Some here whoſe thoughts are taken up about it and who deſire to arrive at a fuller knowledge of it, therefore to ſuch I would commend three things by way of Direction.

1. In all your enquiries and ſearchings into Chriſt's Sonſhip (eſpecially into the Ground and Mode of it (viz.) eternal Generation), be ſure you keep within the bounds of ſobriety. I mean this, take heed that in this deep Mystery you**1 Cor. 4.6.1 Cor 4:6 be not wiſe above what is written, that you do not therein conſult your own purblind and carnal reaſon but Scripture-revelation altogether. Pray ſtudy it, but in ſo doing do not**Quaero abs te quando vel quomodo Filium putas eſſe generatum? mihi enim impoſſibile eſt Generationis ſcire ſecretum, mens deficit, vox ſilet, non mea tantum ſed & Angelorum; ſupra poteſtates, & ſupra Angelos, & ſupra Cherubin, & ſupra Seraphin, & ſupra omnem ſenſum eſt &c. Tu ergo ori manum admove, ſcrutari non licet ſuperna myſteria. Licet ſcire quod natus ſit, non licet diſcutere quomodo natus ſit. Illud mihi negare, non hoc quaerere metus eſt. Ineffabilis enim eſt illa Generatio. Ambroſ. de Fide Cap. 5. Si Chriſtus d…xit ſeneſcire de die illâ & horâ, ſed ſolum Patrem, quanto minùs poſſumus nos ſcire quomodo genitus ſit Filius ex Patre? Non debere igitur nos crubeſcere fateri, neminem hunc modum noſſe, ſed ſolum illum qui genuit, & eum qui genitus eſt. Iren. lib. 2. cap. 48. Quomodo Deus Pater genuerit Filium, nolo diſcutias, nec te curioſiùs inſeras in profundi hujus arcanum. Cyprian. in Symbol. foreign. Epiph. adv. Haereſ. lib. 2. tom. 2. p. 739. The Myſtery of Myſteries, which corrupt and wanton Reaſon derides but prudent Faith admires and adores. Cheyn. Trin-unity. p. 190. pry too far into thoſe ſecrets which God hath lock'd up from you; content your ſelves with what he hath reveal'd in his Word and ſtay there.

'Tis both ſinful and alſo dangerous for poor ſhallow Creatures to venture too far into theſe depths, where if they once loſe their bottom (the written Word) they drown themſelves preſently; there's no clue but that to guide us in this labyrinth. That Chriſt is the Son of God is very clear, that he is the Son of God by eternal Generation is very clear; but will you be inquiſitive further to know what this Generation is? what can your Reaſon (the Scripture being ſilent about it) ſay of that? O go not too far there! Humane Reaſon (conſider'd as meerly natural) is a very incompetent judge p. 355of this divine and ſublime myſtery, a myſtery to be adored by Faith not to be comprehended by Reaſon. Iſa. 53.8. Who ſhall declare his Generation? I may make uſe of this Text (though poſſibly the Generation mention'd in it be not that which I am treating of): for I much incline to think that it here notes that numerous iſſue and ſeed that Chriſt ſhould have upon the Preaching of the Goſpel, rather than his being eternally begotten by the Father; yet 'tis very well known that ſeveral of the FATHERS take it in the latter ſenſe, they making this to be the meaning of the words, Who can be able to underſtand in himſelf or to declare to others the hidden, ineffable, incomprehenſible Generation of the Son of God? ſurely none can. Without controverſie this, as well as Chriſt's Incarnation, is a**1 Tim. 3.16.1 Tim 3:16 great myſtery. Nicodemus was a knowing man yet ſtrangely puzzled at the Regeneration of Believers; Joh. 3.4. How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the ſecond time into his mothers womb and be born? certainly the eternal Generation of God's own Son is a thing much more abſtruſe and unſearchable. And there are riddles in Natural generation which we cannot reſolve; Eccleſ. 11.5. As thou knoweſt not the way of the ſpirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: **Vide Najanz. Orat. 35. t. 1. p. 566, & 567.now are we ſo much at a loſs and non-plus there, how much more ſhall we be at a loſs when the far more unconceivable Generation of Chriſt is before us? O therefore I adviſe you to be very humble and ſober in all your diſquiſitions about that. There are two things in Reaſon which you muſt alwayes oppoſe and beat down, viz. the curioſity of it (for it loves dearly to be prying into God's Ark, into things which he ſees good to lock up from the Creature), and the pride of it (for it alſo loves to ſit upon the bench as Judge of the matters of Faith, to be giving out its decrees and edicts as to believing or not believing): now do not you give way to it in either of theſe reſpects, in your moſt earneſt deſires after knowledge ſtill keep within the compaſs of what the Word reveals, and let the Word alone command and order your Faith; and eſpecially in ſuch profound myſteries (as that which I am upon) ſee that theſe two things be done by you. When I conſider the ſeveral nice and curious Queſtions which**Non dubito aſſerere, quando in Scholaſticorum Quaeſtiones de his rebus incido, quin in totidem ſalebras, labyrinthos, Syrtes, Charybdes, ipſa que adeo foreign incidere mihi videar. Quantò ſatius tutiuſ que eſt intra Scripturae limites ſe arcte continere, & ſapere nolle foreign. Epiſcop. Inſt. Theol. lib. 4. cap. 33. ſect. 2. Some have rais'd and diſcuſs'd about the Generation of the Son of God, I cannot but ſtand and wonder at the pride and ſaucineſs of the Wit of man; (and ſo far I do concur p. 356with that Learned perſon in his ſevere cenſure upon theſe men). What is more than the thing it ſelf, the Father's communicating of his own Nature and Eſſence to Chriſt, we muſt humbly ſubmit to be ignorant of; by ſoaring too high we ſhall but ſcortch and hurt our ſelves.

2. In your eying of God the Father's active Generation of Chriſt take heed of all groſs Conceptions about it; ſo as not in the leaſt to meaſure it by, or to parallel it with, any Phyſical or Carnal Generation. Our apprehenſions muſt be rightly informed about this, otherwiſe what abſurd and wretched notions ſhall we run our ſelves upon? So far as there is that in common Generations which ſpeaks goodneſs and perfection, ſo far you make uſe of them to help you in your conceiving of the Divine Generation of the Son of God: but there being much in them which ſpeaks defect and imperfection, all that you muſt praeſ…ind and cut off and lay aſide when you are thinking of that Generation which is the ground of Chriſt's Sonſhip. As for inſtance! for like to beget like, for one thing to conveigh its nature and ſubſtance to another this is good in Phyſical Generations, and ſo far they may be improved to ſhadow out unto us the myſtery of God's eternal generation: But now there being ſundry other reſpects which carry imperfection in them, theſe you muſt be ſure to keep out of your thoughts and by no means to conceive by them of that which I am upon. As in our knowledge and conceptions of God by the Creatures, we pick out of them what is good and perfect and lay aſide what is evil and imperfect, and ſo by them we aſcend to know and conceive of God; ſo we muſt do in Natural and Phyſical Generations with reſpect to God the Father's ſupernatural and hyperphyſical Generation of Chriſt.

To ſhew the**Of this ſee Zanch. de tribus Elohim. lib. 5. cap. 8. p. 254. Alting. Theol. Elenct. p. 170, 171. Eſtwick againſt Biddle. p. 443. Dr. Rearſon on the Creed. p. 275. &c. difference betwixt theſe two let me particularize in a few things (without much enlarging upon them). Natural Generation upon the failing of individuals is neceſſary for the preſervation of the ſpecies; in God the Father's begetting of Chriſt it was quite otherwiſe: In natural Generation there is multiplication, there though the thing begetting and the thing begotten have the ſame nature and eſſence, yet numerically they are not the ſame; but in the Father's begetting of Chriſt theſe (as the Learned prove) are perfectly one and the ſame, they have not only the ſame ſpecifical but the ſame numerical Eſſence; here as the divine Eſſence was not divided ſo neither was it multiplied (for 'tis as incapable of multiplication as of diviſion): Natural Generation in the Creature is a tranſient act, that in God was an immanent act: In Natural p. 357Generation, the thing begetting precedes the thing begotten and begets that which is after it in time; in God the Father's Generation of Chriſt it was not ſo, both Father and Son being coeternal: In Natural Generation there muſt be ſuch a time before things arrive at their prolifick vertue; far be it from us to entertain ſuch a thought as to the Father's Generation of Chriſt. So that you ſee there is a vaſt diſparity betwixt theſe two, and therefore you muſt in your apprehenſions reverently diſtinguiſh betwixt them and not in common judge of the one by the other, (God forbid that you ſhould ſo ſadly miſtake!) Though the Father's communicating of the Divine Eſſence to the Son was a true and proper Generation (ſo far agreeing with Generations amongſt us), yet in other reſpects it was quite of another nature; and ſo you are to conceive of it otherwiſe you will entertain very groſs and unworthy thoughts of God.

3. Joyn Study and Prayer together. Would you know Chriſt as the eternal Son of God? eſpecially would you go beyond a literal, ſpeculative, notional knowledge of him as ſuch? ſo as to know both him and his Sonſhip practically and ſavingly? O then be much in Prayer! Read and pray, hear and pray, meditate and pray, ſtudy and pray: he ſtudies this myſtery (and all others) beſt who ſtudy's it moſt upon his knees. This ſpecial and ſupernatural Sonſhip of Chriſt is not ſavingly to be known without ſpecial and ſupernatural illumination from Chriſt through the Spirit. 'Tis obſervable that in Matth. 16.17. when Peter had made that**Matth. 16.16.Matt 16:16 good Confeſſion [Thou art Chriſt the Son of the living God], ſee what Chriſt reſolved it into;††17. Bleſſed art thou Simon Bar-Jona, for fleſh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. You know that paſſage Matth. 11.27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son (or makes others to know him) but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father ſave the Son, and he to whomſoever the Son will reveal him: theſe two Perſons do make known each the other, the Father reveals the Son and the Son reveals the Father; the Son is a fit Perſon to reveal the Father, for he's his only begotten Son and lies in his boſom; therefore he ſaith**Joh. 1.18.John 1:18 No man hath ſeen God at any time, the only begotten Son which is the boſom of the Father he hath declared him: and the Father is alſo a fit Perſon to reveal the Son, for he having begotten him and having had him with himſelf from everlaſting, he knows him exactly: O therefore go to him by Prayer & beſeech him to reveal his Son to you! 'Tis a great thing to p. 358know Chriſt in this relation, ſo great that there muſt be an heavenly light, a ſpiritual underſtanding given to a man before he can come up to it: mark that of the Apoſtle 1 Joh. 5.20. And hath given us underſtanding that we may know him that is true, (he ſpeaks of the knowing of Chriſt as the true Son of God); 'tis as if the Apoſtle had ſaid, if God had not illuminated our underſtandings and irradiated them with a divine light, we had never known Chriſt ſavingly in this notion: He who begat the Son of himſelf from all eternity, to him it appertains by his Spirit in time ſavingly to reveal this Son to the Creature; and therefore your work lyes with him in prayer to beg of him this revelation of the Son. (So much for the firſt thing).

2. Branch of the Exhortation: To believe Chriſt to be the Son of God, and to believe on him as the Son of God.2. A ſecond branch of the Exhortation ſhall be this; Is Chriſt God's own Son? then do you believe him to be ſuch, and believe on him as ſuch. The firſt we call dogmatical, the ſecond juſtifying and ſaving Faith; the firſt is aſſent to the propoſition that Chriſt is God's own Son, the ſecond is relyance upon the perſon who is and as he is God's own Son. The firſt is more general and common, for all who bear the name of Chriſtians (in ſome ſenſe or other) come up to it; yet notwithſtanding there is much worth and excellency in it (though not ſo much as in the latter): and that is abſolutely neceſſary in order to the ſecond, for how can he believe on Chriſt as the Son of God who doth not firſt dogmatically believe him to be the Son and ſuch a Son of God? And this general Faith too (as well as that which is more ſpecial) admits of degrees, for though all Chriſtians believe it yet ſome are more confirmed, rooted, ſtabliſhed in the belief of it than others are. Now therefore this is that which I would preſs upon you, to labour after a more ſteady, unſhaken, fixed believing of this great Foundation-Truth: I hope you do believe it but do you believe it in ſuch a degree? doth not your faith ſometimes waver about it? is not your aſſent weak and languid, attended with doubtings and queſtionings? are you rooted and**Col. 2.7.Col 2:7 ſtabliſhed in the faith (as of other things) ſo in ſpecial of this great Article of the Chriſtian Religion)? are you come up unto all riches of the full aſſurance of underſtanding, to the acknowledgment of the myſtery of God, and of the Father and of Chriſt (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks Col. 2.2.)? I could moſt heartily wiſh that it was thus with you, and with all who do profeſs that they believe Chriſt to be the Son of God, but I fear it is not ſo. Now (my Brethren) that I may the better excite you to labour after a full and firm aſſent hereunto, conſider that one ſpecial-reaſon or end p. 359why a great part of the New Teſtament was written was this, that you might believe and be confirmed in your belief of this very thing: Joh. 20.31. But theſe are written [that ye might believe, that Jeſus is the Chriſt, the Son of God], and that believing ye might have life through his Name. You may obſerve concerning this Evangeliſt St. John, as of all the other Evangeliſts he was moſt inſpir'd in the revealing of Chriſt's divine Sonſhip, ſo he was alſo moſt inſpir'd in the preſſing of men to believe it and in the ſetting out of the weightineſs of the belief of it: 1 Joh. 2.23. Whoſoever denieth the Son the ſame hath not the Father, but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father alſo: 1 Joh. 4.15. Whoſoever ſhall confeſs that Jeſus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God: 1 Joh. 5.5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jeſus is the Son of God? What a mighty ſtreſs did this great Apoſtle lay upon it! O how doth it concern all upon the Conſiderations (laid down by him) to live under a ſteady belief of Chriſt's being the Son of God! Indeed this is the Foundation-Truth; Chriſt himſelf is the perſonal foundation and this Truth (not excluſively but eminently) is the doctrinal foundation: to both of which that famous and ſo much controverted Text is applicable, Matth. 16.18. I ſay alſo unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt it: upon this rock? what rock doth Chriſt mean? was it Peter perſonally conſidered? or was it Peter and his Succeſſors? (as Some would have it they meaning by theſe Succeſſors the POPES of ROME; whom I truſt I ſhall never cloſe with in this interpretation ſo long as 'tis this rock and not this ſand); undoubtedly (let but perſons be unbyaſs'd and not wedded to Party's and Opinions calculated for worldly deſigns and Intereſts) nothing is more clear, than that by this rock we are to underſtand either the Perſon of Chriſt or that Doctrinal propoſition which Peter had laid down concerning him, (Verſ. 16. Thou art Chriſt the Son of the living God, after which it immediately follows Ʋpon this rock I will build my Church), or elſe we may put them together and take in both; upon this Perſon and this Faith, the Church of God is built and therefore it ſhall ſtand faſt for ever: ſo that according to this Expoſition (which is with great ſtrength defended by our PROTESTANT Divines), this Sonſhip of Chriſt is the foundation-truth. And therefore no wonder that in all Ages the Zeal of the Church hath been ſo much engag'd therein; for 'tis very well known that in its drawing up of Creeds p. 360and Summaries of Faith, this one Article (viz. Chriſt's being the Coeſſential, Coeternal, only begotten Son of God) hath ever been put in, (witneſs the Nicene, Conſtantinopolitan, Athanaſian Creeds), becauſe this was judged a thing moſt neceſſary to be believed: And indeed there is not any one branch of the Chriſtian Faith which the Church hath gain'd more out of the fire (after much trouble and oppoſition) than this one. Nay, this was that very Truth for the owning and aſſerting of which (above any other) our bleſſed Lord loſt his life (as you may plainly ſee by the **Joh. 19.7. Mark 14.61. &c.John 19:7Mark 14:61Evangelical Hiſtory). And I deſire that it may yet further be conſidered, that as God himſelf began and ended with the witneſs and declaration of Chriſt's Sonſhip, (for as ſoon as he entred upon his publick Miniſtry the Father ſet him out with this witneſs **Matth. 3.17.Matt 3:17This is my beloved Son &c. and when he had well nigh finiſhed his work and was going off the ſtage then the Father renew'd his witneſs again**Matth. 17.5.Matt 17:5 This is my beloved Son &c): So the Devil too he began and ended with the Sonſhip of Chriſt; for preſently after the Father's teſtimony thereof he took him aſide to tempt him, and when he had him alone and began the duel with him how did he aſſault him? why,**Matth. 4.3.Matt 4:3 [if thou be the Son of God] command that theſe ſtones be made bread; he comes over it again††Verſ. 6. [if thou be the Son of God] caſt thy ſelf down &c: If thou be the Son of God? why did Satan harp ſo much upon this? what might his deſign be in laying his temptation thus? I anſwer, it muſt be for one or for all of theſe Reaſons; either that he might by the obſerving of Chriſt's behaviour in the conteſt more fully inform himſelf whether Chriſt was indeed the Son of God, (which was the thing he was deadly afraid of, knowing that ſuch a perſon would be the ruine of his kingdom); or that he might ſee whether he could make Chriſt to doubt of his Sonſhip after and notwithſtanding the plain teſtimony of his Father; or that he might go as far as ever he could to draw him to the doing of what was evil, and ſo (if ſuch a thing had been poſſible) null this his neer relation to God: ſurely there was ſome ſpecial cauſe why Satan pick'd out this and ſo much inſiſted upon it. Well! here he began, theſe were the very firſt words which this curſed Spirit uttered when he dared to aſſault our Saviour, wherein he plainly ſtruck at his Sonſhip it ſelf (though cunningly he made his temptations to point to ſome wicked inferences which he would have had drawn from Chriſt's relation, rather than directly to the truth of the relation it ſelf). And as he began with this ſo he ended with this, for 'twas p. 361he (which ſpeaks a prodigious infatuation in him that he ſhould be ſo forward in the promoting of that which certainly would end in his ruine,) who ſtirr'd up Pilate, the High Prieſt the Body of the Jews againſt Chriſt, and they through his inſtigation fell upon Chriſt and took away his life, for what? for this very cauſe becauſe he made himſelf to be (as indeed he was) the Son of God. By all this you ſee of what great moment and importance this Truth concerning Chriſt's Sonſhip is. And (to add yet one thing further) pray look to that grand Seducer and Enemy of Chriſt and of the Chriſtian Faith, I mean Mahomet; of whom we reade that he alſo ſet himſelf to his utmoſt to oppoſe and decry the Sonſhip of Chriſt. He was willing to grant Chriſt to be a great Prophet but by no means to be the very Son of God; this particularly and expreſly he principled his Followers againſt in his ridiculous Alcoran, and**Conſtantèr dic illis, Deum unum eſſe, neceſſarium omnibus, & incorporeum: Qui nec genuit, nec eſt generatus, nec habet, quenquam ſibi ſimilem. Azoar. 122. Alcor. in Bibliandri. Edit. p. 188. Vide Cribrat. Alcorani. per Nicol. de Cuſa. lib. 1. c. 10, 11, 13, 14, &c. See Dr. Pearſon on the Creed. p. 272. he gave them in ſpecial this Command foreign, to worſhip one onelyonly God, and to honour Chriſt as the Word of God but not as the Son of God.

From all theſe premiſes I infer, is this ſuch a foundation-Truth and ſhall not we firmly aſſent to it? hath the Church with ſuch zeal contended for it and ſhall we yet doubt of it? do Heathens, Jews, Turks ſo much oppoſe it and ſhall not we Chriſtians (who have and own Scripture-revelation) ſteadily believe it? hath Chriſt ſealed it with his blood and yet ſhall we ſtagger about it? have we ſuch atteſtations from God and Man and yet ſhall there be queſtionings and reaſonings in our Souls againſt it? 1 Joh. 5.9, 10. If we receive the witneſs of men the witneſs of God is greater; for this is the witneſs of God which he hath teſtified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God, hath the witneſs in himſelf: he that believeth not God, hath made him a liar, becauſe he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

But Some will ſay to what purpoſe is all this? who queſtions whether Chriſt be God's own Son?

I anſwer, O that there was not too much need of this advice! many poor Souls think they do fully and firmly believe it and yet 'tis to be feared they do not; and the truth is, that weakneſs which is in our Faith of adherence proceeds (in part) from that weakneſs p. 362that is in our Faith of aſſent, much of that dejectedneſs which is upon our Spirits under trouble and of thoſe inward ſinkings under the ſenſe of guilt comes from one of theſe two Cauſes, either we do not revive upon our thoughts or elſe we do not fixedly believe in our hearts that Chriſt is God's Son and his own Son: And (as to looſe and common Profeſſors) if ever Arrianiſm (Old or New) ſhould get upon the throne (which God forbid!) I fear the belief of Chriſt's Godhead and eternal Sonſhip would ſoon be laid aſide. O therefore I would be very earneſt with you to get your faith yet more and more ſtrengthned and confirmed about it.

But though this be very good yet 'tis not enough: beſides the believing of Chriſt to be the Son of God there muſt be believing on Chriſt as the Son of God. You find in Scripture that ſaving Faith is deſcribed by its ſpecial reference to Chriſt as ſtanding in this relation; ſo Gal. 2.20. The life which I now live in the Fleſh, I live [by the faith of the Son of God], who loved me, and gave himſelf for me: why doth the Apoſtle thus expreſs it by the Faith of the Son of God? I anſwer, partly becauſe Chriſt the Son of God is the efficient and**Heb. 12.2.Heb 12:2 author of faith, partly becauſe this Son is the great Object of faith, and partly becauſe Faith in its eſſential act doth very much eye Chriſt as thus related to the Father, for 'tis a believing or relying upon him as the Son of God. 'Tis very uſual in the Goſpel where it ſpeaks of believing, to mention Chriſt with it as ſtanding in this relation; 1 Joh. 3.23. This is his commandment, that we ſhould believe on the name of [his Son] Jeſus Chriſt: 1 Joh. 5.13. Theſe things have I written unto you that believe on the name of [the Son] of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life; and that ye may believe on the name of [the Son] of God. Joh. 3.16. God ſo loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoſoever believeth in him (as the only begotten Son) ſhould not periſh, but have everlaſting life: O what a perſon is Gods own Son for Sinners to believe on! what an all-ſufficient Saviour, how able to**Heb. 7.25.Heb 7:25 ſave to the utmoſt muſt he needs be who is God and Man, the Son of God and the Son of Man! And indeed 'tis not enough barely to believe on Chriſt but there muſt be ſuch a believing on him as may in ſome meaſure be anſwerable to this his relation; is he God's own Son? at what a rate ſhould we believe? what a faith ſhould we act upon him? what great things ſhould we expect for him and from him? can any thing be too high for our faith when we have the proper, natural Son of God in our eye as its baſis and foundation? Saints ſhould have their faith raiſed not only p. 363upon the encouragement of the Promiſes, but alſo upon the conſideration of Chriſt's Perſon as he is ſo near and dear to God. I have formerly obſerved how our Apoſtle in the Text riſes higher and higher in the ſetting forth of the Love of God: he ſayes God ſent, there was Love; he ſent his own Son, there was more Love; this own Son he ſent in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh, there was yet more Love; and this he did for this end that he might for ſin condemn ſin in the Fleſh &c. there was the very top and zenith of Love. Now as there is a riſe in theſe things in the ſetting off the Love of God, ſo there is alſo a riſe in them in their ſeveral engagements and encouragements to us to believe in Chriſt, and to believe in him yet more and more firmly and fiducially: he was ſent, therefore we muſt believe; he was (and is) God's own Son, therefore we muſt the rather and the more ſtrongly believe; he took our fleſh, here's an higher argument for an higher faith; in that fleſh he condemned ſin, performed all that the Law commanded, ſuffered all that the Law threatned, what a faith doth this call for? Now if notwithſtanding all this, it ſhall yet be either no believing or but faint-believing both will be ſad, (though in a great diſparity, for the faint-believing is unanſwerable to what is reveal'd and uncomfortable to the Saint, but the no-believing is damnable to the Sinner).

3. Branch of the Exhortation: To honour Chriſt.3. Thirdly, is Chriſt God's own Son? how then ſhould all honour and adore him! certainly upon this Sonſhip the higheſt, yea, even divine adoration it ſelf is due to him. Is he a Son? ſuch a Son? the Son of ſuch a Father? the greatneſs of his Perſon ariſing from that high and near relation wherein he ſtands to God, calls for the higheſt reſpect, reverence, veneration which Angels or Men can poſſibly give unto him. Beſides this, 'tis the abſolute Will of the Father that all ſhould**Joh. 5.23.John 5:23 honour his Son even as they honour himſelf, for he having the ſame Nature and Eſſence with the Father, the Father will have him have the ſame honour which he himſelf hath: which whoſoever deny's to him reflects diſhonour upon the Father, who will not bear any thing derogatory to the glory of his Son. 'Tis a known**Nicephor. lib. 12. cap. 9. Sozom. l. 7. c. 6. ſtory that of the carriage of Amphilochius to the Emperour Theodoſius; he had petitioned the Emperour to be ſevere againſt the Arrians, to diſcountenance and ſuppreſs them becauſe in their Opinions they did ſo much diſparage the Son of God, but could not prevail: whereupon he made uſe of this device, coming one day into the preſence of the Emperour and of his Son Arcadius (who now ruled joyntly with his Father), he p. 364made his humble obeyſance to the Emperour himſelf and ſhewed him all reverence, but as for his Son he paſſed him by, ſhewed him no reſpect at all, rather dealt deriſorily with him, ſtroking him upon his head and ſaying to him (in a way of contempt) Salve & tu Fili: The Emperour upon this was much offended, ſharply reproves Amphilochius for his affront to his Son &c. whereupon the good man vindicates his carriage, plainly telling the Emperour he had given reverence enough to his Son. And now the Emperour was more incens'd, commands him with great indignation to be thruſt out of his preſence &c. which whilſt ſome was doing, Amphilochius turn'd himſelf to the Emperour and ſaid thus, O Emperour! thou being but a man canſt not bear the contempt or diſparagement of thy Son; how doſt thou think the great God can bear that contempt of his Son which the Arrians caſt upon him? the Emperour was much affected at this, begg'd the Biſhop's pardon, commended his ingeny, and did that now which he refus'd to do before. The inference is undenyable, if great Men ſtand ſo much upon the giving of all honour and due obſervance to their Sons, much more will the Great God ſtand upon the giving of all due Honour and Reverence to his own and only Son: O therefore let Chriſt be highly adored and honoured by you! If you ask me, how? I anſwer, every honouring of him is not ſufficient but it muſt be ſuch as may ſuit with his infinite Majeſty and Greatneſs; you muſt conceive of him as God, as the Natural and eternal Son of God, and according to that honour which is due to him as ſuch ſo you muſt honour him. The Apoſtle ſpeaks of ſome**Rom. 1.21.Rom 1:21 who when they knew God they did not glorifie him as God; ſo ſome pretend to give ſome glory to Chriſt but they do not glorifie him as God: O this is that which you muſt come up to, to adore and reverence Chriſt in ſuch a manner as may be ſuitable to his Nature and Relation, as he is the infinite God and the eternal only begotten Son of God; and what Honour can be high enough for ſuch a Perſon?

But more particularly there's a twofold Honour which you muſt all give to Chriſt:

1. The Honour of Worſhip. Heb. 1.6. When he bringeth in the firſt-born into the world, he ſaith, And let all the Angels of God worſhip him: God will have his only begotten Son to be worſhipped (though he be very tender to whom that honour is given). Divines do from hence ſtrongly argue (yet I know**Remonſtr. Apolog. Cap. 2. & 16. Epiſcop. Inſt. Theolog. lib. 4. ſect. 2. cap. 34. & 35. Some make but little of this Argument) to prove the Godhead of Chriſt; thus, p. 265if religious Worſhip be God's peculiar, if a God be the ſole and adaequate object of Divine Worſhip, if no Creature be to ſhare with him therein (it being that Glory which he will not give to another, Iſa. 42.8. & Matth. 4.10. Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and him only ſhalt thou ſerve); and yet the Father will have Chriſt to be the proper Object of divine Worſhip; hence it follows, that then he is and muſt be more than meer Man, that he is true and very God. And ſurely it would be no better than flat Idolatry in us Chriſtians to give proper and formal religious worſhip to Chriſt, was he not truly God as well as truly Man. Therefore as to this Franciſcus David and Chriſtianus Franken (both Socinians) were in the right againſt Socinus, if Chriſt was but meer Man (the common Principle in which they all agreed), then he could not be worſhipped with religious Worſhip without Idolatry; whereupon they would not give any ſuch worſhip to him. And as this Worſhip proves Chriſt's Godhead ſo his Godhead is the**Of this ſee Zanch. de tribus Elohim. l. 3 c. 12. Junius Def. Trinit. contra Samoſat. Profeſs. Leid. Cenſ. cap. 16. Voetius de Adorat. Chriſti. Cheynel Trin-unity (very largely). p. 334. &c. Dr. Stillingfleet of the Idolatry of the &c. chap. 2. p. 112, 113, 114. ground of it; for the adaequate, immediate, proper ground of Divine Worſhip (as attributed to Chriſt) is his divine Nature, Eſſence and Sonſhip: true, he as Man is to be worſhipped but not becauſe he is Man; the Humane Nature of Chriſt is the Object of Worſhip but 'tis only as 'tis taken into Perſonal Ʋnion with the Divine. As he is Mediator and ſet in ſuch an Office he is to be worſhipped, but this is not the proper and fundamental reaſon thereof; for though he never had been Mediator yet Worſhip would have been due to him, (as the Father and Spirit are to be worſhipped though the Office of Mediator belongs not to them). Further, the Lord Jeſus as he in our Nature hath done ſuch great and excellent things for us is to be worſhipped; yet this is only a forcible motive and inducement thereunto, not the proper ground of it: it remains then that the alone reaſon of Worſhip given or done to Chriſt is his being God and the co-equal, co-eſſential Son of God. And he being ſo, what an obligation doth this lay upon you to worſhip him? there's inward worſhip (conſiſting in the truſt, fear, reverence, adoration of the heart), there's outward worſhip (conſiſting in attendance upon and due obſervance of Goſpel-inſtitutions, as Prayer, Hearing the Word &c); in both of theſe reſpects let Chriſt be worſhipped by you, both are due to him as he is God's own Son. Well may you tender your homage to him in this way when Angels themſelves bow before him and worſhip at his throne.

2. Secondly, there's the Honour of Obedience which you muſt alſo give to Chriſt. This is annexed to the declaration of his Sonſhip, p. 366at the ſame time in which the Father atteſted that Chriſt was his Son he enjoyned obedience and ſubjection to him;**Matth 17.5.Matt 17:5 This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed (what follows?) hear ye him: this hearing of Chriſt is the Creatures obeying of him in all his holy Laws, Commands and Inſtitutions; and ſo 'tis as if God had ſaid, here's a Perſon whom I own for my Son (in a ſpecial and peculiar way), whom therefore I have ſet as**Pſal. 2.6.Ps 2:6 my King upon my holy Hill of Sion, into whoſe hands I have put††Matth. 28.18.Matt 28:18 all power, upon whoſe ſhoulders I have laid the‖‖Iſa. 9.7.Isa 9:7 Government, therefore I charge you to hear him and to yield all Obedience and Subjection to him. O Sirs! 'tis God himſelf (and not ſuch a poor worm as I) who requires this of you; it muſt be Reverence and it muſt be Obedience too, this high relation of Chriſt calls for both; and believe it, without this Obedience he that is God's Son will never be your Saviour, for Heb. 5.9. Being made perfect, he became the author of eternal Salvation unto all them (and to none but them) that obey him. I have ſpoken much to preſs believing on this Son upon you, but let me add there muſt be obeying of him as well as believing on him: Obedience is not ſo of the very eſſence of Faith but that Faith may very well be defin'd without it, yet 'tis an inſeparable Adjunct or. Conſequent or fruit of Faith; and theſe two do alwayes concur in the Subject, though they be different in themſelves, and have a different influence upon juſtification and ſalvation. But that which I aim at is this, ſince Chriſt is the Son of God and this is clearly revealed to you, ſince this Son hath made known to you in the holy Goſpel what his Will and pleaſure is, how he would have you to live, what to do, what to ſhun; I beſeech you now hearken to him, comply with him in all his excellent Commands, give up your ſelves in an univerſal ſubjection to his bleſſed Laws, let there be an obediential frame of heart to his whole Will: this is indeed to honour him, and to honour him in ſuch a way as beſt anſwers his Sonſhip to God and his Lordſhip over you.

4. Branch of the Exhortation: To adore the Love of God.4. Fourthly, is Chriſt no lower a Perſon than God's own Son? what cauſe have we then to admire and wonder at the greatneſs of God's Love in his ſending of him! Here's a glaſs indeed to tranſmit and repreſent unto us the Love of God, O how ſhall we get our hearts affected with it! what thankfulneſs in us can bear any proportion to the mercy before us! For God to ſend, to ſend a Son, ſuch a Son, in ſuch a manner (as follows in the words) here's the Wonder of Wonders; God never did the like before and hee'l never do the like again, (and bleſſed be his name there p. 367is no need he ſhould!) 'Twould have been admirable mercy if God would have ſent ſome other perſon upon this errand (to redeem and ſave undone Sinners); if ſend he will why did he not ſend an Angel (or a body of Angels) to try their skill and ſee what they could do? nay, why did he not ſend an Angel (as he once did) with a**Gen. 3.24.Gen 3:24 flaming Sword in his hand to keep off Sinners from the tree of life? O this did not comport with his gracious deſigns (though it did too well with the Creatures merit), therefore he would not do it; no, his own Son ſhall be pitch'd upon, he's the Perſon whom God will ſend. And his End in ſending this Son was as gracious as the Perſon whom he ſent was glorious: ſurely here was Love, great Love, great even to the degree of infiniteneſs! Millions of Angels were nothing to one Son, to one ſuch Son: the nearer the relation was 'twixt God and Chriſt the greater was the affection ſhown to us; Chriſt God's own Son, his firſt born, his only begotten Son, the Son of his Love who lay in his boſome, had been his delight from everlaſting? for him to be ſent to recover and ſave Man (vile, ſinful, wicked, undone man)? the Son to be imploy'd for the Servant, the Slave, the Enemy? O aſtoniſhing mercy! O admirable goodneſs and condeſcenſion! How may we here cry out, Lord! **Pſal. 8.4. Pſal. 144.3.Ps 8:4Ps 144:3what is man that thou art (thus) mindful of him? and the ††Joh. 3.16.John 3:16Son of man that thou makeſt (this) account of him? Here was God's ſo loving of the world, ſo as can never be expreſs'd; he ſo loved the world as that he gave his only begotten Son &c. So loved the world? what is there in this ſo? why ſo inexpreſſibly, ſo unconceivably. Joh. 4.9, 10. In this was manifeſted the love of God towards us; becauſe that God ſent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him; Herein is Love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and ſent his Son to be the propitiation for our ſins. God own'd it as a great diſcovery of Abraham's Love to him, when upon his command he was willing to offer up his only begotten Son; but (alas!) how infinitely ſhort did that come of his own Love in his ſending and parting with his only begotten Son for the good of Sinners? here he intended to give out the higheſt manifeſtation of his Grace and he hath done it to purpoſe. The**Iſa. 1.2.Isa 1:2 heavens and the earth were once called upon to be filled with aſtoniſhment becauſe of the ingratitude of a ſinful people; may not now Heaven and Earth, Angels and Men, all Creatures whatſoever, be called upon to be filled with aſtoniſhment becauſe of the ſtupendious Love of God? O Chriſtians! what influence hath this upon your dull and ſluggiſh hearts? what are you made of p. 368that you are no more (in the ſenſe of it) drawn out in the bleſſing, loving, admiring of God? Pray, (if there be any holy ingenuity in you) take ſome pains with your ſelves that you may be much more affected with it, and give not over till you have ſuch thoughts and affections (upon God's ſending his own Son) raiſed in you, as may in ſome meaſure anſwer to thoſe thoughts and affections which you ſhall have about it when you ſhall be in Heaven.

Uſe 3. For Comfort from Chriſt's Sonſhip.So much for Exhortation, the third and laſt Ʋſe ſhall be for Comfort: and ſurely here is ground of ſtrong Conſolation to Believers, that which may highly conduce to the furthering of their joy and the ſtrengthning of their faith. You who are ſuch ſtudy this Sonſhip of Chriſt, dwell upon it often in your moſt ſerious thoughts, make the beſt of it, and then tell me whether you do not find that ſolid Support and Comfort from it which you deſire and need.

Shall I broach this full Veſſel and draw out a little of that heart-chearing liquour which is in it? then know that

1. As Chriſt is the Son of God, ſo are you. When I ſay SO are you, you muſt underſtand me of the Verity not of the Kind or Manner of the Sonſhip; you are not Sons as Chriſt is (viz.) by eternal Generation, yet Sons you are in another way (viz.) by regeneration and adoption; and though herein you come ſhort of Chriſt (you being but adopted Sons and he the natural Son), yet as you are but ſuch there is greater glory put upon you than if you were deſcended from or adopted by the greateſt Monarch of the World. May not this be matter of great comfort to you, to conſider that whatever Chriſt is that you are (according to your capacity and neceſſary ſubordination to him)? that all that Grace which fell upon him falls upon you likewiſe? and yet ſo it is; is he the anointed of God? ſo are you; is he a Son? ſo are you; is he the beloved of God? ſo are you; is he the Heir of God? ſo are you; in theſe reſpects alſo 'tis**Joh. 1.16.John 1:16 Grace for Grace. I am upon your Sonſhip in conformity to Chriſt's Sonſhip, the truth of which you have no reaſon to queſtion ſince the procuring of this for you was one thing that God in ſpecial aimed at in the ſending of his Great Son into the world: Gal. 4.4, 5. When the fulneſs of time was come, God ſent forth his Son &c. that we might receive the adoption of Sons; and therefore in this relation Chriſt takes you in with himſelf, Joh. 20.17. Go to my brethren and ſay unto them, I aſcend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God.

p. 3692. You may now (upon this) confidently expect the beſtowing of all good. For Chriſt being God's own Son and he having given him to you, what can come after that can be too great or too good for him to give to you? what will God now deny after the gift of ſuch a Son? He **Rom. 8.32.Rom 8:32that ſpared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how ſhall he not with him alſo freely give us all things? Saints let this be thought of, as all bleſſings come to you from God as he is the God and Father of Chriſt, (for 'tis**Eph. 1.3.Eph 1:3 Bleſſed be the God and Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, who hath bleſſed us with all ſpiritual bleſſings in heavenly places in Chriſt,) ſo all bleſſings are aſſur'd to you from this relative conſideration of God, viz. as he is firſt the God and Father of Chriſt and then in him your God and Father too.

3. You may he ſure that there is an infinite value, worth, and efficacy in Chriſt's Obedience, and that he was a perſon able to accompliſh your Redemption. Chriſt being ſuch a Son this ſpeaks him to be a Perſon of great dignity, that dignity of his Perſon gives the higheſt aſſurance to Faith both that he was every way able to go through what he undertook, and alſo that there muſt be an infinite Virtue and Merit in what ever he did or ſuffered: What can be ſo hard as that the power of the Son of God cannot effect it? and what can be ſo high as that the Obedience of the Son of God cannot merit it? Had Chriſt been only the Son of Man then indeed Faith could not have bore up with ſuch confidence; but he being the Son of God alſo and having the Nature, Eſſence, Attributes of God, how may Faith triumph as to the efficacy and meritoriouſneſs of his obedience! 'Twas the blood of God which he ſhed Acts 20.28. O what a greatneſs and**Supereſt, ut poena illa Fidejuſſoris noſtri pretio, dignitate, at que merito foret infinita, id quod allter fieri non potuit, quam ſi Perſona patiens foret ipſa infinita. Nam ut Pèccati &c. Vid. Theſ. Salmur. de Chriſto Mediat. parte 1. th. 13. p. 246. infiniteneſs of Merit muſt needs reſult from the greatneſs and infiniteneſs of ſuch a Perſon! Heb. 9.13, 14. If the blood of Bulls, and of Goats, and the aſhes of an Heifer ſprinkling the unclean, ſanctifieth to the purifying of the Fleſh: How much more ſhall the blood of Chriſt, who through the eternal Spirit offered himſelf without ſpot to God, purge your Conſcience from dead works to ſerve the Living God?

4. You may go boldly to the throne of Grace upon all occaſions. For you have God's own Son to lead you thither and to make way for you, and not only ſo but this own Son improves all his intereſt in and with the Father for your good; why are you afraid to go to God? Heb. 4.14, 16. Seeing then that we have a great High Prieſt, that is paſſed into the heavens, Jeſus [the Son of God &c.] let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of Grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

p. 3705. You need not in the leaſt queſtion the prevalency of Chriſt's interceſſion: Doth Chriſt intercede and ſhall he not prevail? will not the Father hear ſuch a Son? Suppoſe he may deny you (which he will not) yet ſurely he will not deny his own and onelyonly Son. Chriſt upon this relation may ask any thing and he ſhall have it; mark the connexion Pſal. 2.7. I will declare the decree, the Lord hath ſaid unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: what follows now upon this? why (Verſ. 8.) Ask of me, and I ſhall give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermoſt parts of the earth for thy poſſeſſion. God thinks nothing too much for this Son when he asks it of him; and 'tis the ſame when he asks for you as when he asks for himſelf: therefore fear not but that your Prayers ſhall be graciouſly anſwered Chriſt himſelf interceding for you; when the Kings own Son carrys the Petition doubtleſs it ſhall be granted.

6. This is the Perſon to whom you are mystically united; and therefore his Glory and Greatneſs reflects a Glory and Greatneſs upon you. You are in Chriſt not only as he is the Son of Man but as he is the Son of God alſo, for the Ʋnion is terminated not in this or that Nature but in the whole Perſon: the Apoſtle therefore takes ſpecial notice of this 1 Joh. 5.20. We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an underſtanding, that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, [even in his Son Jeſus Chriſt]; O to be in this Son there's the glory and ſafety of a believer!

I have done with this high and moſt Evangelical Truth, The Lord Jeſus is God's own Son: upon which I have been ſomewhat large partly becauſe of the excellency of the Argument it ſelf, and partly becauſe of the great oppoſition made againſt it. 2 Joh. 3. Grace be with you, mercy, and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jeſus Chriſt [the Son of the Father], in truth and love.