The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, Commentary on text · Chapter 7

The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined · Commentary on text · Chapter 7

p. 138CHAP. VII.

Of the Person of Jesus Christ, and on what account He is the Sonne of God.

M. BIDDLE'S fourth Chapter Examined

Q. HOW many Lords of Christians are there, by way of distinction from the one God?

A. Eph. 4. 5.

Q. Who is that one Lord?

A 1 Cor. 8. 6.

Q. How was Jesus Christ borne?

A Mat. 1. 18. Luk. 1. 30, 31, 32, 34, 35

Q. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord, according to the opinion of the Apostle Paul?

A Rom. 14. 9.

Q What saith the Apostle Peter also concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord?

A Act. 2. 32, 33, 36.

Q Did not Jesus Christ approve himselfe to be God by his miracles? And did he not those Miracles by a divine nature of his own, and because he was God himselfe? What is the determination of the Apostle Peter in this behalfe?

A Act. 2. 22. Act 10. 38.

Q Could not Christ doe all things of himselfe? And was it not an Eternall Sonne of God that took flesh upon him, and to whom the humane nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all his works? Answer me to these things in the words of the Sonne himselfe?

A John 5. 19, 20, 30. John 14. 10.

Q What reason doth the Sonne render, why the Father did not forsake him, and cast him out of favour? Was it because he was of the same Essence with him, so that it was impossible for the Father to forsake him, or ceasen love him?

A John 8. 28, 29, John 15 9, 10.

Q Doth the Scripture avouch Christ to be the Sonne of God, because he was eternally begootten out of the divine Essence, or for other reasons agreeing … him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.

A Luke 1. 30, 31, 32, 34, 35. John 10. 36. Act. 13. 32, 33. Rev. 1. 5. Col. 1. 18. Heb. 1. 4, 5. Heb. 5. 5. Rom. 8. 29.

Q What saith the Sonne himselfe concerning the prerogative of God the Father above him?

A John 14. 28. Mark. 13. 32. Math. 24. 36.

p. 139Q What saith the Apostle Paul?

A 1 Cor. 15. 24, 28. 1 Cor. 11. 3. 1 Cor. 3. 22, 23.

Q Howbeit is not Christ dignified, as with the title of Lord, so also with that of God, in the Scripture?

A John 20. 28.

Q Was he so the God of Thomas, as that he himselfe in the meane time did not acknowledge another to be his God?

A Joh. 20. 17. Revel. 3. 12.

Q Have you any passage of the Scripture, where Christ, at the same time that he hath the appellation of God given to him, is said to have a God?

A Heb. 1. 8, 9.

EXAMINATION.

THE aime and designe of our Catechist in this Chapter, being to despoile our blessed Lord Jesus Christ of his §. 1.Eternall Deity, and to substitute an imaginary God-head, made, and feigned in the vaine hearts of himselfe & his Masters, into the roome thereof, I hope the discovery of the wickednesse and vanity of his attempt, will not be unacceptable to them, who love him in sincerity. I must still desire the Reader, not to expect the handling of the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ at large, with the confirmation of it, & vindication from the vaine Sophismes, wherewith by others, as well as by M. B. it hath been opposed. This is done abundantly by other hands. In the next chapters that also will have its proper place, in the vindication of many Texts of Scripture from the exceptions of the Raccovians. The removall of M. B's Sophistry, & the disintangling of weaker soules, who may in any thing be intricated by his Queries, is my present intendment. To make our way cleare and plaine, that every one that runnes may read the vanity of M. B's undertaking against the Lord Jesus, and his kicking against the pricks therein, I desire to premise these few observations.

1. Distinction of persons (it being in an Infinite substance) doth no way prove difference of Essence between the Father §. 2.and the Sonne. Where Christ as Mediatour is said to be another from the Father, or God, spoken personally of the Father, it argues not in the least, that he is not partaker of the same nature with him. That in one Essence there can be but one person, may be true where the Substance is Finite, and limited, but hath no place in that which is infinite.

p. 1502. Distinction and inequallity in respect of office, in Christ, foreign. Athanas. dial. 1. contra Maced.doth not in the least take away Equallity and samenesse with the Father in respect of nature and Essence. A Sonne of the same nature with his Father, and therein equall to him, may in office be his inferiour, his Subject.

3. The advancement and exaltation of Christ, as Mediatour, §. 4.to any dignity whatever, upon, or in reference to the worke of our Redemption and Salvation, is not at all inconsistent with that Essentiall foreign Honour, Dignity and Worth, which he hath in himselfe, as God blessed for ever. Though he humbled himselfe and was exalted, yet in nature he was one and the same, he changed not.

4. The Scriptures asserting the Humanity of Christ with §. 5.the concernments thereof, as his birth, life, and death, doth no more thereby deny his Deity, then by asserting his Deity, with the Essentiall Propertyes thereof, Eternity, Omniscience, and the like, it denyes his Humanity.

5. God's working any thing in and by Christ as he was §. 6.Mediatour, denotes the Fathers soveraigne Appointment of the things mentioned to be done, not his immediate Efficiency in the doing of the things themselves.

The consideration of these few things being added to what I have said before in generall, about the way of dealing with our Adversaries in these great and weighty things of the knowledge of God, will easily deliver us from any great trouble, in the Examination of M. B's Arguments, and insinuations against the Deity of Christ, which is the businesse of the present Chapter.

His first Question is,§. 7.

How many Lords of Christians are there by way of distinction from that one God. And he Answers Ephes. 4. 5. One Lord.

That of these two words there is not one that lookes towards the confirmation of what M. Biddle chiefely aymes at, in the Question proposed, is I presume sufficiently cleare in the light of the thing it selfe enquired after. Christ it is true, is p. 151the one Lord of Christians; and therefore God equall with the Father. He is also one Lord, in distinction from his Father, as his Father, in respect of his personallity; in which regard, there are three that beare witnesse in Heaven, of which he is one; but in respect of Essence and Nature He and his Father are one. Farther, unlesse he were one God with his Father, it is utterly impossible he should be the one Lord of Christians. That he cannot be our Lord in the sence intended, whom we ought to invocate and worship, unlesse also he were our God, shall be afterwards declared. And although he be our Lord in distinction from his Father, as he is also our Mediatour, yet he is the same God with him which worketh all in all, 1 Cor. 12 6. His being Lord then distinctly, in respect of his mediation, hinders not his being God, in respect of his participation in the same nature with his Father. And though here he be not spoken of in respect of his absolute soveraigne Lordship, but of his Lordship over the Church to whō the whole Church is spiritually subject, (as he is elsewere also so called on the same account, as Joh. 13. 13. Act. 7. 59. Rev. 22. 20.) yet were he not Lord in that sence also, he could not be so in this. The Lord our God only is to be worshipped: My Lord and my God, says Thomas. And the mention of one God, is here, as in other places, partly to deprive all false Gods of their pretended Deity, partly to witnesse against the impossibillity of Polytheisme, and partly to manifest the onenesse of them who are worshipped as God, the Father, Word, and Spirit, all which things are also severally testifyed unto.

His second Question is an enquiry after this Lord who he is, §. 8.in these words, Who is this Lord? And the Answer is from 1 Cer. 8. 6. Jesus Christ by whom are all things. The close of this second answer might have caused M. B. a little to recoyle upon his insinuation in the first, concerning the distinction of this one Lord from that one God, in the sence by him insisted o… Who is he by whom are all things (in the same sence as they are said to be of the Father) who is that God? He that made all things is God, Heb. 3. 4. And it is manifest that he himselfe was not made, by whō all things were made. For he made not himselfe; not could so do, unles be were both before & after himself; nor was he made without his own concurrence by another, fo… by himselfe are all things. Thus M. B. hath no sooner opened his mouth to speak against the Lord Jesus Christ, but by the just p. 152Judgement of God, he stops it himselfe with a testimony of God against himselfe, which he shall never be able to rise up against unto Eternity.

And it is a manifest perverting & corrupting of the Text which we have in Grotius his Glosse upon the place, who interprets the Groti. Annot. in 1. Cor. 8. 6.1 Cor 8:6foreign, referred to the Father, of all things simply, but the foreign, referred to Christ, of the things only of the new Creation; There being not the least colour for any such variation, the frame and structure of the words requiring them to be expounded uniformely throughout. But to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Enjedin: explicat. loc. vet. & nov Testam. in locum.Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. The last expression and we by him, relates to the new creation: all things to the first. But Grotius followes Enjedinus, in this as well as other things.

His enquiry in the next place is after the birth of Jesus Christ, In answer whereunto the Story is reported from Mathew and §. 9.Luke; which relating to his humane nature, and no otherwise to the person of the Sonne of God, but as he was therein made flesh, or assumed the Holy Thing, so borne of the Virgin, into personall subsistence with himselfe, I shall let passe, with annexing Luk. 1. 35.Luke 1:35unto it the observation before mentioned, viz. That what is affirmed of the Humane Nature of Christ doth not at all prejudice that nature of his, in respect whereof he is said to be in the beginning with God, and to be God, and with reference Joh. 1. 1, 2. Joh. 8. 57. Prov. 8. 22. &c.John 1:1Prov 8:22whereunto himselfe said, before Abraham was I am. God possessed him in the beginning of his ways, being then his only begotten Sonne, full of Grace and Truth. M. B. indeed hath small hopes of dispoyling Christ of his Eternall Glory by his Queries, if they spend themselves in such fruitlesse sophistry as this.

Qu. 4, 5. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord according to the opinion of the Apostle Paul? The Answer is Rom. 14. 19.§. 10.

What saith Peter also concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord? Answer Acts 2. 32, 33, 36.

1. R. That Jesus Christ as Mediatour, and in respect of the worke of Redemption and Salvation of the Church, to him committed, was made Lord by the Appointment, Authority, and Designation of his Father, we do not say was the opinion of Paul, but is such a divine truth, as we have the plentifull p. 153Testimony of the Holy Ghost unto. He was no lesse made a Lord, then a Priest, and Prophet of his Father; but that the Eternall Lordship of Christ, as he is one with his Father, God blessed for ever more, is any way denyed by the asserting of this Lordship given him of his Father as Mediatour, M. B. wholly beggs of Rom. 9. 5.Rom 9:5men to apprehend & grant, but doth not once attempt from the Scripture to manifest or prove. The summe of what M. Biddle intends to Argue hence is, Christs submitting himselfe to the forme & worke of a servant unto the Father, was exalted by him, and had a name given him above every name, Therefore he was not the Sonne of God, and equall to him. That his condescention into Office, is inconsistent with his divine Essence, is yet to be proved. But may we not begge of our Catechist at this le…sure to looke a little farther into the Chapter, from whome be takes his first Testimony, concerning the Exaltation of Christ to be Lord; perhaps it may be worth his while. As another Argument to that of the Dominion and Lordship of Christ, to perswade Believers to a mutuall for bearance, as to judging of one another, he addes v. 10. We shall all stand before the Iudgement seat of Christ. And this v. 11. The Apostle proves from that Testimony of the Prophet Isa. 45. 23. as he renders the sense of the Holy Ghost. As I live saith the Lord, every knee shall …ow to me, and every tongue shall confesse to God. So that Jesus Christ our Lord, is that I…hovah, that God, to whom all subjection is due, and in particulars, that of standing before his Judgement Seat. but this is over looked by Grotius, and not answered to any purpose by Enjedinus, and why should M. B. trouble himselfe with it.

2. For the time assigned by him of his being §. 11.made Lord, specifyed by the Apostle, it doth not denote his first inve…ture with that Office and Power, but the solemne admission into the glorious execution of that Lordy power, which was given him as Mediatour. At his incarnation and Birth, God affirmes by the Angell, that he was then Christ the Lord, Luke 2. 11. And when he brought his first begotten into the world, the Angels were commanded to worship him, which, if he were not a Lord, I suppose M. B. will not say they could have done. Yea, & as he was both believed in, & worshipped before his death and Resurrection, Joh. 9. 38. Iohn 14. 1. which is to be performed p. 154only to the Lord our God, Math. 4. 10. so he actually in some measure exercised his Lordship towards, and over Angells, Men, Divels, and the residue of the Creation, as is known from the very story of the Gospell; not denying himselfe to be a King, yea witnessing thereunto when he was to be put to death. Luk. 23. 3. Ioh. 18. 37. As he was from his first shewing unto men, Ich. 1. 49.

Q. 6. Did not Iesus approve himselfe to be God by his miracles? And did he not these miracles by a divine nature of his own, and because he was §. 12.God of himselfe, what is the determination of the Apostle Peter in this behalfe? Aris Act. 2. 2…. Act. 10. 38.

The intendment of M. Biddle in this Question, as is evident by his inserting of these words in a different Character. [by a divine nature of his own, and because he was God himselfe,] is to disprove, or insinuate an answer unto the Argument, taken from the Miracles that Christ did, to confirme his Deity. The naked working of Miracles, I confesse, without the influence of such other Considerations, as this Argument is attended withall, in relation to Jesus Christ, will not alone of itselfe assert a divine nature in him, who is the instrument of their working or production. Though they are from divine power, or they are not miracles, yet it is not necessary, that he by whō they are wrought, should be possessour of that divine Power, as by whom may denote the instrumentall, and not the principall cause of them. But for the Miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, as God is said to do them by him, because he appointed him to doe them, as he designed him to his offices, and thereby gave Testimony to the Truth of the Doctrine he preached from his bosome, as also because he was with him, not in respect of power and virtue, but as the Father in the Sonne, Ioh. 10. 38. So he working these miracles by his own power; and at his own will, even as his Father doth, Iob 5. 21. and himselfe giving power and Authority to others to worke miracles by his strength, and in his name, Mat. 10. 8. Mark. 16. 17, 18 Luk. 10. 19. There is that eminent evidence of his Deity in his working of miracles, as M. B. can by no meanes darken or obscure, by pointing to that which is of a cleare consistency therewithall: as is his Fathers appointment of him to do them whereby he is said to do them in his name, &c. as in the place cited; of which afterwards. p. 155Act 2. 22. The intendment of Peter is to prove that he was the Messias of whom he spake; and therefore he calls him Iesus of Nazareth, as pointing out the man whom they knew by that name, and whom seven or eight weekes before they had crucifyed and rejected. That this man was **foreign. Graec. Schol.approved of Ged, He convinces them from the Miracles which God wrought by him: which was enough for his present purpose. Of the other place there is another reason. For though Grotius expound those words foreign. For God was with Him, God alwayes loved him, and alwayes heard him, according to Mat. 3 17. (where yet there is a peculiar Testimony given to the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ) and Joh. 11. 42. Yet the words of our Savious himselfe, about the same businesse, give us another interpretation, and sence of them. This I say he does, Ioh. 10. 37, 38. If I doe not the workes of my Father believe me not. But if I doe, though ye believe not me, believe the workes, that you may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. In the doing of these workes, the Father was so with him, as that he was in Him, and He in the Father. Not only foreign, but by that divine Indwelling, which onenesse of nature gives to Father and Sonne.

His 7. Question is exceeding implicate and involved: a great deale is expressed that M. B. would deny, but by what §. 13.inference from the Scriptures he produceth, doth not at all appeare, the words of it are, Could not Christ do all things of himselfe, and was it not an Eternall Sonne of God that tooke flesh upon him, and to whom the humane nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all these workes? Answer me to these things in the words of the Sonne himselfe.

Ans. Joh 5. 19, 20, 30. Joh. 14. 10.

The Inference which alone appeares from hence, is of the same nature with them that are gone before. That Christ could not do all things of himselfe, that He was not the Eternall Sonne of God, that He tooke not flesh, is that which is asserted; but the proofe of all this doth disprove. Christ being accused by the Jewes, and persecuted for healing a man on the Sabbath day, and their rage being increased, by his asserting his Equality with the Father (of which afterwards) v. 17, 18. He lets them know, that in the discharge of the office committed to Him, p. 156He did nothing but according to the Will, Commandement and appointment of his Father, with whom he is Equall, and doth of his own Wall also the things that he doth; so that they had no more to plead against him, for doing what he did, then they had against him, whom they acknowledged to be God. Wherein he is so farre from declining the Assertion of his own Deity (which that he maintained, the Jewes apprehended, affirming, that he made himselfe equall with God, whith none but God is, or can be, for between God, and that which is not God, there is no proportion, much lesse Equallity) as that he farther confirmes it, by affirming, that he doth whatever the Father doth, and that as the Father quickneth whom he will, so He quickneth whom he will. That redoubled assertion then of Christ, that he can do nothing of himselfe, is to be applied to the matter under consideration. He had not done, nor could do any worke, but such as his Father did also: It was impossible he should; Not only because he would not, in which sense foreign is one kind of those things which are impossible, but also because of the onenesse in Will, Nature, and power of himselfe, and his Father, which he asserts in many particulars. Nor doth he temper his speech as one that would ascribe all the honour to the Father, and so remove the charge that he made a man equall to the Father, as Grotius vainly imagines: for although as man he acknowledges Semper ea quae de se praedicare cogitur, Christus …ta temperat, ut omnem honorem referat ad patrem, & removeat illud crimen, quasi hominem patri aequalem faciat. Grotius Annot. in Joh. cap. 5. v. 30.John 5:30his subjection to the Father, yea as Mediatour in the worke he had in hand, & his subordination to him as the Son, receiving all things from him by divine & Eternall communication, yet the Action or worke that gave occasion to that discourse, being an action of his person, wherein he was God, He all along asserts his own Equaility therein with the Father, as shall afterwards be more fully manifested.

So that though in regard of his divine Personallity, as the Son, he hath all things from the Father, being begotten by him, and as Mediatour, doth all things by his appointment, and in his name, yet he in himselfe is still one with the Father, as to nature and Essence, God to be blessed for ever more. And that it was an Eternall Sonne of God that tooke flesh upon him, &c. hath M. B. never read, that in the beginning was the word, and the word was God, and the Word was made flesh: that God was manifested in the flesh, and that God sent forth his Sonne, made of a woman, made under p. 157the Law? Of which places afterward, in their vindication from the exception of his Masters.

His 8^th Question is of the very same import with that going before, attempting to exclude Jesus Christ from the §. 14.Unity of Essence with his Father, by his Obedience to him, and his Fathers Acceptation of him in the worke of Mediation; which being a most ridiculous beggin of the thing in Question, as to what he pretends in the Query to be Argumentative, that I shall not farther insist upon it.

Q. 9. We are come to the head of this Discourse, and of §. 15.M. B's designe in this Chapter; and indeed of the greatest designe that he drives in Religion, viz. The denyall of the Eternall Deity of the Sonne of God, which not only in this place directly, but in sundry others covertly he doth invade and oppose. His Question is, Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Sonne of God, because he was Eternally begotten out of the divine Essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.

His Answer is from Luk. 1 31, 32, 34, 35. John 10. 36. Acts §. 16.13. 32, 33. Rev. 1. 5. Col. 1. 18. Heb. 1-4, 5. Heb. 5. 5. Rom. 8. 29. most of which places are expressly contrary to him in his designe, as the progresse of our Discourse will discover.

This I say being the head of the difference between us in this Chapter, after I have rectifyed one mistake in M. B's Question, I shall state the whole matter so as to obviate farther labour and trouble, about sundry other ensuing Queries. For M. B's Question then, we say not, that the Sonne is begotten Eternally out of the divine Essence, but in it, not by an Eternall act of the divine Being, but of the Person of the Father; which being premised I shall proc…ed.

The question that lyes before us is.§. 17.

Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Sonne of God, because he was Eternally beggotten out of the Divine Essence, or for other Reasons agreeing to him only as a man? Rebearse the passages to this purpose.

The Reasons as farre as I can gather which M. B. layes at the bottome of this appellation, are 1. His birth of the Virgin from Joh. 1. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. 2. His Mission, or sending into p. 158the world by the Father, Joh. 10. 36. 3. His Resurrection with power, Act. 13. 32, 33. Rev. 1. 5. Col. 1. 18. 4. His Exaltation, Heb. 5. 5. Rom. 8. 29.

For the removeal of all this, from prejudicing the eternall Sonship of Jesus Christ, there is an abundant sufficiency arising from the consideration of this one Argument. If Jesus Christ be called the Son of God, antecedently to his Incarnation, Mission, Resurrection, and Exaltation, then there is a reason and cause of that Appellation, before, and above all these Considerations; and it cannot be on any of these accounts that he is called the Sonne of God: but that he is so called antecedently to all these, I shall afterward abundantly manifest. Yet a little farther processe in this businesse, as to the particulars intimated, may not be unseasonable.

1. Then I shall propose the causes, on the account whereof §. 18.alone these men affirme that Jesus Christ is called the Sonne of God. Of these the first and chiefest they insist upon is, His Birth of the Virgin: viz. that he was called the Sonne of God, because he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, this our Catechist in the first place proposes; And before him his Masters. So the Recovlans in answer to that question.

Is therefore the Lord Jesus a meere man?Ergo dominus Jesus est purus homo?

Ans. By no meanes, for he was conceived by the Ans. Nullo pacto Et… nim est conceptus a Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Mar…a Virgine, eoque ab ipsa conceptione & ortu Filius Dei est, ut de eare Luk. 1. 35. legimus. Catech. Racov. de Persona Christi Cap. 1.Luke 1:35Holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin, and therefore from his Birth and Conception was the Sonne of God, as we read in Luk. 1. 35. the place insisted on by the Gentleman we are dealing withall.

Of the same mind are the residue of their Companions. So doe Ostorodus and Voidovius give an account of their Faith, in their Compendium, as they call it, of the Doctrine of the Christian Church, flourishing now chiefely in Poland. They teach (say they) p. 159Jesum Christum docent esse h…minem illum, a spiritu Sancto conceptum, & natum ex beatâ Virgine, extra vel ante quem, nullum agnoscant esse (aut) fuisse re ipsa existentem unigenitam Dei Filiam. Por…o h…e, Deum & Filium Dei unigenitum esse docent, tum ratione con…eptionis, a Spiritu Sancto, &c. Compendiolum Doctrinae Eccles. Christianae &c. cap. 1.Jesus Christ to be that man, that was conceived of the Holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin, besides and before whom they acknowledge no only begotten Sonne of God truly existing. Moreover they teach him to be God, and the only begotten Sonne of God, by reason of his conception of the Holy Ghost, &c. Smakius hath written a whole booke of the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, wherein he hath gathered together whatever excellencys they will allow to be ascribed unto Him, making his Deity to be the exurgency of them all. Therefore is he God, & the son of God, because the things he there treates…of, are ascribed unto him. Among these in his 3^d Chap. which is of the Conception and Nativity of Jesus Christ, he gives this principall Account why he is called the Sonne of God, even from his Concepition and Nativity. He was (saith he) Conceived of the Holy Coceptus enim est de Spiritis Sancto, & natus ex Virgine Maria. Obid genus conceptionis & nativitatis modam Filius etiam Dei ab ipso Angelo vocatus fuit, & ita naturalis Dei Filius (quiae scilicet talis natus fuit) dici vere potest Solus, Jesus Christus a Deo patre suo abs{que} opera viri in lumen productus est. Smal. de vera divinit. Jes. Christ. cap. 3.Ghost, and borne of the Virgin Mary, because of which manner of Conception and Nativity, he was by the Angell called the Sonne of God: And may so really be called the naturall Sonne of God, because he was borne such: only Jesus Christ was brought forth to light by God his Father, without the helpe of man.

The great Master of the Herd himselfe, from whom indeed §. 1. 6the rest do gleane, and gather almost all that they take so much paines to scatter about the world, gives continually this Reason of Christs being called the Sonne of God, and his naturall Sonne. I say (saith he) that Christ is deservedly called Dico igitur, Christum merito dici posse Filium Dei naturalem, quia natus est Dei Filius; tametsi ex ipsa Dei substantia non fuerit generatus. Natum autem illum sub alia ratione, quam per generatic…m ex ipsius Dei substantia probant Angeli verba, Mariae matri ojus dicta Luk. 1. 35. Quia igin… hemo ille Jesus Nazarenus, qui dictus est Christus, non viri alicujus opera, sed Spiritus Sancti operatione generanus est in matris utere; propterea Filius Dei est vocatus. Faust. Soci…. Responsie. ad Weick. capit. 4. p. 202.Luke 1:35the Naturall Sonne of God, because he was borne the Sonne of God, although he was not begotten of the substance of God. And that He was borne the Sonne of God another way, and not by generation of the Substance of God, the words of the Angell prove, Luk. 1. 35. Therefore p. 160because that man Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, was begotten not by the helpe of any man, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the womb of his Mother, he is therefore, or for that cause, called the Sonne of God: So He against Weick the Iesuire. He is followed by Volkelius, (Lib. 5. Cap. 11. P. 468.) whose booke indeed is a meere casting into a kind of a method, what was written by Socinus and others, scattered in sundry particulars, and whose method is pursued and improved by Epistopius: Ionas Schlictingius amongst them all seemes to do most of himselfe, I shall therefore adde his Testimony, to shew their consent in the assignation of this cause of the Appellation of the Sonne of God, ascribed to our blessed Saviour. There are (saith he) many sayings (of Scripture) which shew, that Christ is in a peculiar manner, & on an account Sunt quidem plurima, dicta quae ostendunt Christum, peculiari prorsus nee ulli alio communi ratione esse Dei Fi…ium: non tament hinc concludere licet eum esse naturali ratione filium: cum praeter hane, & illam communem, alia dari possit, & in Cstristo reipsa locum habeat. Nonne singulari prorsus ratione, nec ulli communi, Dei Filius est Christus, si ab ipso Deo, vi & efficacia Spiritus Sancti, in utero virginis conceptus fuit & genitus? Schlicting ad Meisner. Artic. de Trinit. pag. 160.not common to any other, the Sonne of God; but yet we may not hence conclude, that he is a Son on a naturall account, when besides this, and that more common, another reason may be given, which hath place in Christ. Is he not the Sonne of God on a singular account, and that which is common to no other, if of God himselfe, by the virtue and efficacy of the Holy Sprit, he was Conceived, and begotten in the womb of his Mother?

And this is the only Buckler which they have to keep off the §. 20.sword of that Argument for the Deity of Christ, from his being the proper Sonne of God, from the throat, and heart of that cause which they have undertaken. And yet how faintly they hold it, is evident from the expressions of this most cunning and Skilful of all their Champions. There M A Y another reason be given. Which is the general Evasion of them all, from any expresse Testimony of Scripture. The words MAY have another sence, therefore nothing from them can be concluded; whereby they have left nothing stable, or unshaken in Christian Religion; and yet wipe their mouths, and say they have done no evill.

p. 161But now least any one should say, that they can see no reason §. 21.why Christ should be called the Sonne of God, because he was so conceived by the Holy Ghost, nor wherefore God should therefore in a peculiar manner, and more eminently, then in respect of any other, be called the Father of Christ, to prevent any objection that on this hand might arise, Smalcius gives an account whence this is, & why God is called the Father of Christ, and what he did in his Conception; which, for the Abomination of it, I had rather you should heare in his words then in mine. In his answer to the second part of the refutation of Socinus by Smiglecius, cap. 17, 18. he contends to manifest, and make good, that Christ was the Sonne of God according to the flesh, in direct opposition to that of the Apostle, He was of the seed of David according to the flesh, declared to be the Sonne of God, &c. Rom. 1. 3, 4. He sayes then cap. 18. p. 156. Socinus affirmat Deum in generatione Christi vices patris supplevisse.—but how I pray? why! Satis est ad ostendendum, Deum in generatione Christi vices viri supplevisse, si ostendatur, Deum id ad Christi generationem adjecisse, quod in generatione hominis ex parte viri, ad hominem producendum adjeci solet: but what is that, or how is that done? Nos Dei virtutem in Virginis uterum aliquam substantiam creatam vel immisisse, aut ibi creasse affirmamus, ex qua juncto eo, quod ex ipsius Virginis substantia accessit, verus homo generatus fuit. Alias enim homo ille, Dei Filius a conceptione & nativitate proprie non fuisset. cap. 17. pag. 150. Very good, unlesse this abominable sigment may passe current, Christ was not the Sonne of God. Let the Reader observe by the way, that they cannot but acknowledge Christ to have been, and to have been called the Sonne of God in a most peculiar manner: To avoid the evidence of the inference from thence, that therefore he is God, of the same substance with his Father, They only have this shift, to say he is called the Son of God, upon the account of that, whereof there is not the least tittle, nor word in the whole booke of God; yea which is expressly contrary to the Testimony thereof; & unlesse this be granted they affirme that Christ cannot be called the Son of God. But let us heare this great Rabbi of M. B's religion a little farther clearing up this mistery. Necessitas magna fuit, ut Christus ab initio vitae suae esset Deo Filius, qualis futurus non suisset nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatū suisset, quod ad constituendū Christi corpus, una cū Mariae Sanguine concurrit. Mansit p. 162sit autem nihilominus sanguis Mariae Virginis purissimus; etiamsi cum alio aliquo semine commixtus fuit. Potuit enim tam purum, imo purius semen, a Deo creari, & proculdubis creatum fuit, quam erat sanguis Mariae. Communis deni… sensus, & fides Christianorum omnium, quod Christus non ex virili semine conceptus sit; primum, communis error censendus est, si sacris literis repugnet: Deinde id quod omnes sentiunt, factle cum ipsa a veritate conciliari potest, ut scilicet semen illud, quod a Deo creatum, & cum semine Mariae conjunctum fuit, dicatur non virile, quia non a viro profectum sit, vel ex viro in uterum Virginis translatum, ut quidam opinantur, qui semen Josephi translatum in Virginis uterum credunt. cap. 18. pag. 158. And thus farre are men arrived. Unlesse this horrible sigment may be admitted, Christ is not the Sonne of God. He who is the true God and eternall Life, will one day plead the cause of his own glory against these men.

I insist somewat the more on these things, that men may judge §. 22.the better, whether in all probability M. Biddle in his impartiall search into the Scripture, did not use the helpe of some of them that went before him, in the discovery of the same things, which He boasts Himselfe to have found out.

And this is the first reason which our Catechist hath taken §. 23.from his Masters, to communicate to his Schollers, why Jesus Christ is called the Sonne of God. This He and they insist on, exclusively to his Eternall Sonship, or being the Sonne of God, in respect of his Eternall generation of the substance of his Father.

The other causes which they assigne, why he is called the §. 24.Sonne of God, I shall very briefely point unto. By the way that hath been spoken of, they say he was the Sonne of God; the naturall Sonne of God. But they say he was the Sonne of God, before he was God. He grew afterward to be a God by degrees as he had those Graces, and excellencyes, and that power given him, wherein his God-head doth consist. So that He was the Sonne of God, but not God (in their own sence) untill a while after. And then when he was so made a God, He came thereby to be more the Sonne of God. But by this addition to his Sonship he became the adopted Sonne of God: as by being begotten, as was before revealed, he was the naturall Son of God. Let us heare Smalcius a little opening these p. 163misteries; Neither (saith he) was Christ God, all the while Nee enim omni tempore quo Christus Filius Dei fuit, Deus etiā suit. Filiū enim Dei esse, ad nativitatem etiam - referri, & ob ortum ipsum aliquem Dei Filium appellari posse nemo non intelligit. At deum (praeter unum illum deum) nemo esse potest, nisi propter similitudinem cum deo. Itaque tunc cum Christus deo similis factus esse… per drvinas quae in ipso erant qualitates, summo jure eatenus dei Filius, qua deus, & vicissim eatenus deus, qua dei Filius: At ante obtentam illam cum deo similitudinem deus propriè dici non potuit. Smal. Respon. ad Smiglec. Cap: 17. P: 154.He was the Sonne of God. To be the Sonne of God, is refer'd, to his birth, and all understand how one may be call'd the Sonne of God, for his birth or originall But God none can be (besides that one God) but for his likenesse to God, So that when Christ was made like God, by the divine. Qualities which were in him, he was most rightly so farre the Sonne of God, as he was God, and so farre God, as he was the Sonne of God. But before he had obtained that likenesse to God, properly he could not be said to be God.

And these are some of those monstrous sigments which under §. 25.pretence of bare adherence to the Scripture, our Catechist would obtrude upon us. First Christ is the Sonne of God. Then growing like God in divine Qualities, he is made a God, and so becomes more the Sonne of God. And this, if the man may be believed, is the pure Doctrine of the Scripture. And if Christ be a God, because he is like God, by the same reason we are all Gods in M. B's conceit, being all made in the Image and likenesse of God, which (sayes he) by sinne we have not lost.

But what kind of Sonship is added to Christ by all these excellencyes, §. 26.whereby he is made like to God? The same author tells us, that it is a Sonship by adoption, and that Christ on these accounts was the adopted Sonne of God. If (saith he) what is the signification of this word [adoptivus] may be considered Si quae fit vocabuli Adoptivus significatio ex mente sacrarum literarum consideretur, nos non inficiari Christum suo modo esse adoptivum dei Filium. Quia enim adoptivi Filii ea est conditio & proprietas, ut talis non fit natus qualis factus est post adoptionem; certe quia Christus talis natura, vel in ipsa conceptione & nativitate non fuit, qualis postea suit, aelate accedente, sine injuria adoptivus dei Filius eo modo dici potest. Smalci. ad Smiglec. c. 20 p. 175.the signification of this word [adoptivus] may be considered from the Scripture, we deny not but that Christ in this manner may be called the adopted Sonne of God. Seeing that such is the property and condition of an adopted Sonne p. 164that he is not borne such as he is afterward made by adoption; certainely seeing that Christ was not such by nature, or in his conception and nativity as he was afterward in hs succeeding age, he may justly on that account be called the adopted Son of God. Such miserable plunges doth Sathan drive men into, whose eyes he hath once blinded, that the glorious light of the Gospell should not shine into them. And by this we may understand whatever they adde farther concerning the Sonship of Christ: That all belongs to this Adoptive Sonship, whereof there is not one tittle in the whole booke of God.

The reasons they commonly adde, why in this sence Christ §. 25.is called the Sonne of God, are the same which they give, why He is called God. He is the only begotten Sonne of God, Filium Dei unigenitum esse docent, tum propter Sanctificationem, ac missionem in mundum, tum axaltationem ad dei dextram; adeout factum dominum & deum nostrum affirmant, Compendi. Relig. cap. 1. pag. 2.(say the Authors of the Compendium of the Religion before mentioned) because God Sanctifyed him, and sent Him into the world, and because of his exaltation at the right hand of God, whereby he was made our Lord and God.

If the Reader desire to heare them speak in their own words, let him consult Smalcius de vera Divinit. Jes. Christ. cap. 7. &c. Socin. Disput. cum Erasmo Johan. Rationum quatuor antecedent. Resut. Disput. de Christi natur a pag. 14, 15. Adversus Weickum p. 224, 245. & passim. Volkel. devera Religi. lib. 5. cap. 10, 11, 12. Jonas Schlict. ad Meisner. p. 192, 193. &c. Especially the same person, fully and distinctly opening and declaring the minds of his Companions, and the severall accounts on which they affirme Christ to be and to have been called the Sonne of God, in his Comment on the Epistle to the Hebrewes p. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. as also his notes upon Vechnerus his Sermon on Joh. 1. pag. 14. &c. Anonym. Respon. ad centum argumenta Cichorii Jesuitae pag. 8, 9. 10. Confessio Fidei Christianae, edita nomine Ecclesiarum in Polonia. pag. 24, 25.

Their good friend Episcopius hath ordered all their causes of Christs Filiation under foure heads.

p. 165The first way (saith he) whereby Christ is in the Scriptures Primus mo…us est, quia qu… tenus homo ex Spiritu dei Sancto conceptus est, & … Virgine natus est: nec dubium mihi est, quin ob hune modū, deus etiam foreign vecetur Pater domini nostri Jesu Christi. Secundus modus est, quia Iesus Christus ratione muneris illius, quod a patre speciali manda…o impositum ei fuit, at Re… Israelis esset, promissas ille per Prophetas, & praevisus ante secala Filias dei vocatur. Fertius modus est, quia a patre ex mortuis in vitam immortalem suscitatus, & veluti, exuter… terrae, nullo, mediante matre, denu… genit… est. & Quartus. modus est, quia Iesus Christus ex morte suscitatus, hares ex asse constitutus est in domo patris sui, ac proinde bonorum omnium caelestium, & patris sui ministrorum omnium …ive Angelorum dominus. Episcop. Institu. Theolog. lib. 4. cap. 33, S. 2. p. 195.foreign called the Sonne of God, is in that as man he was conceived of the Holy Ghost and borne of a Virgin. And I doubt not (saith he) but that God is on this ground called eminently the Father of our Lord Christ.

2. Jesus Christ by reason of that Duty or office which was imposed on him by his Father, that he should be the King of Israel promised by the Prophet, is called the Sonne of God.

3. Because he was raised up by the Father to an immortall life, and as it were borne againe from the wombe of the Earth, without the helpe of any Mother.

4. Because being so raised from death, he is made compleate heire of his Fathers house, & Lord of all his Heavenly goods, Saints, and Angels. The like he had written before in his Apology for the Remonstrants cap. 2. Sect. 2.

Thus He, evidently and plainely from the Persons before named. §. 28.But yet after all this, he askes another Question, whether all this being granted, there do not yet moreover remaine a more eminent and peculiar reason, why Christ is called the Sonne of God. He answers himselfe: there is, namely, his Eternall Generation of the Father; His being God of God from all Eternity, Insti. Theol. lib. 4. Sect. 2. c. 33. p. 335.which he pursues with sundry Arguments; And yet in the close disputes, that the acknowledgement of this Truth is not Fundamentall, or the denyall of it exclusive of Salvation. So this great reconciler of the Arminian and Socinian Religions, whole composition and unity, into an opposition to them whom he calls Galvinists, is the great designe of his Theologicall, institutions, and such at this day is the ayme of Curcullaeus, & some others. By the way I shall desire, (before I answer what he offers to confirme his Assignation of this foure fold manner of Filiation to Jesus Christ) to aske this learned Gentleman (or p. 166these of his mind who do survive him) this one Question seeing that Jesus Christ was from eternity the Son of God, and is called so after his Incarnation, and was on that account in his whole person the Sonne of God, by their own confessions, what tittle he or they can find in the Scripture of a manifold Filiation of Jesus Christ, in respect of God his Father, or whether it be not a diminution of his glory, to be called the Sonne of God upon any lower account, as by a new addition to him, who was eternally his only begotten Sonne, by vertue of his Eternall Generation of his own substance?

Having thus discovered the minde of them with whom we §. 29.have to doe, and from whom our Catechist hath borrowed his discoveries, I shall briefely do these two things.

1. Shew that the Filiation of Christ consists in his generation of the substance of his Father from Eternity; or that he is the Sonne of God upon the account of his Divine Nature, and subsistence therein, antecedent to his Incarnation.

2. That it consists solely therein, and that he was not, nor was called the Sonne of God upon any other account, but that mentioned; and therein answer what by M. B. or others is objected to the contrary.

3. To which I shall adde Testimonies & Arguments for the Deity of Christ, whose opposition is the maine businesse of that new Religion, which M. Biddle would Catechise poore unstable soules into, in the vindication of those excepted against by the Racovians.

For the demonstration of the first Assertion, I shall insist on some few of the Testimonies and Arguments, that might be produced §. 30.for the same purpose.

1. He who is the True, Proper, only begotten Sonne of God, of the §. 31.Living God, He is begotten of the Essence of God his Father, and is his Sonne by vertue of that Generation. But Jesus Christ was thus the only, true, proper, only begotten Sonne of God: and therefore is the Son of God upon the account before mentioned: That Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God in the manner expressed, the Scripture abundantly testifieth, Lo a voyce from Heaven, saving, this is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased, Math. 3. 17. Thou, art Christ the Sonne of the Living God, Math. 16. 16. & John 6. 6.

p. 167Which place in Mathew is the rather remarkable, because it is §. 32.the Confession of the Faith of the Apostle, given in in answer to that question, who do you say that I the Sonne of man am? They answer, the Sonne of the Living God. And this in opposition to them, who said he was a Prophet, or as one of the Prophets, as Marke expresses it, cap. 6. 15. that is, only so. And the whole Confession manifests, that they did in it acknowledge both his Office of being the Mediatour, and his divine nature, or person also. Thou art the Christ, those words comprize all the causes of Filiation, insisted on by them with whom we have to doe, and the whole office of the Mediation of Christ, but yet hereunto they adde, the Sonne of the Living God: expressing his divine nature, and Sonship on that account.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given is an understanding, that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Iesus Christ, this is the true God, & eternall Life, Ioh. 5. 20. He spared not his own Sonne, Rom. 8. 32. And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we saw his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten Sonne of God. Ioh. 1. 14. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Sonne, who is in the bosome of the Father, he hath revealed him, v. 18.—Said also, That God was his Father, making himselfe equall with God 1 Ioh. 5. 18. So God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Sonne, Ioh. 3. 16. In this was manifest the Love of God, that he sent his only begotten Sonne into the world, 1 Ioh. 4. 9. Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee, Psal. 2. 7. &c. All which places will be afterwards vindicated at large.

To prove the inference laid down, I shall fix on one or two §. 34.of these instances.

1. He who is foreign, the proper Sonne of any, is begotten of the substance of his Father … Christ is; the proper. Sonne of God: and God he called of ten foreign his proper Father. He is properly a Father, who begets another of his substance, and he is properly a Son, who is so begotten.

Grotius confesseth there is an emphasis in the word foreign, whereby Christ is distinguished, from that kind of Sonship, §. 35. Grot. Annot. Joh. …8.John 8which the Jewes laid claime unto. Now the Sonship they laid claime unto, and enjoyed so many of them, as were truly so, was by Adoption. For to them pertained the Adoption, Rom. 9. 4. p. 168wherein this emphasis then, & specially of Christs Sonship should consist, but in what we assert of his naturall Sonship, cannot be made to appeare. Grotius says it is, because the Son of God was a name of the Messiah. True, but on what account? Not that common of Adoption, but this of Nature, as shall afterwards appeare.

Againe, he who is properly a Sonne, is distinguished from him who is metaphorically so only. For any thing what ever §. 36.is metaphorically said to be, what it is said to be, by a Translation, and likenesse to that which is true. Now if Christ be not begotten of the Essence of his Father, he is only a metaphoricall Sonne of God, by way of Allusion, and cannot be called the proper Sonne of God, being only one who hath but a similitude to a proper Sonne. So that it is a plaine contradiction, that Christ should be the proper Sonne of God, and yet not be begotten of his Fathers Essence. Besides, in that 8^th of the Romans, the Apostle had before mentioned other Sonnes of God, who became so by Adoption, v. 15, 16. but when he comes to speake of Christ, in opposition to them, he calls Him Gods own, or proper Sonne, that is, his naturall Sonne, they being so only by Adoption. And in the very words themselves, the distance that is given him by way of Eminence above all other things, doth sufficiently evince in what sence he is called the proper Sonne of God. He that spared not his own Son, how shall he not with him give us all things?

2. The only begotten Sonne of God, is his naturall Sonne, begotten of his Essence, and there is noe other Reason of §. 37.this Appellation. And this is farther cleare from the Antithesis, of this only begotten, to adopted: They are Adopted Sons who are received to be such by grace and favour. He is only begotten, who alone is begotten of the substance of his Father. Neither can any other reason be assigned, why Christ should so constantly, in way of distinction from all others, be called the only begotten Sonne of God. It were even ridiculous to say, that Christ were the only begotten Sonne of God, and his proper Sonne, if He were His Sonne only metaphorically and improperly. That Christ is the proper, only begotten Sonne of God, improperly and metaphorically, is that which is asserted to evade these Testimonies of Scripture. Adde hereunto, the Emphaticall discriminating significancy of that voice from Heaven, this is He, that well beloved Sonne of …ine; and that Testimony which in the same manner Peter gave p. 169to this sonship of Christ in his Confession, thou art the Sonne of the Living God, and the ground of Christs Filiation will be yet more evident. Why the Sonne of the living God, unlesse as begotten of God, as the living God, as living things beget of their own substance? but of that place before. Christ then, being the true, proper, beloved, only begotten Sonne of the living God, is his Naturall Sonne, of his own substance and Essence.

2. The same Truth may have farther evidence given unto §. 38.it, from the consideration of what kind of Sonne of God Jesus Christ is. He who is such a Sonne as is equall to his Father in Essence and properties; He is a Sonne begotten of the Essence of his Father. Nothing can give such an Equality, but a Communication of Essence. Then, with God Equality of Essence can alone give Equality of Dignity, and Honour. For between that Dignity, Power, and Honour, which belongs to God, as God, and that Dignity or Honour, that is, or may be given to any other, there is no proportion, much lesse Equality, as shall be evidenced at large afterwards. And this is the sole Reason, why a Sonne is equall to his Father in Essence and Properties, because he hath from him a Communication of the same Essence, whereof He is partaker. Now that Christ is such a Sonne, as hath been mentioned, the Scripture abundantly testifies. My Father (saith Christ) worketh hitherto, and I worke: therefore the Jewes sought the more to kill him, not only because he had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himselfe equall with God, Joh. 5. 17, 18. v. 17. having called God his Father, in the particular manner before mentioned, and affirmed to himselfe an equall nature, and power for operation with his Father, the Iewes thence inferre, that he testifyed of himselfe, that he was such a Sonne of God, as that he was equall with God.

The full opening of this place at large is not my present busines. The Learned Readers know where to find that done to their §. 36. Sibi licere praedicans quicquid de… licet; neque magis Sabbato adstringi. Grassa Calumnia. Grot. Annot. Joh. 5. 18.John 5:18hand. The intendment of those words is plaine & evident. Grotius expounds foreign; by, it was lawfull for him to do what was so to God, and that he was no more bound to the Sabbath then he Which (saith he) was a grosse calumn). So v. 19. **Comparatie est sumpta a di scipulo sibi qui magistrum praeeumtem diligenter intuetur, ut imitari posser.those words of our Saviour; p. 170The Sonne can doe nothing of himselfe, but what he sees the Father do (wherein the emphasis lyes evidently in the words foreign, for the Sonne can do nothing of himselfe, but what the Father doth, seeing he hath his Essence, and so consequently will, and Power communicated to him by the Father) He renders to be an Allusion to, and comparison between a Master and Schollar: as the schollar hoo…es diligently to what his master doth, and strives to imi… him: so was it with Christ and God; which exposition was the very same with that which the Arians assigned to this place, as Maldona… upon the place makes appeare. That it is not an equall licence with the Father, to worke on the Sabbath, but an Equallity of Essence, Nature, and Power between Father and Sonne, that the Jewes concluded from the saying of Christ, is evident on this consideration; that there was no strength in that plea of our Saviour, of working on the Sabbath day, because his Father did so, without the violation of the Sabbath, unlesse there had been an Equallity between the Persons working. That the Iewes did herein caldmnidie Christ, or accused him falsely, the Tritheits said indeed, as Zanchius testifyes; and Socinus Zanchius de Tribus Elo. him. lib. 5. cap. 4. p. 151.is of the same mind; whose Interest G…o…i… chiefely serves in his Annotations. But the whole context and carriage of the businesse, with the whole Reply of our Saviour, doe abundanly manifest, that the Iewes, as to their collection, were in the Bight, that he made himselfe such a Sonne of God, as was equall to him.

For if in this conclusion they had been mistaken, & so had ca…uniniated §. 40.Christ; There be two grand causes, why He should have delivered them from that mistake, by expounding to them what manner of Son of God He was. First, because of the just scandall they might take at what he had spoken, apprehending Notemus igitur Christum Judaeos tanquā in verborūsuorū intelligentia hallucinatos minime reprehendeniē se naturalē Dei Filiū clare professum esse. Deinde, quod isto modo colligunt Christum se Deo aequalem facere recte fe…erun…; nec ideo a Christo refelluntur, aut vituperantur ab evangelista, qui in re …anta nos errare non fuit passus. Cartwrightus Har. evan. in Loc.that to be the sence of his words, which they professed. Secondly, because on that account they sought to slay him, which if they had done, He should by his death have borne witnesse to that which was not true. They se…g…t to kill Him, because He made Himselfe such a Sonne of God, as by that sonship He was equall to God; which if it were not so, there was p. 171a necessity incumbent on him, to have cleared himselfe of that aspersion: which yet he is so farre from, as that in the following verses, he farther confirmes the same thing.

So he thought it not Robbery to be equall with God, Phil. 2. 6. §. 41.It is of God the Father that this is spoken, as the Father; as it appeares in the winding up of that Discourse, v. 1. That every tongue should confesse, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. And to him is Christ equall, and therefore begotten of his own Essence.

Yea he is such a Son as is one with his Father. I and my Father are §. 42.one. Ioh. 10. 30 Which the Iewes again instantly interpret without the least reproofe from him, that he being man, did yet aver himselfe to be God, v. 33.

This place also is attempted to be taken out of our hands by Grotius, though with no better successe then the former. foreign §. 43. Connectit quod dixerat cum superioribus. Si patris Potestati eripi non poterunt, nec meae poterunt. Nam potestas mea a patre emanat, & quidem ita, ut tantundem valeat a me aut a patre custodiri. vid. Gen. 41. 25, 27.Gen 41:25Gen 41:27foreign. He joyneth what he had spoken, with what went before: (saith he) if they cannot be taken from my Fathers power, they cannot be taken from mine; For I have my power of my Father, so that it is all to be kept of me, as of my Father: which he intends (as I suppose) to illustrate by the example of the power that Ioseph had under Pharoah, Gen. 41. though the verse he intend be false printed. But that it is an Unity of Essence, and Nature, as well as an a like Prevalency of power that our Saviour intends, not only from that apprehension which the Jewes had concerning the sence of those words, who immediately tooke up stones to kill him for blasphemy, from which apprehension he doth not at all labour to free them, but also from the exposition of his mind in these words, which is given us in our Saviours following discourse. For v. 16. He tels us, this is as much as if he had said, I am the Sonne of God. Now the unity between Father and Sonne, is in Essence, and Nature principally: & then that he doth the workes of the Father, the same workes that his Father doth, v. 37, 38. which were he not of the same nature with him he could not doe: which he closes with this, that the Father is in him, and he in the Father, v. 38. of which words before, and afterwards.

He then (that we may proceed) who is so the Sonne of God, §. 44.as that he is one with God, and therefore God, is the Naturall and Eternall Sonne of God; but that such a Sonne is Jesus p. 172Christ, is thus plentifully testifyed unto, in the Scripture. But because I shall insist on sundry other places to prove the Deity of Christ, which also all confirme the Truth under demonstration, I shall here passe them by. The evidences of this Truth from scripture do so abound, that I shall but only mention some other heads of Arguments, that may be, and are commonly insisted on to this purpose. Then

3. He who is the Sonne of God, begotten of his Father, §. 45.by an Eternall communication of his divine Essence, He is the Sonne begotten of the Essence of the Father. For these termes are the same, and of the same importance. But this is the description of Christ as to his Sonship, which the Holy Ghost gives us. Begotten he was of the Father according to his own Testimony; Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee, Psal. 2. 7. And he is the only begotten Son of God, Joh. 1. 14, And that he is so begotten by a communication of Essence, we have His own Testimony, when there were no hills I was brought forth, Prov. 8. 28. He was begotten and brought forth from Eternity. And how He tells you farther. Ioh. 5. 26. The Father hath given unto the Son to have life in himselfe. It was by the Fathers Communication of life unto him, and His living Essence or Substance; for the Life that is in God, differs not from his being: And all this from Eternity. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his workes 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 fountaines abounding with water: before the Mountaines were setled, before the Hills were brought forth, &c. Prov. 8. 22. &c. to the end of v. 32. And thou Bethlehem-Ephratah,—out of thee shall come forth unto me, he that is to be Ruler in Israel: whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Mich. 5. 2. In the beginning was the Word Joh. 1. 1. And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own selfe, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was, Joh. 17. 5. And againe, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world he saith, &c. Heb. 1. 6, &c.

4. The farther description which we have given us of this Sonne, makes it yet more evident. He is the brightnesse of his §. 46.Fathers Glory, and the expresse image of his person. Heb. 1. 3. The image of the invisible God. Col. 1. 15. That Christ is the Essentiall Image of his Father, & not an accidentall Image; an Image so as no Creature p. 173is, or can be admitted into copartnership with him therein, shall be on another occasion in this Treatise fully demonstrated. And thither the vindication of those Texts from the glosse of Grotius is also remitted.

And this may suffice (without insisting upon what more §. 47.might be added) for the demonstration of the first Assertion; that Christs Filiation ariseth from his eternall Generation; or He is the Sonne of God, upon the account of his being begotten of the Essence of his Father from Eternity.

2. That he is, and is termed the Sonne of God, solely on §. 48.this account, and not upon the Reasons mentioned by M. B. and explained from his companions, is with equall clearenesse evinced: nay I see not how any thing may seeme necessary for this purpose to be added to what hath been spoken; but for the farther satisfaction of them who oppose themselves, the ensuing considerations, through the Grace and patience of God, may be of use.

1. If for the Reasons and causes above insisted on from §. 49.the Socinians, Christ be the Sonne of God, then Christ is the Sonne of God according to the flesh, or according to his humane nature. So he must needs be, if God be called his Father, because he supplyed the roome of a Father in his conception. But this is directly contrary to the Scripture: calling Him the Son of God in respect of his divine nature, in opposition to the Flesh, or his Humane nature, &c. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be Son of God with Power, Ro. 1. 2, 3. Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. The same distinction and opposition is observed, 2 Cor. 13. 4. 1 Pet. 3. 18. If Jesus Christ according to the flesh be the Sonne of David, in Contradistinction to the Sonne of God, then doubtlesse he is not called the Sonne of God according to the flesh: but this is the plaine assertion of the Scripture in the places before named. Besides, on the same reason that Christ is the Sonne of man, on the same He is not the Sonne of God. But Christ was, and was called the Sonne of man, upon the account of his Conception of the substance of his Mother, and particularly the Sonne of David; and so is not on that account the Sonne of God.

p. 174Farther, That place of Rom. 1. 3, 4. passing not without some Exceptions, as to the sence insisted on, may be farther cleared, §. 50.and vindicated. Jesus Christ is called the Sonne of God, v. 1, 3. The Gospell of God, concerning his Sonne Iesus Christ: This Sonne is farther described, 1. by his humane Nature, He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. 2. In respect of his person or divine nature, wherein he was the Sonne of God, and that foreign, in power or existing in the power of God: For so foreign put absolutely doth often signify; as Rom. 1. 20. Math. 6. 13. and chap. 26. 64. Luk. 4. 36. He had, or was, in the omnipotency of God: and was this declared to be, not in respect of the flesh, in which he was made of a woman, but, foreign (which is opposed to foreign) according to, or in respect of his divine Holy Spirit: as is also the intendment of that word the Spirit, in the places above mentioned. Neither is it new, that the Deity of Christ should be called foreign. Himselfe is called foreign Dan. 9. 24. sanctitas sanctitatum: as here spiritus sanctitatis. And all this saith the Apostle, was declared so to be, or Christ was declared to be thus the Sonne of God, in respect of his Divine, Holy, spirituall being, which is opposed to the flesh, foreign, by the (… his) Resurrection from the dead, whereby an eminent Testimony was given unto His Deity: He was declared to be the Sonne of God thereby, according to the sence insisted on.

To weaken this Interpretation, Grotius moves (as they say) §. 51.every stone, and heaves at every word; but in vaine (1.) foreign, He tells is as much as foreign; as by the vulgar latine it is translated, praedestinatus. So he pleads it was interpreted by many of the Ancients. The places he quotes were most of them collected by Beza, in his Annotations on the place; who yet rejects their Judgement therein, and cites others to the contrary. Luk. 22. 22. Acts 10. 42. Act. 17. 31. are also urged by him to evince this sence of the word: in each of which places it may be rendred declared, or to declare; and in neither of them ought to be by predestinated. Though the word may sometimes signify so, swhich is not proved) yet that it here doth so will not follow: foreign, a definition (from whence that word comes) declares what a thing is, makes it known. And foreign may best be rendred to declare Heb. 4. 7. So in this place: p. 175foreign; sayes Chry…ostome on the place. And so doth the subject matter require. The Apostle treating of the way whereby Christ was manifested eminently to be the Sonne of God.

But the most Learned mans Exposition of this place is admirable. §. 52.Jesus (saith he) is many wayes said to be the Sonne of God. [This is begged in the beginning, because it Jesus Filius Dei multis modis dicitur. Maxime popula riter, ideo quod in regnum ae Deo evectus est; quo sensu verba Psalmi secundi, de Davide dicta, cum ad regnum pervenit, Christo aptantur. Act. 13. 33. & ad Haebreos 1. 5. Haee autem Filii, sive regia dignitas Jesu praedestinabatur & praefigurabatur tum cum mortalem agens vitam magnae illa signae & prodigia ederet, quae foreign voce denotantur, saepe & singularites foreign ut Mar. 6. 5. & 9. 39. Luk. 4. 36. v. 17. 6. 19. 8. 46. 9. 1. Act. 13. 12. Haec signa edebat Iesus, per spiritum illum sanctitatis, id est, vim divinam, per quam ab initio conceptionis sanctificatus fuerat. Luk. 1. 35. Mark. 28. Joh. 9. 36. Ostenditur ergo Iesus nobilis ex maternae parte, utpote ex rege terreno ortus; sed nobilior ex paternae parte, quippe a Deo factus Rex caelestis post Resurrectionem. Grot. Annot. in Rom. 1. vers. 3, 4.Acts 13:33Mark 6:5Mark 9:39Luke 4:36Acts 13:12Luke 1:35John 9:36Rom 1:3Rom 1:4will not be proved in the end. If this be granted it matters not much what followes.] But (most commonly or) most in a popular way, because he was raised unto a kingdome by God. [Not once in the whole Booke of God. Let him, or any one for him, prove this by any one cleare Testimony from Scripture, and take his whole interpretation. The Sonne of God, as Mediatour, was exalted to a Kingdome, and made a Prince and Saviour. But that, by that Exaltation, he was made the Sonne of God, or was so on that account, is yet to be proved: yea, it is most false.] He goes on: In that sence the words of the second Psalme were spoken of David, because he was exalted to a kingdome, which are applyed to Christ, Act. 13. 33. Heb. 1. 5. [But it is not proved that these words do at all belong to David, so much as in the type; nor any of the words from v. 7. to the end of the Psalme. If they are so to be accommodated, they belong to the manifestation, not constitution of him: and so they are applyed to our Saviour when they relate to his Resurrection, as one who was thereby manifested to be the Sonne of God, according as God had spoken of him.] But now how was Christ Predestinated to this sonship? This Kingly dignity, or the dignity of a Sonne, of Iesus, was predestinated and prefigured, when leading a mortall life, he wrought signes and wonders which is the sence of the words foreign. [The first sence of the word foreign is here insensibly slipped from. Predestinated and prefigured are ill conjoyned, as words of a neighbouring significancy. To Predestinate is constantly ascribed to God, as an act of his, foreappointing things to their end: neither can this learned man p. 176give one instance from the Scripture of any other signification of the word. And how comes now foreign to be presigured. Is there the least colour for such a sence? Predestinated to be the Sonne of God with power: that is, The signe he wrought presigured that he should be exalted to a Kingdome. He was by them in a good towardlinesse for it. It is true, foreign and sometimes foreign, being in construction with some transitive verbe, do signify great or marveilous workes: but that foreign, spoken of one declared to be so, hath the same signification is not proved. He addes, These signes Iesus did by the spirit of Holinesse, that is, that divine efficacy wherewith he was sanctifyed from the beginning of his Conception Luk. 1. 35. Mark. 2. 8. Joh. 9. 36. [In the two latter places there is not one word to the purpose in hand, perhaps he intended some other, and these are false printed. The first shall be afterwards considered. How it belongs to what is here asserted, I understand not. That Christ wrought miracles by the efficacy of the grace of the Spirit, with which he was sanctifyed, is ridiculous. If by the Spirit is understood his spirituall divine naure; This whole interpretation falls to the ground.] To make out the sence of the words he proceeds, Iesus therefore is shewed to be noble on the mothers side, as comming of an earthly King, but more noble on his Fathers part; being made a heavenly King of God after his Resurection. Heb. 5. 9. Act. 2. 30. & 26. 23, [And thus is this most evident Testimony of the Deity of Christ cluded, or endeavoured to be so. Christ on the Mothers side was the Sonne of David, that is, according to the flesh, of the same nature with her and him. On the Fathers side, He was the Sonne of God, of the same nature with him. That God was his Father, and he the son of God, because after his Resurrection he was made an heavenly King, is an hellish sigment. Neither is there any one word or tittle in the Texts cited to prove it: that it is a marvell to what end they are mentioned, one of them expressly affirming, that He was the Son of God before his Resurrection Heb. 5. 8, 9.

2. He who was actually the Son of God, before his Conception, §. 53.Nativity, Endowment with power, or exaltation, is not the Son of God on those accounts, but on that only, which is antecedent to them. Now by vertue of all the Arguments & Testimonies before recited, as also of all those that shall be produced p. 177for the proofe and evincing of the Eternall Deity of the Sonne of God, the proposition is unmoveably established, and the inference evidently followes thereupon.

But yet the proposition as layd down may admit of farther §. 54.confirmation at present. It is then testified to, Prov. 30. 4. What is his name, and what is his Sonnes name, if thou canst tell? He was therefore the Sonne of God, and he was incomprehensible, even then before his Incarnation. Psal. 2. 7. Thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee. Isa. 9. 6. Ʋnto us a Sonne is borne, unto us a Child is given, and the Government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderfull, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace. He is a Sonne, as he is the everlasting Father. And to this head of Testimonyes belongs what we urged before from Prov. 8. 24. &c. He is the Image of the invisible God, the first borne of every Creature, Col. 1. Which surely as to his Incarnation he was not, Before Abraham was I am. Joh. 8. 58. But of these places in the following Chapter I shall speake at large.

3. Christ was so the Son of God, that he that was made like §. 55.Him was to be without Father, Mother, or Genealogy, Heb. 7. 3. Without Father, without Mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like the Son of God. But now Christ in respect of his Conception & nativity, had a Mother, & one (they say) that supplyed the roome of Father, had a Genealogy that is upon record, and beginning of life, &c. So that upon these accounts He was not the Sonne of God, but on that, wherein he had none of all these things, in the want whereof, Melchisedec was made like to him. I shall only adde,

4. That which only manifests the filiation of Christ, is not the §. 56.cause of it. The cause of a thing is that which gives it, its being. The manifestation of it is only that which declares it to be so. That all the things insisted on, as the causes of Christs Filiation, by them with whom we have to do, did only declare & manifest him so to be, who was the Son of God, the Scripture witnesseth. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing, which shall be borne of thee shall be called the Sonne of God. Luk. 1. 35. He shall be called so being thereby declared to be so. And great is the Mystery of Godlinesse, God was manifested in the flesh, justifyed in the spirit, seene of Angells, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received p. 178up into glory 1 Tim. 3 16. All the causes of Christs Filiation, assigned by our Adversaries, are evidently placed as manifestations of God in him; or his being the Sonne of God: Declared to be the Sonne of God with power, according to the spirit of Holinesse, by the Resurrection from the dead, Rom. 1. 3. The Absurdity of assigning distinct, & so farre different causes of the same Effect of filiation, whether you make them totall, or partiall, need not be insisted on.

Farther (to adde one consideration more) sayes Socinus, Christ was the sonne of God, upon the account of his Holinesse, §. 57.and Righteousnesse, and therein his likenesse to God. Now this he had not according to his principles in his Infancy. He proves Adam not to have been righteous in the state of innocency, because he had yielded actuall obedience to no Law. No Praelect. cap. 8, 9, 10.more had Christ done in his Infancy. Therefore (1.) He was not the sonne of God upon the account of his Nativity. Nor (2.) did he become the sonne of God any otherwise then we do, viz. by hearing the Word, learning the Mind, and doing the Will of God. (3.) God did not give his only begotten sonne for us, but gave the sonne of Mary, that he might (by all that which we supposed he had done for us) be made the sonne of God. And so (4) This sending of Christ doth not so much commend the Love of God to us, as to him, that he sent him to dye & rise, that he might be made God, & the son of God. Neither (5.) can any eximious love to us of Christ, be seen in what he did & suffered; for had he not done and suffered what he did, he had not been the sonne of God. And also (6.) if Christ be on the account of his Excellencyes, Groces, and Gifts, the Sonne of God, which is one way of his Filiation insisted on, and to be God, and the Sonne of God, is as they say all one; and as it is indeed; then all who are renewed to the Image of God, and are thereby the Sonnes of God (as are all believers) are Gods also.

And this that hath been spoken, may suffice for the confirmation of the second Assertion, laid down at the entrance of this discourse.

To the farther confirmation of this Assertion, two things are to be annexed. First, the Eversion of that fancy of Episcopius, §. 58.before mentioned, and the rest of the Socinianizing Arminians, p. 179that Christ is called the sonne of God, both on the account of his Eternall sonship, and also of those other particulars mentioned from him above. 2. To consider the texts of Scripture produced by M. B. for the confirmation of his insinuation, that Christ is not called the Son of God, because of his eternall Generation of the Essence of his Father. The first may easily be evinced by the ensuing Arguments.

1. The question formerly proposed to Episcopius may be §. 59.renued. For if Christ be the Sonne of God, partly upon the account of his Eternall Generation, and so he is Gods proper and naturall Sonne, and partly upon the other accounts mentioned. Then

1. He is partly Gods naturall Son, and partly his adopted Son; partly his eternall Son, partly a temporary Son; partly a begotten Son, partly a ma…e Son. Of which distinction in reference to Christ, there is not one Iota in the whole Book of God.

2. He is made the sonne of God, by that which only manifests Him to be the sonne of God, as the things mentioned do.

3. Christ is equivocally only, and not univocally called the son of God: for that which hath various and diverse causes of its being so, is so equivocally. If the Filiation of Christ hath such equivocall causes, as Eternall generation, actuall Incarnation, and Exaltation, he hath an equivocall Filiation: which whether it be consistent with the scripture, which calls him the proper Sonne of God, needs no great paines to determine.

2. The scripture never conjoynes these causes of Christs Filiation, as causes in, and of the same kind; but expressly §. 60.makes the one the sole cause constituting, & the rest, causes manifesting only; as hath been declared. And to shut up this discourse; if Christ be the Sonne of man only, because he was conceived of the substance of his Mother, He is the Sonne of God only, upon the account of his being begotten of the substance of his Father.

There remaineth only the consideration of those Texts of scripture, which M. Biddle produceth to insinuate the Filiation §. 61.of Christ to depend on other causes, and not his Eternall Generation of the Essence of his Father, which on the principles p. 180lay'd down and proved, will receive a quick and speedy dispatch.

The first place named by him, and universally insisted on by the whole tribe, is Luk. 1. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. It is the last §. 62.verse only that I suppose weight is lay'd upon. Though M. B. name the others, his Masters never do so. That of v. 33. seemes to deserve our notice in M. Biddles judgement, who changes the character of the words of it, for their significancy to his purpose. The words are: Thou shalt conceive in thy wombe, and bring forth a Sonne and shalt call his name Jesus; He shall be great, and shall be called the Sonne, of the Highest. What M. B. supposes may be proved from hence, at least how he would prove what he aimes at, I know not. That Jesus Christ, who was borne of the Virgin, was the Sonne of the Highest, we contend. On what account He was so, the place mentioneth not; but the reason of it is plentifully manifested in other places, as hath been declared.

The words of v. 35. are more generally managed by them. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall §. 63.overshadow thee; therefore also the holy Thing which shall be borne of thee shall be called the Sonne of God. But neither doe these particles, foreign, render a reason of Christs Filiation, nor are a note of the Consequen…, but only of an inference or consequence, that ensues from what he spake before. It being so as I have spoken, even that holy Thing that shall be borne of thee shall be called the Sonne of God. There is weight also in that Expression: foreign: that Holy Thing, that shall be borne of thee. foreign is not spoken in the concrete, or as an Adjective, but substantively, and points out the naturall Essence of Christ, whence he was that Holy thing. Besides, if this be the cause of Christs Filiation which is assigned, it must be demonstrated, that Christ was on that account called the Son of God; for so hath it been said, that He should be: but there is not any thing in the new Testament to give light, that ever Christ was on this account called the Sonne of God; nor can the Adversaries produce any such instance.

2. It is evident, that the Angell in these words acquaints the blessed Virgin, that in, and by her conception, the Prophesy p. 181§. 64.of Isaiah should be accomplished, which you have Chap. 7. 14. Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and beare a Sonne, and shall call his name Immanuell: as the expresse words of v. 31. in Luke declare; being the same with these of the Prophesy, Behold thou shalt conceive in thy wombe, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call &c. v. 31, 32. And Mat. 1. 21. this very thing being related, it is said expressly to be done according to what was foretold by the Prophet, v. 33. repeating the very words of the Holy Ghost by Isaiah, which are mentioned before. Now Isaiah foretelleth two things. First, that a Virgin should conceive. 2. That he that was so conceived should be Immanuel, God with us: or the Sonne of God, as Luke here expresses it. And this is that which the Angel here acquaints the blessed Virgin withall upon her enquiry v. 34. even that according to the prediction of Isaiah, she should conceive, and bare a Sonne, though a Virgin, and that that Sonne of hers should be called the Sonne of God.

By the way, Grotius his dealing with this Text, both in his Annotations on Isa. 8. as also in his large discourse on Math. 1. 21, 22, 23. is intollerable, and full of offence, to…all that seriously weight it. It is too large here to be insited on. His maine designe is to prove, that this is not spoken directly of Christ, but only aplyed to him by a certain general Accommodation. God may give time & leasure, farther to lay open the heape of Abominations, which are couched in those Learned Anotations throughout. Which also appeares,

3. From the Emphaticallnesse of the expression foreign even §. 65.also, that holy Thing which is borne of thee, even that shall be called the Sonne of God; and not only that Eternall Word that is incarnate. That foreign, being in it selfe foreign, shall be called the Sonne of God: shall be called so, that is, appeare to be so, and be declared to be so with power. It is evident then that the cause of Christs Filiation is not here insisted on, but the consequence of the Virgins Conception declared; that which was borne of her should be called the Son of God.

And this Socinus is so sensible of, that he dares not say, that §. 66.Christ was compleately the Sonne of God, upon his Conception and Nativity, which if the cause of his Filiation were here p. 182expressed, he must be. It is manifest (saith he) that Christ before Consta… igitur (ut ad propositum revertamur,) Christum anto resurrectionem Dei Filium plene & perfecte non fuisse: cum illi & immortalitatis & absoluti dominii cum deo similitudo deesset. Socin. Respon. ad Wiekum. pag. 225.his Resurrection was not fully and compleatly the Sonne of God: being like God before in immortallity and absolute rule.

M. Biddles next place, whereby the Sonship of Christ is placed §. 66.on another account, as he supposes, is Joh. 10. 36. Say you of him whom the Father hath sanctifyed, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God.

That this Scripture is called to remembrance not at all to M. B's advantage will speedily appeare. For

1. Here is not in the words the least mention whence, or §. 67.for What cause it is, that Christ is the Sonne of God: but only that He is so; He being expressed and spoken of, under that description which is used of him 20 times in that Gospel, He who is sent of the Father. This is all that is in this place asserted, that he whom the Father sanctifyed, and sent into the world, counted it no Robery to be equall with him, nor did blaspheme in calling himselfe his Sonne.

2. It is evident that Christ in these words asserts himselfe to be §. 68.such a Sonne of God, as the Jewes charged him with blasphemy, for affirming of himselfe that he was. For He justifies himselfe aginst their accusation; Not denying in the least, that they rightly apprehended and understood him, but maintaining what He had spoken to be most true. Now this was that which the Jewes charged him withall, v. 33. that He being man, blasphemed in making himselfe God. For so they understood Him, that in asserting his Sonship, he asserted also his Deity. This Christ makes good, namely that he is such a Sonne of God, as is God also. Yea he makes good what he had said, v. 30. which was the foundation of all the following discourse about his blasphemy: I and my Father are one. So that

3. An invinsible Argument for the Sonship of Christ, to §. 69.be placed only upon the account of his eternall Generation, ariseth from this very place that was produced to oppose it. He who is the Sonne of God, because he is one with the Father, and God equall to him, is the the Sonne of God, upon the account p. 183of his Eternall Relation to the Father: but that such was the condition of Jesus Christ, himselfe here beares wit… nesse to the Jewes, although they are ready to stone him for it. And of his not biaspheming in this Assertion, be convinces his Adversaries by an Argument a minori, vers. 34, 35.

A briefe Analysis of this place will give evidence to this Interpretation of the words. Our Saviour Christ having given §. 70.the Reason, why the Jewes believed not on him, namely because they were not of his sheep, v. 26. describes thereupon both the nature of those Sheep of his v. 27. And their condition of safety v. 28. This he faerther confirmes from the Consideration of his Fathers greatnesse and power, which is amplifyed by the comparison of it with others, who are all lesse them He, v. 29. As also from his own Power and Will, which appeares to be sufficient for that end and purpose from his Essentiall unity with his Father, v. 30. The Effect of this discourse of Christ by Accident, is the Jewes taking up of stones, which is amplifyed by this, that it was the second time they did so and that to this purpose, that they might stone him, v. 31. Their folly and madnesse herein Christ disproves with an Argument ab absurds; telling them, that it must be for some good worke that they stoned him, for evill he had done …. v. 32. This the Jews attempt to disprove, by a new Argument a disparati…, telling him that it was not for a good work, but for blasphemy, that he made himselfe to be God, whom they would prove to be but a man, v. 33. This pretence of Blasphemy Christ disproves (as I said before) by an Argment a mimori v. 35, 36. And with another from the Effects, or the workes which he did, which sufficiently proved him to be God, v. 27, 38. Still maintaining what he said and what they thought to be Blasphemy, so that they attempt againe to kill him, v. 39. It is evident then, that He still maintained what they charged him with.

4. And this answers that expression which is so frequent in the Scripture, of Gods sending his Sonne into the world, and that he §. 71.came down from Heaven, and came into the world, J…. 3. 13. God. 4. 4. All evincing his being the Sonne of God, antecedently to that Mission, or Sanctification, whereby in the world he was declared p. 184so to be. Otherwise not the Sonne of God was sent, but one to be his Sonne.

Act. 13. 32, 33. is also insisted on: We declare unto you glad §. 72.tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers, God hath fullfilled the same unto us, their Children, in that he hath raised up Jesus againe, as it is also written in the second Psalme, thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee.

He that can see in this Text, a cause assigned of the Filiation of Christ, that should relate to the Resurrection, I confesse is sharper sighted then I. This I know, that if Christ were made the Sonne of God by his Resurrection from the dead, He was not the Son of God who dyed, for that preceded this his making to be the Sonne of God. But that God gave his only begotten Son to dye, that he spared not his only Sonne, but gave him up to death, I think is cleare in Scripture, if any thing be so.

2. Paul seemes to interpret this place to me, when he informes §. 73.us, that Christ was declared to be the Son of God with Power, by the Resurrection from the dead, Rom. 1. 3. Not that he was made so, but he was declared, or made known to be so. When being crucifyed through weaknesse, he lived by the Power of God, 2 Cor. 13. 4. Which power also was his own, Joh. 10. 18.

According as was before intimated, Grotius interprets these §. 74. Ego fili hodie te genui, id est regem te feci: hoc in Christo impletum, cum ei data omnis potestas in Coelo & in terra. Math. 28. 18. &c. Grot. in Locum.Matt 28:18words, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee: I have made thee a King; which (he says) was fullfilled in that, when all power was given him in Heaven and Earth Math. 28. 18. as Justin in his Colloquie with Trypho. foreign. But then he was not the Son of God before his Resurrection: for he was the Sonne of God by his being begotten of him: which as it is false, so contrary to his own Glosse on Luk. 1. 35. (2.) Christ was a King before his Resurrection, and owned himselfe so to be, as hath been shewed. (3.) Iustins words are suited to our exposition of this place: He was said to be then begotten, because then he was made known to be so the Sonne of God. (4.) That these words are not applyed to Christ in their first sence, in respect of Resurrection, from the preheminence assigned unto him above Angells by vertue of this expression, Heb. 1. 5. which he had before his death, Heb. 1. 6. Nor (5.) Are the words here used to prove p. 185the Resurrection, which is done in the verses following out of Isaiah, and another Psalme; And as concerning that he raised him from the dead &c. v. 34. but then

3. It is not an interpretation of the meaning of that passage in the Psalme, which Paul Act. 13. insists on; but the proving that Christ was the Son of God, as in that Psalme he was called, by his Resurrection from the dead: which was the great manifesting cause of his Deity in the world.

What M. B. intends by the next place mentioned by him, I know not. It is Rev. 1. 5. And from Jesus Christ who is the faithfull witnesse, and the first begotten of the dead. That Christ was the first who was raised from the dead, to a blessed and glorious immortality, and is thence called the first begotten of them, or from the dead, and that all that rise to such an immortallity, riseafter him, and by vertue of his Resurrection, is most certaine and granted; but that from thence he is that only begotten Son of God, though thereby he was only declared so to be, there is not the least tittle in the Text giving occasion to such an apprehension.

And the same also is affirmed of the following place of Col. 1. 18. where the same words are used againe. He is the head of the Church, who is the beginning, foreign: the first borne of the dead. Only I shall desire our Catechist to look at his leisure, a little higher into the chapter, where he will find him called also foreign, the first borne of all the Creation; so that he must surely be foreign foreign before his Resurrection: nay he is so the first borne of every creature, as to be **So that foreign foreign-foreign foreign foreign. qui genitus est prior omni creaturâ, vel ante omnem creaturam, forso foreign sometimes signifies cōparatively. Arist: Auibus. foreign id est foreign. Ioh: 1. 15. foreign (i. e.) foreign. & 1 Ioh: 4. 19. foreign (i. e.) foreign. His generation was before the creation, indeed eternall. Tertullian saith so too. Lib. de Trinitate, Quomodo primogenitus esse potuit, nisi quia secundum divinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex Deo Patre sermo processit.none of them: for by him they were all created, v. 16. He who is so before all Creatures, as to be none of them, but that they are all created by him, is God blessed for ever: which when our Catechist disproves, he shall have me for one of his Disciples.

Of the same kind is that which M. Biddle next urgeth from Heb. 1. 4, 5. only it hath this further disadvantage, that both the verses going immediately before, and that immediately following after, do inevitably evince, that the Constitutive cause of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, a priori, is in his participatin of the divine nature, and that it is only manifested by any ensuing Consideration, v. 2, 3. The Holy Ghost tells us, that by him God made the world, who is the brightnesse of his glory and the expresse image p. 186of his person, and this as the Son of God, antecedent to any exaltation as Mediatour: & v. 6. He brings in the first begotten into the world, and say's, let all the Angells of God worship him. He is the first begotten before his bringing into the world; and that this is proved by the latter clause of the verse, shall be afterwards demonstrated. Between both these, much is not like to be spoken against the Eternal Sonship of Christ. Nor is the Apostle only declaring his preheminence above the Angells, upon the account of that name of his, the Son of God, which he is called upon record, in the old Testament; but the causes also of that appellatio… he had before declared.

The last place urged to this purpose is of the same import. §. 79.It is Heb. 5. 5. So Christ also glorifyed not himselfe, to be made an high Priest; but he that said unto him, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. When M. B. proves any thing more towards his purpose frō this place, but only that Christ did not of his own accord undertake the office of a Mediatour, but was designed to it of God his Father, who said unto him, Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee declaring of him so to be, with power after his Resurrection, I shall acknowledge him to have better skill in disputing, then as yet I am convinced he is possessed of.

And thus have I cleared the Eternall Sonship of Jesus §. 80.Christ, and evidenced the vanity of attempting to fix his prerogative therein upon any other account: nor doubting; but that all who love him in sincerity, will be zealous of his glory herein. For his growing up to be the Sonne of God by degrees, to be made a God in processe of time, to be the adopted Sonne of God; to be the Sonne of God upon various accounts of diverse …ind… inconsistent with one-another, to have had such a Conception & Generation, as modesty forbids to think, or expresse; not to have been the Sonne of God, untill after his death, and the like monstrous figments, I hope He will himselfe keep his own in an everlasting abhorring of.

The farther confirmation of the Deity Christ, whereby M▪ Biddles whole designe will be obviated, and the vindication of the Testimonyes where…ewith it is so confirmed from his Masters, is the worke designed for the next Chapter.

p. 187There are yet remaining of this Chapter two or three Questions, looking the same way with those already considered, and will upon the principles already laid down, & insisted on. easily, and in very few words be t…rned aside from prejudicing the Eternall Deity of the Sonne of God. His 10^th then is,

What saith the Sonne concerning the prerogative of the Father above him? And answer is given, Joh. 14. 28. Mark. 13. 22. Math. 24. 36. Whereunto is subjoyned another of the same; What saith the Apostle Paul? Answ. 1 Cor. 15. 24, 28. 1 Cor. 11. 3.

The intendment of these questions being the application of what is spoken of Christ, either as Mediator or as man, unto his Person, to the exclusion of any other consideration, viz. that of adivine Nature therein, the whole of M Biddles ayme in them is sufficiently already disapointed. It is true, there is an Order, yea a Subordination in the Persons of the Trinity themselves; whereby the Sonne, as to his Personality, may be said to depend on the Father, being begotten of him; but that is not the Subordination here aimed at by M. B. but that which he underwent by dispensation as Med…atour, or which attends him in respect of his Humane Nature. All the difficulty that may arise from these kinds of attribution to Christ, the Apostle abundantly salves in the discovery of the rise and occasion of them, Phil. 2. 7…8, 9. He who was in the forme of God, and equall to him, was in the forme of a servant, whereunto …he humbled himselfe, his servant, and lesse then he. And there is no more difficulty in the Questions wherewith M. B. amuses himselfe and his Disciples, then there was in that, wherewith our Saviour stopt the mouth of the Pharisees, viz. how Christ could be the Sonne of David, and yet his Lord, whom he worshipped? For the places of Scripture in particular urged by M. Biddle Job. 14. 28. Sayes our Saviour, my Father is greater then I (mittens misso, says Grotius himselfe referring the words to Office not Nature) which he was, and is in respect of that worke of Mediation; which he had undertaken; p. 188Ide… …utem nusquam Scripture est, quòd Deus paten majer…fit, Spiritu, Sancto … Spiritus Sanctus minor Deo patre: quia non sie assumpta est creatura in qua appareret S. S. sicut assumptus est Filius. hominis, in qua forma ips…s Verbi D…i persona praesent…retur. August. lib. 1. de Trinit. cap. ….but inaequalitas officii non tollit aequalitatem naturae. A Kings Son is of the same nature with his Father, though he may be imployed by him in an inferiour office. He that was lesse then his Father, as to the worke of Mediation, being the Fathers servant therein, is equall to him as his Sonne, as God to be blessed for ever, Mark. 13. 32. Math. 24. 36. affirme, that the Father only knowes the times and seasons mentioned, not the Angells, nor the Sonne. And yet notwithstanding it was very truely said of Peter to Christ, Lord thou knowest all things, Joh. 22. 17. He that in, and of the knowledge & wisdome, which as man he had, and wherein he grew from his infancy, knew not that day, yet as he knew all things knew it: It was not hidden from him, being the day by him appointed. Let M. Biddle acknowledge, that his knowing all things proves him to be God, and we will not deny, but his not knowing the day of Judgement, proves him to have another capacity, and to be truely man.

foreign. Proclus. Episcop. Constan. Epist. ad Armenios.As man he took on him those Affections, which we call foreign; amongst which, or consequently unto which, he might be ignorant of some things. In the meane time he who made all times, as Christ did Heb. 1. 2. knew their end, as well as their beginning. He knew the Father, and the day by him appointed; yea all things that the Father hath were his: and in Him were all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge hid, Col. 2. 3.

Paul speaks to the same purpose, 1 Cor: 15. 24, 28. The Kingdome §. 83.that Christ doth now peculiarly exercise, is his Oeconomicall mediatory Kingdome, which shall have an end put to it, when the whole of his intendment in that work shall be fulfilled, and accomplished. But that He is not also sharer with his Father, in that universall Monarchy, which, as God by nature, he hath over all, this doth not at all prove. All the Argument from this place is but this; Christ shall cease to be Mediatour, therefore he is not God. And that no more is here intended, is evident from the expression of it: Then shall the Sonne himselfe be subject; which if it intend any thing, but the ceasing from the Administration p. 189of the mediatory Kingdome, wherein the humane nature is a sharer, it would prove, that as Jesus Christ is Mediatour, he is not in subjection to his Father, which himselfe abundantly hath manifested to be otherwise. Of 1 Cor. 11. 3. & 3. 22, 23. there is the same reason; both speaking of Christ as Mediator; whence that no Testimony can be produced against his Deity, hath been declared.

He Adds 12^th Q. Howbeit is not Christ dignified, as with the §. 84.title of Lord, so with the title of God in the Scripture? Ans. Thomas saith my Lord, and my God. Verily, if Thomas said, that Christ was his God, and said true, M. B. is to blame, who denyes him to be God at all. With this one blast of the spirit of the Lord is his fine Fabrick of Religion blown to the ground. And it may be supposed, that M. B. made mention of this portion of Scripture, that he might have the honour of cutting his own throat, and destroying his own cause; or rather, that God in his Righteous judgement hath forced him to open his mouth to his own shame. What ever be the cause of it, M. B. is very farre from escaping this sword of the Lord, either by his insinuation in the present Quere, or diversion in the following: For the present: it was not the intent of Thomas to dignify Christ with Titles, but to make a plaine Confession of his Faith, being called upon by Christ to believe. In this state he professes, that he believes him to be his Lord and his God. Thomas doubtlesse was a Christian; and M. B. tells us that Christians have but one God, 1. Chap: Qu. 1. Eph. 4. 6. Jesus Christ then being the God of Thomas, he is the Christians one God: if M^r B. may be believed. It is not then the dignifying of Christ with Titles, which it is not for men to do, but the naked confession of a Believers Faith, that in these words is expressed. Christ is the Lord and God of a Believer; Ergo, the only true God; as 1 Joh: 5. 19. M. B. perhaps will tell you, he was made a God; so one Abomination begets another, Infidelity Idolatry: of this afterward. But yet he was not according to his Companions made a God before his Ascention; which was not yet, when Thomas made his solemne Confession.

Some attempt also is made upon this place by Grotius. §. 85.foreign. Here first (saith he) in the story of the Gospell is this p. 188duplicate page p. 189duplicate page p. 190word sound ascribed by the Apostle unto Jesus Christ (which Maldonat before him observed for another purpose) to wit, after he had by his Resurrection proved himselfe to be him, from whom life and that Eternall, ought to be expected. And this custome Hic primum … vox in naturatione Evangeliea reperitur ab Apostolis Jesu tributa, p…stquim seilicet sun Resurrectione pro… erat se esse, a quo … ita & quidera aeterna, expectari deberet. Mansit de…nde ille mos in Ecclesia, ut apparet …n rautum in Scriptis Aposiolicis, ut Rom. 9. 5. &c veterum Christianorum ut vide… est apu… Justimum A…rty…em contra Triphenem, sed & in P…ad Trajan…n… Epis…ola, …i ait Christianos Christo, ut De…, carmi…a …ccinisse. Grot. in locu….Rom 9:5abode in the Church, as appeares not only in the Apostolicall writings, Rom. 9. 5. and of the Ancient Christians, as may be seen in Just in Martyr against Trypho, but in the Epistle also of Plinie unto Trajane, where he sayes, that the Christians sang verses to Christ, as to God: or as the words are in the Author, Carmen Christo, quasi Beo, …icere se…ù invitē. What the intendment of this discourse is, is evident to al those, who are a little exercised in the writings of them, whom out Author al along in his Annototions takes care of. That Christ was now made a God at his Resurrection, & is so called from the power wherewith he was entrusted at his Ascention, is the aime of this discourse. Hence he tells us, it became a custome to call him God among the Christians, which also abode amongst them. And to prove this custome, wrests that of the Apostle Rom. 9. 5. where the Deity of Christ is spoken of, in opposition to his humane nature, or his flesh, that he had of the Jewes, plainely asserting a divine nature in him, calling him God subjectively, and not only by way of Attribution. But this is it seemes a custome taken up after Christs Resurrection to call him God, and …o continued; though Iohn testify expressly, that he was God … the beginning. It is true indeed, much is not to be argued from the expression of the Apostles, before the pow…ing out of the Spirit upon them, as to any eminent acquaintance with Spirituall things: Yet they had before made this solemne Confession, that Christ was the Sonne of the Living God, Math. 16. 16, 17, 18. which is to the full as much as what is hereby Thomas expressed. That the primitive Christians worshipped Christ, and invocated him, not only as a God, but professing him to be the true God and Eternall life, we have better Testimonys then that of a blind Pagan, who knew nothing of them, nor their ways, but by the report of Apostates, as himselfe confesseth. But Learned men must have leave to make knowne their Readings, and observations, whatever become of the simplicity of the Scripture.

p. 191To escape the dint of this sword M. Biddle nextly §. 86.Queries.

Was he so the God of Thomas, as that He himselfe in the moane time, did not acknowledge another to be his God? Ans. Joh. 20. 17. Revel. 3. 12.

True, He who being partaker of the divine Essence, in the forme of God, was Thomas his God; as he was Mediatour, the head of his Church, interceding for them, acknowledged his Father to be his God. Yea God may be said to be his God, upon the account of his Sonship, and Personality, in which regard he hath his Deity of his Father, and is God of God. Not that he is a secundary, lesser, made God, a Hero, Semideus, as M. B. fancies him: but God blessed for ever, in order of subsistence depending on the Father.

Of the same nature is the last question, viz. Have you any passage in the Scripture, where Christ at the same time hath the Appellation §. 87.of God given to him, and is said to have a God? Ans. Heb. 1. 8, 9.

By M. B's favour, Christ is not said to have a God, thought God be said to be his God, 2. v. 8. Christ by M. Biddles Confession is expressly called God. He is then the one true God with the Father, or another: if the first, what doth he contend about? If the second, He is a God, that is not God by nature, that is, not the one God of Christians, and consequently an Idol & indeed such is the Christ that M. B. worshippeth. Whither this will be waved by the helpe of that expression v. 9. God thy God; where it is expressly spoken of him, in respect of his undertaking the office of mediation, wherein he was annointed of God with the oyle of gladnesse above his fellowes, God and his Saints will judge.

Thus the close of this Chapter, through the good wise hand of the providence of God, leaving himselfe and his Truth not §. 88.without witnesse, hath produced instances, and evidences of the Truth opposed, abundantly sufficient, without farther enquiry and labour, to discover the sophistry and vanity of all M. Biddles former Queries, and insinuations; for which let him have the praise.