So that though in regard of his divine personality as the Son he hath all things from the Father, being begotten by him, and as mediator doth all things by his appointment and in his name, yet he in himself is still one with the Father as to nature and essence, *' God to be blessed for evermore." And that it was "an eternal Son of God that took flesh upon him," etc., hath Mr. B. never read that " in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God," that " the Word was made flesh;" that " God was manifested in the flesh;" and that " God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law?" of which places afterward, in their vindication from the exceptions of his masters.
His eighth question is of the very same import with that going before, attempting to exclude Jesus Christ from the unity of essence with his Father, by his obedience to him, and his Father's accepta- tion of him in the work of mediation; which being a most ridiculous
* " Semper ea qucc de se prredicare cogitur Christus, ita temperat ut omncm honorem referat ad Pafcrem, et removeat illud crimen, quasi lioininem Patri tcqualem faciat." — Grot. Anuot. in Johan. cap. v. 30. ^
OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. ] 77
begging of the thing in question, as to what he pretends in the query to be argumentative, I shall not farther insist upon it.
Q. 9. We are come to the head of this discourse, and of Mr B.'s design in this chapter, and, indeed, of the greatest design that he drives in religion, namely, the denial of the eternal deity of the Son 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 Son 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 pur- pose." His answer is from Luke i. 81-35; John x. 36; Acts xiii. 32, 33; Rev. i.'5; Col. i. 18; Heb. i. 4, 5, v. 5; Rom. viii. 29; most of which places are expressly contrary to him in his design, as the progress of our discourse will discover.
This, I say, being the head of the difference between us in this chapter, after I have rectified one mistake in Mr B.'s question, I shall state the whole matter so as to obviate farther labour and trouble about sundry other ensuing queries. For Mr B/s question, then, we say not that the Son is begotten eternally out of the divine essence, but in it, not by an eternal act of the Divine Being, but of the person of the Father; which being premised, I shall proceed.
The question that lies before us is, " Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Son 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."
The reasons, as far as I can gather, which Mr B. lays at the bottom of this appellation, are, — 1. His birth of the Virgin, from Luke i. 30-35. 2. His mission, or sending into the world by the Father, John X. 36. 3. His resurrection with power, Acts xiii. 32, 33; Rev. i. 5; Col. i. 18. 4. His exaltation, Heb. v. 5; Rom. viii. 29.
For the removal of all this from prejudicing the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ there is an abundant sufiSciency, 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 " Son of God ;" but that he is so called antecedently to all these, I shall afterward abundantly mani- fest. Yet a little farther process in this business, as to the particu- lars intimated, may not be unseasonable.
First, then, I shall propose the causes on the account whereof alone these men affirm that Jesus Christ is called the " Son of God." Of these the first and chiefest they insist upon is his birth of the Virgin, — namely, that he was called the " Son of God" because he was con- ceived of the Holy Ghost. This our catechist in the first place pro-
VOL. XII. 12
178 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
poses ; and before him, his masters. So the Racovians, in answer to that question, " Is therefore the Lord Jesus a mere man?" answer, " By no means : for he was conceived by tlie Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin; and therefore from his birth and conception was the Son of God, as we read in Luke i. 35;"^ — the place insisted on by the gentleman we are dealing withal.
Of the same mind are the residue of their companions. So do Ostorodius and Voidovius give an account of their faith in their " Compendium," as they call it, " of the Doctrine of the Christian Church flourishing now chiefly in Poland." " They teach," say they, " Jesus Christ to be that man that was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin ; besides and before whom they acknowledge no only-begotten Son of God truly existing. Moreover, they teach him to be God, and the only-begotten Son of God, by reason of his con- ception of the Holy Ghost," etc.^ Smalcius hath written a whole book of the true divinity of Jesus Christ ; wherein he hath- gathered together whatever excellencies they will allow to be ascribed unto him, making his deity to be the exurgency of them all. Therefore is he God, and the Son of God, because the things he there treats of are ascribed unto him ! Among these, in his third chapter, which is " Of the conception and nativity of Jesus Christ," he gives this princi- pal account why he is called the " Son of God," even from his concep- tion and nativity. " He was," saith he, "conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary ; because of which manner of concep- tion and nativity he was by the angel called the ' Son of God,' and so may really be called the ' natural Son of God/ because he was bom such. Only, Jesus Christ was brought forth to light by God his Father without the help of man."^