The o-reat master of the herd himself, from whom, indeed, the rest do glean and gather almost all that they take so much pains to scatter about the world, gives continually this reason of Christ's be- ing called the "Son of God" and his "natural Son." " I say," saith he, " that Christ is deservedly called the ' natural Son of God,' be- cause he was born the Son of God, although he was not begotten of the substance of God. And that he was born the Son of God another
' " Ergo Dominus Jesus est purus homo l—Ans. Nullo pacto; etenira est conceptus a Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, eoquo ab ipsa conceptione et ortu Filius Dei est, ut de ea re Luc. i. 35 legimus." — Cat. Kac. de persona Christi, cap. i.
2 " Jesum Christum decent esse hominem ilium a Spiritu Sancto couceptum, et n&,tum ex beata Virgine ; extra vel ante quern nullum agnoscunt esse (aut) fuisse re ipsa exis- tentem unigenitum Dei Filium. Porro hunc Deum, et Filium Dei uuigenitum esse do- cent tum ratione conceptiouis a Spiritu Sancto," etc.— Compendiolum Doctrinoe Eccl. Christiance, etc., cap. i.
3 " Conceptus enim est de Spiritu Sancto, et natus ex Virgine Maria ; ob id genus conccptionis, et nativitatis modum, Filius etiara Dei ab ipso angelo vocatus fuit, et ita naturalis Dei Filius (quia scilicet talis natus fuit) dici vere potest. Solus Jesus Chris- tus a Deo Patre suo absque opera viri in lumen productus est."— Smalc. de Vera Divin. Jes. Clirist. cap. iii.
OF THE PEESON OF JESUS CHRIST. 1 79
way, and not by the generation of the substance of God, the words of the angel prove, Luke i. 85. Therefore, because that man, Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, was begotten not by the help 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 ' Son of God.'"^ So he against Weik the Jesuit. He is followed by Vol- kelius, lib. v. cap. xi. p. 468 ; whose book, indeed, is a mere 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 Episcopius. Jonas Schlichtingius, amongst them all, seems to do most of himself I shall therefore add his testimony, to show their consent in the assignation of this cause of the appellation of the " Son of God," ascribed to our blessed Saviour. " There are," saith he, " many sayings of Scripture which show that Christ is in a peculiar manner, and on an account not common to any other, the Son of God ; but yet we may not hence conclude that he is a Son on a natural account, when besides this, and that more com- mon, another reason may be given which hath place in Christ. Is he not the Son of God on a singular account, and that which is common to no other, if of God himself, by the virtue and efficacy of the Holy Spirit, he was conceived and begotten in the womb of his mother?"^
And this is the only buckler which they have to keep off the sword of that argument for the deity of Christ, from his being the proper Son 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 may another reason be given;" which is the general evasion of them all from any express testimony of Scripture. " The words may have another sense, therefore nothing from them can be concluded;" whereby they have left nothing stable or un- shaken in Christian religion; and yet they wipe their mouths, and say they have done no evil.
But now, lest any one should say that they can see no reason why
' " Dico igittu", Christum merito dici posse Filium Dei naturalem, quia natus est Dei Filius, tametsi ex ipsa Dei substantia non fuerit generatus. Natum autem ilium sub alia ratione, quam per generationem ex ipsius Dei substantia, probant angeli verba, ]\Iari3e matri ejus dicta, Luc. i. 35. Quia igitur homo ille Jesus Nazarenus, qui dic- tus est Christus, non viri alicujus opera, sed Spiritus Sancti operatione generatus est in matris utero, proptcrea Filius Dei est vocatus." — Faust. Socin. Responsio ad Weik. cap. iv. p. 202.
2 " Sunt quidem plurima dicta quae ostendunt Christum peculiar! prorsus nee uUi alio communi ratione esse Dei Filium ; non tamen hinc concludere licet cum esse naturali ratione filium, cum prseter banc, et illara communem, alia dari possit, et in Christo reipsa locum habeat. Nonne singulari prorsus ratione, nee uUi com- muni, Dei Filius est Christus, si ab ipso Deo, vi et efficacia Spiritus Sancti, in utero virginis conceptus fuit et genitus?" — Schlichting. ad Meisner. artic. de Trinit. p. 160.
180 VINDICIiE EVANGELIC^
Christ should be called the " Son of God" because he was so con- ceived by the Holy Ghost, nor wherefore God should therefore in a peculiar manner, and more eminently than in respect of any other, he called the " Father of Christ," to prevent any objection that on this hand might arise, Smalcius gives an account whence this is, and 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 hear in his words than in mine. In his answer to the se- cond part of the refutation of Socinus by Smiglecius, cap. xvii. xviii., he contends to manifest and make good that Christ was the " Son of God according to the flesh," in direct opposition to that of the apostle, " He Avas made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and de- clared to be the Son of God," etc., Rom. i. 3, 4. He says then, cap. xviii. p. 156, " Socinus afhrmat Deum in generatione Christi vices patris supplevisse." But how, I pray ? Why, " Satis est ad osten- dendum, Deum in generatione Christi vices viri supplevisse, si osten- datur Deum id ad Christi generationem adjecisse, quod in genera- tione hominis ex parte viri ad hominem producendum adjici solet." But what is that, or how is that done ? " Nos Dei virtutem in Vir- ginis uterum aliquam substantiam creatam vel immisisse, aut ibi creasse affirmamus, ex qua juncto eo, quod ex ipsius Virginis sub- stantia accessit, verus homo generatus fuit. Alias enim homo ille, Dei Filius a conceptione et nativitate proprie non fuisset," cap. xvii. p. 150. Very good ; unless this abominable figment may pass cur- rent, Christ was not the Son of God. Let the reader observe, by the way, that they cannot but acknowledge Christ to have been, and to have been called, the " Son 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 have only 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 book of God, yea, which is expressly contrary to the testimony thereof; and unless this be granted, they affirm that Christ cannot be called the " Son of God." But let us hear this great rabbi of Mr B.'s religion a little farther clearing up tliis mystery : — " Necessitas magna fuit, ut Christus ab initio vitse suro esset Deo Filius, qualis futurus non fuisset nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatum fuisset, quod ad constituen- dum Christi corpus, una cum Marise sanguine concurrit. Mansit autem nihilominus sanguis Marise Virginis purissimus, etiamsi cum alio aliquo semine commixtus fuit. Potuit enim tam purum, imo purius semen, a Deo creari, et proculdubio creatum fuit, quam erat sanguis Marise. Communis denique sensus et fides Christianorum omnium, quod Christus non ex virili semine conceptus sit ; primum communis error censendus est, si sacris Uteris repugnet: Deinde id quod omnes sentiunt, facile cum ipsa veritate conciliari potest, ut