Having thus discovered the mind of them with whom Ave have to do, and from whom our catechist hath borrowed his discoveries, I shall briefly do these two [three?] things: — I. Show that the filia- tion of Christ consists in his generation of the substance of his Father from eternity, or that he is the Son of God upon the account of liis divine nature and subsistence therein, antecedent to his incarnation. II. That it consists solely therein, and that he was not, nor was called, the Son of God upon any other account but that mentioned; and therein answer what by Mr B. or others is objected to the con- trary. III. To which I shall add testimonies and arguments for the deity of Christ, — whose opposition is the main business of that new religion which Mr B. would catechise poor unstable souls into, — in the vindication of those excepted against by the Racovians.
I. For the demonstration of the first assertion, I shall insist on some few of the testimonies and arguments that might be produced for the same purpose: —
1. He who is the true, proper, only-begotten Son of God, of the living God, he is begotten of the essence of God his Father, and is his Son by virtue of that generation ; but Jesus Christ was thus the only, true, proper, only-begotten Son of God : and therefore he is the Son of God upon the account before mentioned. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the manner expressed, the Scripture abundantly testifieth: " Lo a voice from heaven, saying. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," Matt. iii. 17; "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," chap. xvi. ] 6, John vi. 69.
Which [latter] place in Matthew is the rather remarkable, because it is the confession of the faith of the apostles, given in answer to that question, " Whom say ye that I the Son of man am?" They an- swer, " The Son of the living God;" and this in opposition to them who said he was " a prophet, or as one of the prophets," as Mark expresses it, chap. vi. 15, — that is, only so. And the whole confes- sion manifests that they did in it acknowledge both his office of being the Mediator and his divine nature or person also. " Thou art the Christ." These words comprise all the causes of filiation insisted on
OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 185
by them with whom we have to do, and the whole office of the media- tion of Christ ; but yet hereunto they add, " The Son 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 us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life," 1 John v. 20. " He spared not his own Son,'"' Kom. viii. 32. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father," John i. 1 4. " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," verse 18. " He said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God," John v. 18. " God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son," John iii. 16. " In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world,-" 1 John iv. 9. " Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee," Ps. ii. 7, etc. All which places will be after- ward vindicated at large.
To prove the inference laid down, I shall fix on one or two of these instances: —
1. He who is 'Ihiog v'/6g, the "proper son" of any, is begotten of the substance of his father. Christ is the proper Son of God, and God he called often '/diov Uars^a, 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 '/diog, whereby Christ is distinguished from that kind of sonship which the Jews kiid claim unto.^ Now, tlje sonship they laid claim unto and en- joyed, so many of them as were truly so, was by adoption ; for " to them pertained the adoption," Rom. ix. 4. Wherein this emphasis, then, and specially of Christ's sonship, should consist, but in what we assert of his natural sonship, cannot be made to appear. Grotius says it is " because the Son of God was a name of the Messiah." True, but on what account ? Not that common [one] of adoption, but this of nature, as shall afterward appear.
Again ; he who is properly a son is distinguished from him who is metaplioricalhj so only ; for any thing whatever is metaphorically said to be what it is said to be by a translation and likeness to that which is true. Now, if Christ be not begotten of the essence of his Father, he is only a metaphorical Son of God by way of allusion, and cannot be called the proper Son of God, being only one who hath but a similitude to a proper Son; so that it is a plain contra- diction that Christ should be the proper Son of God, and yet not be begotten of his Father's essence. Besides, in that 8th of the ' Grot. Annot. Joh. v. 18.