5. The farther description which we have given us of this Son makes it yet more evident : " He is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person," Heb. i. 8. " The image of the invisible God," Col. i. 1 5. That Christ is the essential image of his Father, and not an accidental image, an image so as no creature is or can be admitted into copartnership with him therein, shall be on another occasion in this treatise fully demonstrated. And thither the vindication of these texts from the gloss of Grotius is also remitted.
190 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
And this may suffice (without insisting upon what more might be added) for the demonstration of the first assertion, That Christ's filia- tion ariseth from his eternal generation, or he is the Son of God upon the account of his being begotten of the essence of his Father from eternity.
II. That he is and is termed the Son of God solely on this ac- count, and not upon the reasons mentioned by Mr B. and explained from his companions, is with equal clearness evinced. Nay, I see not how any thing may seem 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 the So- cinians, Christ be the Son of God, then Christ is the Son of God " according to the flesh," or according to his human nature. So he must needs be, if God be called his Father because he supplied the room of a father in his conception. But this is directly contrary to the scriptures calling him the Son of God in respect of his divine nature, in opposition to the flesh or his human nature : " Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power," Rom. i, 3, 4. " Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5. The same distinction and opposition is observed, 2 Cor. xiii. 4, 1 Pet. iii. 18. If Jesus Christ according to the flesh be the Son of David, in contra- distinction to the Son of God, then doubtless he is not called the Son of God according to the flesh ; but this is the plain assertion of the Scripture in the places before named. Besides, on the same reason that Christ is the Son of man, on the same he is not the Son of God; but Christ was and was called the Son of man upon the account of his conception of the substance of his mother, and par- ticularly the Son of David, and so is not on that account the Son of God.
Farther ; that place of Rom. i. 3, 4, passing not without some ex- ceptions as to the sense insisted on, may be farther cleared and vin- dicated. Jesus Christ is called the Son of God : Verses 1, 8, " The gospel of God concerning his Son Jesus Christ." This Son is farther described, — (1.) By his human 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 " Son of God," and that h dwdju^n, " in power," or " existing in the power of God," for so dvm//,ig put abso- lutely doth often signify: as Rom. i. 20; Matt. vi. 13, xxvi. 64; Luke iv. 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 xara lli/sD^a ayiws-jvyig (which is opposed to xara
OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 191
ffdpxa), " according to," or " in respect of, his divine holy Spirit;" as is also the intendment of that woi'd " The Spirit," in the places above mentioned. Neither is it new that the deity of Christ should be called Uvivfjua ayiuauvrii' himself is called ^Vli^ '^**?P, Dan. ix. 24, Sanctitas Sanctitatum, as here Spiritus Scmctitatis. And all this, saith the apostle, was declared so to be, or Christ was declared to be thus the Son of God, in respect of his divine, holy, spiritual being, which is opposed to the flesh, l| ai/aoTaffsws vixpuv, "by the" (or his) " resurrection from the dead," whereby an eminent testimony was given unto his deity. He was " declared to be the Son of God " thereby, according to the sense insisted on.
To weaken this interpretation, Grotius moves, as they say, every stone, and heaves at every word ; but in vain. (1.) ' OpieShrog, he tells us, is as much as irpoopta&hroc, as by the Vulgar Latin it is translated prcedestinatus. 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 judgment therein, and cites others to the contrary. Luke xxii. 22, Acts x. 42, xvii. 31, are also urged by him to evince the sense of the word; in each of which places it may be rendered " declared," or " to de- clare," and in neither of them ought to be by "predestinated." Though the word may sometimes signify so (which is not proved), yet that it here doth so will not follow. 'Opog, a " definition" (from whence that word comes), declares what a thing is, makes it known ; and op/^w may best be rendered " to declare," Heb. iv. 7. So in this place. T/ oui' sffTiv opiffdevTog too &eov; dii^divrog, aTotpavSevrog, says Chrysostom on the place. And so doth the subject-matter require, the apostle treating of the way whereby Christ was manifested eminently to be the Son of God.