And this that hath been spoken may sufiice 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 before mentioned, and the rest of the Socinianizing Arminians, that Christ is called the " Son of God," both on the account of his eternal son- ship and also of those other particulars mentioned from him above. Secondly, To consider the texts of Scripture produced by Mr B. for the confirmation of his insinuation, that Christ is not called the "Son
OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 195
of God" because of his eternal 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 renewed ; for if Christ be the Son of God partly upon the account of his eter- nal generation, and so he is God's proper and natural Son, and partly upon the other accounts mentioned, then, —
(1.) He is partly God's natural Son, and partly his adopted Son ; partly his eternal Son, partly a temporary Son ; partly a begotten Son, partly a made Son ; — of which distinctions, in reference to Christ, there is not one iota in the whole book of God.
(2.) He is made the Son of God by that which only manifests him to be the Son 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 equivocal causes as eternal generation, actual incarnation, and exaltation, he hath an equivocal filiation ; which whether it be consistent with the Scripture, which calls him the proper Son of God, needs no great pains to determine.
2. The Scripture never conjoins these causes of Christ's filiation as causes in and of the same kind, but expressly makes the one the sole constituting, and the rest causes manifesting only, as hath been declared. And, to shut up this discourse, if Christ be the Son of man only because he was conceived of the substance of his mother, he is the Son of God only upon the account of his being begotten of the substance of his Father.
Secondly, There remaineth only the consideration of those texts of Scripture which Mr B. produceth to insinuate the filiation of Christ to depend on other causes, and not on his eternal generation of the essence of his Father; which, on the principles laid down and proved, will receive a quick and speedy despatch.
] . The first place named by him, and universally insisted on by the whole tribe, is Luke i, 30-35. It is the last verse only that I suppose weight is laid upon. Though Mr B. names the others, his masters never do so. That of verses 31, 32 seems to deserve our notice in Mr B.'s judgment, who changes the character of the words of it, for their significancy to his purpose. The words are, " Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest." What Mr B. supposes may be proved from hence, at least how he would prove what he aims at, I know not. That Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin, was a son 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.
196 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
The words of verse 35 are more generally managed by them: " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." But neither do these particles, dih x.ai, render a reason of Christ's filiation, nor are [they] a note of the consequent, but only of an inference or conse- quence that ensues from what he spake before : " It being so as I have spoken, even that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." There is weight also in that expression, "Ayiov rh ysvvui/u,svov, " That holy thing that shall be born of thee." " Ayiov is not spoken in the concrete, or as an adjective, but substan- tively, and points out the natural essence of Christ, whence he was " that holy thing." Besides, if this be the cause of Christ's filiation which is assiofued, 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 " Son of God," nor can the adversaries produce any such instance.
2. It is evident that the angel in these words acquaints the blessed Virgin that in and by her conception the prophecy of Isaiah should be accomplished, which you have, chap. vii. 14, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," as the express words of Luke declare, being the same with those of the prophecy, " Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call," etc., verses 31, 32. And Matt, i. 20, 21, this very thing being related, it is said expressly to be done according to what was foretold by the prophet, verses 22, 23, repeating the very words of the Holy Ghost by Isaiah, which are mentioned before. Now Isaiah foretell eth two things : — (1.) That a virgin should conceive ; (2.) That he that was so conceived should be Im- manuel, God with us ; or the Son of God, as Luke here expresses it. And this is that which the angel here acquaints the blessed Virgin withal upon her inquiry, verse 34, even that, according to the prediction of Isaiah, she should conceive and bear a son, though a virgin, and that that son of her's should be called the " Son of God."