By the way, Grotius' dealing with this text, both in his annota- tions on Isa. vii., as also in his large discourse on Matt. i. 21-23, is intolerable and full of offence to all that seriously weigh it. It is too large here to be insisted on. His main design is to prove that this is not spoken directly of Christ, but only applied to him by a certain general accommodation. God may give time and leisure farther to lay open the heap of abominations which are couched in those learned annotations throughout. Which also ajDpears, —
3. From the emphaticalness of the expression Bih %a), " even also." " That holy thing which is to be born of thee, even that shall be called
OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 197
the Son of God, and not only that eternal Word that is to be incarnate. That ayiov to yswui/xtvov, being in itself awTrograro)', shall be called the Son of God/' " Shall be called so," that is, appear to be so, and be declared to be so with power. It is evident, then, that the cause of Christ's filiation is not here insisted on, but the consequence of the Virgin's conception declared ; that which was " born of her should be called the Son of God."
And this Socinus is so sensible of that he dares not say that Christ was completely the Son of God upon his conception and nativity; which, if the cause of his filiation were here expressed, he must be. " It is manifest," saith he, " that Christ before his resurrection was not fully and completely the Son of God, being not like God before in immortality and absolute rule."^
Mr B.'s next place, whereby the sonship of Christ is placed on another account, as he supposes, is John x. 36, " Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphem- est ; because I said, I am the Son of God ? "
That this scripture is called to remembrance not at all to Mr B.'s advantage will speedily appear ; for, —
1. Here is not in the words the least mention whence, or for what cause it is, that Christ is the Son of God, but only that he is so, he being expressed and spoken of under that description which is used of him twenty times in that Gospel, " He who is sent of the Father." This is all that is in this place asserted, that he whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world counted it no robbery to be equal with him, nor did blaspheme in calling himself his Son.
2. It is evident that Christ in these words asserts himself to be such a Son of God as the Jews charged him with blasphemy for affirming of himself that he was ; for he justifies himself against their accusation, not denying in the least that they rightly appre- hended and understood him, but maintaining what he had spoken to be most true. Now, this was that which the Jews charged him withal, verse 33, "That he, being a man, blasphemed in making him- self God ; " for so they understood him, that in asserting his sonship he asserted also his deity. This Christ makes good, namely, that he is such a Son of God as is God also ; yea, he makes good what he had said, verse 30, which was the foundation of all the following discourse about his blasphemy, " I and my Father are one." So that, —
3. An invincible argument for the sonship of Christ, to be placed only upon the account of his eternal generation, ariseth from this very place that was produced to oppose it ! He who is the Son of God
• " Constat igitur (ut ad propositum rcvcrtaraur), Christum ante resurrectionem Dei Filium pleue et perfecte non fuisse : cum illi et immortalitatis et absoluti dominii cum Deo similitude deesset." — Socin. Kespon. ad Weikum, p 225.
198 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.
because he is " one with the Father," and God equal to him, is the Son of God upon the account of his eternal relation to the Father : but that such was the condition of Jesus Christ, himself here bears witness to the Jews, although they are ready to stone him for it ; and of his not blaspheming in this assertion he convinces his adver- saries by an argument a minor i, verses S'i-SG.
A brief analysis of this place will give evidence to this interpreta- tion of the words. Our Saviour Christ having given the reason why the Jews believed not on him, namely, " because they were not of his sheep," verse 26, describes thereupon both the nature of those sheep of his, verse 27, and their condition of safety, verse 28. This he farther confirms from the consideration of his Father's greatness and powder, which is amplified by the comparison of it with others, who are all less than he, verse 29 ; as also from his own power and will, which appears to be sufficient for that end and pui'pose from his essential unity with his Father, verse SO. The effect of this dis- course of Christ by accident is the Jews taking up of stones, which is amplified by this, that it was the second time they did so, and that to this purpose, that they might stone him, verse 31. Their folly and madness herein Christ disproves v/ith an argument ah ahsurdo, telling them that it must be for some good work that they stoned him, for evil had he done none, verse 32, This the Jews attempt to disprove by a new argument a disparatis, telling him that it was " not for a good work, but for blasphemy," that he "made himself to be God," whom they would prove to be but a man, verse 33. This pretence of blasphemy Christ disproves, as I said before, by an argu- ment a minori, verses 34-36, and with another from the effects or the works which he did, which sufficiently proved him to be God, verses 37, 38, still maintaining what he said and what they thought to be blasphemy; so that they attempt again to kill him, verse 39. It is evident, then, that he still juaintained what they charged him with.