Grotius on this place, according to his wont, outgoes his com- panions one step at least (as he was a bold man at conjectures), and applies this prophecy to Zerubbabel : " Natus ex Bethlehemo Zoro- babel recte dicitur, qubd ex Davidis familia esset, quae orta Beth- lehemo;"— "Zerubbabel is rightly said to be born at Bethlehem, being of the family of David, which had its original from Beth- lehem."
That Zerubbabel is here at all intended he doth not attempt to prove, either from the text, context, circumstances of the place, design of the projDhecy, or any tiling else that might give light into
240 VINDICIiE EVANGELIC^.
the Intendment of the Holy Ghost. That it belongs properly to Christ we have a better interpreter to assure us than Grotius or any of his rabbins, Matt. ii. 4-6. I know that in his annotations on that place he allows the accommodation of the words to Christ; but we cannot allow them to be spoken of any other, the Holy Ghost ex- pressly fitting them to him. And if Zerubbabel, who was born at Babylon, may be said to be born at Bethlehem because David, from whom he descended, was born there, what need all that labour and trouble that our Saviour might be born at Bethlehem ? If it could not be said of Christ that he was born at Bethlehem, though he were of the lineage of David, unless he had actually been born there indeed, certainly Zerubbabel, who was born at Babylon, could not be said, on the account of his progenitor five hundred years be- fore, to be born there.
For the second part of this text, or the words we insist on for the proof of our intention, he useth the same shift in the same words with our catechists, "Origo ipsi ah oUm, a temporihus longis; id est, originem trahit a domo illustri antiquitus, et per quingentos annos regnatrice ; " — " His original is from of old, from a long time ; that is, he hath his original from an ancient illustrious house that had reigned five hundred years."
Of the sense of the words I have spoken before. I shall only add, that the use of this note is to confute the other ; for if his being born at Bethlehem signify his being of the family of David, and nothing else, he being not indeed born there, what need this addi- tion, if these obscure words signify no more but what was spoken before ? Yea, and herein the learned man forsaketh his masters, all generally concluding that it is the Messiah who is here alone intended. The Chaldee parayArast expressly puts in the name of Messiah. His words are, " Out of thee shall the Messiah come forth before me." And some of them do mystically interpret kedem [^'IP] of the mind of God, from whence the word or wisdom of God is brought forth ; because, as they say, the word denotes the first numeration of the crown, or of that name of God which signifies his essence.
The second is Ps. ii. 7, " The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee."
Q. To tJds second what is to he answered?
A. Xc'ither in that is there any thing of generation of the essence of the Father, nor of a pre-eternal generation ; for the word " to-day," signifying a certain time, cannot denote pre-eternity. But that God begot him doth not evince that he was begotten of liis essence; which appears from hence, 1. That the same words, "This day have I liegotten thee," are in the first sense used of David, who was begotten neither from eternity nor of the essence of the Father. 2. Because the apostle Paul brings these words to prove the resurrection of Christ, Acts xiii. 3.S. And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews cites them for the glorifying of the Lord Jesus, Heb. i. 5, and v. 5. And lastly, from hence, that it is manifest tliat God
DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 241
otherwise begets than by his essence, seeing the Scripture declares behevLTS to be begotten of God, as is to be seen, John i. 13; 1 John iii. 9; James i. 18.'
1. There is mention in tliese words of Christ's generation of his Father, of being " begotten" of him before his incarnation, this being spoken of him under the old testament ; and to deny that there is any such thing in the text as that which, upon this consideration, we urge it to prove, is only to beg the thing in question.
2. "This day," being spoken of God, of him who is eternal, to Avhom all time is so present as that nothing is properly yesterday nor to- day, does not denote necessarily such a proportion of time as is in- timated, but is expressive of an act eternally present, nor past nor future.
3. It cannot be proved that these words are spoken at all of David so much as typically, nor any thing else in that psalm from verse 7 to the end : yea, the contrary is evident from every verse following, especially the 12th, where kings and rulers are called to worship him of whom he speaks, and threatened with destruction if they do not; and they are pronounced blessed who put their trust in him; which cannot be spoken of David, God declaring them to be cursed who put their trust in man, Jer. xvii. 5-8.