TESTIMO^'IES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 309
potestas or authority that Christ speaks of, but strength, might, and power, which is so great in God that none can take his sheep out of his hand. Now, though unitas potestatis doth not prove unity of essence in men, yet unitas potentice, which is here spoSen of, in God evidently doth ; yea, none can have unitatem potestatis with God but he who hath unitatem essentia;.
What they except in the next place against Christ's being equal with God, from John v. 18, Phil. ii. 6, 7, hath been already removed, and the places fully vindicated. They proceed: —
Q. But where is it that Christ is called the "Soil of the living God," the "proper" and " only-hegotten Son of God ?"
A. Matt. xvi. 16; Rom. viii. 32; John iii. 16, IS.
Q. But how are these places answered ?
A. From all these attributes of Christ a divine nature can by no means be proved; for as to the first, it is notorious that Peter confessed that the Son of man was Christ and the Son of the living God, who, as it is evident, had not such a divine nature as they feign. Besides, the Scripture testifieth of other men that they are the sons of the living God, as the apostle out of Hosea, Rom. ix. 26. And as to what belongeth to the second and third places, in them we read that the "proper" and "only-begotten Son of God" was delivered to death; which cannot be said of him who is God by nature. Yea, from hence, that Christ is the Son of God, it appears that he is not God, for otherwise he should be Son to himself. But the cause why these attributes belong to Christ is this, that he is the chiefest and most dear to God among all the sons of God: as Isaac, because he was most dear to Abraham, and was his heir, is called his " only-begotten son," Heb. xi. 17, although he had his brother Ishmael; and Solomon the " only-begotten of his mother," although he had many brethren by the same mother, 1 Chron. iii. 1-6, etc. ; Prov. iv. 3.'
I have spoken before fully to all these places, and therefore shall be very brief in the vindication of them in this place. On what account Christ is, and on what account alone he is called, the Son of God, hath been sufficiently demonstrated, and his unity of nature with his Father thence evinced. It is true, — 1. That Peter calls
I " Filiiom autem Dei viventis, Filium Dei proprium et unigenitum esse Christum, ubi habetur ? — De hoc Matt. xvi. IG, legimus, ubi Petrus ait, Tu es Christus, FiUus Dei viventis; et Rom. viii. 32, ubi apostolus ait, Qui (Deus) proprio Filio, non pepercit, verum eum propter nos tradidit ; et Johan. iii. 10, Sic Deus dilexit mmidum, ut Filium suum uni- genitum daret ; et ver. 18, Nomen unigejtiti Filii Dei.
" Quomodo vero ad hnec loca respondetur ?^Ex iis omnibus attributis Christi nullo mode probari posse naturam ejus divinani ; nam quod ad primum attinet, notissi- mum est Petrimi fateri, quod Filius hominis sit Christus, et Filius Dei viventis, quern coustat divinam naturam, qualcm illi comminiscuntur, non habuisse. Prajterea, tes- tatur Scriptura de aliis hominibus quod sint filii Dei viventis, ut ex Hosca, Rom. ix. 26, Et erit loco ejus, uhi eis dictum est, Non populus meus [estis) vos, illic vocabuntur filii Dd viventis. Quod vcro secundum ct tertium locum attinet, in bis legimus pro- prium et unigenitum Dei Filium in moi'tem traditum, quod eo qui natura Deus sit, dici non potest. Imo vero ex co quod Christus Dei Filius sit, apparet Deum ilium non esse, alioquin sibi ipsi Filius es.set. Causa vcro cur Christo ista attributa competant haec est, quod inter omncs Dei filios et prsecipuus sit et Deo charissimus, quemadmodum Isaac, quia Abrahamo charissimus et luieres exstitit, unigenitus vocatus est, Heb. xi. 17, licet fratrem Ismaelem liabuerit ; et Solomon unigenitus coram matro sua, licet plurea ex eadem matre fratrcs fuerint, 1 Paral. iii. 1-G, etc , Prov. iv. 3."
310 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
Christ, who was the Son of man, the " Son of the living God;" not in that or on that account whereon he is the Son of man, but because he is pecuharly, in respect of another nature than that wlierein he is the Son of iflan, the Son of the Hving God. And if Peter had in- tended no more in tliis assertion but only that he was one among the many sons of God, how doth he answer that question, " But whom say ye that I am ? " being exceptive to what others said, who yet affirmed that he was a prophet, one come out from God, and favoured of him. It is evident that it is something much more noble and divine that is here affirmed by him, in this solemn confes- sion of him on whom the church is built. It is true, believers are called " children of the living God," Rom. ix. 26, in opposition to the idols whom they served before their conversion; neither do we argue from this expression barely, *' Of the living God," but in conjunction with those others that follow, and in the emphaticalness of it, in this confession of Peter, Christ instantly affirming that this was a rock which should not be prevailed against. 2. What is meant by the "proper" and "only-begotten Son of God" hath been already abun- dantly evinced. Nor is it disproved by saying that the proper and only Son of God was given to death, for so he was; and thereby " God redeemed his church with his own blood." He that is the proper and only-begotten Son of God was given to death, though not in that nature and in respect of that wherein he is the proper and only-begotten Son of God. 3. Christ is the Son of the Father, who is God, and therein the Son of God, without any danger of being " the Son of himself," that is, of God as he is the Sou. This is a beg- ging of the thing in question, without offering any plea for what they pretend to but their own unbelief and carnal apprehensions of the things of God. 4. Our catechists have exceedingly forgotten them- selves and their masters, in affirming that "Christ is called the proper and only-begotten Son of God, because he is most dear to God of all his sons;" themselves and their master having, as was showed at large before, given us reasons quite of another nature for this appellation, which we have discussed and disproved elsewhere. 5. If Christ be the only-begotten Son of God only on this account, because he is most dear among all the sons of God, then he is the Son of God upon the same account with them, — that is, by regeneration and adoption; which that it is most false hath been showed elsewhere. Christ is the proper, natural, only -begotten Son of God, in contra- distinction to all others, the adopted sons of God, as was made mani- fest. Isaac is called the " only-begotten son" of Abraham, not abso- lutely, but in reference to the promise; he was his only-begotten son to whom the promise did belong: "He that had received the promises offered up his only -begotten son." Solomon is not said to be the "only- begotten of his mother," Prov. iv. 3, but only " before the face" or " in