suo qui Spiritualem Legis partem absolvit Erasm Subaudiendum verbum praestitit aut aliquid simile Estius Omninó videtur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut simile Piscat Ut huic malo fuccurreretur tale quid enim necessario intelligendum est Staplet Antid p. 626. Sanè conjunctio Et postulare videtur ut aliquid subaudiatur ut sensus sit perfecit id Deus quod Lex efficere non poterat Justin Subaudiendum videtur praestitit aut aliquid hujusmodi Bucer To the same purpose Salmer tom 13. p. 531. Catharin Vorst Muscul Heming c. Some would have a Word inserted as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fecit praestitit thus What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God did he sending his own Son c. They conceive with the addition of this one Word the sence would be more clear and the words would run much more smooth but †Hoc supplementum non est necessarium Tolet. c. Sed non est opus et Socinus Haereticus illud ad suam blasphemiam trahit Pareus Mihi videtur aliter contextus optime fluere Calv. Others will not admit of this addition * Unâ tantùm Conjunctione expunctâ nullo praeterea opus est supplemento Soto with divers others Some again would have the Conjunctive particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and and for sin c. to be expung'd apprehending that it makes the Words to be more obscure They would have us read them thus what the Law c. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh for sin condemned sin in the flesh But this too is not approved of for †Copula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmum decèpit ut insereret verbum praestitit egó veró amplificandi causâ positam suisse sentio Calv. Calvin lays a great stress upon that particle as heightning the matter spoken of and for sin 't is as much as Yea or Even for sin condemned sin c. 'T is not a Pleonasm or superfluous word but 't is particula intensiva to show the greatness and strangeness of the thing spoken of 'T is not omitted by any of the Greek Scholiasts and I see no reason why we should put it out Tolet would solve all 1st by adding some illative word as ideò igitur c. 2dly by turning the Participle sending into the Verb sent of which hereafter Take the Words in the gross as I am now considering of them I think our Translators render them very well and there will be no necessity either to add to them or to take from them Only 't is necessary that you make this Variation or Addition whereas 't is said and for sin condemned sin reade and by a Sin-offering or Sacrifice for Sin condemned Sin And so they will run thus For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sending or sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and by a Sacrifice for Sin condemned Sin in the flesh That the righteousness c. There are great difficulties in their several branches and parts but they shall be opened as I go over them in their order The Words divided into Five Parts If you take them in pieces you have these Five things in them 1. 'T is here imply'd That something was to be done in order to the Recovery Justification Salvation of the lost Sinner 2. Here 's an express assertion of the weakness inability of the Law to do what was to be done with the true cause of that inability of the Law What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh 3. The Way and Method which the wise and gracious God took upon this that He might effectually do that which the Law could not de He sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh 4. The double Effect produced by this or the double End and design of God in this sending of his Son for sin he condemned sin in the flesh That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled 5. The description of the persons who have an interest in all this Grace who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit We have in the whole a Complication of the several Causes of the Sinner's Justification and Redemption Here 's a Complication of the Causes of the Sinners Justification and Salvation Here 's the Deficient Cause the Law Here 's the Principal Efficient Cause God the Father here 's the Subordinate Agent I mean with respect to the Father or the Meritorious Cause Christ the Son the Formal and also the Material Cause for sin condemning sin in the flesh the Final Cause the Finis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled and the Finis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in us who walk not after the flesh but c. Here I bring in the Words for sin condemned sin under another Head of Causes than that laid down but now in the division of the words but that I may do well enough because they will bear diverse causal respects I begin with the Causa deficiens which comes in also as the Procatartick or impulsiue Cause as that which moved God to send his Son viz. the weakness and impotency of the Law to help the lost Sinner The first Branch of the Words pitch'd upon Four things observed in it For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh Here observe 1. The thing spoken of the Law 2. That which is asserted concerning this Law it could not do 3. The ground or reason of this its inability to do in that it was weak 4. The assignation of the true Cause of its weakness viz. the flesh in that it was weak through the flesh it could not do because it was weak and it was weak because of the Flesh I will a little insist upon the Literal Explication of this Branch and then come to the matter contained in it The literal explication of the Words For what the Law could not do In the Greek 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if you render word for word runs thus For the impossible of the Law or the invalid of the Law so * Quod invalidum erat Legis De Resur carnis Cap. 46. Tertullian renders it The Sense and meaning of the expression is plain enough our Translation gives us that very well What the Law could not do but the form and manner of it in the Original especially when 't is turn'd into our language is somewhat harsh and unusual Interpreters for the opening of the Phrase and the cleering up of the connexion of the matter do several wayes Comment upon the Words Some bring in this first Paragraph under a Parenthesis but that signifies but little one way or another * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impotentiâ Legis existente Beza
you not be fully convinced by all this that the Father's Love to you is very great and if so will you not admire him for it You must * Joh. 5.23 honour the Son even as you honour the Father and you must adore bless love the Father even as you do the Son God forbid that I should go about to lessen your most thankful sense of what the Son and Spirit have done for you but yet know that these the Father as the first Cause doth work by 't is He who by them doth do so great things for you 'pray think high of their love but then think high of his love too Further I would persuade you to entertain good thoughts of the Father 'T is a temptation though not so usual which some gracious Persons lie under they can with more comfort think of the Son than of the Father they do not so much question the Love of the Son as of the Father they cannot deny but that the Son is indeed a very gracious Person for he came from heaven * Luke 19.10 to seek and to save what was lost to * 1 Tim. 1.15 save Sinners yea the chiefest of them c. hereupon they can in some comfortable manner encourage themselves to hope in him But as to the Father they are not so confident they are more jealous and suspicious and have a greater dread of him than they have either of the Son or of the Spirit Doth Satan assault any of you in this manner or do such thoughts as these prevail over you O be convinced of your mistake You have as great encouragement for faith and hope from the Father as you have from the Son for you hear 't was He who sent Christ and whatever Christ was or did all was but in pursuance of his good pleasure therefore have you any reason to think otherwise than well of him Surely * 1 Joh. 4.16 God is Love this very thing his sending of his Son represents him as full of Mercy Goodness and Grace the Sinner hath not the least cause to be jealous or afraid of him O when unbelief and hard thoughts of God the Father begin to rise beat them down by arguing thus was not He the first spring from which redeeming Grace did flow the great contriver and willer of man's recovery who set Christ on work but he who sent him into the world to be a Saviour but he who imploy'd his own Son for the good of Sinners but he O that you would labour to get your Faith encourag'd and strengthened as to the first Person and that it might rise up to the first Cause of all and there fix and terminate that your faith and hope may be in God as the Apostle expresses it 1 Pet. 1.21 Christ sayes Joh. 14.1 Let not your heart be troubled ye believe in God believe in me also and let me say he believe in Christ believe in God also as the fountain and original of all your happiness Christ to be loved for his ready submission to his Father in sending him 3. It calls upon us to love Christ greatly O how should the consideration of this endear Christ to every gracious heart God sent him but not against his will how willing was he to be sent upon the errand of your Salvation he freely consented to whatever the Father was pleased to put him upon for your good He very well knew before hand what would follow upon this sending what he was to undergo how he was to be abased if he do engage to redeem and save you yet notwithstanding this no sooner did the Father call him to it but he most readily and cheerfully obeyed O the infinite Love of Christ He came down from heaven that he might carry you up to heaven he that was a Son for your sake stooped to be a Servant that you of slaves might be made sons What had become of you if Christ had refused to come when the Father sent him O love the Lord Jesus let his Person be very dear and precious to you admit him into your hearts who was willing to take the whole business of your Salvation into his hands what Love can be enough for a Father sending and a Son coming 'T is true God sent him but his obedience to his Father was no diminution of his Love to you and 't is true in this Embassy he acted in a way of inferiority to his Father but 't was his pity to you which made him willing to put himself into such a state of subjection and inferiority for that did not proceed from his Nature before he had assumed yours but meerly from his dignation and gracious condescention and now after all this will you not love him how can you do otherwise than love him Suppose you had heard him as soon as ever God had signified his pleasure to him and said Son the fulness of time is come I must send thee down to earth to redeem man saying Father I am ready here I am send me whithersoever and about whatsoever thou pleasest to promote thy Glory and the good of Souls I am willing to go where-ever thou 'lt have me yea I le stick at nothing which thou shalt judge necessary for the preventing of the Sinners everlasting ruine Send me to be made Flesh I submit to lie in a Manger I submit to die upon a Cross I submit lay what Commands upon me thou pleasest to further the Salvation of Souls they shall all be obey'd Suppose I say you had heard Christ uttering such Words to his Father doubtless it would have wrought very much upon you your Hearts would have been all in flames of Love to him O wretched Creatures we know all this was spoken and done too by our Lord Jesus and yet how cold how weak is our Love to him Christ a Pattern herein for imitation 4. It calls upon you to imitate Christ in his carriage with respect o his being sent Thus never go till you be sent then go readily both of these were admirably done by our Lord Jesus He went not till he was sent before he would move one step he would have his Father 's Mission and Commission a great Mind he had to be at Redeeming Work his Heart was exceedingly set upon it yet he would stay till he was sent called authoriz'd thereunto by his Father But as soon as he was so called how readily and cheerfully did he engage * Heb. 10.7 Lo T come to do thy Will O God Now in this his deportment he hath set us an excellent copy to write after teaching us alwayes humbly to wait for a Call from God and when it comes let it be what it will faithfully to comply with it Whatever rank or station God hath set you in see that you therein * 1 Cor. 7.17.20 24. abide and that you meddle with no Work Employment Office Vndertaking further than as you are called thereunto
it self was a most wicked act there had been to believers no remission no expiation as Death was destroy'd by Death so Sin by Sin it condemned Christ but by so doing it was condemn'd it self So much for the first reading of the Words 2. Secondly the Preposition is rendred by For and that rendring of it our Translators according to other * Propter peccatum V. Syr. Propter ipsoâ—n peccatum Tremell Versions and the general current of Interpreters follow and for sin condemned sin c. If we take it so the Words then may carry a threefold sense in them 1. That Sin was the procuring meritorious Cause of all that which God the Father did in a way of severity upon and against Christ He condemned sin in Christ's Flesh fell very severely upon him testify'd great anger and displeasure against him inflicted sharp and dreadful punishments upon him why did such a Father so deal with such a Son what might be the cause that a person so innocent should suffer as he did why 't was Sin not his but ours which brought all this upon him 〈◊〉 had it not been for that God had never sent his Son in Flesh into the world and then have punished him in that Flesh as he did Christ might thank Sin for all his sufferings and lay all the Evils which he sustain'd in Soul and Body at its doors that set his Father against him that laid the foundation of all his sorrows that brew'd that bitter cup which he was to drink that was the meritorious cause of all the miseries that ever befel him 't was for sin that God so condemned sin in his Flesh The Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes used in this sense so Joh. 10.33 For a good work we stone thee not but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for blasphemy and because that thou being a man makest thy self equal with God 1 Pet. 3.18 For Christ also hath once suffered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sins c. which is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 1.4 Heb. 10.12 2. The for sin may be taken finally Wherefore did God thus condemn sin in his Son's Flesh wherefore was it with Christ as it was O 't was for sin namely that he might take it away acquit the Sinner from its guilt make satisfaction for it over-rule it in all its plea's and power quite destroy it God would deal with Sin in the person of his own Son he having submitted to take the guilt of it upon himself that thereby he might give a through dispatch to it and throughly rid believers of its hurtfulness 1 Joh. 3.5 And ye know that he was manifected to take away our sins and in him is no sin Vers 8. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the Devil In this final notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken Matth. 26.28.1 Cor. 15.3 3. It may be understood Materially with respect to Christ's being a Sacrifice for Sin For Sin God condemned Sin how why as Christ submitting to be a Sin-offering was and did that by which this effect was produc'd According to this Interpretation we must reade the words as is noted in the margent thus * Phrasi Hobraeâ peccatum vocat Sacrificium pro peccato Franz Schola Sacrif disp 7. th 56. By a Sacrifice for sin God condemned sin whatever there is 〈◊〉 this condemning of sin and there is abundance in it 't was all brought about by that Sin-offering or Sacrifice which Christ in his flesh offered up to God 't was cut off expiated disabled as to its destructive and damning nature c. all this was effected by Christ's being a Sacrifice So that the words are Elliptical there being in them something cut off and left out which must be supply'd by the inserting or adding of by a Sacrifice or some other such word Which Ellipsis is very usual and common in Holy Writ especially when 't is treating of Sacrifices Levit. 10.17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the Sin-offering so we reade it but in the Hebrew 'tis only the Sin in the holy place c. 't would be tedious to cite the very many places of this nature which do occur in * Levit. 4.3.29.33 5.6 7.9.11 9.22 12.6 8. 14.13 16.16 that Book Ifa 53.10 When thou shalt make his Soul sin we fill it up by an offering for sin Hos 4.8 They eat up the Sin of my people that is the Sacrifices which were to be offer'd up for the people Ezek. 45.19 The Priest shall take of the blood of the Sin we reade it of the Sin-offering * Sicut hostias quae pro peccato offerebant in Lege peccati nomine vocabant cum ipsae delicta nescirent sic Christi caro quae pro peccati nostris oblata est peccati nomen accepit Hieron See Grotius de Sat. Christi c. 1. p. 16. Nothing more usual in the Old Testament than to make the words Chattaath and Ascham to be expressive both of Sin and of the Sacrifice too by which that Sin was to be expiated answerably to which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 us'd in the New 2 Cor. 5.21 He that knew no sin was made sin c. that is a Sacrifice for sin An Ellipsis like to this in the Text you have Heb. 10.6 In burnt Offerings and for Sin thou hadst no pleasure where Sacrifices is left out but must be put in so here in the words which I am upon This now is that Interpretation which is most * Per hostiam carnis suae quam obtulit pro peccante damnavit peccatum in carne suâ Orig. Hostiâ pro peccato damnavit peccatum in Carne Melanch Per hostiam pro peccato Christum Deus abolevit peccatum in hominibus Vatabl. Sed quid fi mittens filium c. vult dicere quidem hostiam pro peccato five ut esset hostia pro peccato Drus Ego adduci nequeo ut nomen Peccati alio sensu hic positum esse existimem quam pro expiatrice victima quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur Hebraeis ficuti Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocunt Sacrificium cui maledictio injungitur Calv. For Sin that he might be a Sacrifice for Sin Dr. Ham. To be a propitiatory Sacrifice for Sin Deod To the same purpose P. Martyr Heming Piscat Vorst Lud. de Dieu c. whom I need not cite yet Beza will not admit of this exposition Praepositio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nullâ ratione potest hanc interpretationem admittere neque nunc Apostolus agit de Christi morte nostrorum peccatorum expiatione sed de Christi incarnatione naturae nostrae corruptione per eam sublata Beza generally pitch'd upon which seems best to correspond with other parallel Texts and with the Matter and Scope of this which we have in hand and therefore that only I shall iusist upon and indded the two former
am well pleased and then at his Transfiguration Matth. 17.5 Behold a voice out of the cloud which said This is my beloved Son The Apostle 1 Joh. 5.7 8. speaks of the Witness of Heaven and of Earth There are three that bear record in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one And there are three that bear witness in earth the Spirit and the Water and the Blood and these three agree in one Now what is the thing which they bear witness to 't is Christ's Sonship for that is instanc'd in as to the First and Supream Witness Vers 9. If we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater For this is the witness of God which he hath testified af his Son You see how fully this Truth is attested and how abundantly God was pleas'd to clear it up in the first promulgation of the Gospel it being the great thing necessary to be known and believed Indeed the Jews as to the Body of them had a vail before their eyes so that they could not discern this near relation of Christ to God they saw the Son of man but they did not see the Son of God they went no higher than * Matth. 13.55 56. Is not this the Carpenters Son is not his mother called Mary and his brethren James and Joses and Simon and Judas and his sisters are they not all with us * Joh. 6.42 Is not this Jesus the Son of Joseph whose Father and Mother we know how is it then that he saith I came down from heaven Nay when Christ plainly and boldly told them that he was the Son of God they could not bear it Joh. 10.33 For a good work we stone thee not but for blasphemy and because that thou being a man makest thy self God you may know what they meant by this by Christ's reply Vers 36. Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Nay they were so offended at it that for this very thing they took away his life Joh. 19.7 The Jews answered him we have a Law and by our Law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God You have a full account of it Mark 14.61 to 65. Again the High Priest asked him and said unto him Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed And Jesus said I am c. Then the High Priest rent his cloaths and said What need we any further witnesses Ye have heard the blasphemy what think ye and they all condemned him to be guilty of death Thus the eyes of that people were then and O that they were not so still so blinded that they could not perceive Christ to be the Son of God but the Lord hath given sufficient evidence thereof to all who do not willfully shut their eyes upon the light 'T is a Truth out of all question to us who are called Christians yet about the Nature and Manner of Christ's Sonship there are some unhappy Controversies rais'd amongst us 2. Secondly Christ was God's own Son so 't is here signanter God sending hîs own Son I have told you in the Original 't is * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Son of himself or his ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper Son as 't is Vers 32. God is Christ's proper Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 5.18 and Christ here is God's proper Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is not barely a Son but a Son in a special and peculiar manner God's own Son This being a Truth of very high import a most Fundamental Point I will endeavour first to explain and prove it and then to vindicate and make good its true and genuine Notion against Opposers Our Lord Jesus Christ is God's own Son whether you consider him comparatively and relatively I mean How Christ is God's own Son in reference to other Sons or absolutely as he is in Himself abstractly considered from all Other Sons God hath three sorts of Sons By Creation by Grace by Nature 1. Consider him Comparatively And so he is thus stiled to difference or distinguish him from all Other Sons For God hath three sorts of Sons 1. Some are so by Creation or in respect of their immediate Creation by God so the Angels are the Sons of God of whom Divines commonly interpret those passages in Job Chap. 1.6 There was a day when the Sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord Chap. 38.7 When the morning Stars sang together and all the Sons of God shouted for joy So Adam upon this account he being immediately made by God is called the Son of God Luke 3.38 2. Some are the Sons of God by Grace viz. the Grace of Regeneration and Adoption thus Believers are the Sons of God as they are spiritually begotten of him and adopted by him Joh. 1.12 13. As many as received him to them gave he power to become the Sons of God c. which were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God Jam. 1.18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth c. Gal. 4.3 To redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the adoption of Sons Eph. 1.5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of Chrildren by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will Rom. 8.14 As many as are led by the Spirit of God they are the Sons of God Gal. 3.26 Ye are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus 1 Joh. 5.1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him Then 3. in contradistinction to these there is God's own Son or his Son by Nature one that is a Son of another rank and Order than the former in this respect God hath but One Son namely Christ True Believers are his Sons which speaks the exuberancy of Divine Love towards them * 1 Joh. 3.1 â—â— Behold what manner of Love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the Sons of God! therefore Christ owns them for his Brethren Heb. 2.11 Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren and Vers 17. In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren But yet they are not Sons as Christ is his Sonship and theirs are of a very different nature differing no less than specifically Upon which account he sometimes appropriates the paternal relation in God unto himself Luke 10.22 All things are delivered to me of my Father c. Joh. 14.2 In my Fathers house are many mansions And elsewhere he distinguishes 'twixt God as being his Father and as being the Father of Believers Joh. 20.17 Go to
may put them together and take in both upon this Person and this Faith the Church of God is built and therefore it shall stand fast for ever so that according to this Exposition which is with great strength defended by our PROTESTANT Divines this Sonship of Christ is the foundation-truth And therefore no wonder that in all Ages the Zeal of the Church hath been so much engag'd therein for 't is very well known that in its drawing up of Creeds and Summaries of Faith this one Article viz. Christ's being the Coessential Coeternal only begotten Son of God hath ever been put in witness the Nicene Constantinopolitan Athanasian Creeds because this was judged a thing most necessary to be believed And indeed there is not any one branch of the Christian Faith which the Church hath gain'd more out of the fire after much trouble and opposition than this one Nay this was that very Truth for the owning and asserting of which above any other our blessed Lord lost his life as you may plainly see by the * Joh. 19.7 Mark 14.61 c. Evangelical History And I desire that it may yet further be considered that as God himself began and ended with the witness and declaration of Christ's Sonship for as soon as he entred upon his publick Ministry the Father set him out with this witness * Matth. 3.17 This is my beloved Son c. and when he had well nigh finished his work and was going off the stage then the Father renew'd his witness again * Matth. 17.5 This is my beloved Son c So the Devil too he began and ended with the Sonship of Christ for presently after the Father's testimony thereof he took him aside to tempt him and when he had him alone and began the duel with him how did he assault him why * Matth. 4.3 if thou be the Son of God command that these stones be made bread he comes over it again †Vers 6. if thou be the Son of God cast thy self down c If thou be the Son of God why did Satan harp so much upon this what might his design be in laying his temptation thus I answer it must be for one or for all of these Reasons either that he might by the observing of Christ's behaviour in the contest more fully inform himself whether Christ was indeed the Son of God which was the thing he was deadly afraid of knowing that such a person would be the ruine of his kingdom or that he might see whether he could make Christ to doubt of his Sonship after and notwithstanding the plain testimony of his Father or that he might go as far as ever he could to draw him to the doing of what was evil and so if such a thing had been possible null this his neer relation to God surely there was some special cause why Satan pick'd out this and so much insisted upon it Well! here he began these were the very first words which this cursed Spirit uttered when he dared to assault our Saviour wherein he plainly struck at his Sonship it self though cunningly he made his temptations to point to some wicked inferences which he would have had drawn from Christ's relation rather than directly to the truth of the relation it self And as he began with this so he ended with this for 't was he which speaks a prodigious infatuation in him that he should be so forward in the promoting of that which certainly would end in his ruine who stirr'd up Pilate the High Priest the Body of the Jews against Christ and they through his instigation fell upon Christ and took away his life for what for this very cause because he made himself to be as indeed he was the Son of God By all this you see of what great moment and importance this Truth concerning Christ's Sonship is And to add yet one thing further pray look to that grand Seducer and Enemy of Christ and of the Christian Faith I mean Mahomet of whom we reade that he also set himself to his utmost to oppose and decry the Sonship of Christ He was willing to grant Christ to be a great Prophet but by no means to be the very Son of God this particularly and expresly he principled his Followers against in his ridiculous Alcoran and * Constantèr dic illis Deum unum esse necessarium omnibus incorporeum Qui nec genuit nec est generatus nec habet quenquam sibi similem Azoar 122. Alcor in Bibliandri Edit p. 188. Vide Cribrat Alcorani per Nicol. de Cusa lib. 1. c. 10 11 13 14 c. See Dr. Pearson on the Creed p. 272. he gave them in special this Command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship one onely God and to honour Christ as the Word of God but not as the Son of God From all these premises I infer is this such a foundation-Truth and shall not we firmly assent to it hath the Church with such zeal contended for it and shall we yet doubt of it do Heathens Jews Turks so much oppose it and shall not we Christians who have and own Scripture-revelation steadily believe it hath Christ sealed it with his blood and yet shall we stagger about it have we such attestations from God and Man and yet shall there be questionings and reasonings in our Souls against it 1 Joh. 5.9 10. If we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself he that believeth not God hath made him a liar because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son But Some will say to what purpose is all this who question 's whether Christ be God's own Son I answer O that there was not too much need of this advice many poor Souls think they do fully and firmly believe it and yet 't is to be feared they do not and the truth is that weakness which is in our Faith of adherence proceeds in part from that weakness that is in our Faith of assent much of that dejectedness which is upon our Spirits under trouble and of those inward sinkings under the sense of guilt comes from one of these two Causes either we do not revive upon our thoughts or else we do not fixedly believe in our hearts that Christ is God's Son and his own Son And as to loose and common Professors if ever Arrianism Old or New should get upon the throne which God forbid I fear the belief of Christ's Godhead and eternal Sonship would soon be laid aside O therefore I would be very earnest with you to get your faith yet more and more strengthned and confirmed about it But though this be very good yet 't is not enough besides the believing of Christ to be the Son of God there must be believing on Christ as the Son
improvement of it Was Christ sent and did God thus send him what doth this great act of God call for from us I 'le tell you in a few things 1. It calls upon us greatly to admire God Use 1. God to be admired for his sending of Christ O how should all our souls be drawn forth and elevated in the adoring of God for his sending of Christ What rich Mines of Grace have we in these few words God sent his own Son Here 's the greatest thing that ever God did or ever will do 't was much that he should make a World but what 's the making of a World to the sending of a Son The Apostle in the Text seems to ascend step by step and to crowd together variety of great and glorious things that he might the more heighten God's Love and draw up the hearts of Believers to the admiration of it For 1. here is Sending 2. God sending 3. God sending a Son 4. His own Son 5. The sending of this Son in our flesh Yea 6. in the likeness of sinful flesh Yea 7. in that Flesh to offer up himself as a Sacrifice for sin 8. Doing this for this End that sin might be condemned and that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us 9. Doing this too when the Sinners Case was desperate as to the Law is not here maguum in parvo and doth not the Apostle thrust things together heaping one thing upon another that he might the better set off and aggrandize the Love of God There 's enough in any One of them to make you stand and wonder but when you have them conjunct and all set before you in their proper emphasis and import how should you be affected and wrought upon to admire the Grace of God! The truth is take all together and you have here a representation of that Low Mercy Goodness which was too great and bigg for any but a God If you read no further than the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh there man is utterly lost but if you go on to God 's sending of his Son c. there the day of Salvation begins to dawn there 's an effectual remedy for a desperate malady now the case is altered O let the blessed God be therefore for ever magnify'd and adored 2. More particularly The Love of God the Father to be admired this calls upon you to admire the Love of God the Father and alwayes to entertain good thoughts of him they are distinct Heads however let me put them together I would not too curiously divide or distinguish betwixt the Sacred Persons in their several Acts much less would I set them in competition or prefer one before another as if we were more beholden to the One than to the Other As they center in the same common Essence 't is the same Love and the same gracious actings in all but yet they being personally distinct and they having those acts which are proper to them as so distinguished so they have their special and peculiar Love And 't is very good for us to understand what is immediately done by the Father what by the Son what by the Spirit which we must the rather endeavour after because the Scripture usually I do not say alwayes apply's this effect to the First that to the Second and another to the Third Person I am at present only to speak to the acts of the Father wherein he hath display'd that Love which is proper to him which if you please to look into as the Scripture sets them forth you will find your selves under a strong obligation to admire him as personally so considered For 'pray observe who did from all eternity predestinate elect choose you was it not God the Father Predestinating Love is the Father's Love Eph. 1.3 4 5. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world c. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of Children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will After this came Redeeming Love and had the Father no hand in that Love nay had not He the first and the chief hand therein For did not he find out the ransom Job 33.24 I have found a ransom did not he contrive and lay the whole model and platform of Redemption in his eternal purpose and ordination therefore 't is said Isa 53.10 The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand that great Work resolves it self into the Will and pleasure of the Father as the first and principal Cause of it Christ as Mediator is brought in but as subordinate to him as being but the ministerial and executive agent in redemption for 't is but in his hands that the pleasure of the Lord should prosper Who chose sent called Christ to that Work and fitted him for it but the Father as you have heard So also who assisted and strengthened him in it but the Father Isa 42.1 Behold my servant whom I uphold of which upholding and strengthening Grace by the Father Christ assured himself beforehand as you read Isa 50. 7 9. and it was accordingly made good to him as you read Matth. 4.11 Luke 22.43 Then again who rewarded Christ when he had finished his Work but the Father therefore to him Christ pray'd for this Joh. 17.4 5. I have glorified thee on the earth I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do And now O Father glorifie thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was And now Christ hath made the purchase who doth authoritatively collate upon persons the blessings purchased but the Father Rom. 8.33 It is God that justifieth 2 Cor. 5.18 All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ c. Luke 12.32 Fear not little flock it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom Who is it that works in Sinners their meetness for heaven but the Father Col. 1.12 Giving thanks unto the Father which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light Who is it that reveals the great mysteries of the Gospel but the Father Matth. 11.25 I thank thee O Father Lord of heaven and earth because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes Who bestows and gives the Spirit but the Father Joh. 14.16 I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth And to shut up this who secures and keeps in a state of grace but the Father Joh. 10.29 My Father which gave them me is greater than all and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's band Now Christians may
Essential Son of God 't is the very Title which they prefix before some of their Treatises in which One would think that they did concur with us holding the same thing which we do and giving the same honour and respect to Christ which we do when in truth there 's no such thing they do but speak fraudulently according to the custom of their * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. See much of the fraud of the Arrians in this in Epiphan adv Haeres lib. 2. tom 2. p. 738 Of them Hilarius speaks to the same purpose Tribuunt Christo Dei nomen quia hoc hominibus sit tributum Fatentur Dei verè Filium quia Sacramento Baptismi verè Dei Filius unusquisque perficitur Ante tempora saecula confitentur quod de Angelis Diabolis non est negandum Ita Domino Christo sola illa tribuuntur quae sunt vel Angelorum propria vel nostra Caeterum quod Deo Christo legitimum verum est Christus Deus verus i.e. eadem esse Filii quae Patris Divinitas denegatur Contra Auxent Mediolan old Predecessors for here 's the Fallacy they me an by all this nothing more than that Christ was the Son of God in regard of his wonderful Conception and Nativity by the Virgin Mary But to pass by their frauds let us come to the thing We say Christ's filiation or Sonship was grounded upon something of a far higher nature than this that he was the Son of God antecedently to it even from all eternity they ground his Sonship upon it only making it but then to commence when he was begotten by the holy Ghost conceived and born by the Virgin Against which dangerous Opinion we argue thus 1. If Christ's Sonship did result from this as the true and proper ground of it then the * Vide Stegm Photin Dip. 16. p. 180. Arnold Catech Racov. major p. 176. Holy Ghost the third Person should rather be intituled the Father of Christ than the First Person because that effect which was the foundation of Christ's Sonship was more immediately produced by him than by the First Person But this is notoriously false for all along in the whole current of the Word Christ is brought in as the Son of the Father and as standing in this relation to the Father and not to the Spirit 2. Christ himself never resolves his Sonship into his miraculous Conception or Birth You find him sometimes professedly treating upon it and giving the world ' an account about it what doth he then ground it upon why he carry's it up to his doing what the Father did Joh. 5.19 to his quickning whom he will even as the Father doth Joh. 5.21 to his having life in himself as the Father hath life in himself Joh. 5.26 to his being one with the Father Joh. 10.30 to his being in the Father and his Father in him Joh. 10.38 He doth not at all mention his miraculous Conception which in all probability he would have done if that had been the proper Ground of his Sonship but he insists altogether upon things tending to the proof of his participating of his Fathers Nature and Essence and by them he designs to make out his Sonship yea and that it was such a Sonship as did render him equal with his Father but this he could not have done either with truth or evidence had he been only the Son of God upon what is here pretended 3. Though Christ's Conception and temporal Generation was very wonderful yet that did but reach to his Flesh or Humane Nature and there terminate Now the Scripture doth not place his great Sonship in his Humane but in his Divine Nature therefore as to that it speaks him to be the * Qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem hic erit Homo Filius Hominis qui declarandus est Filius Dei secundum Spiritum Sanctificationis hic erit Deus sermo Dei Filius Tertul. adv Praxean Torquetur frustra locus Luc. 1.35 c. A nuda enim conceptione nativitate Carnis ex Virgine manavit non Filii Dei sed Filii hominis appellatio Quod verò Angelus porrò affirmat illud est hâc Filiatione non obstante etiam vocandum Filium Dei adhibitâ exactè particulâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad conciliandam utramque Filii Hominis Filii Dei uni Christo tribuendam appellationem per communicationem idiomatum c. Cloppenb Ant. Smalc p. 71. Son and Seed of David or the Son of Man in contradistinction to his being the Son of God And his Sonship to God cannot be grounded upon that which was the ground of his Sonship to Man for where the Sonships are so different they must needs have different Grounds and foundations Pray let these two Texts be well weighed and they will sufficiently prove what I say Rom. 1.3.4 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with Power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the resurrection from the Dead Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever The sum of all Christ hath two Natures according to which two Natures he hath two distinct Sonships he is the Son of God and he is the Son of Man these different Sonships must have different causes grounds therefore his Conception upon which he was the Son of Man cannot make him also to be the Son of God 4. As to the Text alledg'd by our Adversaries to prove their Opinion there 's a double Answer commonly given to it 1. The particle therefore in it is not causal but illative 'T is not brought in as signifying the Ground of Christ's Sonship but as a note of inference wherein something is inferr'd from what went before The Angel had told Mary that the Holy Ghost should come upon her and the power of the Highest should overshadow her and then adds therefore also the Holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God therefore what may be the force of this word in this place 't is a meer deduction drawn from the premises to this effect Since such a thing shall be done by the Holy Ghost therefore according to what was prophesied Christ shall be called the Son of God The words plainly refer to the prophesie Isa 7 14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and shall call his name Immanuel The Evangelist brings them in expresly in that reference Matth. 1.21 22 23. And she shall bring forth a Son and thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet saying Behold a
Virgin shall be with Child and shall bring forth a Son and they shall call his name Emmanuel which being interpreted is God with us And their sense and tendency is the same here Therefore also that Holy thing c. as if the Angel had said this being the thing which was foretold which must be accomplished and is now neer to be accomplished therefore it shall so be that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God So that this Therefore is only a note of Consequence as to the Event or the fulfilling of the Prophesie not a note of causality as to the thing it self viz. Christ's Sonship to God 2. 'T is therefore he shall be called the Son of the most High 't is not therefore he shall be the Son c. but therefore he shall be called c. And so it points not to that which was constitutive of Christ's Filiation but only to that which was * Angelus non dixit quare sit Filius Dei sed quod sit Filius Dei quare fideles ipsum pro Filio Dei sint agnituri Christum autem ab aeterno à Patre esse genitum humanamque Naturam in Unitatem Filii esse assumendam satis indicavit dum dixit quod nascetur ex te Sanctum Filius Dei vocabitur c. Nec tamen hoc vult quod Mariae Filius quâ Mariae Filius est etiam sit Filius Dei sed quod inter alia signa ex quibus Christum Dei Filium esse agnoscatur etiam hoc sit Bisterf contra Crellium lib. 1. sect 2. cap. 31. p. 305. manifestative and declarative of it Christ was God before he assumed Flesh but he was God manifested in the Flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 so Christ was the Son of God before he was thus conceived but this was a great manifestation or declaration that he was the Son of God 'T is true as to us our being †1 Joh. 3.1 called the Sons of God notes our being made the Sons of God but here as to Christ it only notes that he should be declared evidenced acknowledged to be the Son of God he was not now made the Son of God that was done by his eternal Generation only it was now made to appear that he was the Son of God In short the Lord Jesus who was thus miraculously conceived was the very Son of God but as he was thus conceived or because he was thus conceived so he was not the Son of God for of this there was an antecedent foundation that which was of a far more ancient date namely his being begotten of the Father from everlasting The Second False Ground of Christ's Sonship 2. Secondly 't is said that Christ was the Son of God in respect of his Sanctification and Mission Joh. 10.36 Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Christ being sanctified by the Father that is the Spirit of Grace and Holiness being in so eminent a degree poured out upon him and he being designed and set apart and fitted by God to and for a most high and eminent Office as also he being sent upon a great work for an extraordinary end to redeem and save lost Sinners therefore upon these Grounds and not upon his being eternally begotten of the Father he was God's Son Christ not God's own Son in respect of his Sanctification or Mission Answ More is inferr'd from this Text than what it will bear we may thus far very well argue from it He who was sanctified and sent was undoubtedly the Son of God but if we go further and infer He who was sanctified and sent was therefore the Son of God as if the sanctification and mission were the ground of his being so * Ex loco Joh. 10.36 negamus hoc effici posse Jesum Christum Deum ac Filium Dei unigenitum dici aut esse c. Sanctificatiò Missio quâ Pater Filium Sanctificavit misit in mundum nec Deitaâ—enâ— Filii nec Filiationem fundat sed fundatur in illâ atque illam demonstrat à posteriori Quia ad munus mediatorium sanctificari mitti in mundum non poterat qui non esset co-aeternus co-essentialis Patri miâ—tenti Filius Cloppenb Compend Socin p. 38. we stretch the words too far and endeavour to fetch that out of them which is not at all in them There 's a great difference betwixt the applying of such a relation to such a Person and the assigning of the proper cause and foundation of that relation Christ being sanctified and sent is the Son of God upon these that relation may truly be attributed to him but yet they do not amount to the being the Cause of that relation Christus qui fuit sanctificatus missus est Filius Dei is a Proposition very true but Christus quà fuit sanctificatus missus est Filius Dei as pointing to the fundamentum Filiationis is a Proposition very false and there lies the Controversie betwixt us and our Opponents The words cited have reference to the preceding Verses where Christ is vindicating himself from that blasphemy which the Jews charged him with because he made himself God Vers 33. now this he doth first in a lower way by an Argument drawn from the Title usually given to Men in places of Office and Authority they are called Gods and if so then saith Christ do I blaspheme because I call my self God the Son of God whom God hath sanctified and sent and invested with such high Offices Do not mistake here Christ is not God only in a titular way because of his Office he is so truly properly in respect of his Nature and Essence this he speaks to Vers 30 37 38. but he instances only in his Office in this place and from thence fetches that Argument which was very proper to his present design viz. the vindicating of himself as to the charge of blasphemy Verses 34 35 36. Jesus answered them is it not written in your Law I said ye are Gods If he called them Gods unto whom the Word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Now what is there in this to undermine Christ's eternal Sonship or to make his sanctification and mission the * Hoc non dicit causam suae Filiationis sed praestantiae supra alios unde potiùs queat nuncupari Dei Filius quà m illi Dii Hoornb Socin confut de Christo c. 1. p. 39. ground of his filial relation to God One word further as to the latter of these if Christ was the Son of God before he was sent then his sending did not make him to become the Son of God but so he was for 't is said here in
the Text God sent his Son implying he was a Son before he was sent had it not been so it must have been said God sent him to be his Son and not God sent his Son which supposes him before the sending to be actually a Son The Third False Ground of Christ's Sonship 3. Another Cause assigned of Christ's Sonship and of the apellation here given him God's own Son is his Resurrection That begetting which the Psalmist speaks of Psal 2.7 is not say they to be interpreted of Christ's being eternally begotten of the Father but only of what the Father did when he raised him up from the dead for so the Apostle brings it in Acts 13.32 33. We declare unto you glad tydings how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children in that he hath raised up Jesus again as it is also written in the Second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Christ not God's Son in respect of his Resuâ—rection For answer to this 1. How many Causes and Grounds shall we have of Christ's Sonship we have had two already here 's a third we shall have by and by a fourth and a fifth and I know not how many more where shall we stop Christ's Sonship is but one I mean as he is the Son of God and therefore admits not of the multiplication of Causes In all relations there is some single act which is the foundation of them upon which in their relative notion they are compleat and why should it not be so here in the relation betwixt God and Christ Our Opponents tell us that Christ upon his miraculous Coneeption was the Son of God I then ask was he so truly fully perfectly compleatly if so which they by their Principles cannot deny then what need is there of any thing further or how doth the nature of the thing admit of any thing further for he that is a Son already perfect and compleat cannot by any addition or new emergency be made more a Son because the Essence of things whether absolute or relative cannot be intended or remitted We are enquiring what is it which makes Christ the Son of God we ground it as we should and must upon one thing namely upon the Father's begetting of Christ from all eternity and communicating his own Nature and Essence to him they who oppose lay it upon several things as you have already heard in part and will yet further hear in what follows now we say this cannot be for there can be but one foundation of one and the same relation therefore they must pitch upon some such one foundation and wave all the rest I know what they say Christ upon his Conception c. was the Son of God in a way of inchoation but upon his Resurrection and Exaltation he was the Son of God in a way of consummation I reply 1. Then the Texts urged before are out of doors and signifie little or nothing for they only prove that Christ upon his Conception and Sanctification and Mission began to be a Son of God but he was not so indeed fully and properly for there must be yet something more which must follow after to compleat and consummate his Sonship 2. This is a very strange and most ungrounded distinction it arguing a growth and progress in Christ's Sonship for which there is not the least warrant from the Word of God we read of Christ's * Luke 2.52 increasing in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and Man but we never read of his increasing in his Sonship that admitted of several manifestative evidences as to us but not of several perfective degrees as to it self Even the Sonship of Believers at the first moment of their Conversion is entire and full they may grow and be more perfect in their Gifts Graces Comforts but as to their Covenant-state and Relation to God that 's compleat at the first and admits of no further addition And shall the Sonship of the blessed Son of God be a partial imperfect progressive thing neither the glory of the Person nor the nature of the Relation it self will bear such a thing 2. Secondly nothing more evident than that Christ was the Son of God before his Resurrection Matth. 3.17 Lo a voice from heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased was not this witness given of Christ before his Resurrection Rom. 8.32 He that spared not his own Son but gave him up for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things Christ here is called God's own Son which must be understood of him before his Resurrection for the Father 's not sparing of him was antecedent to that and yet then he was his own Son otherwise how could it be said that God spared not his own Son Matth. 16.16 Thou art Christ the Son of the living God was not this Confession made by Peter before Christ's Resurrection I might go much higher in the dating of Christ's Sonship than meerly before his Resurrection but that is high enough to show the falsity of what is asserted by the Adversary 3. We say Christ was * Non quod tum Filins Dei esse caeperit qui ab aeterno fuerat sed quia tunc res aliqua fieri dicitur quando talis cognoscitur seu tum demum dicitur facta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum fuit facta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Portus contra Ostorod cap. 9. p. 67. declared and manifested but not made or constituted the Son of God by his Resurrection So the Apostle himself states it Rom. 1.4 Declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the resurrection from the dead that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is truly rendred by declared is sufficiently proved by many 'T is one thing to be made God's Son another thing to be declared God's Son the First Christ had from his eternal Generation 't was only the Second that he had from his Resurrection You read Vers 19. of this Chapter of the manifestation of the Sons of God Believers are not made the Sons of God when they enter upon the glorified estate but they are then manifested both to be the Sons of God as also what their glory is upon their being so 1 Joh. 3.2 Now are we the Sons of God and it doth not yet appear what we shall be but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him mark it the relation it self is present now we are the Sons of God but the dignity and glory which is to follow upon this relation that doth not yet appear but hereafter it shall So here Christ was the Son of God long before his resurrection but the manifestation thereof was when God raised him from the dead till then his Sonship and Glory had been very much vail'd and hid but then it broke
forth like the Sun after it hath been shut up under a dark and thick cloud then God owned him as his own Son before all the world and made it to appear who and what he was And this is that which the Apostle aimed at in the place cited his onely design there being to prove that God had given the World sufficient Evidence that Christ was his very Son and amongst other Evidences of it he instances in the miraculous raising of him out of the Grave So that the begetting in Psal 2. and in Acts 13. are of a quite different nature the one being proper as relating to the thing it self the other improper as relating only to the declaration or manifestation of the thing We argue from the proper and primary sense of the words Thou art my Son c. the Adverse Party from their improper and secondary sence as the Apostle makes use of them in that place In the Scripture dialect several things are said to be done when they are declared and manifested to be done so Paul brings in Christ as begotten at the day of his Resurrection because it was then declared that he was the eternally begotten Son of God A Fourth False Ground of Christ's Sonship 4. 'T is said Christ is God's Son and so called because of the preheminence and dignity of his Person or because of his great advancement and exaltation to the Offices of King and Priest Heb. 1.4 5. Being made so much better than the Angels Deus misit suum Filium i. e. Christum illum suum cui communis alioqui Filii Dei Titulus propter singularitatem excellentiam proprius est factus Slichting in Loc. as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they For unto which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And again I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son Heb. 5.5 Christ glorified not himself to be made an high Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee Here you see Christ's Sonship comes in upon his exaltation with respect to his Person and Office Christ not God's Son in respect of his dignity and advancement I answer this proves as little as that which went before for here also 1. 'T is clear that Christ was the Son of God before he was thus exalted 2. His Exaltation was not the ground but the result and consequent of his Sonship he was not a Son because he was exalted but he was exalted because he was a Son First the Apostle describes him in what relates to the formality and Essence of his Sonship Heb. 1.3 Who being the brightness of his Glory and the express image of his Person and then he sets down the Honour which the Father put upon him not to be a Son for that he was already but because he was a Son for that 's the ground of the more excellent name given to him and so the words in Vers 4 5. come in 3. 'T is strange that this day of Christ's begetting should be so multiplied there 's the day of his Nativity and then it was to day have I begotten thee there 's the day of his Resurrection and then too it was To day have c. there 's the day of his Exaltation and then again it was To day have c. Had this Text been cited forty times in forty several Cases we must have had so many several grounds and Causes of Christ's Sonship But why then Some may say is this place so often repeated in the New Testament I answer not only because 't is apply'd to the several declarations of Christ's Sonship but also to shew that all which the Father did to and for Christ was all to be resolv'd into his eternal Sonship as the ground thereof he was raised again because he was the Son of God exalted to great Honour and Dignity because he was the Son all was grounded upon this his Relation And therefore when ever such great things are brought in concerning Christ this Text is mentioned as pointing to that Sonship which was the ground of them but not to assert that they were the ground of it * Christ not the Son of God because of his Kingly Dominion Vide Jacob. ad Portum contra Ostorod Def. Fid. Orthod c. 37. p. 512 ad 518. Not because of his preheminence c. Epiph. adv Heres p. 740. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 4. Though the glory which the Father hath conferr'd upon Christ as King Prophet and Priest be very great yet it will not reach that which is wrapp'd up in his being the proper and only begotten Son of God Sonship and Office are different things and the highest Office can never come up to what is in Sonship by eternal Generation A Fifth False Ground of Christ's Sonship 5. Fifthly 't is said that Christ is the Son of God in respect of that special love and affection which the Father bears to him Matth. 3. 17. Lo a voice from heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased And whereas Christ is called the only begotten Son of God they with whom I have to do say there 's no more in it than only this that Christ is the most beloved of God As Isaac is stilled Abraham's only Son Gen. 22.2 his only begotten Son Heb. 11.17 now how is this to be taken had not Abraham an Ishmael as well as an Isaac how is Isaac then called his only begotten Son why only as he had a greater share in his Fathers love than Ishmael had For the same reason Solomon calls himself an only Son Prov. 4.3 therefore the Septuagint render the word there used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beloved and so our Translators fill it up and only beloved in the sight of my Mother So say they 't is here as to Christ's being the only begotten Son of God God hath a special love for him and that 's all Christ not the Son of God in respect of his Fathers special Love Answ But we must not suffer this great Title of our Lord Jesus to be thus wrested out of our hands Without all question God hath transcendent superlative love for Christ his dear Son he is called Col. 1.13 but yet we say 1. As before this Love is not the Cause of his Sonship but his Sonship the cause of it He is not a Son because belov'd but he is belov'd because a Son therefore it cannot be the Cause which is but the Effect 2. If this was the proper foundation of Christ's Sonship then there would be only a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. adv Haer. l. 1. c. 2. p. 741. gradual difference betwixt his Sonship and the Sonship of Believers For they being belov'd of the Father as well as he and even as he is
proper Son of God but how why not only as he was eternally begotten by him but also as he was miraculously Conceived by the Virgin Mary that agreeing to none but only to him And therefore in this Point upon their blending of these things together they are judged by Some * See Peltius Harm Remonstr Socin Art 4. to Socinianize Now though this Opinion doth come incomparably short of that which absolutely deny's Christ's eternal Generation provided that the abettors of it who seem to grant this Generation do state it right that is that they hold Christ to be begotten in the very Nature and Essence of God and therein equal to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which there is just matter of doubting as to the * Instit Theol. lib. 4. cap. 32. Person nam'd but now he making the Son in the Deity it self not co-ordinate but subordinate to the First Person I say though this Opinion thus stated be nothing neer so bad as the former yet †Censura Profess Leid in c. 3. p. 51. Trigland in Exam. Apâ—log cap. 5. Alting Theol. Elenc p. 151. c. et p. 181. c. Divines of another persuasion cannot close with it or let it pass without some Confutation The Arguments against it do very much fall in with those which have been insisted upon already 1. First if Christ be the Son of God as eternally begotten with respect to his Divine Nature and also the Son of God as conceived in time c. with respect to his Humane Nature then the Scripture doth groundlesly and needlesly distinguish betwixt his being the Son of God in reference to the one and his being the Son of Man in reference to the other Nature Why doth it make him to be * Rom. 1.3 4. God's Son according to the Spirit of Holiness i. e. his Divine Nature and the Son of David according to the Flesh i. e. his Humane Nature if with respect to both he be the Son of God this is to confound those things which the Scripture makes distinct and places under several references Christ's Sonships as the Son of God and as the Son of Man are two very different things and therefore they cannot have the same foundation 'T is true he who is the Son of Man is also the Son of God but as he is the Son of Man or in what is proper to him as the Son of Man so he is not the Son of God And 't is true these two in concreto may convertibly be predicated each of the other thus the Son of God is the Son of Man and the Son of Man is the Son of God but this is founded not upon the oneness of the foundation of the Relation nor upon the oneness of the two Natures but upon the * Inficiamur Christum esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. quamvis propter Naturam Humanam personae divinae hypostaticè unitam dicamus etiam in concreto hunc hominem Jefum Deum ac Filium Dei unigenitum esse per communicationem idiomatum c. Cloppenb Comp. Socin p. 38. communication of properties and the union of the two Natures in one Person It comes to this where the relations are distinct the grounds of these relations must be distinct and therefore Christ's Sonship as the Son of God and as the Son of Man being distinct there cannot be one and the same ground of them 2. If this was so that Christ was the Son of God conjunctly upon his eternal Generation and also upon his conception and advancement in time then he would strangely differ in the same relation I do not contradict my self in what I said but now under the former head for there I spake of both the Sonships of Christ which differ very much and must not be confounded but here I speak only of his single Sonship as he is the Son of God which is but one and must not be divided Observe me as the difference of the Sonships of Christ as the Son of God and as the Son of Mary depends upon the difference of their Grounds eternal Generation being the ground of the one and temporal Generation being the ground of the ooher so the oneness of the same single Sonship of Christ as the Son of God depends upon the oneness of the ground of it viz. his Generation by the Father for if you add any other ground to this then Christ ceases to be one Son then he is the Son of God partly by Nature and partly by Grace partly begotten and partly made partly from eternity and partly in time what a strange Son would Christ be upon these terms 3. There can be but one true and proper Cause of one and the same Filiation this hath been already proved Divines are so tender of multiplying this relation of Christ that several of them though they grant the distinction of his Natures and hold his twofold Generation yet they argue but for one Sonship to belong to him for say they Sonship belonging to the Person and being founded upon the Person Christ being but one Person therefore he can have but one Sonship so * 3. p. Quest 35. Art 5. in corpore Art Aquinas argues I concur with †See Durandus Rada c. Junius Martinius Amesius in Hoorneb Socin Conf. tom 2. de Christo c. 1. p. 30 31 32. Others who attribute a twofold Sonship to Christ but then I affirm that each of them have but that one single Cause or foundation which is respectively proper to them 't is only eternal Generation of the Father which makes Christ to be the Son of God and 't is only temporal Generation of the Virgin which makes him to be the Son of Man 4. We say Oppositorum opposita ratio if Christ be the Son of Man only because he was conceived of the substance of his Mother then he is the Son of God only upon the account of his being begotten of the substance of his Father as a * Dr O. ag B. p. 179. Worthy Author argues 5. Whatever is over and above eternal Generation is but manifestative and not constitutive of Christ's Sonship this hath been made out in the several particulars alleadg'd therefore it will be needless to add any thing further upon it I have shown wherein and how Christ is the Son of God his own proper Son I 'le but propound one Question and very briefly Answer it and then I shall have finish'd the Explicatory part 'T is this if Christ be God's Son because in his ineffable Generation the Divine Essence was communicated to him Quest. Of the different Communication of the Divine Essence from the Father to the Son and to the holy Ghost Answ why may not the Holy Ghost the third Person also be stiled the Son of God to whom the same Essence was communicated as well as unto Christ I answer No for two Reasons 1. Because 't is the same Essence in
kinds or Species of them there were the Burnt-offerings about which Rules are set down Lev. 1. Meat-offerings of which Levit. 2. Peace-offerings Levit. 3. the Sin-offering Levit. 4. the Trespass-offering Levit. 5. and 6. * Philo Jud. de Vict. p. 648. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some reduce all to three the Burnt-offering the Peace-offering the Sin-offering †Joseph Ant. l. 3. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Some to two the Holoucast and the Thank-offering but of such different apprehensions there 's no end Now though these Sacrifices were thus diversify'd amongst themselves yet the most if not all of them agreed in this that they were in their Vse End and Effects of an expiatory nature I say all for unquestionably it belong'd not only to the Sacrifices us'd at the anniversary Expiation nor only to the Sin-offering and Trespass-offering to expiate sin but all the rest more or or less were designed for this end and accordingly did produce this effect Agreeably to which Christ the true and great Sacrifice in the offering up of himself to God did truly properly expiate sin for if they did so he then much more because they in their expiation were types of him in his expiation now whatever is in the type must needs be in the thing typified as also because their expiation was done in the strength and virtue of Christs Sacrifice now surely that which gives expiatory virtue to other things must needs have such virtue in it self Four things propounded for the opening proving of Christ's being an Expiatory Socrifice For the better opening and proving of Christ's being an expiatory Sacrifice by making a collation or parallel between him and the expiatory Sacrifices under the Law there are these Four things which I shall endeavour to make good 1. That in those expiatory Sacrifices whatever was laid upon them is was for the sin of the People as the impulsive and meritorious Cause thereof and that so it was with Christ in his Sufferings 2. That those Sacrifices were substituted in the place and stead of the Offenders themselves bearing their punishment and that so it was with Christ in reference to Sinners 3. That those Sacrifices were to be offered up killed slain consumed and in that way they became expiatory and that so it was with Christ 4. That by those Sacrifices God was actually atoned and propitiated the expiation and remission of Sin procured and that so it was by Christ These things being cleared and proved it will be evident that Christ was a true expiatory Sacrifice I 'le go over them as briefly as the nature of the thing will admit of Of the First whatever befel the Expiatory Sacrifices was for the Peoples Sin and so it was with Christ in his Sufferings 1. First I say in those expiatory Sacrifices whatever was laid upon them it was for the Sin of the people as the impulsive and meritorious Cause thereof For wherefore were the poor innocent Beasts and living Creatures killed and slain as they were what had they done that so many of them must be put to death from day to day did God delight in making his Temple a slaughter-house was it his pleasure to have it thus that he might shew his dominion and soveraignty over the Creature surely that was not the great thing which he design'd therein he had other ways which might seem more suitable to his goodness and pity to his Creatures wherein he might have made known his dominion over them And besides if this was the thing only aimed at why must the people lay their hands upon the Cattel when they were sacrificed why must they confess their sins over them as you 'l see under the next Head they were to do these rites evidently declare that God did not here proceed in the way of absolute dominion but that there was sin in the case as the procuring Cause of all this and if so they having no sin of their own for which they could thus suffer their suffering must be resolved into the sin of the people as that which brought it upon them So it was with Christ our Sacrifice his Sufferings were exceeding sharp his precious life was taken from him he dy'd upon the Cross indured hard usage indeed whence did all this befal him was there not some special Cause why it should be thus with God's own Son yes what was that why Sin Sin was that cause but whose sin not his own for he was perfectly free from all sin he knew no sin 2 Cor. 5.21 he was holy harmless undefiled separate from Sinners Heb. 7.26 a Lamb without blemish and without spot 1 Pet. 1.19 it must be our sin then that was the meritorious Cause of all Christ's sufferings Dan. 9.26 After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off but not for himself Isa 53.4 5 6. Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows yet we did esteem him stricken smitten of God and afflicted But he was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed All we like sheep have gone astray we have turned every one to his own way and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all Rom. 3.25 Who was delivered for our offences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and raised again for our justification 't is the same Preposition in both branches but its sense is different which difference rises from the different nature of the matter spoken of for when 't is joyned with sins or offences it imports that they were the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings but when 't is joyn'd with Christ's resurrection and the Sinners justification there its signification and import is final yet too in such a sense the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken meritoriously in the latter as well as in the former branch * De Servat p. 3. c. 7. p. 3. c. 7. SOCINVS tells us that this with some other parallel expressions only notes our sins to be the occasion but not the impulsive Cause of Christ's Sufferings as also that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both here and else where alwayes taken in a final never in any meritorious sense But most * Ubi est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Accusativo quae apud Graecae Linguae Authores Sacros Profanos usitatissima est nota Causae impulsivae Ut cum dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter haec venit ira Dei in filios contumaciae Eph. 5.6 Grot. de Sat. Christi c. 1. in Rom. 4.25 untruly for 't is said Eph. 5.6 because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these things as those which merit and bring down the Wrath of God upon Sinners But I will not stay upon the refuting of the usual Cavils and false assertions about this
necessitas propitiationem requirit propitiatio non fit nisi per hostiam necessarium suit provideri hostiam pro peccato Orig. in Numb Hom. 4. Christ himself be made a Sacrifice for sin why must he take flesh and then die in that flesh why must his precious blood be poured out why must he feel the wrath of his Father be under a necessity of suffering and of such suffering too was there not a cause for this yes surely and what could that be but satisfaction God had great and weighty Reasons which made him to insist upon this so as that he would in this and in no other way let out his Love and Mercy to Sinners for instance he must vindicate his truth make good his threatning maintain his own honour as also the honour of his Laws make known his Holiness let the world see what Sin was what an extreme hatred he had to it keep up and assert his rectoral righteousness c. for though as * Vid. Hulsium in Theol. Jud. p. 473. Grot. de Sat. c. 2. pars offensa and creditor he might have done what he pleas'd yet as rector mundi he must do that which shall speak him to be just and righteous in his Government now were not these great and weighty reasons for God to do what he did and could these high ends have been attain'd without satisfaction All his Attributes were equally dear to him and thereupon shall all be advanc'd alike he was not for the advancing of Mercy only but of Justice also and therefore he will so carry it in his dealings with man as that he may glorifie the one as well as the other If he justifie the Sinner wherein he displays so much of Mercy hee 'l do it in such a way as that he may display his Justice too wherefore Christ must be a Sacrifice first to expiate Sin by his blood and then God will not charge it upon the Sinner Rom. 3.25 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past c. he goes over it again To declare I say at this time his righteousness wherein or son what end that be might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus what could the Apostle have spoken fuller plainer to determine the business in hand how can the Denyers of Christ's Satisfaction and of the necessity thereof stand before the light of this Scripture Propitiation must be made by blood by the blood of Christ that thereby God might declare his righteousness that he might be just not so much in himself and in the general as in this special act of the justifying of a Sinner Had we no other Text in all the sacred Records but this one me-thinks it should be enough to silence and convince gain-sayers 't is a bulwark for Faith which will stand firm in spite of all the little batteries that men can make against it But the truth of Christ's satisfying divine Justice will yet more fully appear from what follows in the next Head therefore I go on to that The true Nature and. Ends of Christ's Death 2. Secondly this may help us to right notions concerning the Nature and Ends of Christ's death For if it be ask'd How or in what manner he dy'd we see he dy'd as a Sacrifice if it be further ask'd Wherefore did he die or what were the main ends of his dying I answer he dy'd chiefly for such ends as are most proper to Sacrifices If God's own Son die undoubtedly there must be something special in his death and some great ends must be design'd to be promoted thereby * 2 Sam. 3.33 died Abner as a fool dieth but what were they Answ such as may best comport and suit with the common ends of all Sacrifices especially of those by which he was more directly typified therefore the pacifying of an angry God the purifying of a guilty Sinner being the principal ends in the death of the typical Sacrifices as you have heard answerably these must also be the principal ends of the death of Christ the real Sacrifice The SOCINIANS in this matter run into two dangerous Errors 1. they make that in Christ's death to be supream and principal which was indeed but subordinate nay 2. they make that which was but subordinate to be the sole thing therein altogether excluding and denying what was supream and principal Now this one thing which I am upon viz. Christ's being and dying as a Sacrifice in correspondency with the Ends of the Levitical Sacrifices was it rightly understood and firmly believ'd would be a sufficient confutation of and antidote against their pernicious tenents For do they say that the main end of the death of Christ was to turn men from sin the contrary appears because that was not the main end in the Law-Sacrifices or do they say that Christ died only for our good 't was not so because that doth not agree with the Law-Sacrifices which were offered not only for the Sinners good but in the Sinners stead or do they say that he died only as a Witness of the Truth as an Example c. 't was not so neither because it shuts out that which was the principal intendment of the Law-Sacrifices But besides this there are some other things of considerable strength which that we may the better take in we must more particularly enquire into those Causes or Ends of Christ's death which * Socin de Serv. p. 1. c. 3. c. et de Officio Christi Crellius de Caus Mortis Christi with all the rest Against them see Grot. de Sat. p. 26. c. Franz de Sacrif p. 400. c. et 606 c. Hoornb Socin conf l. 3. p. 492. c. Portus contra Ostorod p. 447. c. Turret p. 7. p. 247. c. Dr. Stillingst discourse concerning the true Reasons of the Sufferings of Christ with many Others they assign that by the removal of false Causes and Ends I mean in their exclusive sense the true ones may the better appear They say therefore 1. Christ dy'd for this End that he might bear witness to the truth confirm the Evangelical Doctrine and give assurance to the world of the verity of what he had taught To which we reply the question is not whether these were true and proper Ends that we readily grant but whether they were the principal much more the sole Ends of Christ's death that we utterly deny And our denyal is grounded upon these Reasons 1. All along in Scripture the confirmation of the Doctrine of the Gospel is laid upon Christ's Works and Miracles not upon his Death reade Act. 2.22 Joh. 10.25 passim And he having by these given a sufficient proof or evidence of the truth of what he had taught it cannot be imagined that he dy'd only or chiefly for this that by his
as practical as operative and powerful this this is that knowledge which is to be desired When Paul had spoken so high of the knowledge of Christ * Phil. 3.8 Yea doubtless and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord see how he opens that knowledge of him which he look'd upon as so excellent Vers 10. That I may know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings being made conformable unto his death 'T is a poor thing to have light about this in the head if that light be not attended with power and efficacy upon the heart and life the clearest notions concerning Christ's death without suitable impressions within and that which in the Sinner himself may bear some analogie and conformity thereunto do not profit O therefore so study a crucified Saviour as to be * Gal. 2.20 crucified with him †Rom. 6.8 dead with him so as to feel the energie of his death in the heavenliness of your affections and holiness of your conversations this is the knowledge which we should study and pray for and aspire after For the Second Christ as a Sacrifice is also much to be meditated upon O how frequent how serious and fixed should our thoughts be upon this how should we be often reviving this upon our minds never suffering it to decay or wither in our memories This is so great and necessary a duty that we have an Ordinance instituted by Christ on purpose and for this very end often to inminde us of his dying as our Sacrifice and to keep it fresh upon our memories for ever * 1 Cor. 11.24 26. Do this in remembrance of me As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come But 't is not enough to think of this just before or at the Sacrament but we should live in daily frequent meditation upon it I say we should do so but alas 't is to be feared we do not so O how little is a dying crucified Christ thought of the dying Friend or Relation is remembred but the dying Saviour is forgotten this proclaims to the world that we have but a low sense of his great love that we see but little in his oblation for surely if we did we should think oftner of it and after another manner than now we do Christians pray be sensible of former neglects and let it be better for the future let not a day pass over you wherein some time shall not be spent in remembring and considering what Christ your Sacrifice upon the Cross suffered for you Upon this also you would reap great advantages for certainly was Christ's death but duly thought of and improved Oh 't would highly imbitter sin effectually wean from the world and the sensual delights thereof mightily encourage and strengthen Hope and Faith strongly engage the Soul to Obedience c. therefore pray be persuaded to think less of other things and more of this And do not barely think of it but think what there 's in it yea labour to go to the very bottom of it and by serious meditation to press out all that juyce and sweetness which is in it the believer should be alwayes sitting upon this flower and sucking comfort from it What 's the full breast to the child that doth not draw it Christ as a Sacrifice for sin is a full breast but yet if Sinners by Faith Prayer and Meditation do not draw from this breast they will be little the better for it He was indeed but once offered but that one oblation is often to be remembred and continually to be improved with respect both to Duty and Comfort how that is to be done the following particulars will shew The Heart in the sense of this to be broken for sin and from sin 2. This should have a very powerful influence upon you to break your hearts for sin and from sin First for sin was Christ indeed made a Sacrifice as such was his body broken and his precious blood poured forth did he undergo such sufferings in his life and then compleat all in his dying on the Cross and all for sin how can this be thought of with any seriousness and the heart not be kindly and thoroughly broken what will cause the hard heart to melt and thaw into godly sorrow for sin if the consideration of Christ's Sacrifice and death will not do it Oh me thinks his blood as shed for Sinners should soften the most Adamantine heart that is Did we but consider our Saviours passion in the matter and quality of it in its bitter ingredients and heightning circumstances and then also consider that our sins were the meritorious cause of it that they brought him to the Cross and laid the foundation of all his sorrows did we I say but consider this certainly we should be more deeply afflicted for Sin than now we are What that I should be accessary to the death of the Son of God that I should bring the nails and spears which should pierce him that I should be the occasion of all his sufferings in Soul and Body what a cutting heart-breaking consideration is this Zech. 12. 10. they shall look upon me whom they have pierced what follows and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only Son and shall be in bitterness for him as one that is in bitterness for his first-born the true penitent cannot look upon a crucified Saviour especially when he considers what he hath done to further his Saviours crucifixion without the highest degree of holy grief But especially this heart-brokenness should be in us when we are at the Sacrament where we have such a sensible and lively representation of Christ's Death and Sacrifice Oh shall we there see his broken body and yet our hearts be unbroken shall we view him there shedding his blood and we shed no penitential tears shall we there behold what he endured and felt for Sin and we yet have no pain no contrition for it how unsuitable is such a frame to such an object under such a representation What was the temper think you of the Women who were * Mat. 27.55 spectators of Christ when he was hanging upon the Cross unquestionably they were filled with inexpressible sorrow why Sirs when you are at the Lord's Table in a spiritual way you see him also as dying upon the Cross he is there before your eyes evidently set forth and crucified among you Gal. 3.1 Oh how should your * Lam. 3.51 eye affect your heart even to fill you with Evangelical sorrow Three things in the Text to set men against Sin But this is not enough therefore 2. there must be brokenness from sin as well as for sin surely after such a thing as Christ's death Sin must be lov'd and liv'd no more the heart must eternally be broken off from it