generation and spiritual marriage with the Son of God, as we have shown on the ninth Lord's day. Because others join themselves to believers by an outward profession, they also are called the children of God from the better part of the church, though they are not so in spirit and truth, but only in the letter,Gen. vii. 12.

But Christ is the Son of God in another, and a more exalted sense, on account of which he is the only begotten Son of God, and indeed so that he is the proper Son of God, being "the eternal and natural Son of God," of the same essence with the Father, as one man is à son of another, who is a partaker of his Father's nature by his birth. In order to explain this, we will show, 1. That he is of the same essence with the Father, very God. 2. What is the ground and trus reason of his Sonship.

1. We must show that he is of the same essence with the Father and so very God for our own confirmation, and in order to confute the Socinians, who assert that he was but a mere man, who had no existence at all before his birth of Mary: they would indeed with s feigned words make merchandize of us, in order to beguile us, sayign, that many titles which belong to God are given to Christ, and that he is therefore God; but they will not allow that he is the su preme God, and God co-essential with the Father; but that he is truly the supreme God, co-essential with the Father, appears not only from the equality and oneness of his essence with that of the Father and Holy Ghost, John v. 18. x. 30, as we have proved more particularly on the eighth Lord's day, but also from the names, attributes, works and honour of God, which are ascribed to him in the -word of God; for he who is called God, who hath the attributes of God, and doth the works of God, and whom we must honour and serve as God, he is the true and supreme God. Now Christ is called God, he hath the attributes, and doth the works of God, and we must honour and serve him as God; consequently he is the true God. The first proposition cannot be denied; for how should we otherwise prove that any one is God? The second proposition is also evident: for

(a) The names of God are ascribed to Christ, for he is called God Psalm xlv. 6, 7. Heb. i. 8, 9. "To the Son he saith, thy throne O God, is for ever and ever; therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee." And the name of God is given to him, not only as a name of honour and office, but also subjectively, as that which is ascribed to him as a subject; "God was manifest in the flesh," 1 Tim. iii. 16. See also John xx. 28. Acts xx. 28. And so it is said, that "he was in the form of God," Philip. ii. 8-"the true

C

God," John v. 20, the mighty God," Isaiah ix. 5-" God our all, blessed for evermore," Rom. ix. 5. Therefore the name Jehovah is also appropriated to him: "He is called the Lord our righteousness," Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. This we find also, Hosea i. 7. Isaiah vi. -10, compared with 1 Cor. x. 9, 10. Compare also Psalm Ixviii. 18, with Eph. iv. 7, 8. It is true that when the Jews would stone him for blasphemy, because he, being a man, made himself God, he said, "Is it not written in your law, I have said ye are gods?" John x. but we cannot infer from this that he calls himself God in the same sense, in which the magistrates are called gods ; for he saith, vrs. 30, that "he is one with the Father;" but he com cludes from the less to the greater, that if magistrates be called gods, he did not blaspheme when he called himself the son of God, because he was greater and worthier than the magistrates, John x. 30-38.

Rev. i. 8, Micha v. 1. See John

(b) The divine attributes of supreme perfection, independence, simplicity, and unchangeableness are ascribed to Christ. "He is before all things, from everlasting," Coll. i. 17. He is allknowing, "knowing all things," John xxi. 17. ii. 24, 25. Rev. ii. 23. Yea, he is "the Almighty," Rev. i. 8. Philip. iii. 21.

(c) He doth the works of God: " for what the Father doth, the same doth the Son likewise," John v. 19. "Of old he laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of his hands," Psalm cii. 26, 27, 28. Heb. i. 10, 11, 12. Psalm xxviii. 6. John i. 1, 2, 3, Coll. i. 17. The work of providence is also ascribed to him; "for all things consist by him," Coll. i. 17. Heb. i. 3. Doing miracles and wonders by his own power, was his proper work,↑ and it is "God alone, who doth wonderous things," Psalm Ixxii. 18. cxxxvi. 4. Yea, the whole work of redemption is ascribed to him, as his economy; but this is the work of God the Lord only," Hosea i. 7.

(d) "All men must honour him also, even as they honour the Father," John v. 23. Isaiah xlv. 23. Rom. xiv. 10, 11. For we must worship him, as Stephen did, Acts vii. 59. 60, and all the Chris. tians, 1 Cor. i. 2. It is the will of God" that all the angels should worship him," Heb. 1. 6. And this is also a divine honour, which we must offer to none but God, Matt. iv. 10. We must be baptised in his name, Matt. xxviii. 19, but not in the name of any creature, 1 Cor. i. 13. We must believe in him as well as in God the Fa ther John xiv. 1. Psalm ii. 12. But "cursed is the man who trusteth in man," xvii. 5.

It naturally follows from these several particulars, considered in connexion, that he is the supreme and true God, co-essen. tial with the Father. It is of no avail what the Socinians object here, that Christ is a man, inferior to the Father, the Father's servant, that he humbled himself so low, and more of this kind; for we do not say that he is God, as far as he is man, inferior to the Fa ther, or humbled; and therefore these suggestions do not affect our opinion. Yea, the Socinians are obliged to explain how it is possible that he who is inferior to the Father. should nevertheless be God. See Matt. 'xxii. 43-46. They cannot say that he is a God, inferior to the Father; for then we should have two Gods; besides there is no superiority, nor inferiority in the Godhead, the infe ior God is no God.

2. But that on which we must insist most of all with the instructor, is, what is the ground and true reason of his Sonship The -"Arians imagined that Christ was called the Son of God, because God created him before all things; but this opinion is become obsolete. The Socinians imagine that the grounds of Christ's Sonship are, (a) that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, (b) that he was sanctified by the Father; which imports that he received abundantly the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and was sent into the world with a divine authority and power to save mankind, (c) that the Father loves him in a special manner, and more than others, (d) that he was raised from the dead, (e) and exalted to the right hand of the Father; but these are not the true grounds of his Sonship; for he was the Son of God before he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, sanctified, raised from the dead, and exalted; for "he was brought forth when there were no depths," Prov. viii. 24. If these be the grounds of his Sonship, then he is the Son of God only according to his human nature, but not according to his divine nature, contrary to Rom. i. 3, 4, where it is said, that "he was of the seed of David according to the flesh," (and so David's son according to the human nature,) “but the Son of God according to the Spirit of holiness." And truly the Socinian grounds do not constitute him the Son of God, but suppose, and prove that he is the Son. See Rom. i. 4.

The church hath always opposed these errours, even to the present day, and taught that the only and true ground of the Sonship of Christ is his eternal and natural generation by the Father, who communicated his essence in and by himself to the Son, in an incomprehensible manner, without change. This was properly expressed by the council of Nice against Arius, in the year 325, when that assembly obliged the professors of Christianity to say, "We believe

in the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

But is it not a lamentable consideration? men have risen up among us, speaking perverse things, for they deny the eternal and natural generation of the Son of God; and say that he is called the Son of God, because he is co-essential with the Father. So they taught at the first, but seeing that this could not be the proper ground of his sonship, they have devised and pretended something else, to wit, that the ground of Christ's sonship is, that he was ordained, disposed, or appointed and sent by the Father to perform the office of Mediator. And are ye desirous of knowing the secret? these men have persuaded themselves, that man is possessed of a treasure of innate ideas, which are to be the rule of all the conceptions, that he ought to form of the truth, and that whatever agrees not with those ideas ought to be rejected as an errour. Now since they cannot find in themselves an idea of such a divine generation, they have therefore rejected it, and substituted something else in the place of it. *

But it is evident to us, that Christ is the eternal and natural Son of God by an eternal and inconceivable generation.

1. Because the Son of God saith this of himself, John v. 26. "As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." It is certain that the life of the Father is his es sence; that he hath this life and essence in himself; that he hath it essentially, necessarily and independently; that the Son hath life in himself thus also; but how hath he this life and essence in himself; it is given to him by his father, to have it in himself. Who can understand this, unless he will admit such a generation of the Son of God? Add to this,

2. That the word of God expressly informs us, that he was begotten of the Father from eternity. Thus he speaks of himself, Rev. viii. 24, 25. "When there were no depths, I was brought forth. Before the hills I was brought forth." Therefore the Father said also to his Son, before he had promised him an inheritance, and so

Our author hath respect here to Herman Alexander Roell, and his disciples. He was a professor of theology in the university of Franeker, and afterwards of Utrecht, in the United Provinces. His opinions were condemned by the synods of the United Provinces, and be consented to bury them in silence for the peace of the church. Although his disciples gave solemn protestations of the soundness of their religious sentiments, they were nevertheless suspect d of concealed errours.

A

from eternity," Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, Psalm ii. 7. Therefore he is also called the only begotten Son of God, John i. 14, 18. iii. 16. It ought not to be said, that Psalm ii. 7, speaks of the resurrection of Christ, because Paul saith, Acts xiii. 32, 33, "We declare unto you glad tidings, 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 plalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee;" for he only showeth in whom God hath fulfilled the promise, namely in his son, whom he hath begotten, of whom he spoke in the second psalm; but in the thirty-fourth verse the apostle undertakes to prove that God had raised him from the dead, for he begins there a new proposition, saying, "and that he raised him up from the dead now no more to return to corruption;" he proves this not from Psalm ii. 7, but from Isaiah Iv: 33, and from Psalm xvi. 10. Should it he said, that the phrase "to bring forth" signifies someties to reveal, er discover, as Prov. xvii.17, "A brother is born (or brought forth) in adversity," and Prov. xxvii. 1. "Thou knowest not what a day may bring forth," we will admit, that to bring forth, denotes in these passages improperly to reveal, or discover; but must it therefore be understood in such a sense in those passages which speak of the generation of the Son? surely, no: for Christ is always said to have been brought forth in such a manner, that he became a Son thereby, and that the Father gave him life. Moreover the phrase, to bring forth signifies in those passages not only to reveal, but also to bring forth, as a mother brings forth a child.

3. Christ is the Son of God so, that "he is the express image of the Father's Person," Heb. i. 4. God hath expressed his image also in angels and men, but they cannot on that account be called the express image of his person, as the apostle also shows, when he adds, vrs. 34, "Being made so much better than the angels, 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." We cannot surely understand this any other way, than of a proper generation, by which the Father communicated his essence to his Son,

4. Christ is God's "own Son," Rom. viii. 32, and God is "his own Father," John v. 18. Now we never say that any person is an own son, or own father, except on account of a proper and natural gen