ift, It is faid, that he is called the Son of God on the account of his miraculous conception and birth. The only fcripture on which this is formed, is Luke i. 35. "And the angel anfwered and faid unto her, The Holy Ghost "shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: "therefore also, that holy thing which fhall be born of thee, fhall be called "the Son of God." It will be neceffary, before I give my reasons against the notion, built upon this text, to confider the text itself, on which it is built; and fhew that it has no foundation in it: in order to which, let it be obferved, 1. That this fcripture does not fay, that therefore the holy thing born of the virgin, fhould be, but that it fhould be called the Son of God. It is true indeed, that fuch an Hebraifm is fometimes used; and when perfons or things are faid to be called, the meaning is, that they are. Thus when the faints are faid to be called the Sons of God, the meaning is, that they are the Sons of God. So when it is prophefied of Christ, that his name fhall be called wonderful, counsellor, &c. the meaning is, not that he should be ufually called by those names, but that he should appear to be all that which was answerable to those names. But this phrase, the Son of God, being a name by which Chrift has been, and is ufually called, fuch an Hebraism seems not to be intended here. The angel is not giving a reafon of Chrift's being the Son of God, or of his conftitution as fuch; for he was the Son of God long before his incarnation; but is fpeaking of his declaration and manifestation as fuch in the human nature. Besides, 2. The angel does not predict that he should, for this reason, be called the Son; for either he must call himself fo, or others must call him fo on this account; or else, the angel's prediction must be falfe. Now, though he called himself so, and has been often called fo by others in the New Testament; yet we never read that he was called fo for this reafon; confequently this cannot be the angel's meaning; or elfe, what he faid was falfe, which must by no means be admitted. Again, The angel is but why he 3. The particle therefore, is not caufal, but confequential. not giving a reafon, why Christ should be the Son of God, fhould be owned, acknowledged, embraced, and received as fuch by his people; who would infer and conclude from his wonderful conception and birth, that he must be the Immanuel, God with us, Ifaiah prophefied of, chap. vii. 14. That he must be the child that was to be born, and the Son that was given, whose y Catechif. Racov. de perfona Chrifti, c. 1. p. 48. Volkelius de vera Religione, 1. 3. C. 1. p. 38. Enjedini Explic, loc. p. 203, 261. Schlicting, in Heb. i. 1. p. 16. Ed. Racov. whose name fhould be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, &c. of whom the fame prophet speaks, chap. ix. 6. Once more, 4. The particle xai, rendered alfo ought not to be overlooked: "Therefore "alfo, the holy thing, &c." The meaning is, that the divine Ay, or Word, being the Son of God, the holy thing which was to be born of the virgin, or the human nature, when united to him, should also be called the Son of God. So that it is not the wonderful conception and birth of the human nature, but the union of it to the divine nature, which was then made, which is the reason why the human nature is called the Son of God; which is what divines call a communication of idioms, or properties; whereby names and things proper to one nature, are predicated of the perfon of Chrift, in the other; of which we have many inftances in fcripture: See John iii. 13. I Cor. ii. 8. Aas xx. 28. Having now given the fenfe of this text, which is the only one pretended to, to build the hypothefis upon; I fhall proceed to give my reafons. against it. And, (1.) If the miraculous conception and birth of Chrift is the ground and foundation of his being the Son of God, then the Holy Ghost must be the Father of Chrift, fince he had a special and peculiar concern in that stupendous work. This the Socinians have been often preffed with by many excellent men who have written against them; but none I ever met with, have ventured to own the confequence. Yet a late writer has been fo hardy as to affert in express terms, that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Chrift; his words are thefe: "The fure word declares the Son was conceived by the Holy Spirit; "therefore he was the Father of Chrift in the nature which was conceived, "and was made of a woman; as it must be true, that he, by whom the "the child was conceived, is the Father." He argues both from scripture and reason; but his arguments from both are exceeding bad. He fays, "The fure word declares the Son was conceived by the Holy Ghost;" and therefore was the Father of Chrift: whereas, the fure word declares that "a virgin fhall conceive and bear a Son, &c." And the angel declared to Mary, when he brought her the news of the incarnation, that she should "conceive in her womb, and bring forth a Son." It is indeed faid, that "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghoft;" but it is never said, that it was conceived by him. It was the virgin that conceived under the overshadowing z Smiglecius de Christo vero naturali Dei filio. c 1. p. 24, 28. Calov. Socinifm. Profligat. Art. 2. Controv. 7. p. 207, 208. Stegmanni Photinianifmus, Difp. 16. p. 180. Marefii Hydra Socinianifmi, tom. 2. p. 6. The great Concern of Jew and Gentile, &c. p. 42. b Ifaiah vii. 14. c. Luke i. 31. d Matt. i. 20.. overshadowing of the Holy Ghoft. He adds, from reafon, as he thinks, "It must be true, that he, by whom the child was conceived, is the Father." But I am perfuaded, that all mankind, both male and female, except this author, and he too with a very little reflection, will conclude that the child is conceived, not by the Father, but by the mother of it. That the Holy Ghoft is the Father of Chrift, is not a hafty thought of this author's, or a fudden flip of the pen, but a fettled and established notion of his; and what he published in a pamphlet above eleven years ago. Against which I object as follows: If the Holy Spirit is the Father of Chrift, then there must be two fathers in the Trinity; and fo a wretched confufion be introduced there. Whereas, we read but of one Father, and he diftinct from the Word and Spirit. We are baptized in the name of one Father, one Son, and one Holy Spirit. Befides, the Father of Chrift, is, in many places, diftinguished from the Spirit; and therefore cannot be the fame. Yea, the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son ; which he would not be, if he was the Father of him. Add to this, that Chrift, as man, had no Father. Mary called Jofeph his father, because he was reputed to be fo, as he was fuppofed to be the son of Jofeph; but in reality he had no father as man. As he was αμήτωρ, without mother, with refpect to his divine nature, fo he was arάrap, without Father, with respect to his human nature; on which account Melchizedeck was a proper type of him. He is never faid to be begotten by the Holy Ghoft; nor is he ever faid to be begotten as man. He is faid to be conceived in the womb of the virgin, to be made flesh, and to be made of a woman, but never to be begotten as man. All those scriptures which speak of him as the only begotten Son, are to be understood in another fenfe, as I fhall fhew hereafter. g (2.) If the incarnation of Christ is the ground and foundation of his being the Son of God, then there was no God, the Father of Christ under the Old Teftament, nor much more than seventeen hundred years ago. The Marcionites of old afferted this; which put the ancient writers upon proving that it was the Father of Chrift who made the world", gave the law, fpoke by the prophets, and was the author of the Old Teftament; which the apostle strongly confirms, when he fays: "God, who at fundry times and in divers manners, fpake in time paft unto the Fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days "fpoke unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by "whom alfo he made the worlds'." Nor is it difficult to prove, that he exifted as the Father of Chrift, before the foundation of the world for as "the f The truth as it is in Jefus, &c. §. 19. p. 21. §. 47. P. 45. and xv. 26. Eph. i. 17. and iii. 14, 16. ! Heb. i. 1, 2. "the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, he hath bleffed us with all "spiritual blessings, in heavenly places in Chrift, according as he hath chosen "us in him before the foundation of the world *." m (3.) If. Chrift is the Son of God according to the human nature only, then that diftinctive phrafe, according to the flesh, which the apostle Paul fometimes makes use of, when speaking of the person of Christ, is useless and impertinent, If he was a Son only as man, it would be needless to add, according to the flesh. We never fay of any one, that he is the fon of fuch an one, according to the flesh, but only that he is his fon. Chrift is the son of David, according to the flesh, or the human nature; but he is the Son of God, according to the divine nature; which is the true reafon of the apostle's use of the phrase', in Rom. i. 4. where he fays, "Concerning his Son Jefus Chrift, who was made "of the feed of David, according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of "God, with power, according to the Spirit of holiness." See alfo Rom. ix. 5. (4.) The incarnation of Chrift cannot be the reafon and foundation of his divine Sonship; because he was not thereby made the Son of God, but only manifested to be fo. "For this purpose, fays the apostle, the Son of God " was manifefted "," that is, in human nature, it being a phrafe equipollent to "God manifeft in the flefh." Now as he was God, before he was manifest in the flesh; so he must be the Son of God, before he was manifested to deftroy the works of the devil. When God is faid to fend forth his Son, made of a woman, or in the likeness of finful flesh; it is certain, that he was a Son before he was fent, before he was made of a woman, or appeared in the likeness of finful flesh. He did not fend forth his Son to become a Son; but he fent him forth to become man. That Chrift exifted as the Son of God, before his incarnation, may easily be collected out of the writings of the Old Testament. The Jews, in Chrift's time, feem well acquainted with the phrafe, the Son of God; and by it understood a divine Perfon; as is easy to observe in many places": now this they muft learn from the books of the Old Teftament. Their ancient writers speak of the Aóyos, or Word of God, as his Son. The Jerufalem Targum, on Gen. iii. 22. calls the Word of the Lord VOL. III. L * Eph. i. 3. 4. the 1 Sic & Apoftolus de utraque ejus fubftantia docet: Qui factus eft, inquit, ex femine David, hic erit homo & filius hominis; qui definitus eft filius Dei fecundum fpiritum, hic erit Deus & fermo, Dei filius: videmus duplicem ftatum, non confufum, fed conjunctum in una persona, Deum & hominem, Jefum. Tertullian. adv. Praxeam, c. 27. Πλὴν ἀρκεῖ τὸ φάναι καλὰ σάρκα, παραδηλῶσαι τὴν σεσιγημένην θεότητα. Κοινῷ γὰρ ἀνθρώπες διδάσκων συγΓένειαν, ε λέγω τῷ δεῖνος ὁ δεῖνα καλὰ σάρκα υἱὸς, ἀλλ ̓ απλῶς υἱὸς. Theodoret. Dialog. 1. p. 46. Ed. Strigel. m 1 John iii. 8. Matt. xiv. 33. and xxvi. 63. and xxvii. 40, 54. John v. 17, 18. and x. 30, 33-36. the only begotten in the highest heavens. Philo the Jew fpeaks of God as unbegotten; and of the divine Word as begotten. He calls him the first begotten Word, and fometimes the firft begotten Son1. He fays the world is God's younger Son, and that he has one older than that; who, because of his feniority, abides with him. Yea, he calls him his most ancient Son', and a Son of complete virtue, who acts the part of an advocate. And as to his generation, he says, that he is not unbegotten as God, nor yet begotten as men". Ben Sira, a famous Jew, who lived many years before Chrift's time, and was the author of the apocryphal book of Ecclefiafticus, fpeaks of the Lord God as a Father, and as having a Son, when he fays: "I called upon the "Lord, the Father of my Lord, not to forfake me in the day of tribulation "." Now these hints they took out of the books of the Old Teftament; where are many proofs of a divine Perfon exifting under the character of the Son of God. And to begin with Dan. iii. 25. where Nebuchadnezzar fays, "Lo, I "fee four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt ; "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." How Nebuchadnezzar an heathen prince, came by this knowledge, that there was a divine Person, who was called the Son of God, I fhall not determine; very probably he had it from the Jews, who were in great number in his dominions, and fome of them in his palace; from whom having heard of fuch a glorious Person, and seeing fuch an one in the furnace, he concludes he must be like unto him. All that I bring this paffage for, is this, that there was a belief, which obtained in those times, that a glorious divine Perfon did exist under the character of the Son of God; or Nebuchadnezzar could not have mentioned him as fuch, nor have likened the Perfon he faw in the furnace to him. Agur • Καὶ Μωσῆς μέντοι τὴν ὑπερβολὴν θαυμάσας τῇ ἀγεννήτε, φησὶν, Καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αυτῷ ἐμῆς ἐχὶ αὐτῷ. ἱκανὸν γὰρ τῷ γεννητῷ σις ἔσθαι, καὶ μαρτυρεῖσθαι Λόγῳ Θείῳ. Philo Leg. Alleg. 1. 2. p. 99. • Σπέδαζε κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αυτό Λόγον. Idem de conf. ling. p. 341. 9 Ως ποιμὴν καὶ βασιλεὺς ὁ Θεὸς ἄγει κατὰ δίκην καὶ νόμον, προςησάμενος τὸν ὀρθὸν αυτό Λόγον πρωJóyorov viòv. Id. de agricultura, p. 195. . Ὁ μὲν γὰρ κόσμος ὗτος νεώτερον υἱὸς Θεῶ, ἅτε αἰσθητὸς ὤν. Τὸν γὰρ πρεσβύτερον τέτε ἐδένα ἔιπε, νοητὸς δὲ ἐκεῖνο, Πρεσβείων δ ̓ ἀξιώσας παρὰ ἑαυτῷ καταμένειν διενοήθη. Id. Quod fit Deus immutab. p. 298. • Τῶτον μὲν γὰρ πρεσβύτατον νἱὸν ὁ τῶν ὅντων ανέτειλε πατὴρ, ὃν ἑτέρωθι πρωτόγονον ὠνόμασε. Id. de confuf. ling. p. 329. * ΑναΓκαῖον γὰρ ἦν τὸν ἱερωμένον τῷ το κόσμο πατρὶ, παρακλήτῳ χρῆσθαι τελειοτάτην ἀρετὴνυίῳ. 1d. de vita Mofis, 1. 3. p. 673. u "Oule áyéwnl© ŵs ò ☺eós ŵv, STE yevunlòs w's nμeïs. Id. Quis rerum divin. Hæref. p. 509. ως * Καὶ ἐπικαλεσάμην κύριον, πατέρα κυρία με, μὴ ἐγκαταλιπεῖν μὲ ἐν ἡμέρα θλίψεως, Ecclefiaft. c. li. v. 14. |