Christian Classics
‹ A Body of Doctrinal Divinity
Contents
Chapter 1. Of the Being of GodChapter 2. Of the Holy Scriptures · Part 1Chapter 2. Of the Holy Scriptures · Part 2Chapter 2. Of the Holy Scriptures · Part 3Chapter 3. Of the Names of GodChapter 4. Of the Nature of GodChapter 5. Of The Attributes of God In General, and of his Immutability In ParticularChapter 6. Of The Infinity Of God, His Omnipresence And EternityChapter 7. Of The Life Of GodChapter 8. Of The Omnipotence Of GodChapter 9. Of The Omniscience Of GodChapter 10. Of The Wisdom Of GodChapter 11. Of The Will Of God, And The Sovereignty Of ItChapter 12. Of The Love Of GodChapter 13. Of The Grace Of GodChapter 14. Of The Mercy Of GodChapter 15. Of The Longsuffering Of GodChapter 16. Of The Goodness Of GodChapter 17. Of The Anger And Wrath Of GodChapter 18. Of The Hatred Of GodChapter 19. Of The Joy Of GodChapter 20. Of The Holiness Of GodChapter 21. Of The Justice Or Righteousness Of GodChapter 22. Of The Veracity Of GodChapter 23. Of The Faithfulness Of GodChapter 24. Of The Sufficiency And Perfection Of GodChapter 25. Of The Blessedness Of GodChapter 26. Of The Unity Of GodChapter 27. Of A Plurality In The Godhead; Or, A Trinity Of Persons In The Unity Of The Divine EssenceChapter 28. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity · Part 1Chapter 28. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity · Part 2Chapter 28. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity · Part 3Chapter 28. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity · Part 4Chapter 29. Of The Distinct Personality, And Deity Of The FatherChapter 30. Of The Distinct Personality, And Deity Of The SonChapter 31. Of The Distinct Personality, And Deity Of The Holy SpiritChapter 1. Of The Internal Acts And Works Of God; And Of His Decrees In GeneralChapter 2. Of The Special Decrees Of God, Relating To Rational Creatures, Angels, And Men; And Particularly Of Election · Part 1Chapter 2. Of The Special Decrees Of God, Relating To Rational Creatures, Angels, And Men; And Particularly Of Election · Part 2Chapter 2. Of The Special Decrees Of God, Relating To Rational Creatures, Angels, And Men; And Particularly Of Election · Part 3Chapter 3. Of The Decree Of Rejection, Of Some Angels, And Of Some MenChapter 4. Of The Eternal Union Of The Elect Of God Unto HimChapter 5. Of Other Eternal And Immanent Acts In God, Particularly Adoption And JustificationChapter 6. Of The Everlasting Council Between The Three Divine Persons, Concerning The Salvation Of MenChapter 7. Of The Everlasting Covenant Of Grace, Between The Father, And The Son, And The Holy SpiritChapter 8. Of The Part Which The Father Takes In The CovenantChapter 9. Of The Part The Son Of God, The Second Person, Has Taken In The CovenantChapter 10. Of Christ, As The Covenant Head Of The ElectChapter 11. Of Christ, The Mediator Of The CovenantChapter 12. Of Christ, The Surety Of The CovenantChapter 13. Of Christ, The Testator Of The CovenantChapter 14. Of The Concern The Spirit Of God Has In The Covenant Of GraceChapter 15. Of The Properties Of The Covenant Of GraceChapter 16. Of The Complacency And Delight God Had In Himself, And The Divine Persons In Each Other, Before Any Creature Was Brought Into BeingChapter 1. Of Creation In GeneralChapter 2. Of The Creation Of AngelsChapter 3. Of The Creation Of ManChapter 4. Of The Providence of God · Part 1Chapter 4. Of The Providence of God · Part 2Chapter 4. Of The Providence of God · Part 3Chapter 4. Of The Providence of God · Part 4Chapter 4. Of The Providence of God · Part 5Chapter 5. Of The Confirmation Of The Elect Angels, And The Fall Of The Non-ElectChapter 6. Of the Honour and Happiness of Man In a State of InnocencyChapter 7. Of the Law Given to Adam, and the Covenant Made with him in his State of Innocence; in which he was the Federal Head and Representative of his PosterityChapter 8. Of the Sin and Fall of our First ParentsChapter 9. Of the Nature, Aggravations, and Sad Effects Of the Sin of ManChapter 10. Of the Imputation of Adam’s Sin to All his PosterityChapter 11. Of The Of The Corruption Of Human NatureChapter 12. Of Actual Sins and TransgressionsChapter 13. Of the Punishment of SinChapter 1. Of the Manifestation and Administration of the Covenant of GraceChapter 2. Of the Exhibitions of the Covenant of Grace in the Patriarchal StateChapter 3. Of the Exhibitions of the Covenant of Grace Under the Mosaic DispensationChapter 4. Of the Covenant of Grace, as Exhibited in the Times of David, and the Succeeding Prophets, to the Coming of ChristChapter 5. Of the Abrogation of the Old Covenant, Or First Administration of it, And the Introduction of the New, Or Second Administration of it.Chapter 6. Of the Law of GodChapter 7. Of the GospelChapter 1. Of the Incarnation of ChristChapter 3. Of Christ’s State of HumiliationChapter 3. Of the Active Obedience of Christ in His State of HumiliationChapter 4. Of the Passive Obedience of Christ, or of His Sufferings and DeathChapter 5. Of the Burial of ChristChapter 6. Of the Resurrection of Christ from the DeadChapter 7. Of the Ascension of Christ to HeavenChapter 8. Of the Session of Christ at the Right Hand of GodChapter 9. Of the Prophetic Office of ChristChapter 10. Of the Priestly Office of ChristChapter 11. Of the Intercession of ChristChapter 12. Of Christ’s Blessing His People as a PriestChapter 13. Of the Kingly Office of ChristChapter 14. Of the Spiritual Reign of ChristChapter 1. Of Redemption by ChristChapter 2. Of the Causes of Redemption by ChristChapter 3. Of the Objects of Redemption by ChristChapter 4. Of those Texts of Scripture which seem to Favour Universal RedemptionChapter 5. Of The Satisfaction of ChristChapter 6. Of Propitiation, Atonement, and Reconciliation, as Ascribed to ChristChapter 7. Of The Pardon of SinChapter 8. Of Justification · Part 1Chapter 8. Of Justification · Part 2Chapter 8. Of Justification · Part 3Chapter 9. Of AdoptionChapter 10. Of the Liberty of the Sons of GodChapter 11. Of RegenerationChapter 12.Of Effectual CallingChapter 13. Of ConversionChapter 14. Of SanctificationChapter 15. Of the Perseverance of the Saints · Part 1Chapter 15. Of the Perseverance of the Saints · Part 2Chapter 15. Of the Perseverance of the Saints · Part 3Chapter 15. Of the Perseverance of the Saints · Part 4Chapter 1. Of the Death of the BodyChapter 2. Of the Immortality of the SoulChapter 3. Of the Separate State of the Soul until the Resurrection, and its Employment in that StateChapter 4. Of the Resurrection of the BodyChapter 5. Of the Second Coming of Christ, and His Personal AppearanceChapter 6. Of the Conflagration of the UniverseChapter 7. Of the New Heavens and Earth, and the Inhabitants of themChapter 8. Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years · Part 1Chapter 8. Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years · Part 2Chapter 8. Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years · Part 3Chapter 8. Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years · Part 4Chapter 8. Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years · Part 5Chapter 9. Of the Last and General JudgmentChapter 10. Of the Final State of the Wicked in HellChapter 11. Of the Final State of the Saints in Heaven

John Gill · 31 of 127

Chapter 28. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity · Part 2

6b1. It is urged, that he that generates must be before him that is generated; a father that begets must be before the son that is begotten by him; and putting the sonship of Christ on this foot, he cannot be co-eternal with the Father, but must have a beginning. This is the old stale objection of the Arians, and of Arias himself, who stumbled at this, and set out with it, reasoning thus: “If the Father begat the Son, he that is begotten must have a beginning of his existence; and from hence it must be evident that there was a time when he was not a Son; and therefore it must necessarily follow, that he has his subsistence out of nothing”.

And so Aetius, a follower of his, could not understand how that which is begotten, could be co-eternal with him that begets. But a little attention to a plain rule will set this matter in a clear light, and remove this objection: the rule is, and I think it is a good one, and will hold good, that “correlates mutually put or suppose each other”; that is, they commence together, they exist together, they co-exist, and that one is not before the other, nor the one after the other. Now father and son are correlates, they suppose each other; a father supposes a son, and a son supposes a father; they commence and exist together, they co-exist, they are not one before nor after another: the father, as a father, is not before his son, as such; nor the son, as a son, is not later than his father, as such; let a man have a firstborn son, as soon as he has one he becomes a father, and not before; and his son is as early a son as he is a father; and supposing they live together a term of years, be it an hundred years if you please, which is not an unreasonable supposition, since it has been a fact that father and son have lived together a longer term of time; now at the end of these hundred years, the father, as a father, will not be a moment older than the son as such; nor the son, as a son, one moment younger than the father, as such; their relations rise and continue together till one or other of them cease. There is no priority nor posteriority, no before nor “after” in these relations; and so, as an ancient writer says, “with God there is no post existence of him that is begotten, nor pre-existence of him that begets;” if there is an eternal Father, there must be an eternal Son, and therefore must be co-eternal; there cannot be a Father without a Son, that would be an absurdity, and therefore not before him.

Should it be said, that though these mutual relations exist together, and that one is not before the other; yet surely he that is a father, though not as a father, must exist before him who is his son. As plausible as this may seem to be, it may not appear so plain when examined; for this objection may arise from a false notion of animal generation. Generation is not a production of a non-entity into being, or a bringing into existence what did not exist before; for to bring that into being which was not in being before, is nothing less than a creation, and creation is too much to ascribe to the fathers of our flesh; they are not our creators, they do not give us our being; they do not bring us out of a state of non-existence into a state of existence; God only is the creator. According to the later discoveries in natural philosophy respecting generation, it appears that every man is born of an animalcule; that generation, so called, is no other than a motion of the animalcule into a more convenient place for nourishment and growth. All generation, say our modern philosophers, is with us nothing, so far as we can find, but “nutrition”, or “augmentation” of parts: they conclude, that the “animalcule” of every tribe of creatures, were originally formed by the almighty Parent, to be the seed of all future generations of animals; and that it seems most probable, that the “semina”, or “stamina”, as of all plants, so of animals that have been or ever shall be in the world, have been formed “ab origine mundi”, by the almighty Creator, within the first of each respective kind; and that these are no other than the entire bodies themselves “in parvo”; and contain everyone of the same parts and members, with the complete bodies themselves, when grown to maturity; all which, they say, evidently appears, by the help of microscopes: and this is the rather to be attended to, because it so greatly agrees with the sacred scriptures, by which it appears, not only that Levi, the great grandson of Abraham, was in his loins, that is, seminally in him, before his father Jacob was born; but that all mankind were in Adam, that is seminally in him, as well as representatively; the former being the foundation of the latter (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22). If, therefore, the “semina” of all mankind were created together in the first man; and all men were seminally, and in “animalculo” together in Adam, then not one before another, no priority nor posteriority among them: so that these things, rightly considered, instead of weakening, serve to strengthen and illustrate the doctrine pleaded for. How far this philosophy is defensible, I will not say; I only observe it to abate the force of the objection; and the confidence of those who make it, it being not easy to disprove the said hypothesis.

6b2. As to the objection taken from dependence, suggesting that the doctrine of Christ’s Sonship by generation is contrary to the independence of Christ as a divine Person. It may be asked, what dependence has a Son upon a Father, in animal generation? Does he depend upon him as the cause of his existence? He does not. He does not bring him into being. God only is the efficient Cause and Author of his Being. He is, at most, only an instrument of removing the animalcule, created of God, into a more convenient situation for nourishment and growth; in order, at a proper time, to come forth into the world, according to the above hypothesis: a parent has no concern in the formation of his child; it is formed without his knowledge, and without asking his consent and will; he knows nothing of its shape, features, and sex, until its birth; and when it is born, its life, and the continuance of its being, do not depend upon him; a son lives when a Father dies, and often many years after him: it is true, in some sense, he may be said to depend upon him with respect to some circumstances, especially in the former part of life; as, for the care of him, provision for him, assistance and protection given him; circumstances which argue weakness in the human natnre; but not to be found in the divine nature, nor anything analogous to them; and does not a father oftentimes depend upon his son, as in case of distress, sickness, penury, and old age? But be these things as they may, Christ, as all sound divines hold, is αυτοθεος, “God of himself”, and independent of any other, though he is the Son of the Father; and as the distinct personality of the Son of God arises from his relation to his Father as such, so the distinct personality of the Father arises from his relation to his Son as such; hence the distinct personality of the one, is no more dependent, than the distinct personality of the other; and both arise from their mutual relation to each other; and both arise and commence together, and not one before the other; and both are founded in eternal generation.

6b3. As to subordination and subjection, and inequality, which it is supposed the Sonship of Christ by generation implies; it may be answered, that Christ in his office-capacity, in which he, as , is a Servant, and as he is man, and appeared in the form of one; it will be acknowledged, that he is subordinate and subject to the Father; but not as he is the Son of God: and whatever inequality sonship may imply among men, it implies no such thing in the divine nature, among the divine persons; who in it subsist in perfect equality with one another; and in particular, the Scriptures represent the Son of God as equal to his Father, as one who thought it no robbery to be equal with God; being of the same nature, and having the same perfections with him, and that he is equal to him with respect to power and authority; for with respect to power he says, “I and my Father are one”; and they represent him as having the same claim to equal honour, homage, and worship; since all men are “to honour the Son, as they honour the Father”; not as in subordination to him, but as equal with him. There is a passage which is perverted by some to the sense of subordination and subjection of the Son of God to the Father, which is in 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28. “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him; and put all things under him; that God may be all in all”. It should be observed, that all this is said of something that is future; and which, as yet, is not, and so no proof of what is, or has been. Besides, there is a twofold Sonship of Christ, divine and human; from the one he is denominated the Son of God, and from the other the Son of man. Now Christ in the text, is only called “the Son”, which does not determine which Sonship is meant. This is to be learnt from the context, where he is spoken of throughout as man, as man who died, and rose again from the dead; from , by various arguments, is proved the general resurrection; and so he is continued to be spoken of to the passage under consideration; the plain and easy sense of which is, that at the end of the world, at Christ’s second coming, when all the of God shall be gathered in, and Christ shall have completely finished his work, as , he will deliver up the mediatorial kingdom complete and perfect, that is, the whole body of the , the kingdom of priests, to the Father, and say, “Lo, I, and the children whom thou hast given me”; and then the delegated power under which he acted, as the Son of man, will cease, and be no more; and that sort of rule, authority, and power, will be put down; and he, as the Son of man, be no longer vested with such authority, but shall become subject to him that put all things under him; and then God, Father, Son, and Spirit, will be all in all; and there will be no more distinction of offices among them; only the natural and essential distinctions of the divine Persons will always continue. There are various passages of scriptures in which Christ, as the Son of God, addresses his divine Father, without the least appearance of any subordination or subjection to him, but as his equal, as Jehovah’s fellow, particularly John 17:24. But I shall proceed to examine more particularly, in what sense Christ is the Son of God, or what is the true cause and reason of this relation. The Socinians, unwilling to own the eternal Sonship of Christ, or that he was the Son of God before he was the Son of Mary; and not caring to acknowledge the true cause and reason of it, which is but one, have devised many; which shows the puzzle and confusion they are in; Calovius has collected out of their writings, no less than thirteen causes, or reasons of Christ’s Sonship; some of them are so weak and trifling, as not deserving to be mentioned; and others require but little to be said to them: I shall take notice of some of the principal ones: and then proceed to place the Sonship of Christ on its true basis, and assign the proper sole cause and reason of it; his being “begotten” of the Father.

6b3a. They say he is called the Son of God because of the great love of God to him, and make beloved and begotten to be synonymous terms; that Christ is the object of the love of God, the Son of his love, his dearly beloved Son, is most certain; but then it is not his love to him that is the foundation and cause of relation to him; he is not his Son because he loves him; but he loves him because he is his Son; it is not love among men that produces such a relation; there may be great love where there is no such relation; Jonathan loved David as his own soul; but this strong love bore to him, did not make him nor denominate him his son. On the other hand, there may be relation and not love; a father may not love his own son; neither love nor hatred effect relation; the one does not make it, nor the other destroy it.

6b3b. Sometimes they ascribe the Sonship of Christ to his likeness to God, and make that to be the cause of it: that Christ is the image of the invisible God, the express image of his Father’s Person, and so like him, that he that has seen the one, has seen the other, because the same nature and perfections are in both, is true; yet the reason why Christ is called the Son of God, is not because he is like him, but he is like him because he is his Son; of the same nature and essence with him.

6b3c. At other times they tell us, he is the Son of God by ; of which the Scriptures give not the least hint. To which may be objected, that Christ is God’s own Son, his proper Son, the Son of himself; and therefore not adopted: whoever adopts an own son? or what reason can there be for it? among men, is not of their own sons: but usually when they have none of their own; as the instances of the of Moses by Pharaoh’s daughter, and of Esther by Mordecai show: besides, Christ is the begotten Son of God; and if begotten, then not adopted; these are inconsistent; yea, he is his only begotten Son; whereas, if he was his Son by , he could not be said to be his only Son, since he has many adopted ones; even as many as are to the of children, by Christ; as many as the Father gave unto him; as many as he has , “that they might receive the of children”; as many as receive him, that is, believe in him, “to whom he gives power to become the sons of God”; even as many sons as he brings to glory; which is a number no man can number: but the more principal causes of Christ’s Sonship they insist upon, and which seem to have the most countenance from scripture, are as follow, and which I shall more particularly and largely consider.

6a3d. The miraculous conception and birth of Christ, or his wonderful , is assigned as the reason of his Sonship; and this is founded on (Luke 1:35) the words of the angel to Mary, in answer to the difficulties objected by her, to Christ being born of her; “The shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, also, that holy Thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God”. Now let it be observed, that the angel does not say the holy Thing born of the virgin should “be”, but should be “called” the Son of God; for though sometimes the sense of such a phrase is the same as to “be”, as in Isaiah 9:6; 1 John 3:1, yet seems not intended here; since this appellation, the Son of God, is a name which Christ has been, and is usually called by; and the angel is not giving a reason of Christ’s being the Son of God; for he was so before his ; but of the manifestation and declaration of him as such in the human nature; nor does the angel predict that Christ should be called the Son of God, for “this reason”, because of his miraculous birth; for either he was to call himself so, or others were to call him so, for this reason, which neither have been; or else the angel’s prediction must be false, which cannot be admitted. Moreover, the particle therefore, is not causal, but consequential; the angel is not giving a reason why Christ should be called the Son of God, but why he should be received and owned as such by his people; who would infer and conclude from his wondrous birth of a virgin, that he must be the Immanuel, the child to be born, the Son given, &c. prophesied of in Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 where he is called the “child born”, with respect to his human nature, and the “Son given”, with respect to his divine nature(see John 3:16, 4:10). Once more, the particle “also”, ought not to be neglected; “Therefore, also, that holy Thing”, &c. not only the divine person of Christ should be owned and called the Son of God; but also the human nature of Christ, thus wonderfully produced, being taken up into personal union with him, should bear the same name: so that it is not the wonderful birth of the human nature, that so much as gives the name; but the union of this nature to the person of the Son of God; it is called by the same name he is. The reasons why Christ cannot be the Son of God, on account of his wonderful , are the following.

6b3d1. If so, then the Holy Spirit must be the Father of Christ, since he had such a special and peculiar concern in it; as the above passage shows; and then there must be two Fathers in the ; which would introduce a wretched confusion there. But there is but one, distinct from the Word and Spirit (1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19). Besides, the Father of Christ is, in many places, distinguished from the Spirit, and therefore cannot be the same (John 14:16, 17, 26, 15:26; Eph 1:17, 3:14, 16). To which may be added, that the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, (Gal. 4:6) whereas, if this was the case, rather the Son should be called the Son of the Spirit; which he never is.

6b3d2. If the of Christ is the cause of his divine Sonship, then there was no God the Father of Christ under the Old Testament; this was what the Marcionites of old asserted; which put the ancient writers on proving, as they did, that it was the Father of Christ who made the world, gave the law, spoke by the prophets, and edited the books of the Old Testament; all which appears from Hebrews 1:1, 2. Besides, God existed as the Father of Christ, before the foundation of the world; for so early as such he blessed his people, and chose them in Christ (Eph 1:3, 4).

6b3d3. If Christ was the Son of God, with respect to his human nature only, the distinctive phrase “according to the flesh”, when used in speaking of him, would be quite impertinent; for it is never said of any mere man, that he is the son of such an one according to the flesh, but only, that he is his son; but the phrase is very pertinently used to distinguish Christ, the Son of God, according to his divine nature, from his being the Son of David, and of the fathers, according to his human nature, (Rom. 1:4, 9:5).

6b3d4. The of Christ is not the reason of his being the Son of God, but the manifestation of him as such; he was not made, but manifested thereby to be the Son of God (1 John 1:12, 3:8). In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son—for what? not to be made a Son; he was so before he sent him; but that this Son might be made of a woman, or be made man; that the Word might be made flesh, or become ; and so God, the Son of God, be manifest in the flesh (Gal. 4:4). For,

6b3d5. It is certain that Christ existed, as the Son of God, before his ; and is spoken of in the Old Testament as such; even Nebuchadnezzar, an prince, had a notion of the Son of God; which he might have from Daniel, and other Jews in his palace; for he had many in his dominions, from whom he might learn that there was a glorious Person, who would appear in human nature, under the name of the Son of God; and seeing four persons in the fiery furnace, when only three were cast into it, and the form of the fourth remarkably glorious, he concluded him to be one like him, who had been described to him, (Dan. 3:25; Ezek. 21:10). Agur long before knew that a divine Person existed, as the Son of God; for speaking of the Almighty, and incomprehensible Being, he asks, “What is his name, and what is his Son’s name, if thou canst tell?” suggesting that as the name, that is, the nature of God is ineffable, he had a Son of the same nature with himself, equally so (Prov. 30:4). Earlier than he, David speaks of the Son of God, begotten by him; whom he calls all the Kings and Judges of the earth to pay divine homage and worship to; and pronounces them blessed that trust in him, (Ps. 2:7, 12) and speaks of him also as his firstborn, who should call him his God and Father, (Ps. 89:26, 27) yea, Christ existed as a Son, not only before Solomon and David were, but before Melchizedek was, for he is said to be made like unto the Son of God, (Heb. 7:3) yea, he existed as such at the creation of the world; for God, by him his Son, made the worlds, (Heb. 1:2) before any creature was in being he was the Son of God; and so the words may be rendered in Psalm 72:17. “Before the sun was, his name was the Son”, the Son of God.

6b3d6. If Christ is only the Son of God as he was man, and so called because made man, then he would be in no other class of Sonship than creatures be. Adam being wonderfully made and created out of the dust of the earth, is called the son of God, and all his posterity are the offspring of God, (Luke 3:38; Acts 17:28). Angels are also the sons of God, by creation; but “to which of the angels said he (God) at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee?” (Heb. 1:5) and if not to them, much less to any of the sons of men; and therefore Christ’s filiation must be in an higher class than theirs; and not to be ascribed to his ; but must be placed to another account.

6b3e. Another cause or reason assigned by the Socinians why Christ is called the Son of God, is his resurrection from the dead; which cannot be the true reason of it; because,

6b3e1. He was the Son of God before; as has been proved, and they themselves acknowledge; for if he was the Son of God, through his , as they say, though wrongly, then before his resurrection; and so not on that account: the mission of Christ into this world, as the Son of God; the testimony bore to his Sonship, at his baptism and transfiguration, by his divine Father; the confession of men and angels, good and bad, already observed; show him to be the Son of God before his resurrection, and so not by it.

6b3e2. If he was the Son of God on that account, he must beget himself, and be the author of his own Sonship, which is notoriously absurd; for he raised himself from the dead, as he predicted he would; and as he had power to do, as he declared, and did it (John 2:19, 10:18).

6b3e3. If so, his Sonship must be metaphorical and figurative, and not proper; whereas, he is often called God’s own Son, his proper Son, the Son of himself; and God his own proper Father (Rom. 8:3, 32; John 5:18).

6b3e4. On this account, he cannot be called the only begotten Son of God; for though he may, indeed, on account of his resurrection, be called, as he is, the firstborn from the dead, and the first begotten of the dead, and the firstfruits of them that sleep, (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5; 1 Cor. 15:20) yet cannot be called the only begotten, since many of the rose with him at his resurrection; and all men will be raised at the last day.

6b3e5. If the resurrection of the dead entitles to Sonship, then wicked men would be the sons of God; since there will be a resurrection of the unjust as well as of the just; of some to shame and damnation, as well as of others to everlasting life, (Dan. 12:2; John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15) yet these are never called the sons of God; as not on any other, so not on this account; indeed, the dead in Christ, who will rise first, are said to be the “children of God being the children of the resurrection”, (Luke 20:36) not that they then become the children of God, and are so for that reason; for they are so before; but being raised, and put into the possession of the inheritance, they will be manifested, and declared the children of God, “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ”; and so,

6b3e6. The resurrection of Christ from the dead, is only a manifestation of his Sonship; he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead”, (Rom. 1:4) and hence it is that the words in Psalm 2:7. “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”, are applied to the resurrection of Christ, (Acts 13:25) not that he was then begotten as the Son of God, for he was so before, as has been proved; but he was then manifested to be the only begotten Son of God; and which words are applicable to any time when Christ was declared and manifested to be the Son of God.

6b3f. The last reason I shall take notice of, which the Socinians give of the Sonship of Christ, is his office as ; they say he is called the Son of God, because he was , or set apart to his office, as such; and was sent into the world to do it, and has executed it, and is now exalted in heaven. And it is not to be wondered at, that they should assert Christ to be the Son of God by office, when it is a notorious sentiment of theirs, that he is only God by office; for the sake of which they endeavour to support this: the text which they build this notion on is John 10:36. “Say one of him whom the Father hath and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?” That Christ is the Son of God, may be concluded from his and mission; because no other was prophesied of, or promised to be sent, and no other expected to come, but he who was the Son of God; but that his and mission are the reason of his being so called, cannot be from hence concluded; because he was the Son of God before he was sent. Christ had, in the preceding verses, asserted his equality with God, saying, that he and his Father were one; upon this the Jews charged him with blasphemy; to vindicate himself from this charge, he first argues from his inferior character, as being in office; that if magistrates, without blasphemy, might be called gods, and children of the most High, much more might he be called the Son of God, who was in such an eminent manner , and sent into the world by the Father; but then he let not the stress of the proof of his Deity and Sonship rest here; but proceeds to prove the same by his doing the same works his Father did; to which he appeals. But that Christ is not the Son of God, by his office as , the following reasons may be given.

6b3f1. Because if Christ is the Son of God, not by nature, but by office, then he is only the Son of God in an improper and metaphorical sense; as magistrates are called the children of the most High, or sons of God, being in an office under him: whereas, Christ, in a true and proper sense, is the Son of God; he is the Son of the Father in truth, (2 John 5:3) most truly and properly his Son; his own, his only begotten Son, the Son of himself, (Rom. 8:3) his proper Son, (Rom. 8:32) therefore not so in an improper sense.