A divine antidote against a devilish poyson, or, A scriptural answer to an anti-scriptural and heretical pamphlet entituled A designed end to the Socinian controversie, written by John Smith answered by Francis Gregory, D.D. and rector of Hambleden in the county of Bucks.

SECT. IX. (Book 9)

IN his next Page, this Author makes this demand, wherein there lyeth an Argument, such as it is, against the Divinity of Christ. How can be be God himself, who truly is the Son of God? If he be the Son only, 'tis plain that he is not the Father also, who alone is God; so he, to which I shall reply in four par∣ticulars;

1. This Man doth here again, petere principium,— he takes that for granted, which we deny, and he can never prove; I mean that the Father alone is God; and upon that false Supposition he grounds that Argument, whereby he

would prove that Christ is not God.

2. Whereas this Man saith that the Son cannot be the Father, we easily grant it, for we do not only allow, but can prove a distinction of their Per∣sons.

3. This Man doth in effect, affirm that Christ cannot possibly be God, for this Reason, because he is the Son of God. But what hinders? The Son of a Man is a Man, and why may not the Son of a God, as well be a God? There is indeed this difference in the case; the Son of Man is another Man, but the Son of God is not another God, but a God he is.

4. Whereas this Author makes this demand: How can he be God himself, who is no other than the Son of God? I shall now retort this Argument, and prove that our Saviour is most certain∣ly the true God by that very reason, for which this Man saith, in effect, that he cannot be so. For, this Question of his, How can he be a God, who is no other than the Son of God? Implieth a Nega∣tion that he is so, or an Impossibility that he should be so.

My present Argument then to prove that Christ is God, shall be this: God he is, and must be, because he is the

Son of God; a Son in that peculiar re∣spect, wherein none else ever was, or ever can be so. And, for that reason, doth St. John, whose design it was, as well by that Title as by other Arguments, to prove the Deity of Christ, tell us, that our Lord stiled himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God's only begotton Son, a Title, which doth clearly distinguish him from all other Sons, either by Creation or A∣doption, and advance him infinitely be∣yond them; nay, our Lord's own filial relation to God, in respect of his won∣derful Incarnation, is not so sublime, as to deserve this glorious Title, and to denominate him, the begotten, much less the only begotten Son of God.

* 1.1For to beget a Son, if Judicious Cri∣ticks be not mistaken, is this, ex sub∣stantia sua sibi similem producere, it is for a Man out of his own substance to pro∣duce another like himself, consisting of an humane Body and a rational Soul; a Body compleat in all his Parts, and a Soul endued with all those Powers and Faculties which are Essential to its be∣ing. Accordingly 'tis said of Adam, He begat a Son in his own likeness,* 1.2 and so do all Men else; they multiply themselves, they propagate their own image, their Sons are like them, some∣times

in the external shape and form of their Bodies, but always in the num∣ber, order and situation of their Mem∣bers, if Nature be not accidentally ob∣structed in her Operation.

And for this reason,* 1.3 St. Basil the Great defines a Father thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Father is he, who is to another the Original of being in a Na∣ture like his own. And hence Aristotle tells, that to beget is this in general, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; it is to make ano∣ther as one's self, and so an Animal pro∣duceth an Animal, a Plant brings forth a Plant, a Man begets a Man, every Creature one of its own kind.

Now then, if this be so amongst all Creatures, much more must it be so with God, if that of the Lyrick Poet be true,* 1.4 who saith, Est in juvencis, est in equis patrum, virtus; if he who begets ano∣ther, doth derive and communicate his own Nature, with all its Essential Pro∣perties and Natural Perfections to him who is begotten; then, I think that in the strict and proper Sense of this No∣tion, our blessed Lord, considered in his humane Nature, cannot well be called the begotten Son of God.

'Its true, Christ as Man, was and is the Son of God; but not by an Act of proper Generation, for God did not, and indeed, could not communicate to the humanity of his Son all those Excellent and Essential Perfections, which are found in, and proper to his own Deity, the Fa∣ther is Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Immense; but the Son as Man, is not, could not be so. And since the entire Nature of God was not, could not be communicated to Christ in his Incarna∣tion, as the Nature of every Father is to every begotten Son; I think, we may safely say, that our Lord, as Man, in the usual and proper Sense of that Term, cannot be rightly called the Son of God by Generation.

It is true, our Lord's humane Nature is stiled by an Angel before its Concep∣tion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we render, That which shall be born;* 1.5 and after its Conception,* 1.6 'tis called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we render, That which is not be∣gotten, but conceived; and the truth is, though the Greek Verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do sig∣nify, to beget, in its Active Voice, yet in its Passive and middle Voice, it sig∣nifieth, Nascor, orior, to be born, to a∣rise, spring and receive an Original from such or such a thing or Person,

which doth not alway require, nor can it in our case admit an act of proper Ge∣neration.

St. Paul, mentioning the Incarnation of Christ, tells us that he was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e. not genitus, but factus, not begotten,* 1.7 but made of a Woman. The Prophet fore-telling the same thing, words it thus, The Lord hath created a new thing, But what new thing was that? A Wo∣man shall compass a Man, the framing of our Lord's humane Nature in a Virgin's Womb is here expressed as an Act, not of Generation, but of Creation; not an immediate and proper Creation out of nothing; but as Adam's Body is said to be created, because formed, ex materia in∣habili, of the dust of the ground, which was so unlikely and untoward matter; so our Lord's Body, being made of the Virgin's Substance alone, without the usual concurrence of Man, may well be said in the same Sense to be created too.

And if our Lord, as Man, cannot in strict propriety of Speech, be called, the Begotten, much less can he in the same Capacity be called, the only begotten Son of God. We grant indeed, that our Lord in an allusive and metaphorical Sense, is stiled, the begotten Son of God, by

vertue of his Resurrection; the Grave being likened to a Womb, and the Person raised by the Power of God to a second Life, being represented as one that is new∣ly born. To this purpose St. Peter inter∣prets that of the Psalmist,* 1.8 Thou art my Son this day, the day of his Resurrection, have I begotten thee. But in this impro∣per Sense, our Lord is not an only be∣gotten Son; for God hath already had, and hereafter will have many more such begotten Sons,* 1.9 who are called the Chil∣dren of God, being the Children of the Resurrection.

Again, should we allow that in this Metaphorical Sense, our Lord might be called the begotten Son of God, by ver∣tue of his Conception in the Womb of a Virgin, by the wonderful Power of God; yet neither in this respect can he be called an only begotten Son; for al∣though no Man else was ever conceived and born of a Virgin; yet there was another Man formed, produced and en∣livened by as great an Act of God's Omnipotence, and that gave him a right to this Title,* 1.10 Adam, the Son of God. And if the Wonder of our Lord's Con∣ception and Birth might give him the Title of God's begotten Son, I see no reason, why the wonder of Adam's pro∣duction

should not render him capable of the same Title too.

Nay more, the making of Adam's Body seems to be a more immediate and greater Act of Omnipotence, than the making of the Body of Christ; as Christ was, as to Men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with∣out a Father; so was Adam, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without Father and Mother too. I know, the Earth is stiled, Magna Mater, the Great Mother, but not of Men; the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Terrigena Fratres, the Giants born of the Earth are but Poetical Fi∣ctions. The dust of the Earth, was not so likely matter to make Adam's Body, as the Virgin's Flesh and Blood were to make our Lord's; in the Creation of Adam, God did all, the dull Earth was wholly Passive; but doubtless, towards the Incarnation of Christ, the blessed Virgin being first impregnated by the Holy Ghost, did as much as other Mo∣thers are wont to do; there was from her a Vital and Active Concurrence with that Holy Spirit; who was, not Semen, the Seed it self; but loco Seminis, instead of the Seed, the Virgin's Womb being the Soil, in and out of which our Lord's Body, that Sacred Embryo, was formed, enlivened, nourished and pre∣pared for its Nativity.

Now then, if the Creation of Adam were at least as wonderful a Work as the Incarnation of Christ, since they were both effected by the same Almighty Power; and yet the one in the nature of the thing seems somewhat more dif∣ficult than the other; methinks if the easier Work, that of the Incarnation, be sufficient to denominate our Lord, the begotten Son of God, as being incarnated by his Power; then the harder Work, that of Adam's Creation, may as well give him a right to the same Title, as being created by an higher Act of the same Omnipotence.

And yet notwithstanding all this, 'tis evident that our Lord is called, and therefore really is, the only begotten Son of God; and since he cannot be so called, nor so be, as he is Man, he must be so called and so be, as and because he is God, even by an eternal Generation. For 'tis evident from a variety of Texts, that this Son of God had a being from Eternity; for St. John saith of him, In the beginning was the word, i. e. before all time; so much doth the next Verse prove, All things were made by him, if so, then time it self is one of his Creatures. St. Paul also tells us, All things were made by him and for him, and thence he im∣mediately

infers his Omnipotence and Eternity, and tells us in the very next words, He is before all things, and by him all things consist; certainly, 'tis not pos∣sible for any Man to invent words more plain, and express to convince us, that our blessed Redeemer is in reality in a literal and proper sense, the great Crea∣tour and Upholder of the Universe; which are such sublime Titles, as could by no means belong unto him, were he not indeed the Eternal Son of God.

And if our blessed Saviour be, as un∣doubtedly he is, the eternal Son of God, then must he needs be of the same Na∣ture and Essence with God his Father; he must be God, as his Father is; Why else doth St. Paul stile him,* 1.11 The express image of his Person, and the brightness of his Glory? We see that every Creature communicates its own Nature to its own Issue; an Horse to its Colt, a Sheep to its Lamb, and every Man to his be∣gotten Son. And if through the Ordi∣nation and Concurrence of God's bles∣sing, it must be thus with all sorts of Creatures; if a Sheep beget a Sheep, if a Man beget a Man, we may easily con∣clude, that since a God begets a Son, he begets such a Son, as is in all respects like himself; a Son, who is a God, but

though another Person, yet not ano∣ther God. For the Generation of the Son is nothing else, but the full and en∣tire Communication of the Divine Na∣ture to him; and because that Nature is Infinite and Indivisible, it must be wholly communicated without any mul∣tiplication of the Deity. So that three Persons, being of one and the same Na∣ture, the same not only in kind, but num∣ber, are but one God; so is the Son, be∣cause eternally begotten of the Father; and so is the Holy Ghost, because eter∣nally proceeding from both.

Now, since our blessed Saviour is therefore God, because he is proved the Eternal, and is called the only begot∣ten Son of God; How came this Au∣thor to make this demand; How can he be God, who is no other than the Son of God? Why might he not as well de∣mand, How can he be a Man, who is no other than the Son of Man? But to an∣swer this Man's demand with another, I ask, How can he, who is the eternal, natural and only begotten Son of God, How can he in that Capacity, be any thing else but God? For he cannot be, as yet he is proved, either the eternal and natural, or, as he is called, the Only begotten Son of God, as he is Man.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ravanell. in verbo gigno.
• * 1.2

  Gen. 5.3.
• * 1.3

  Basil. M. adv. Eu∣nom. l. 2. p. 62.
• * 1.4

  Horat. l. 4. ode 4.
• * 1.5

  Luk. 1.35.
• * 1.6

  Matt. 1.20.
• * 1.7

  Gal. 4.4.
• * 1.8

  Act. 1••.33.
• * 1.9

  Luke 20.36.
• * 1.10

  Luk. 3.38.
• * 1.11

  Heb. 1.3.