he is the only-begotten Son of the Father, which is of the same import with that here opposed by our catechists, hath been before declared and proved, chap. vii.

Q. But how must we answer these testimonies?

A. Before I answer to each testimony, it is to be known that this generation of the essence of the Father is impossible; for if Christ were begotten of the essence of his Father, either he took his whole essence or but part. Part of his essence he could not take, for the divine essence is impartible; nor the whole, for it being one in number is incommunicable.1

2

And this is the fruit of measuring spiritual things by carnal, infinite by finite, God by ourselves, the object of faith by corrupted rules of corrupted reason. But,-1. That which God hath revealed to be so is not impossible to be so. Let God be true, and all men liars. That this is revealed hath been undeniably evinced. 2. What is impossible in finite, limited essences, may be possible and convenient to that which is infinite and unlimited, as is that whereof we speak. 3. It is not impossible, in the sense wherein that word must here be used, if any thing be signified by it. "It is not, it cannot be so in limited things, therefore not in things infinite;"—"We cannot comprehend it, therefore it cannot be so;”—“ But the nature of the thing about which it is is inconsistent with it." This is denied, for God hath revealed the contrary. 4. For the parting of the divine essence, or receiving a part of the divine essence, our catechists might have left it out, as having none to push at with it, none standing in the way that horn of their dilemma. 5. We say, then, that in the eternal generation of the Son, the whole essence of the Father is communicated to the Son as to a personal existence in the same essence, without multiplication or division of it, the same essence continuing still one in number; and this without the least show of impossibility in an infinite essence, all the arguments that lie against it being taken from the properties and attendancies of that which is finite.

of

Come we to the particular testimonies. The first is Micah v. 2, "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," or "the days of eternity."

Q. How must this first testimony of the Scripture be answered?

A. This testimony hath nothing at all of his generation of the essence of his Father, and a pre-eternal generation it no way proves; for here is mention of beginning and days, which in eternity have no place. And those words, which in

"Qui vero ad hæc testimonia respondendum est ?-Antequam ad singula testimonia respondeam, sciendum est, eam ex essentia Patris generationem esse impossibilem; nam si Christus ex essentia Patris genitus fuisset aut partem essentia sumpsisset, aut totam. Essentiæ partem sumere non potuit, eo quod sit impartibilis divina essentia; neque totam, cum sit una numero, ac proinde incommunicabilis."

2 46

Nisi Scriptura dixisset, non licuisset dicere, sed ex quo scriptum est dici potest." -Rabb. Ruben. apud Galat. lib. iii.

the Vulgar are "from the days of eternity,” in the Hebrew are "from the days of seculi," the days of an age; and "dies seculi " are the same with "dies antiqui," as Isa. lxiii. 9, 11; Mal. iii. 4. The sense of this place is, that Christ should have the original of his nativity from the beginning, and from the ancient years; that is, from that time wherein God established a king among his people, which was done really in David, who was a Bethlehemite, and the author of the stock and family of Christ.'

Ans. 1. Who necessitated our catechists to urge this place to prove the generation of Christ, when it is used only to prove his generation to be eternal, the thing itself being proved by other testimonies in abundance? That he was begotten of the Father is confessed; that he was begotten of the essence of his Father was before proved. Yea, that which is here called "nyi, his "goings forth," is his generation of his Father, or somewhat else that our adversaries can assign; that it is not the latter shall immediately be evinced.

2. Here is no mention of the Dp, "beginning;" and those who in the latter words reject the Vulgar edition cannot honestly insist on the former from thence because it serves their turn. Yet how that word is sometimes used, and in what sense it may be so, where "eternity" is intended, hath been declared in the last chapter.

3. That "days" are not used with and to express "eternity" in Scripture, though strictly there be no days or time in eternity, is absurd negligence and confidence to affirm: Job x. 5, "Are thy days as the days of man? are thy years as man's days?" Hence God is called "The Ancient of days," Dan. vii. 9. "Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail," Heb. i. 12.

4. For the word gnolam [], translated "seculi," it hath in the Scripture various significations. It comes from a word signifying "to hide," and denotes an unknown, hidden duration. Principally "perpetuum, æternum, sempiternum," that which is pre-eternal and eternal. Sometimes a very long time, Gen. ix. 12, and verse 16, that is perpetual: so Gen. xvii. 13, and in other places, with a reference to the sovereignty of God. Gen. xxi. 33, it is ascribed to God as a property of his, and signifies "eternal,” Jehova gnolam [i]: so Ps. lxxxix. 2, as also Isa. xlv. 17. Let all places where

1 "Qui tamen ad primum Scripturæ testimonium respondendum est ?--Id testimonium de generatione ex essentia Patris nihil prorsus habet; generationem vero prææternam nulla probat ratione: hic enim mentio fit initii et dierum, quæ in æternitate locum non habent. Et verba hæc, quæ in Vulgata leguntur, a diebus æternitatis, in Hæbræo extant, a diebus seculi: dies vero seculi idem quod dies antiqui notant, ut Esa. lxiii. 9, 11; Mal. iii. 4. Sententia vero loci hujus est, Christum originem nativitatis suæ ab ipso principio et annis antiquis ducturum; id est, ab eo tempore, quo Deus in populo suo regem stabilivit, quod reipsa in Davide factum est, qui et Bethlehemita fuis, et autor stirpis et familiæ Christi."

2 by, latere, abscondere, occultare, 2 Chron. ix. 2, Lev. iv. 13; in nipbal latuit, absconditus, occultatus fuit; in hiphil abscondit, celavit, occultavit: inde by, Virgo, quia viro occulta, Gen. xxiv. 43.

T

the word in Scripture in this sense is used be reckoned up (which are above three hundred), and it will appear that in far the greatest number of them it signifies absolutely "eternity." In the places of Isa. lxiii. 9, 11, and Mal. iii. 4, only a long time, indeed, is signified, but yet that which reaches to the utmost of the thing or matter treated of. And upon the same rule, where it is put absolutely it signifies eternity." So doth arv in the New Testament, by which the LXX. often render gnolam [y]; whence pò xpóvwv aiwviwe may be "from eternity," 2 Tim. i. 9, Tit. i. 2; wherein, also, with a like expression to that under consideration, the "times of eternity" are mentioned, though perhaps with a peculiar respect to something at the beginning of the world. This, then, is here expressed: He that was in the fulness of time born at Bethlehem, had his goings forth from the Father from eternity.

5. The pretended sense of our adversaries is a bold corruption of the text; for,-(1.) It applies that to David and his being born at Bethlehem which the Holy Ghost expressly applies to Jesus Christ, Matt. ii. 5, 6, and John vii, 42. (2.) The goings forth of Christ in this sense are no more from everlasting than every other man's who is from Adam, when yet this is peculiarly spoken of him, by way of incomparable eminency. (3.) They cannot give any one instance of the like expression,-that "his goings forth are from eternity" should signify he had his original from an ancient stock. (4.) If only Christ's original of the tribe of Judah and of the house of David were intended, why was not that expressed in plain terms, as it is in other places, and as the place of his birth, namely, Bethlehem, is in this? So that we have already met our catechists and stopped them at this wall, their attempt at it being very faint and absurd. And yet this is the sum of what is pleaded by Socinus against Weik, cap. vii. p. 424; Smalcius against Smiglecius, cap. xxvi.; Ostorod. Instit. cap. vii., with the rest of them. He, then, who was born at Bethlehem in the fulness of time, of the house of David as concerning the flesh, Rom. i. 3, had also his "goings forth," his birth or generation of the Father, " of old, from the days of eternity;" which is that which this testimony confirms.

Grotius on this place, according to his wont, outgoes his companions one step at least (as he was a bold man at conjectures), and applies this prophecy to Zerubbabel: "Natus ex Bethlehemo Zorobabel rectè dicitur, quòd ex Davidis familia esset, quæ orta Bethlehemo;"-" Zerubbabel is rightly said to be born at Bethlehem, being of the family of David, which had its original from Bethlehem."

That Zerubbabel is here at all intended he doth not attempt to prove, either from the text, context, circumstances of the place, design of the prophecy, or any thing else that might give light into

the intendment of the Holy Ghost. That it belongs properly to Christ we have a better interpreter to assure us than Grotius or any of his rabbins, Matt. ii. 4-6. I know that in his annotations on that place he allows the accommodation of the words to Christ; but we cannot allow them to be spoken of any other, the Holy Ghost expressly fitting them to him. And if Zerubbabel, who was born at Babylon, may be said to be born at Bethlehem because David, from whom he descended, was born there, what need all that labour and trouble that our Saviour might be born at Bethlehem? If it could not be said of Christ that he was born at Bethlehem, though he were of the lineage of David, unless he had actually been born there indeed, certainly Zerubbabel, who was born at Babylon, could not be said, on the account of his progenitor five hundred years before, to be born there.

For the second part of this text, or the words we insist on for the proof of our intention, he useth the same shift in the same words with our catechists, "Origo ipsi ab olim, a temporibus longis; id est, originem trahit à domo illustri antiquitus, et per quingentos annos regnatrice; "—" His original is from of old, from a long time; that is, he hath his original from an ancient illustrious house that had reigned five hundred years."

Of the sense of the words I have spoken before. I shall only add, that the use of this note is to confute the other; for if his being born at Bethlehem signify his being of the family of David, and nothing else, he being not indeed born there, what need this addition, if these obscure words signify no more but what was spoken before? Yea, and herein the learned man forsaketh his masters, all generally concluding that it is the Messiah who is here alone intended. The Chaldee paraphrast expressly puts in the name of Messiah. His words are, "Out of thee shall the Messiah come forth before me." And some of them do mystically interpret kedem [] of the mind of God, from whence the word or wisdom of God is brought forth; because, as they say, the word denotes the first numeration of the crown, or of that name of God which signifies his essence.

The second is Ps. ii. 7, "The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Q. To this second what is to be answered?

A. Neither in that is there any thing of generation of the essence of the Father, nor of a pre-eternal generation; for the word "to-day," signifying a certain time, cannot denote pre-eternity. But that God begot him doth not evince that he was begotten of his essence; which appears from hence, 1. That the same words, "This day have I begotten thee," are in the first sense used of David, who was begotten neither from eternity nor of the essence of the Father. 2. Because the apostle Paul brings these words to prove the resurrection of Christ, Acts xiii. 33. And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews cites them for the glorifying of the Lord Jesus, Heb. i. 5, and v. 5. And lastly, from hence, that it is manifest that God

otherwise begets than by his essence, seeing the Scripture declares believers to be begotten of God, as is to be seen, John i. 13; 1 John iii. 9; James i. 18.1

1. There is mention in these words of Christ's generation of his Father, of being "begotten" of him before his incarnation, this being spoken of him under the old testament; and to deny that there is any such thing in the text as that which, upon this consideration, we urge it to prove, is only to beg the thing in question.

2. "This day," being spoken of God, of him who is eternal, to whom all time is so present as that nothing is properly yesterday nor today, does not denote necessarily such a proportion of time as is intimated, but is expressive of an act eternally present, nor past nor future.

3. It cannot be proved that these words are spoken at all of David so much as typically, nor any thing else in that psalm from verse 7 to the end yea, the contrary is evident from every verse following, especially the 12th, where kings and rulers are called to worship him of whom he speaks, and threatened with destruction if they do not; and they are pronounced blessed who put their trust in him; which cannot be spoken of David, God declaring them to be cursed who put their trust in man, Jer. xvii. 5-8.

4. It is granted that the apostle makes use of these words when he mentions the résurrection and exaltation of Christ; not that Christ was then begotten, but that he was then declared to be the only-begotten Son of God, his resurrection and exaltation being manifestations of his sonship, not causes of his filiation, as hath been at large declared. So the sun is said to arise when it doth first to us appear.

5. True, "God hath other sons, and believers are said to be begotten of God;" but how? By regeneration, and turning from sin, as in the places quoted is evident. That Christ is so begotten of God is blasphemous once to imagine. Besides, he is the only-begotten Son of the Father, so that no other is begotten with a generation of the same kind with him. It is evident, then, by this testimony, and from these words, that Christ is so the Son of God as no angels are his sons in the same kind: for that the apostle produceth these words to prove, Heb. i. 5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And

"Ad secundum vero quid?-Neque in ea de géneratione ex essentia Patris, nec de generatione præ-æterna prorsus quicquam haberi; etenim vox hodie, cum certum tempus designet, præ-æternitatem denotare non potest. Quod vero Deus eum genuerit, non evincit eum ex essentia ejus genitum; id quod patet ex eo, quod hæc eadem verba, Ego hodie genui te, primo sensu de Davide dicantur, quem constat neque ab æterno, nec ex essentia Dei genitum. Deinde, quod Paulus apostolus eadem verba ad approbandam Christi resurrectionem afferat, Act. xiii. 33, et autor ad Hebræos ad glorificationem Domini Jesu citet, Heb. i. 5, v. 5. Denique, ex ea re, quod constet Deum aliter quam ex essentia generare, dum a Deo genitos credentes Scriptura pronunciat, ut videre est, Johan. i. 13; 1 Johan. iii. 9; Jac. i. 18."

VOL. XII.

16