CHAPTER XIV.03

VI. But if his filiation (so to speak) commenced at the time of his manifestation in the flesh, it will follow that he was the Son also in respect of his human nature. Servetus and other heretics maintain that Christ, who appeared in the flesh, was the Son of God; because out of the flesh he could not be entitled to this appellation. Now, let them answer me, whether he be the Son according to both natures, and in respect of both. So indeed they idly pretend; but Paul teaches us very differently. We confess that Christ is called “the Son” in his human nature, not as the faithful are, merely by adoption and grace, but the true and natural, and therefore the only Son; that by this character he may be distinguished from all others. For we, who are regenerated to a new life, are honoured by God with the title of sons; but the appellation of “his true and only begotten Son” he gives to Christ alone. But among such a multitude of brethren, how can he be the only Son, unless he possess by nature what we have received as a gift? And we extend this honour to the whole person of the Mediator, that he who was born of the Virgin, and offered himself on the cross as a victim to the Father, is truly and properly [pg 442] the Son of God; but nevertheless with respect to his Deity, as Paul suggests, when he says that he was “separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised afore, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power.”1197 When he distinctly denominates him the Son of David according to the flesh, why should he particularly say that he was declared to be the Son of God with power, unless he intended to suggest that this dignity depended not on that flesh, but on something else? For in the same sense in which he says in another place that “he was crucified through weakness, yet that he liveth by the power of God,” so in this passage he introduces the difference between the two natures. They certainly must be constrained to admit, that as he has received of his mother that which causes him to be called the Son of David, so he has from his Father that which constitutes him the Son of God, and that this is something distinct and different from his humanity. The Scripture distinguishes him by two names, calling him sometimes “the Son of God,” sometimes “the Son of man.” With respect to the latter, it cannot be disputed that he is styled the “Son of man,” in conformity to the common idiom of the Hebrew language, because he is one of the posterity of Adam. I contend, on the other hand, that he is denominated “the Son of God” on account of his Deity and eternal existence; because it is equally reasonable that the appellation of “Son of God” should be referred to the Divine nature, as that that of “Son of man” should be referred to the human nature. In short, in the passage which I have cited, “that he, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, was declared to be the Son of God with power,” Paul intends the same as he teaches us in another place, that “Christ, who as concerning the flesh came of the Jews, is God blessed for ever.” But if the distinction of the two natures be expressed in both these passages, by what authority will they deny that he is the Son of God in respect of his Divine nature, who according to the flesh is likewise the Son of man?

VII. They clamorously urge in support of their error that God is said “not to have spared his own Son,”1198 and that the angel directed that the very same who was to be born of the Virgin, should be called “the Son of the Highest.”1199 But to prevent their glorying in so futile an objection, let them accompany us in a brief examination of the validity of their reasoning. For if it be rightly concluded, that he began to be the Son of God at his conception, because he that is [pg 443] conceived is called his Son, it will follow that he began to be the Word at his manifestation in the flesh, because John tells us that “he declares that, which his hands have handled, of the Word of life.”1200 So when they read the following address of the prophet, “Thou, Bethlehem 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 from the days of eternity,”1201 what interpretation will they be obliged to adopt, if they determine to pursue such a mode of argumentation? For I have declared that we by no means coincide with Nestorius, who imagined two Christs. According to our doctrine, Christ has made us the sons of God, together with himself, by the privilege of a fraternal union, because he is, in our nature which he assumed, the only begotten Son of God. And Augustine judiciously apprizes us, “that it is an illustrious mirror of the wonderful and singular grace of God, that Jesus Christ, considered as man, obtained honour which he could not merit.” From his very birth, therefore, was Christ adorned, even in his human nature, with the dignity of being the Son of God. Yet in the unity of person we must not imagine such a confusion, as to destroy that which is peculiar to Deity. For it is no more unreasonable, that the eternal Word of God and the man Christ Jesus, the two natures being united into one person, should be called the Son of God in different senses, than that he should be styled, in various respects, sometimes the Son of God, sometimes the Son of man. Nor are we any more embarrassed with the other cavil of Servetus, that before Christ appeared in the flesh, he is no where called the Son of God, but in a figurative sense. For though the description of him then was rather obscure, yet since it has now been clearly proved, that he was the eternal God no otherwise than as he was the Word begotten of the eternal Father, and that this name is applicable to him in the character of Mediator which he has assumed, only because he is God manifested in the flesh; and that God the Father would not have been thus denominated from the beginning, unless there had even then been a mutual relation to the Son, who is the source of all kindred or paternity in heaven and in earth;1202 the inference is clear, that even under the law and the prophets he was the Son of God, before this name was commonly used in the Church. If the contention be merely about the word, Solomon, in speaking of the infinite sublimity of God, affirms his Son to be incomprehensible as well as himself: “What is his name,” says he, “and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?”1203 I am aware that this testimony will not have [pg 444] sufficient weight with contentious persons, nor indeed do I lay much stress on it, only that it fixes the charge of a malicious cavil on those who deny that Christ is the Son of God, any otherwise than because he has become man. It must also be remarked that all the most ancient writers have with one accord so unequivocally asserted the same doctrine, that it argues impudence equally ridiculous and detestable in those who dare to represent us as opposing Irenæus and Tertullian, who both acknowledge that Jesus Christ, who at length made a visible appearance, was always the invisible Son of God.