[The Socinian Biddle asks] Q. Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of God because he was eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.

A. Luke 1:30, 32, 34, 35; John. 10:36; Acts 13:32, 33; Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:18; Heb. 1:4, 5, 5:5; Rom. 8:29.

[Owen Replies]… 1. Distinction of persons (it being an infinite substance) doth no way prove difference of essence between the Father and the Son. Where Christ, as mediator, is said to be another from the Father or God, spoken personally of the Father, it argues not in the least that he is not partaker of the same nature with him. That in one essence there can be but one person may be true where the substance is finite and limited, but hath no place in that which is infinite.

… 2. Distinction and inequality in respect of office in Christ doth not in the least take away equality and sameness with the Father in respect of nature and essence. A son of the same nature with his father, and therein equal to him, may in office be his inferior, his subject.

… Q. 9. We are come to the head of this discourse, and of Mr B.’s design in this chapter, and, indeed, of the greatest design that he drives in religion, namely, the denial of the eternal deity of the Son of God; which not only in this place directly, but in sundry others covertly, he doth invade and oppose. His question is, “Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of God because he was eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.” His answer is from Luke 1:31–35; John 10:36; Acts 13:32, 33; Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:18; Heb 1:4, 5, 5:5; Rom. 8:29; most of which places are expressly contrary to him in his design, as the progress of our discourse will discover.

This, I say, being the head of the difference between us in this chapter, after I have rectified one mistake in Mr B.’s question, I shall state the whole matter so as to obviate farther labour and trouble about sundry other ensuing queries. For Mr B.’s question, then, we say not that the Son is begotten eternally out of the divine essence, but in it, not by an eternal act of the Divine Being, but of the person of the Father; which being premised, I shall proceed.

[Owen quotes Socinians denying the eternal generation of the Son]

… I insist somewhat the more on these things, that men may judge the better whether in all probability Mr B., in his “impartial search into the Scripture,” did not use the help of some of them that went before him in the discovery of the same things which he boasts himself to have found out.

And this is the first reason which our catechist hath taken from his masters to communicate to his scholars [students] why Jesus Christ is called the “Son of God.” This he and they insist on exclusively to his eternal sonship, or being the Son of God in respect of his eternal generation of the substance of his Father.

And these are some of those monstrous figments which, under pretence of bare adherence to the Scripture, our catechist would obtrude upon us: First, Christ is the Son of God; then, growing like God in divine qualities, he is made a God; and so becomes the Son of God. And this, if the man may be believed, is the pure doctrine of the Scripture! And if Christ be a God because he is like God, by the same reason we are all gods in Mr B[iddle]’s conceit, being all made in the image and likeness of God; which, says he, by sin we have not lost.

… 1. He who is ἴδιος υἱός, the “proper son” of any, is begotten of the substance of his father. Christ is the proper Son of God, and God he called often ἴδιον Πατέρα, his “proper Father.” He is properly a father who begets another of his substance; and he is properly a son who is so begotten.

… he who is properly a son is distinguished from him who is metaphorically so only; for any thing whatever is metaphorically said to be what it is said to be by a translation and likeness to that which is true. Now, if Christ be not begotten of the essence of his Father, he is only a metaphorical Son of God by way of allusion, and cannot be called the proper Son of God, being only one who hath but a similitude to a proper Son; so that it is a plain contradiction that Christ should be the proper Son of God, and yet not be begotten of his Father’s essence.

… 4. He who is the Son of God, begotten of his Father by an eternal communication of his divine essence, he is the Son begotten of the essence of the Father; for these terms are the same, and of the same importance.

… And this may suffice (without insisting upon what more might be added) for the demonstration of the first assertion, That Christ’s filiation ariseth from his eternal generation, or he is the Son of God upon the account of his being begotten of the essence of his Father from eternity.

… 4. That which only manifests the filiation of Christ is not the cause of it. The cause of a thing is that which gives it its being. The manifestation of it is only that which declares it to be so.

… To the farther confirmation of this assertion two things are to be annexed:—First, The eversion of that fancy of Episcopius before mentioned, and the rest of the Socinianizing Arminians, that Christ is called the “Son of God,” both on the account of his eternal sonship and also of those other particulars mentioned from him above. Secondly, To consider the texts of Scripture produced by Mr [Biddle] for the confirmation of his insinuation, that Christ is not called the “Son of God” because of his eternal generation of the essence of his Father.

… 3. An invincible argument for the sonship of Christ, to be placed only upon the account of his eternal generation, ariseth from this very place that was produced to oppose it! He who is the Son of God because he is “one with the Father,” and God equal to him, is the Son of God upon the account of his eternal relation to the Father: but that such was the condition of Jesus Christ, himself here bears witness to the Jews, although they are ready to stone him for it; and of his not blaspheming in this assertion he convinces his adversaries by an argument a minori, [from the lesser or the minor premise; John 10] verses 34–36.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 21 vol. ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1862), 12.169, 170, 171, 177, 181, 182, 185, 189, 190, 193, 194, 198

Resources

• How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
• Athanasius On Eternal Generation
• Muller: The Reformed Affirmed Eternal Generation Against The Socinians
• Berkhof On The Eternal Generation Of The Son
• Socinianism And The Denial Of Eternal Generation
• Thomas Ridgley On The Eternal Generation Of The Son
• Bavinck On Eternal Generation
• Heidelberg 33: God’s Eternally And Only Begotten Son And His Adopted Sons (3)Trueman: What Is The Status Of Nicene Orthodoxy In Modern Calvinistic Evangelicalism?
• The Strange Familiarity Of Socinianism