A commentary or, exposition upon the divine second epistle general, writtenA commentary or, exposition vpon the diuine second epistle generall, written

This is my Son.] Son, this distinguisheth his Person: Father and Son are relatives, one depending necessarily on the other, Luke 1.32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest. With this Christ opposed the Jews, that questioned him concerning the Son of David. If David called him Lord, he must needs be the Son of God. Now he is the Son of God two ways: First, by Nature, of the Eternal substance of his Father: not after a carnal manner, for he departed with no substance, nor suffered any change, loss, or diminution. Secondly, as he was the Son of Mary: and this other Sonship in regard of God, was not by nature, not by adoption; for then there had been a time when he was not the Son of God: but by Personal union. The man Christ never was a Person of it self, but was at the first Personally united to the Son of God. The Son of Mary was ever the Son of God, but the Son of God was not ever or always the Son of Mary. This was necessary, saith Augustine, that the Mediator between God and man, should be of the Natures, both of God and man. Ne in utroque homini similis, longe esset à Deo: vel in utroque Deo similis, longe esset ab homine; Lest being in every respect God, he had been too great to suffer for man: or being in every respect man, he had bin too weak to satisfie God. Non •• ter à Patre, alter à virgine: sed aliter à Patre, aliter à virgin, Eus. Emiss. God of God, God the Son of God the Father. Fulgent. Alter in Persona, non alius in natura; If •e were the same Person, how is he here called Filius, a Son? If he were not the same Nature, how is he called Meus, My Son? Son, thou art therefore another Person. My Son, thou art therefore the same God.

This is my Son.] Son, this distinguisheth his Person: Father and Son are relatives, one depending necessarily on the other, Luke 1.32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest. With this Christ opposed the Iewes, that questioned him concerning the Son of David. If David called him Lord, he must needs be the Son of God. Now he is the Son of God two wayes: First, by Nature, of the Eternall substance of his Father: not after a carnall manner, for hee departed with no substance, nor suffered any change, losse, or diminution. Secondly, as he was the Son of Mary: and this other Sonship in regard of God, was not by nature, not by adoption; for then there had been a time when he was not the Son of God: but by Personall union. The man Christ never was a Person of it selfe, but was at the first Personally united to the Son of God. The Son of Mary was ever the Son of God, but the Son of God was not ever or alwayes the Son of Mary. This was necessary, saith Augustine, that the Mediator betweene God and man, should be of the Natures, both of God and man. Ne in utroque homini similis, longe esset à Deo: vel in utroque Deo similis, longe esset ab homine; Lest being in every respect God, he had been too great to suffer for man: or being in every respect man, he had bin too weak to satisfie God. Non ter à Patre, alter à virgine: sed aliter à Patre, aliter à virgine, Eus. Emiss. God of God, God the Son of God the Father. Fulgent. Alter in Persona, non alius in natura; If e were the same Person, how is he here called Filius, a Son? If he were not the same Nature, how is he called Meus, My Son? Son, thou art therefore another Person. My Son, thou art therefore the same God.