original, or the influence of the Holy Spirit." So that the flesh here, does not mean any constituent part of Christ, or his very flesh or body, but the operation or influence of the flesh, or share that the flesh of the blessed virgin had in the conception of Christ: And so the Spirit does not mean any constituent part of Christ, but the influence or operation of the Holy Spirit in his first conception, or in his resurrection, on both which accounts he is called in scripture the Son of God. See Luke i. 35. and Acts xiii. 33. and both are ascribed to the Holy Spirit. There is a large confirmation of this exposition, in some notes on Rom. i. 3, 4. wherein it is shewn how the antithesis of the apostle is preserved, and that the apostle always tses κατα σαρκα and καλα πνευμα in an antithesis, to signify the influence of each principle, rather than for two constituent parts of

a person.

Text. V. Heb. vii. 3. Melchisedec was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually. Now this historical eternity of Melchisedec, whose father and mother, life and death, are not recorded, is made a type of the real eternity of Christ, considered as he is the Son of God.

Answer I. Since Melchisedec is represented here without a father, and yet as a type of the Son of God, it would destroy the doctrine of Christ's eternal generation from God the Father, rather than support it, since the very type here has no father.

II. This place refers more naturally to the priesthood of Christ than to his nature or existence. His priesthood was not derived by genealogical succession as Aaron's was: He had no father, no mother of the Levitical tribe, or of the family of Aaron, from whom his priesthood could descend; nor did he die and leave it to others by way of descent; but was constituted a single priest himself, without a predecessor, without a successor, and herein the priesthood of Melchisedec and the priesthood of Christ run very parallel, and greatly answer the apostle's design. And I think this sense is patronized by some expressions in Doctor Owen's comment.

Text VI. Heb. i. 6. When he bringeth in his first-begotten into the world, he saith, let all the angels of God worship him; that is, let all the angels of God worship the first-begotten; now this first-begotten is Jehovah, Psal. xcvii. 7. for thence the apostle cites it.

Answer. This first-begotten Son of God has true and eternal godhead personally dwelling in him, and united personally to him, and one with him; and therefore the whole complex person is called Jehovah, and is entitled to divine worship from angels and men.--God united to the man Christ: God manifest D D

VOL. VI.

in the flesh was seen of angels; 1 Tim. iii. 16. and worshipped by them. This text does not prove that the first-begotten is God, any other than by personal union with that Jehovah who is spoken of in the xcvii. Psal. The first-begotten Son of God is to be worshipped by angels, because of the indwelling godhead, the great Jehovah, with whom the man Christ is one.

The last text, and which affords perhaps the most important objection against my sense of the name, is John v. 18. compared with John x. 23, &c. If the title Son of God did not signify true godhead, why did the Jews charge Christ with blasphemy, and say, that he made himself equal with God, and seek to kill him, because he had said "God was his Father, his own Father, and as they construe it, making himself equal with God?” John v. 18. And why do they charge him again with blasphemy, when he said, I am the Son of God? John x. 33. because that thou being a man, makest thyself God. How could this be, if the name Son of God did not signify godhead? I have given some answer to that text in the fifth of John, in some of the foregoing pages. But to make it yet clearer, I proceed:

I. It is possible that some learned men among them might have a confused notion from the prophecies of the Old Testament, that the Messiah or the Son of God was to have true and real godhead in him, which godhead of the Messiah is a certain truth, and hath been sufficiently proved.-Now, because he called himself the Son of God, and represented himself as the Messiah, therefore they might infer that he assumed that godhead to himself which belonged to the complete character of the Messiah, and upon this account might charge him with blasphemy, by way of consequence.

Yet I have much reason to doubt, whether the Scribes and Pharisees did certainly know that the Messiah was to be the true God; for the whole nation of the Jews, with their priests and doctors, were most stupidly and shamefully ignorant of the true character and glory of the Messiah and his kingdom. Had the Pharisees themselves any notion that Christ was to be the true God, they would never have been puzzled and silenced at that question of our Saviour, Mat. xxii. 43, 44, &c. If the Messiah be the Son of David, how could David call him Lord? or, If David calls him Lord, how is he his Son? Their supposition of the godhead of the Messiah would have easily answered this difficulty, if they had had any such opinion.

Besides, we have little reason to suppose that the Pharisees knew more of the divinity of the Messiah than the disciples themselves did during the life of Christ. Now it appears from many parts of the history of the gospel, that they did hardly believe at all that he was the true God; or if they did, yet their faith of it was very low, wavering and doubtful; and yet doubt

less they firmly believed Jesus to be the Messiah and the Son of God, in a sense sufficient for salvation.

When Peter in the name of the rest had made so glorious a confession, Mat. xvi. 16, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, he could not mean that Christ was the great and glorious God; for in ver. 22. he took up his master very short, and began to rebuke him. Surely he would not have rebuked the great God his maker, at least not immediately after such a confession of his godhead.

Now, if the apostles themselves were in a state of grace and salvation, when they can hardly be supposed to believe Christ to be the true and the eternal God, and yet they believed and professed him to be the Son of God, then that name Son of God doth not necessarily imply and include his divinity. But to return to the objection. That which I take to be the plainest, the clearest, and the most scriptural solution of this difficulty is this which follows,

II. It is evident that the design of the wicked Jews in these places of the history was to bring the highest accusation against our Saviour, and to load him with the grossest calumnies that all their wit or malice could draw from his words or actions; Luke xi. 54. Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him. If ever he spake of his kingdom, though he owned his kingdom was not of this world; John xviii. 36. yet they in their malice would construe it into sedition and rebellion, and make him an enemy to Cæsar. And so when he called God his own Father, and declared himself to be the Son of God, they in the fury of their false zeal construe it into blasphemy; as though to own himself to be the Son of God, were to assume equality with God: whereas Christ shews them plainly, that these words did not necessarily imply such a sense; and this is sufficiently manifest by the defence which Christ made for himself in both those places of the history. Give me leave to repeat briefly what I said before.

If we look into John v. 18. when the Jews accused him that by calling" God his Father he made himself equal with God," he doth by no means vindicate that sense of his name Son of God, but rather denies his equality with God considered as a Son, ver. 19, &c. Verily, verily I say the Son can do nothing of himself: The Father sheweth the Son all things that he doth, and he will shew him greater works than these. Thence I infer, that he hath not shewn him all yet; and ver. 30. I can of myself do nothing.I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me, &c. All which expressions sufficiently evince, that he did not intend to signify his own godhead, or equality with God, when he called himself the Son of God; for in bis

very answer to their accusation, he represents himself inferior to and dependent on God the Father.

Now let us look into the other text where our Saviour is thus accused, and defends himself, viz. John x. 30-39. He saith, I and my Father are one. 31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32. Jesus answered them, many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me? 33. The Jews answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man makest thyself God. 34. Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? 35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken: 36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God. In which portion of scripture we may observe these three things:

1. That Christ doth neither plainly and expressly own nor deny himself here to be the true God, for this was not a proper time to satisfy the curiosity of the malicious Jews in such a sublime doctrine, in which he had not as yet clearly and fully instructed his own disciples. Yet,

2. He gives several hints of his godhead, or his being one with the Father, when he says, I and my Father are one; and when he says, ver. 38. I do the works of my Father, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him ; by which he secretly intimated that the man Jesus had also a divine nature in him, and was personally united to God, though he did not think fit to preach his own godhead plainly at that time. And indeed if he had not been the true God, and in that sense one with the Father, we may justly suppose, that he would upon this occasion have denied himself to be the true God, and thus roundly renounced the conclusion itself which they pretended to draw from his words, as well as he did deny the justness of their consequence, from his calling himself the Son of God. And therefore-since he did not renounce the conclusion, we may reasonably infer that he was the true God: But since he does deny the justness of their consequence, we may as reasonably infer that his mere calling himself the Son of God does not prove nor include his godhead which appears plainer under the next particular. I say therefore,

3. The chief design of his answer, was to refute the calumny of the Jews, and the weakness of their inference, by shewing that the name Son of God, doth not necessarily signify one equal to God; but that the necessary sense of it here can rise no higher than to denote one who was nearer to the Father, and was sanctified, sealed, and sent by the Father in a way superior to all

former prophets, kings and magistrates, to whom the word of God came, and who, partly on this account, might be called gods.

Prophets or kings, judges or doctors of the law were called gods, and children or sons of the Most High, in Psal. lxxxii. 6. and in other places of scripture, because they came from God, they were commissioned by God, and carried with them some representation of the wisdom, power, authority, and dominion of God in the sight of men. Now our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the great prophet, judge, doctor or teacher, and king of his church, came forth from God in heaven, in a literal and more eminent manner, was sent by him into this world with a higher commission, and represented more of the wisdom, power, and dominion of God than any former kings or prophets ever did; and if they upon this account were dignified with the name or title of gods, or sons of God, much more right has the Messiah, to this name or title.

The argument which our Lord uses is a minori ad majus ; he puts the reason of his more unquestionable and superior right to this title, upon the superiority of his character and mission, or his more immediate commission from the Father. His words might be paraphrased thus: They who were originally in and of this world were made prophets, teachers or kings, merely by the word of God coming to them, and giving them commission, either by the ordinary directions of the written word, or, at best, they received their authority from the word of God coming to them by some voice or vision, some divine message or inspiration, and yet they had the title of gods given them. Therefore the Messiah who was not originally of this world, but was with the Father, who was sanctified, that is, anointed with the Spirit, or set apart by God himself, who came forth from the Father in heaven, and was sent immediately by the Father into this world, may surely be called the Son of God without danger of blasphemy. If they are called gods, the Messiah may well be called the Son of God.

And he confirms the argument thus: The scripture cannot be broken, & Suvala aunas, cannot be contradicted. As he who acts contrary to a precept is said to break it, λus; see Mat. v. 19. John v. 18. and vii. 23. So he who contradicts an assertion of scripture is properly said ave, to break it. Therefore, since the scripture which cannot be contradicted, calls those ancient

* Our Lord knew that he himself was the divine Logos or word of God, and it is likely that he used these words, To whom the word of God came, with this view and meaning in his own mind; "Surely if those are called gods, to whom the divine Logos or Word made a visit from the Father, the divine Logos himself who came from the Father may be well called the Son of God without blasphemy." But he did not think fit to express bimself so plainly to the Jews at that time, though he has left it upon record in his gospel for our observation and instruction.