Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

not written in your Law, I faid, 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 fanctified, and fent into the World, Thou blafphemeft; because I faid I am the Son of God?

In which Portion of Scripture we may observe these three things.

(1.) That Chrift doth neither plainly and exprefly own nor deny himself here to be the true God, for this was not a proper time to fatisfy the Curiofity of the malicious Jews in fuch a fublime Doctrine, in which he had not as yet clearly and fully inftructed his own Difciples.

Yet (2.) he gives feveral Hints of his Godhead, or his being one with the Father, when he fays, I and my Father are one; and when he fays, . 38. I do the Works of my Father, that ye may know and believe that the Fa-, ther is in me and I in him; by which he fecretly intimated that the Man Jefus had alfo a divine Nature in him, and was perfonally united to God, tho' 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 Senfe one with the Father, we may juftly fuppofe, that he would upon this occafion have denied himself to be true God, and thus roundly renounced the Conclufion itself which they pretended to draw from

his

his Words, as well as he did deny the Juftnefs of their Confequence, from his calling himself the Son of God. And therefore fince he did not renounce the Conclufion, we may reasonably infer that he was the true God: But fince he does deny the Juftness of their Confequence, we may as reafonably infer that his meer calling himself the Son of God does not prove nor include his Godhead; which appears plainer under the next particular.

I fay therefore (3.) The chief Defign of his Anfwer, was to refute the Calumny of the Jews, and the Weakness of their Inference, by fhewing that the Name Son of God, doth not neceffarily fignify one equal to God; but that the neceffary Senfe of it here can rife no higher than to denote one who was nearer to the Father, and was fanctified, fealed, and fent by the Father in a way fuperior to all former Prophets, Kings and Magiftrates, 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 Pfal. 82. 6. and in other Places of Scripture, because they came from God, they were commiflion'd by God, and carried with them fome Reprefentation of the Wisdom, Power, Authority, and Dominion of God in the fight of Men. Now our Lord Jesus Christ, the Meffiah, the great Prophet, Judge, Doctor or Teacher, and King

of

of his Church, came forth from God in Hear ven, in a literal and more eminent manner, was fent 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 dignify'd with the Name or Title of Gods, or Sons of God, much more right has the Meffiah to this Name or Title.

The Argument which our Lord uses is à minori ad majus; he puts the Reason of his more unquestionable and fuperior Right to this Title, upon the Superiority of his Character and Miflion, or his more immediate Commiffion from the Father. His Words might be paraphrafed thus: They who were originally in and of this World were made Prophets, Teachers or Kings, mecrly by the Word of God coming to them, and giving them Commiffion, either by the ordinary Directions of the written Word, or (at beft) they received their Authority from the Word of God coming to them by fome Voice or Vi

fion,

* Our Lord knew that he himself was the divine Logos or Word of God, and 'tis likely that he used thefe Words, To whom the Word of God came, with this View and Meaning in his own Mind: "Surely if thofe are called Gods, to whom "the Divine Logos or Word made a Vifit from the Father, "the Divine Logos himself who came from the Father may "be well called the Son of God without Blafphemy." But he did not think fit to exprefs himself fo plainly to the Jews at that time, tho' he has left it upon Record in his Gospel for our Obfervation and Instruction.

fion, fome divine Meffage or Infpiration, and yet they had the Title of Gods given them. Therefore the Meffiah who was not originally of this World, but was with the Father, who was fanctified, i. c. anointed with the Spirit, or fet a-part by God himself, who came forth from the Father in Heaven, and was sent immediately by the Father into this World, may furely be called the Son of God without danger of Blafphemy. If they are call'd Gods, the Meffiah may well be called the Son of God.

And he confirms the Argument thus: The Scripture cannot be broken, & δύναται λυθῆναι, cannot be contradicted. As he who acts contrary to a Precept is faid to break it, Nús, fee Matt. 5. 19. John 5. 18. and 7. 23. So he who contradicts an Affertion of Scripture is properly faid úew, to break it. Therefore, fince the Scripture which can't be contradicted, calls thofe ancient Rulers, Teachers or Prophets Gods, as well as Sons of God,.he who is appointed the most glorious Prophet and Ruler, might have been juftify'd by the Language of Scripture, if he had affumed the Name GOD to himself, in direct and exprefs Language, and much more abundantly is he juftified when he has only call'd himself the Son of God.

And indeed 'tis worth our Obfervation here, that tho' the Jews built part of their Accufation upon his faying, I and my Father are.

one,

one, Jefus does not directly answer to those Words, nor undertake to vindicate or explain them; because he might defign in those Words to intimate his Godhead or his Oneness with God the Father: Therefore he neglects and drops this part of the Ground of their Charge, and applies himself intirely to answer their Accufation, as it was built upon his calling God his own Father, and himself the Son of God: And this he did because he knew that this Name did not neceffarily imply Equality with God, and fo he could boldly refute their Inference and renounce the Charge.

Yet it fhould be observed also, that before Chrift leaves them he leads them to his Godhead, i. e. to his moft intimate Union with the Godhead of the Father, . 38. That ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him; that he and his Father are one, as he before expreft his Godhead.

Thus I have explained myself at large in what I think to be the very Scope and Force of our Saviour's Argument; and indeed if we take the word Son of God to fignify neceffarily in that place an Equality with the Father; we plainly take away the Force of our Saviour's Argument and Defence, and we leave the Accufation of the malicious Jews in its full force against him *.

In

The Learned Dr. Waterland, whofe Zeal for the Deity of Chrift, and whofe Skill in the Defence of it, are fufficiently known himself confeffes that the Jews could not from Chrift's

1

2

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »