Obrázky na stránke

o my be rendred who was, yet 'tis certain that his bem Chap:VIII. during his Ministry. 121 John 1. 18. Now these words were undoubtedly spoken after our Lord's Exaltation; and consée quently,whatsoever they declare concerning Christ, it is (properly speaking) forein to the present Question. For upon Supposition, that Christ's being in his Father's Bosom did really imply his having a Divine Nature; yet it does not follow, that because St. John affirm'd after his Ascension, that he had a Divine Nature, therefore the Disciples believ'd that he had a Divine Nature during his Ministry. But in Truth, that Phrase is ftriąly applicable to the Human Nature of Christ. For if ing in the Bosom of the Father, fignifies in the Jewish Expression, being exceedingly belov'd of him, the nearest to him, and the most intimas with him; as the Human Soul of our Savior certainly was, before he came from Heaven, whilft he was in the Form of God (for his Father loved him before the Foundation of the World, Fobn 17. 24.) and also after he came into the World, even during his Ministry, above any Prophet that ever was sent by God.

But I am persuaded, that the Apostle fpake of what then was, when he wrote; and affirm'd, that Christ, who was at that Tirne in the Bosom of his Father, was he who declar'd the Father, that is, was his Interpreter to Mankind, and the Reveler of his Will. And Christ was undoubtedly at that Time in his Father's Bosom with respect to his Human Nature, which had ascended into Heaven, and actually sat at the Right Hand of God, and was placed in Authority next to, and in Conjunation with, the Very God.

3. Out

3. Our Savior is charg'd by the Jews with mak

ing himself equal with God, and with making himself God; John s. 18. and 10.33. And if he thus discover'd his Divine Nature to the Malicious Jews during his Ministry; how can we imagin, but that his Disciples believ'd it at the fame Time? Now this will instantly appear a trifling Plea, if we confider, what Occasion our Lord gave the Jews for chis Accufation. It seems he had called the Very God watu's rex, John 5. 17. Now because he call'a the Very God Idov na tlest, bis (or if you please bis own) Father, therefore they infer, that he made himself equal with God. Now they understood nor the Mystery of God's being the Father of Christ's Human Nature, by begetting him in such a manner, that God was to him ijo netie, as properly as any other Man is the ido ratie of his Natural Son. And therefore, because when a Man begets his own Likeness, the Son is fpecifically equal to his in mathe, they conclude, that Christ made himself equal to God by calling God idor arted.

What has been said, may easily be applied to the other Text. Our Savior callid God his Father,

Fobu 10. 29. Then the Jews took up ftones again to stone him. Fefus answer'd them, Many good works bave * I Shewed you from my Father ; for which of those works do

' stone me? The Fews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blaspbery, and because that thou, being a man, makeft thy self God. Jesus answered shem, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken : Say ye of him, whom the Father bath fan&tified and sent into the world, Tbote blasphemeft, because I said, I am the Son of God? y. 31. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. You see by our Savior's An



fwer, that all he pretended to, was that he was the Son of God; and he prov'd, that he desery'd thac. Character, because the Father had sanctified him, and sent him into the World, v. 36. Here is not a Tittle of his Divine Nature mention'd; and the Fews made the very same false Inference as before.

I confefs,you have given these Texts a different, but not an opposit Sense. You (g) say, The Jews, willing to take any Hundle (tbo' never so unreasonable) of accusing bim, infer (John s. 18.) by way of Calumny, not by way of ftri&t Reafoning, that bis calling God his Fathér [o tarde ux) was as much as affuming to himself, that God, who was the common Father of them all, was in a higher and more peculiar manner [ né treci idror] his own proper Father : and from this, and from his joining and comparing his own Works with his Father's Works in one and the Same Sentence, they infer further, in the next step of Calumny, that he made himself equal with God: meana ing thereby, not that be claimed to himself to be God indeed in any Sense; (for neither they nor bis own Disciples bad -as yet any the least Thought of that ;) but that by Cona fequente (which

angry Accusers draw very baftily, he als Jum'd to himself a Power and Authority like that of God. Tbe. Expression is the same, and meant in the fame Sense, a's that other Accufation, John 10. 33. Thou being a Man, makest thy self God: which was Spoken after the Same Manner, as Men fay to an assuming Person, You make your self King; when they intend to charge bim with taking upon bimself, not the Person, but the State of a Prince. And (b) again you say, That the Jews meant to accuse him, not of affirming himself to be the Supreme, selfexistent Deity; nay, nor so much as of taking upon himself to be a divine Person at all; but only of a

(8) Reply to Mr. Nelson's Friend, p. 135, 136,
(b) Pag, 147, 148.

suming .

Saming to himself the Power and Authority of God. For; their Accusation, thou makest thy self God, was not founded upon his affirming himself to be one with the Fatber, (which Phrase it does not appear they thought at all difficult to be understood;) but the accusation was founded upon bis ftiling God bis Father, [v. 25, 29; and 3ó.] and consequently making bimself the Son of God. This appears plainly from the Answer our Lord gave tbem in the Words immediately following, v: 34, 35, 36. Is it not written in your law, I said, ye (Rulers and Magistrates] are Gods, [and Children of the most Higb?] If he callid them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath fan&ified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemeft, because I said, I am the Son of God ? From these Words 'tis evident, that their Charge against him of Blasphemy, for which they went about to stone bim, was founded upon bis calling God bis Father, or declaring himself to be the Son of God; which they, in their Anger, represented by way of Aggravation, as making himself God.

Whether your Interpretation of these Passages be preferable to mine, let others judge. If my Interpretation be allow'd, the Jews drew a wrong Conclusion from what our Savior faid ; because either they did not, or would not, understand his true Meaning. If your Interpretation be allow'd, their Malice improv'd what he said into an arrant Calumny. But either Interpretation shews, that it can't be concluded from the Accusation of the Jews, that our Lord at that time pretended to a Divine Nature, or to be more than a Man conducted and affifted by God's Spirit.

Finally therefore, tho' the WORD or Divine Nature was most certainly united to the Man Christ Jesus during the Time of his Ministry; yet

his Disciples did not in the least apprehend that wonderful Union, nor were they aware of their Master's real Dignity, till his Humiliation was ended, and clearer Manifestations of his Excellency were imparted to them, either by his own Discourses after his Resurrection, or by that miraculous Effusion of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecoft, whereby they were led into all Truth.



That during the Time of our Savior's Ministry, the

WORD was quiescent in the Man Christ Jesus.

[ocr errors]

ECONDLY, I must now shew, that during

the Time of our Savior's Ministry, the WORD was quiescent in the Man Christ Jesus.

Now when I affert, that the WORD was quia escent (for I chuse to continue the Use of that

Term, which (a) Irenæus first introduc'd, and is consequently almost as old as Christianity it self) my Meaning is, that the WORD did, notwithstanding the Personal Union, forbear to communicat his extraordinary Influences (to wit, such as other Mortals, who are not Personally united to the WORD, do not receive from him; I say, the WORD forbore to communicat those his extraor

(a) "922088 25 år ävegar G., ive ahegatni, šta rj abgG, iva δοξαών: ησυχάζονό μου λόγο αν τον πειράζεις και απομάζες] σαυρεως, και αποθνήσκειν, συγγενολόλε και τον ανθρώπω εν τω binev, rj woulocy, rj gens dieats, j avisants, a dyanaubessats Adv. Hær. lib. 3. cap. 21. p. 250. Edit. Grab.


« PredošláPokračovať »