Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

If the term God be used to express priority of existence and agency, then the Son's inferiority directly follows from the Father's being his God. For as in this cafe, the Father is the fountain of being and agency to the Son, fo the Son muft of neceffity, both in point of exiftence, agency, and all natural perfections, be dependent upon, and be controulable by the power and will of the Father, and therefore is inferiour to him. The Son's fubordination, likewife, directly follows from hence, it being impoffible, that a derived being (which is the cafe of the Son) fhould be invefted with abfolute fupreme dominion, or be absolutely the God over all; feeing he must needs be fubject and subordinate to him, who is the fountain of being, and of authority to him.

I

This argument is farther illuftrated by fuch texts as thefe, 1 Cor. xi. 3. would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and that the head of the woman is the man, and that the head of Chrift is God. 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23. All are your's, and ye are Chrift's, and Chrift is God's. John iii. 16. God fo loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, &c. And from hence I argue, that if the Father be in reality the head, the proprietor, and the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, and if our Lord Jefus Chrift be the property, the gift, and at the difpofal of the Father, as is here declared, then our Lord Jefus Chrift is inferiour and fubordinate, as aforefaid; because what are here afcribed to, and spoken of Christ, are manifest tokens of dependency and controulableness, as they are incompatible with their contraries. So that the proof, which naturally arifes from this argument, is a third demonftration of the truth of the proposition I am now maintaining.

ARGUMENT IV.

Fourthly, The Father is faid to exercise authority in commanding, and the Son fubmiffion in obeying the Father's commands; and confequently, the Son is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father, and the Father alone is the fupreme God.

T

HAT the Father exercised authority in commanding, and the Son yielded obedience, as aforefaid, fee Heb. x. 5, 6, 7. Wherefore, when he cometh into the world he faith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldeft not, but a body haft thou prepared me; In burnt offerings and facrifices for fin thou haft no pleasure; Then faid I, lo I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God. John xii. 49, 50. For I have not spoken of my self, but the Father that fent me, be gave me a commandment both what I should fay, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is everlasting life: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father faid unto me, so I speak. John xiv. 31. As the Father gave me a commandment, even fo I do. John xv. 10. If ye keep my commandments, ye fhall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. Heb. v. 8. Tho he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which be fuffered.

In thefe texts it is fet forth, that the Father exercised authority in commanding the Son; and likewise that the Son, viz. our Lord Jefus Chrift, exercised

obe

obedience and subjection, in doing, and fuffering, according to the will and appointment of the Father. And from hence I argue, that if the truth of the cafe be as is represented in the above texts; then the Son is inferiour and fubordinate, as aforefaid. For as the exercifing fuch authority is an instance of, and thereby is an evident proof of fuperiority with refpect to the Father; fo the exercise of fuch fubjection and obedience is an inftance of, and thereby is an evident proof of inferiority with regard to the Son, there being no fuch thing as authority and fubjection with refpect to two co-ordinate beings. And as the Son is inferiour to the Father, with refpect to authority, fo he must be the fame in all other refpects. For as his fubjection is founded on his derivation from, and dependency upon the Father; fo that derivation and dependency necettarily and unavoidably fet him below, or render him inferiour to the Father in all refpects whatever because dependency and controulablenefs, which is the cafe of the Son, cannot be equally great, or equally valuable, with independency and uncontroulablenefs, which is the cafe of the Father.

For

The Son's fubordination to the Father will likewife follow from hence. as he himself is under authority; fo the authority which he is invested with cannot poffibly be supreme: it being an abfurdity, and a contradiction in terms, to fuppofe an agent, who is abfolutely fupreme in government, is, or can be, fubjected to, and under the government of another, which is the prefent cafe. And therefore, as the Father has exercised his authority in commanding the Son, and the Son has likewise exercised his fubmiffion and obedience in doing, and fuffering according to the will and appointment of the Father: fo this I urge, as a farther proof of the grand propofition I am now maintaining.

ARGUMENT V.

Fifthly, The Son is the Father's agent, in those acts which are afcribed to him; and the Son received from the Father, both direction and ability for their performance: confequently the Son is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father, and the Father alone is the fupreme God.

T

"HAT our Lord Jefus Chrift is the Father's agent, &c. fee Heb. i. 2. Whom he bath appointed heir of all things, by whom alfo be made the worlds. Eph. iii. 9. Which from the beginning of the world bath been hid in God, who created all things by Jefus Chrift. John v. 19. Verily, verily, I fay unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what be feeth the Father do; for what things foever he doth, thefe alfo doth the Son likewife. Verse 22. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. John viii. 28, 29. Then fhall ye know that I am be, and that I do nothing of my felf, but as the Father hath taught me, I do thefe things. And he that fent me is with me, the Father hath not left me alone, for I do always thofe things that please him. John iii. 5. The Father loveth the Son, and bath given all things into his hand. John iv. 34. Jefus faid unto them, my meat is to do the will of him that fent me, and to finish his work. John vi. 28. I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that fent

D 2

me.

[ocr errors]

me. John xiv. 31. As the Father gave me commandment, so I do. Matt. xxviii. 18. All power is given unto me, both in heaven and in earth. Acts ii. 22. A man approved of God among you by miracles, wonders, and figns, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as ye yourselves alfo know.

Here we fee, that our Lord Jefus Chrift is expressly declared to be the agent, the minifter, and meffenger of the Father; and that he received his power and his inftructions from, and conftantly acted in obedience to the will, and by the direction of his Father. And from hence I argue, that if the truth of the cafe be as it is represented in the texts above, then our Lord Jefus Christ is inferiour and fubordinate to his Father, it being abfurd and ridiculous to suppose, that an agent who is abfolutely fupreme in point of existence, agency, and dominion, that is, who is the original fountain of being, agency, and authority, that fuch an one fhould be the agent, the minifter, and meffenger of another, and that he should act by the power, and according to the instructions, and in fubmiffion to the will and commandment of another; I fay, that this is an abfurd and ridiculous fuppofition: and feeing this is the cafe of the Son of God, our Lord Jefus Chrift, therefore I urge this as a manifeft proof, that he is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father, and that the Father alone is the fupreme God.

ARGUMENT VI.

Sixthly, It is the Son's express declaration in this matter, viz. that he is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father; and furely his teftimony is a fufficient foundation for our faith to rest upon; and confequently that he is in himself what he bath declared himself to be, and that the Father alone is the fupreme God.

TH

'HAT our Lord Jefus Chrift hath declared thus of himself, see Mark xiii. 32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man (or no one) no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Here I observe, that if we admit that groundless and unfcriptural diftinction, of two rational natures in Christ, viz. a human and a divine, (as it is commonly expreffed) it will not help the cafe; because the Son, in his most exalted and highest nature, is declared ignorant of the day and hour referred to. This will evidently appear to be the cafe, if we observe the gradations, or several steps by which our Lord afcends from one fpecies of beings to another, and declares them all ignorant of that day, till he cometh to him, who is Being of beings, or him who has being originally in himself, and is the fountain of being to all others, viz. God the Father; and he is declared to have the knowledge of that day peculiar to himfelf, and exclufive of all others. That is, it is the Father alone (exclufive of all other beings, even of his only begotten Son) which hath the knowledge of that day and hour (at least originally and uncommunicated) in himself; fo that if the Son had the knowledge of that day and hour, yet it was by communication from the Father. And,

First, Our Lord afferts, that of that day and hour knoweth no man (or no one) confequently if it be admitted that Chrift had two natures, a human and a di

vine, and if his human nature, in this place, is to be confidered in a feparate and distinct capacity from his divine nature, and if it be allowed that his human nature was ignorant of what his divine did know, he would, as a man, or in his human nature, be included in this firft affertion. For, faith Chrift, of that day and hour knoweth no man. Then our Lord proceeds, by a fecond step to declare, that the knowledge of that day and hour was kept from a species of beings fuperiour to man, viz. the angels, which are in heaven; and which the text, to appearance, fuppofeth to have a greater measure of knowledge than man had, which is implied in thofe words, no not the angels, &c. Then he proceeds, by a third step, to a perfon which, to appearance, is confidered fuperiour to men and angels, as he is fpoken of after, and ftands diftinguished from them both, viz. the Son; and of him Chrift declares, that he is ignorant of the day, which can imply no lefs, than that he could not have the knowledge of it from himself, but from his Father; and if the Father had not revealed it to him, he was actually ignorant of it then. And, laftly, Chrift afferts, that the knowledge of that day was peculiar to the Father; which, to say the least, must fignify, that the Father alone had the knowledge of that day, in and from himself, without receiving it by communication from any other, as I faid before. Again,

John x. 27, 28, 29, 30. My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my band. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. In these words our Lord obferves, that his people are in a happy and fafe condition as they are under his care. I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out of my hand. Then he shews how they come to be thus fafe in his hand, and that upon a threefold account. First, as they were a treasure, given or committed to his care by the Father. My Father which gave them me, &c. And therefore it was reasonable to fuppofe, that he would, out of refpect to his Father, whom he loved and ferved, take care of a gift and treasure that his Father had committed to his care; and it was likewife as reasonable to fuppofe, that the Father would give him ability fufficient to discharge that truft. Secondly, His people were fafe in his hand, because the Father, who had committed them to his care, had power in himself sufficient to answer that end. My Father which gave them me is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. In these words our Lord feems plainly to imply, that his own power, when confidered feparate from the power of the Father, was inferiour or below the power of the Father; and therefore, tho his people's fafety might be queftioned, when under the guardianship of his power only, yet there could be no doubt of it, when they were under the covert of the Father's alfo. And that they were fo he afferts, thirdly, that the Father did, and would communicate his power to him. I and my Father are one. Father are one. Which is as much as if he had faid, as the Father hath put the care of the church upon me; fo he has put his power upon me alfo, to enable me to discharge that truft, and therefore my people muft

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

must be in a fafe condition in hand. my I and my Father are one. Not numerically, but one in the care and prefervation of the church. The whole that I would obferve from this paffage is, that Chrift makes the power of the Father to be greater than the power of any other, even greater than his own, when his own power is confidered feparate from the power of the Father. For if his own power had been equal to the Father's, then there would have been no need of declaring, that the Father's power was engaged for his people's fafety, because they would have been altogether as fafe without it. Again,

John xiv. 28. Ye have heard, how that I faid unto you, I go away and come again unto you, if ye loved me ye would rejoice, because me ye would rejoice, because I faid I go to the Father; for my Father is greater than I. In this verfe our Lord fhewed his difciples his diflike of that forrow, which they expreffed at the apprehenfion of his departure from them, and withal telleth them, that his departure was a proper ground of joy to them, if they loved him; because every lover rejoyceth at the good, and exaltation, and increase of happiness that is conferred on his beloved. And that they might be fatisfied his going from them would be for his promotion and good, he declares, that the Father, he was going to, was greater than be, and confequently was able to give and confer on him whatever was neceffary thereunto. But if our Lord was a co-ordinate being with the Father, he could not receive any fuch benefit from him, as his argument here fuppofes. Nay he could not in his human nature (admitting that diftinction) for if his human nature was perfonally united to the highest or fupreme God, by its union with the Son (as in this cafe it is fuppofed to be) then Christ's human nature could not receive any thing from the Father, because it received every thing that was in the Father from the Son, by its union with him. Again,

Matt. xxviii. 18. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. John v. 22. The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. In thefe texts our Lord teftifies of himself, that the power or authority which he was poffeffed of, was given or committed to him by the Father. Under this head of argument, may likewife be placed thofe texts, in which Chrift difowns the making himself equal with God, to be a juft confequence of what he at any time had faid. Thus,

John v. 17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. From thefe words the Jews inferred, that he defamed the Father, by making himfelf equal to him; as in the words following. Therefore the Jews fought the more to kill him, because. be had not only broken the fabbath, but faid alfo that God was his Father, making himfelf equal with God. Then follows our Lord's reply in thefe words, Verily, verily, I fay unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he feeth the Father do, for what things foever the Father doth, thefe doth the Son likewife: for the Father loveth the Son, and fheweth him all things that himself doth, and he will fhew him greater works than thefe, that ye may marvel. In these words, our Lord doth not deny, that blafphemy was a juft confequence of his making himself equal with the Father; but he denies that his making himself equal

« AnteriorContinuar »